Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Torvaldr For the love of all that is good math and science I hope neither of you are mathematicians or programmers. The rules of logic dictate that the one making the claim (the OP) has the burden of proof. No one has to disprove the OP. However, if anyone can find a single instance of disproof then whatever "proof" the OP has is flawed and his argument is a fallacy. The moral of the story is, don't make claims you can't prove.
If person A submits a hypothesis (I should have been using this word, I didn't), with evidence to support it, then they are done.problem is 1. the OP didnt submit evidence. He submited assumed evidence without clarification2. the OP didnt submit it as hypothesis but as fact.Bad evidence is still evidence. no its not.
I cant say 'santa is real and my evidence is that its cold up north'
sorry...no good, failed
Evidence is just something presented to prove your case. It doesn't have to be good. It doesn't even have to make sense.
It's hardly fair bringing Santa into it. Now if I say he doesn't exist, I get on the Naughty list.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Torvaldr For the love of all that is good math and science I hope neither of you are mathematicians or programmers. The rules of logic dictate that the one making the claim (the OP) has the burden of proof. No one has to disprove the OP. However, if anyone can find a single instance of disproof then whatever "proof" the OP has is flawed and his argument is a fallacy. The moral of the story is, don't make claims you can't prove.
If person A submits a hypothesis (I should have been using this word, I didn't), with evidence to support it, then they are done.
problem is 1. the OP didnt submit evidence. He submited assumed evidence without clarification2. the OP didnt submit it as hypothesis but as fact.
Bad evidence is still evidence.
no its not.
I cant say 'santa is real and my evidence is that its cold up north'
sorry...no good, failed
Evidence is just something presented to prove your case. It doesn't have to be good. It doesn't even have to make sense.
It's hardly fair bringing Santa into it. Now if I say he doesn't exist, I get on the Naughty list.
you are saying 'hey I provided evidence I am done'
no sorry massive fail. The quality of the evidence matters.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by Torvaldr For the love of all that is good math and science I hope neither of you are mathematicians or programmers. The rules of logic dictate that the one making the claim (the OP) has the burden of proof. No one has to disprove the OP. However, if anyone can find a single instance of disproof then whatever "proof" the OP has is flawed and his argument is a fallacy. The moral of the story is, don't make claims you can't prove.
If person A submits a hypothesis (I should have been using this word, I didn't), with evidence to support it, then they are done.
problem is 1. the OP didnt submit evidence. He submited assumed evidence without clarification2. the OP didnt submit it as hypothesis but as fact.
Bad evidence is still evidence.
no its not. I cant say 'santa is real and my evidence is that its cold up north'sorry...no good, failed
Evidence is just something presented to prove your case. It doesn't have to be good. It doesn't even have to make sense. It's hardly fair bringing Santa into it. Now if I say he doesn't exist, I get on the Naughty list.
you are saying 'hey I provided evidence I am done'
no sorry massive fail. The quality of the evidence matters.
Of course the quality of evidence matters, but just poking holes in the evidence presented, without ever disproving the initial idea is just as shoddy a job as presenting bad evidence. It doesn't actually prove anything, other than the evidence was bad. The idea presented could still be a fact.
Example 1: Person A could present the idea that developers do not implement housing because not enough people ask for it, and their proof could be that they themselves have never asked for it. This is really bad evidence. Player B's counter argument, disproving the evidence only, is that they themselves have asked for it or that Person A can't possibly know what players are asking for because they have no access to the information. The evidence is shown to be false, but the initial idea hasn't been proven false. It could still be true. The conversation is now, a "He said, she said" conversation and goes nowhere. If Person B is going to participate in a conversation or debate with Person A, they need to disprove the idea, with evidence. Hopefully the evidence to disprove the idea is more definitive than the evidence to support the idea.
Example 2: Person A could present the idea that developers do not implement housing because not enough people ask for it, and their proof could be that they themselves have never asked for it. This is really bad evidence. Player B's counter argument, disproving the idea is that there exists evidence that players are asking for and about housing on forums. In addition to this, two developers, Trion and Blizzard, are implementing some form of housing in future updates to their games. One current developer, Bioware launched their game with a form of housing*. Developers can't be neglecting housing because not enough people are asking for it because developers are no longer neglecting housing. The idea presented cannot be true, because the idea depends on developers not implementing housing. If developers are implementing housing, the idea is false.
** edit ** * The player ships are housing. It's a personal instance, where you can craft, access your bank, and pick up space missions, which are started and completed in the personal instance. It's the one thing, other than the personal story that they added which wasn't a direct copy of WoW's mechanics.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Of course the quality of evidence matters, but just poking holes in the evidence presented, without ever disproving the initial idea is just as shoddy a job as presenting bad evidence.
totally disagree.
here is what you are saying:
you: 'santa is real and my evidence is because its cold up there and he likes cold weather'
me: 'that is b*llshit how do you even know he likes cold weather'?
you: 'that is my evidence, I have provided evidence now its your job to proove your claims, I dont have to proove anything though because I already shown my evidence'
total insanity. I rarely say this but often feel it. I feel that you are just f8cking with me which if you are is clever expect that in your cleverness you are making yourself look not to sharp. I actually think that happens alot here but I play along and rarely say anything.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones
Of course the quality of evidence matters, but just poking holes in the evidence presented, without ever disproving the initial idea is just as shoddy a job as presenting bad evidence.totally disagree.
here is what you are saying:
you: 'santa is real and my evidence is because its cold up there and he likes cold weather'
me: 'that is b*llshit how do you even know he likes cold weather'?
you: 'that is my evidence, I have provided evidence now its your job to proove your claims, I dont have to proove anything though because I already shown my evidence'
total insanity. I rarely say this but often feel it. I feel that you are just f8cking with me which if you are is clever expect that in your cleverness you are making yourself look not to sharp. I actually think that happens alot here but I play along and rarely say anything.
In that conversation the only thing proven is that both parties are equally bad at having a debate. Obviously I would have said that he's dressed for cold weather, duh. You don't run around in a thick coat with fur trim around the equator.
You don't win a debate by arguing about the points of information, you win a debate by disproving the other point of view. You can argue the points of information...but then you have to hope the judges rule in your favor.
In the example above, when you ask how I know Santa likes cold weather, it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Even if I couldn't prove Santa likes cold weather, that doesn't disprove the existence of Santa. It doesn't prove Santa's existence either. You haven't definitively won the debate on Santa's existence and neither have I. If you want to win the debate on Santa's existence, you have to disprove his existence, not my flawed logic in saying he exists. Prove that Santa can't exist, not that I can't argue that he exists. If I want to win, I have to prove he must exist.
** Addendum ** Santa does exist as an individual, with personality traits and known exploits. He is just as real as any other person who is no longer alive. Dead people only conclusively exist in our memories. Santa only conclusively exists in our memories. Santa is just as real as any other well known person who also happens to be dead, such as Abraham Lincoln.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones
Of course the quality of evidence matters, but just poking holes in the evidence presented, without ever disproving the initial idea is just as shoddy a job as presenting bad evidence.totally disagree.
here is what you are saying:
you: 'santa is real and my evidence is because its cold up there and he likes cold weather'
me: 'that is b*llshit how do you even know he likes cold weather'?
you: 'that is my evidence, I have provided evidence now its your job to proove your claims, I dont have to proove anything though because I already shown my evidence'
total insanity. I rarely say this but often feel it. I feel that you are just f8cking with me which if you are is clever expect that in your cleverness you are making yourself look not to sharp. I actually think that happens alot here but I play along and rarely say anything.
In that conversation the only thing proven is that both parties are equally bad at having a debate. Obviously I would have said that he's dressed for cold weather, duh. You don't run around in a thick coat with fur trim around the equator.
You don't win a debate by arguing about the points of information, you win a debate by disproving the other point of view. You can argue the points of information...but then you have to hope the judges rule in your favor.
In the example above, when you ask how I know Santa likes cold weather, it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Even if I couldn't prove Santa likes cold weather, that doesn't disprove the existence of Santa. It doesn't prove Santa's existence either. You haven't definitively won the debate on Santa's existence and neither have I. If you want to win the debate on Santa's existence, you have to disprove his existence, not my flawed logic in saying he exists. Prove that Santa can't exist, not that I can't argue that he exists. If I want to win, I have to prove he must exist.
** Addendum ** Santa does exist as an individual, with personality traits and known exploits. He is just as real as any other person who is no longer alive. Dead people only conclusively exist in our memories. Santa only conclusively exists in our memories. Santa is just as real as any other well known person who also happens to be dead, such as Abraham Lincoln.
I'm not real happy with this post...it's too long winded.
In the example about Santa, "my" argument doesn't definitively prove the existence of Santa. "Your" argument doesn't definitively disprove the existence of Santa. If you want to win the debate, you must present evidence that Santa cannot exist. If I want to win the debate, I must present evidence that Santa must exist. If neither of us achieve our goals, neither of us has won the debate.
Concerning the discussion on housing, the original idea is "enough". That person doesn't win by default, but they don't lose by having bad points of information. You must prove that their idea cannot be true in order to win the debate.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm not real happy with this post...it's too long winded.
In the example about Santa, "my" argument doesn't definitively prove the existence of Santa. "Your" argument doesn't definitively disprove the existence of Santa. If you want to win the debate, you must present evidence that Santa cannot exist. If I want to win the debate, I must present evidence that Santa must exist. If neither of us achieve our goals, neither of us has won the debate.
Concerning the discussion on housing, the original idea is "enough". That person doesn't win by default, but they don't lose by having bad points of information. You must prove that their idea cannot be true in order to win the debate.
your leaving out the most important part.
You are saying BECAUSE you gave evidence regardless of the quality THERFORE it means the other person can not say you are wrong without providing evidence.
you are NOT saying that both parties are equally responsible for quality evidence you are saying only one party is and not the other becuase the other gave evidence first regardless of the quality.
any more clear?
so to recap:
you: santa is real because its cold and he likes the cold
me: not true, how do you know he doesnt like the colkd
you: you have to proove its not true.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm not real happy with this post...it's too long winded.
In the example about Santa, "my" argument doesn't definitively prove the existence of Santa. "Your" argument doesn't definitively disprove the existence of Santa. If you want to win the debate, you must present evidence that Santa cannot exist. If I want to win the debate, I must present evidence that Santa must exist. If neither of us achieve our goals, neither of us has won the debate.
Concerning the discussion on housing, the original idea is "enough". That person doesn't win by default, but they don't lose by having bad points of information. You must prove that their idea cannot be true in order to win the debate.
your leaving out the most important part.
You are saying BECAUSE you gave evidence regardless of the quality THERFORE it means the other person can not say you are wrong without providing evidence.
you are NOT saying that both parties are equally responsible for quality evidence you are saying only one party is and not the other becuase the other gave evidence first regardless of the quality.
any more clear?
so to recap:
you: santa is real because its cold and he likes the cold
me: not true, how do you know he doesnt like the colkd
you: you have to proove its not true.
actually it was more like this
you: 'people havent been asking for housing'
me:'people would like housing if it was done right'
you:'proove it'
me'wait, proove people havent been asking for housing'
you: 'I dont have to'
that is how it played out.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by lizardbones
I'm not real happy with this post...it's too long winded. In the example about Santa, "my" argument doesn't definitively prove the existence of Santa. "Your" argument doesn't definitively disprove the existence of Santa. If you want to win the debate, you must present evidence that Santa cannot exist. If I want to win the debate, I must present evidence that Santa must exist. If neither of us achieve our goals, neither of us has won the debate. Concerning the discussion on housing, the original idea is "enough". That person doesn't win by default, but they don't lose by having bad points of information. You must prove that their idea cannot be true in order to win the debate. your leaving out the most important part.You are saying BECAUSE you gave evidence regardless of the quality THERFORE it means the other person can not say you are wrong without providing evidence.you are NOT saying that both parties are equally responsible for quality evidence you are saying only one party is and not the other becuase the other gave evidence first regardless of the quality.any more clear?so to recap:you: santa is real because its cold and he likes the coldme: not true, how do you know he doesnt like the colkdyou: you have to proove its not true.actually it was more like this
you: 'people havent been asking for housing'
meeople would like housing if it was done right'
youroove it'
me'wait, proove people havent been asking for housing'
you: 'I dont have to'
that is how it played out.
Wait a minute here. Don't get happy with the who said what stuff.
Somebody else said developers are not implementing housing because not enough players are asking for housing. I never said that. I've provided a couple of examples to show that players have been asking for housing and are interested in housing. I've also said that since Trion, Blizzard and Bioware are implementing housing or have already implemented housing, that the idea, "Developers are not implementing housing because not enough players are asking for it" cannot be true. You've substituted me for the person who originally said that developers aren't implementing housing because not enough people are asking for it. That wasn't me.
But, in a debate, assuming you have two sides (A & you can have three end results. A wins and B loses. A loses and B wins. A loses and B loses. B can make A lose, without disproving the original topic, but for B to win, they have to disprove the original topic of discussion.
Example: We have A, B and ToD. ToD is the Topic of Discussion. A: Developers haven't implemented housing because not enough players are asking for it. My evidence is {put some flimsy evidence here}. ToD: Holy cow! I now exist! B: That's flimsy evidence. A: Whatever. I don't have to present any more evidence, I know I'm right. ToD: I still exist! WhooHooo!
At this point, A is in a "Lose" state because they haven't proven their point. B is not yet in a "Win" state...they haven't proven their point either. They've only proven that A shouldn't enter debates, not that the ToD is false.
B: Oh yeah? Well {put some good evidence here that the original topic of discussion is wrong}! A: Oh noes! Not only have I lost, I've let B win because of their better arguments! ToD: NoOoOoOoOoOoOo!
B is now the winner. ToD has been proven false and ceases to exist until the next thread comes up.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The orginal statement was that basically business will not take action on an idea unless consumers ask for it. My statement was in realtion to that, thus I really should have said 'where people asking for cell phones before they came out'? I am sure you can pull some obtuse evidence to suggest that they have but what I am saying is that every business descision doesnt wait for the consumers to ask for it first and I know this from first hand experince working in the business world for many years.
The serious decisions usually involves research.
Research in this case can range from running focus groups, to gathering related marketing data. I do not know what kind of business job you have. But all the business development people (inside a large company) i have worked with are always very meticulous about making their case.
Now obviously if the decision is to put ONE guy on something for 3 weeks, a first line manager can do that on his own intuition. However, any serious investment (like R&D in cell phone) would take an unbelievable amount of research, meeting and red tape.
Heck, in the last business development effort i am involved in, my company hired another company to do an estimation of the market size (based on which existing market segment would be interested in this new segment), and several focus groups of potential customers (sorry, i cannot be more specific than that).
I'm not real happy with this post...it's too long winded. In the example about Santa, "my" argument doesn't definitively prove the existence of Santa. "Your" argument doesn't definitively disprove the existence of Santa. If you want to win the debate, you must present evidence that Santa cannot exist. If I want to win the debate, I must present evidence that Santa must exist. If neither of us achieve our goals, neither of us has won the debate. Concerning the discussion on housing, the original idea is "enough". That person doesn't win by default, but they don't lose by having bad points of information. You must prove that their idea cannot be true in order to win the debate.
your leaving out the most important part.You are saying BECAUSE you gave evidence regardless of the quality THERFORE it means the other person can not say you are wrong without providing evidence.you are NOT saying that both parties are equally responsible for quality evidence you are saying only one party is and not the other becuase the other gave evidence first regardless of the quality.any more clear?so to recap:you: santa is real because its cold and he likes the coldme: not true, how do you know he doesnt like the colkdyou: you have to proove its not true.
actually it was more like this
you: 'people havent been asking for housing'
meeople would like housing if it was done right'
youroove it'
me'wait, proove people havent been asking for housing'
you: 'I dont have to'
that is how it played out.
Wait a minute here. Don't get happy with the who said what stuff.
Somebody else said developers are not implementing housing because not enough players are asking for housing. I never said that. I've provided a couple of examples to show that players have been asking for housing and are interested in housing. I've also said that since Trion, Blizzard and Bioware are implementing housing or have already implemented housing, that the idea, "Developers are not implementing housing because not enough players are asking for it" cannot be true. You've substituted me for the person who originally said that developers aren't implementing housing because not enough people are asking for it. That wasn't me.
But, in a debate, assuming you have two sides (A & you can have three end results. A wins and B loses. A loses and B wins. A loses and B loses. B can make A lose, without disproving the original topic, but for B to win, they have to disprove the original topic of discussion.
Example: We have A, B and ToD. ToD is the Topic of Discussion. A: Developers haven't implemented housing because not enough players are asking for it. My evidence is {put some flimsy evidence here}. ToD: Holy cow! I now exist! B: That's flimsy evidence. A: Whatever. I don't have to present any more evidence, I know I'm right. ToD: I still exist! WhooHooo!
At this point, A is in a "Lose" state because they haven't proven their point. B is not yet in a "Win" state...they haven't proven their point either. They've only proven that A shouldn't enter debates, not that the ToD is false.
B: Oh yeah? Well {put some good evidence here that the original topic of discussion is wrong}! A: Oh noes! Not only have I lost, I've let B win because of their better arguments! ToD: NoOoOoOoOoOoOo!
B is now the winner. ToD has been proven false and ceases to exist until the next thread comes up.
I thought you were orginally stating the players dont want housing. I might have been mistaken.
I am not saying in the grand scheme of things that anyone who makes a claim be it in response to someone else or not should be able to provide evidence in the case like this. However what has been implied is that the first person doesnt have to provide any evidence that is of any value but the second person does and that is where i have a problem.
additionally i dont care what anyone says, baseless evidence is, as far as I am concerned, not evidence at all and I will not consider it valid. I am not going to allow for someone to say random sh*t and call it evidence that is nuts.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by lizardbones
I'm not real happy with this post...it's too long winded. In the example about Santa, "my" argument doesn't definitively prove the existence of Santa. "Your" argument doesn't definitively disprove the existence of Santa. If you want to win the debate, you must present evidence that Santa cannot exist. If I want to win the debate, I must present evidence that Santa must exist. If neither of us achieve our goals, neither of us has won the debate. Concerning the discussion on housing, the original idea is "enough". That person doesn't win by default, but they don't lose by having bad points of information. You must prove that their idea cannot be true in order to win the debate. your leaving out the most important part.You are saying BECAUSE you gave evidence regardless of the quality THERFORE it means the other person can not say you are wrong without providing evidence.you are NOT saying that both parties are equally responsible for quality evidence you are saying only one party is and not the other becuase the other gave evidence first regardless of the quality.any more clear?so to recap:you: santa is real because its cold and he likes the coldme: not true, how do you know he doesnt like the colkdyou: you have to proove its not true.actually it was more like this you: 'people havent been asking for housing' meeople would like housing if it was done right' youroove it' me'wait, proove people havent been asking for housing'you: 'I dont have to'that is how it played out. Wait a minute here. Don't get happy with the who said what stuff. Somebody else said developers are not implementing housing because not enough players are asking for housing. I never said that. I've provided a couple of examples to show that players have been asking for housing and are interested in housing. I've also said that since Trion, Blizzard and Bioware are implementing housing or have already implemented housing, that the idea, "Developers are not implementing housing because not enough players are asking for it" cannot be true. You've substituted me for the person who originally said that developers aren't implementing housing because not enough people are asking for it. That wasn't me. But, in a debate, assuming you have two sides (A & you can have three end results. A wins and B loses. A loses and B wins. A loses and B loses. B can make A lose, without disproving the original topic, but for B to win, they have to disprove the original topic of discussion. Example: We have A, B and ToD. ToD is the Topic of Discussion. A: Developers haven't implemented housing because not enough players are asking for it. My evidence is {put some flimsy evidence here}. ToD: Holy cow! I now exist! B: That's flimsy evidence. A: Whatever. I don't have to present any more evidence, I know I'm right. ToD: I still exist! WhooHooo! At this point, A is in a "Lose" state because they haven't proven their point. B is not yet in a "Win" state...they haven't proven their point either. They've only proven that A shouldn't enter debates, not that the ToD is false. B: Oh yeah? Well {put some good evidence here that the original topic of discussion is wrong}! A: Oh noes! Not only have I lost, I've let B win because of their better arguments! ToD: NoOoOoOoOoOoOo! B is now the winner. ToD has been proven false and ceases to exist until the next thread comes up. I thought you were orginally stating the players dont want housing. I might have been mistaken.
I am not saying in the grand scheme of things that anyone who makes a claim be it in response to someone else or not should be able to provide evidence in the case like this. However what has been implied is that the first person doesnt have to provide any evidence that is of any value but the second person does and that is where i have a problem.
additionally i dont care what anyone says, baseless evidence is, as far as I am concerned, not evidence at all and I will not consider it valid. I am not going to allow for someone to say random sh*t and call it evidence that is nuts.
You should let them say random things and call it evidence. Especially if you have points of information that refute their original claim. Then you can refute both their evidence and their original claim.
The reason the second person (you) would take the extra step to refute their claim in addition to their evidence is because their claim could still be true, whether their evidence supports it or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You should let them say random things and call it evidence. Especially if you have points of information that refute their original claim. Then you can refute both their evidence and their original claim.
The reason the second person (you) would take the extra step to refute their claim in addition to their evidence is because their claim could still be true, whether their evidence supports it or not.
the problem is the way things turned out was that the second person DID provide evidence and the first person refused to accept it AND refused to proove his own evidence becuase he made it first.
Never the less, we will play by your rules. so here is my response.
'players do want housing because its obvious'
obvious being my evidence.
now, your turn
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbones
You should let them say random things and call it evidence. Especially if you have points of information that refute their original claim. Then you can refute both their evidence and their original claim. The reason the second person (you) would take the extra step to refute their claim in addition to their evidence is because their claim could still be true, whether their evidence supports it or not. the problem is the way things turned out was that the second person DID provide evidence and the first person refused to accept it AND refused to proove his own evidence becuase he made it first.
Never the less, we will play by your rules. so here is my response.
'players do want housing because its obvious'
obvious being my evidence.
now, your turn
Well, there's not a lot you can do about that. An actual debate requires all parties to actually listen to the other participant's evidence, whether it's good or not. This is, after all, an internet forum. The closest thing I could think of to what everyone is actually doing here is a debate. Debates have rules and judges...we have other people on the forums who are just as irrational as we are.
To continue to your example, I'd say: If it were obvious, you'd have some real world examples displaying player's wanting housing enough for developers to implement it. There must be something you've seen that would lead you to this belief, you just didn't bother to bring it to the debate. Then there's be the equivalent of a debate nerd high five because you got served. I suppose...I'm not entirely sure there's even a debate nerd equivalent of a high five.
Even so, I haven't won the debate at that point. I've pointed out the evidence is bad, but your original statement 'Players want housing' could still be true. I haven't proven that players do not want housing, only that saying something "is obvious" is poor evidence.
I can't continue using your example because I believe players want housing. Given that Bioware implemented housing in SWToR, Blizzard is implementing a form of housing in WoW and Trion is putting housing in Rift, developers believe players want housing too. I would have to make up evidence or ignore evidence that I know exists to do continue with your example.
I think you're getting me confused with that other poster again.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You should let them say random things and call it evidence. Especially if you have points of information that refute their original claim. Then you can refute both their evidence and their original claim. The reason the second person (you) would take the extra step to refute their claim in addition to their evidence is because their claim could still be true, whether their evidence supports it or not.
the problem is the way things turned out was that the second person DID provide evidence and the first person refused to accept it AND refused to proove his own evidence becuase he made it first.
Never the less, we will play by your rules. so here is my response.
'players do want housing because its obvious'
obvious being my evidence.
now, your turn
Well, there's not a lot you can do about that. An actual debate requires all parties to actually listen to the other participant's evidence, whether it's good or not. This is, after all, an internet forum. The closest thing I could think of to what everyone is actually doing here is a debate. Debates have rules and judges...we have other people on the forums who are just as irrational as we are.
To continue to your example, I'd say: If it were obvious, you'd have some real world examples displaying player's wanting housing enough for developers to implement it. There must be something you've seen that would lead you to this belief, you just didn't bother to bring it to the debate. Then there's be the equivalent of a debate nerd high five because you got served. I suppose...I'm not entirely sure there's even a debate nerd equivalent of a high five.
Even so, I haven't won the debate at that point. I've pointed out the evidence is bad, but your original statement 'Players want housing' could still be true. I haven't proven that players do not want housing, only that saying something "is obvious" is poor evidence.
I can't continue using your example because I believe players want housing. Given that Bioware implemented housing in SWToR, Blizzard is implementing a form of housing in WoW and Trion is putting housing in Rift, developers believe players want housing too. I would have to make up evidence or ignore evidence that I know exists to do continue with your example.
I think you're getting me confused with that other poster again.
I think either you are not aware of how things played out or you simply have not read the various times i have given examples. I am trying to explain that the person appiled DIFFERENT rules for the second person then the first person BECAUSE they were first and the first person could have far more relaxed rules applied to them then the second person, best I can tell you agree with that method of debate. I however do not.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
[quote]Originally posted by SEANMCAD I think either you are not aware of how things played out or you simply have not read the various times i have given examples. I am trying to explain that the person appiled DIFFERENT rules for the second person then the first person BECAUSE they were first and the first person could have far more relaxed rules applied to them then the second person, best I can tell you agree with that method of debate. I however do not.[/b][/quote]
I've read your examples, but I haven't reviewed the entire thread. I try to not read entire threads if I can help it.
It doesn't matter what rules the first person wanted to apply to the debate. The topic being discussed is either true, or it's false. It's true or false before any arguments are made. The arguments don't make it true or false, they're just supposed to reveal whether the topic is true or false.
Now, if the second person's only goal is to show that the first person's arguments are bad, fine. That's pretty easy and they've won. If the second person's goal is to show that the topic is actually false, instead of true as the first person said, they need to prove the topic false, above and beyond proving the first person's arguments invalid. It's not about rules being fair or evenly applied, it's about getting the status of the topic's state - true or false.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I would think even the people who claim to hate this would LOVE a place to display all the fancy gear they got from whatever generic dungeon crawler theme park they play.
99% of them could be thrown behind it (themepark players that is) if you offered more storage.
Still, it'd not be used for anything other than that. So. Just more storage would be a better sell than setting a point at x,y to run to.
I would think even the people who claim to hate this would LOVE a place to display all the fancy gear they got from whatever generic dungeon crawler theme park they play.
99% of them could be thrown behind it (themepark players that is) if you offered more storage.
Still, it'd not be used for anything other than that. So. Just more storage would be a better sell than setting a point at x,y to run to.
I really think extra storage and display cases are being very short sighted and speaking for myself as someone intrested in the idea of housing I could care less about those features.
What housing can do is really more intresting to those who like crafting and player markets. That is where it can really get intresting.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by MMOExposed Player Housing IS possible. It just is not a priority. If people do not like the game or if they do not find the game fun, they will not build a house. The reasons make sense though. You could create the best housing feature-set we have ever seen in a game but if nobody enjoys the game to that point, they will not stick around just to have a cool house.?
Seem as if developers now days see no importance in this feature known as player housing. The quote has a point. If Developers put too much resources into Housing over other features, than players may not be interested in the game and wont build houses regardless of how detailed that feature is.but why has this feature been tossed under the bus over the last few years?seem like this feature has become very unpopular in the developers offices lately.Player Housing seem like a dynamic feature that gives players something to do when raiding/leveling/other grinds come to a end. Seem like a win win feature from a consumer point of view, but not from a developer.What turn of events causes this?
Dunno, but I'm kind of glad they're putting focus on something other than housing. I've always thought it was kind of dumb and when they allow players to drop down houses anywhere in the world like UO and SWG it ruins the environment.
Player Housing IS possible. It just is not a priority. If people do not like the game or if they do not find the game fun, they will not build a house.
The reasons make sense though. You could create the best housing feature-set we have ever seen in a game but if nobody enjoys the game to that point, they will not stick around just to have a cool house.?
Seem as if developers now days see no importance in this feature known as player housing. The quote has a point. If Developers put too much resources into Housing over other features, than players may not be interested in the game and wont build houses regardless of how detailed that feature is.but why has this feature been tossed under the bus over the last few years?seem like this feature has become very unpopular in the developers offices lately.Player Housing seem like a dynamic feature that gives players something to do when raiding/leveling/other grinds come to a end. Seem like a win win feature from a consumer point of view, but not from a developer.What turn of events causes this?
Dunno, but I'm kind of glad they're putting focus on something other than housing. I've always thought it was kind of dumb and when they allow players to drop down houses anywhere in the world like UO and SWG it ruins the environment.
the entire problem is the attitude of the fist statement made by the developers 'if players do not like the game they will not build a house.'
The suggestion being that housing is not part of the game. That is a bad design flaw from the very start. What parameters are considered 'the game' well if a feature in your game is not considered part of the core game then its going to fail.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I would think even the people who claim to hate this would LOVE a place to display all the fancy gear they got from whatever generic dungeon crawler theme park they play.
99% of them could be thrown behind it (themepark players that is) if you offered more storage.
Still, it'd not be used for anything other than that. So. Just more storage would be a better sell than setting a point at x,y to run to.
I really think extra storage and display cases are being very short sighted and speaking for myself as someone intrested in the idea of housing I could care less about those features.
What housing can do is really more intresting to those who like crafting and player markets. That is where it can really get intresting.
Well the discussion was even theme park players would like to display their loot somewhere.
I don't think that's the case because plenty of themeparks, even those with housing, rarely do you see people go.. "Come to my house and look at my stuff." Even more rarely do you log in and go.. "I think I'd like to go look at someone's digitally owned goods."
I've played games with crafting, farming, and player markets ran from the house. EQ2 FFXI being prime examples. And really the argument can be made; it was a lot of hassel to travel to these specific areas just for that. When a more publicly accessed area without any loading involved worked more efficiently. Like WoW's auction house / vendors.
LotRO offers a bit of both worlds and really giving people more options to play how they want is never a bad thing.
As per this discussion though; housing isn't a desired feature for a lot of players. If it's there, cool. If it's not, generally no one cares.
It is obvious that developers should not spend precious resources that only a "few" people will ever use in-game. They should instead forcus on innovative new features that gamers are demanding, shouting from the rooftops. All gaming studios should spend tens of millions on features like voice-overs for quest givers! Everyone is crazy about voiceo <SPACEBAR>
...
"If MMORPG players were around when God said, "Let their be light" they'd have called the light gay, and plunged the universe back into darkness by squatting their nutsacks over it." -Luke McKinney, The 7 Biggest Dick Moves in the History of Online Gaming
"In the end, SWG may have been more potential and promise than fulfilled expectation. But I'd rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity." -Raph Koster
Well the discussion was even theme park players would like to display their loot somewhere.
I don't. I have no interest whatsoever in putting up a museum to my own greatness. It's idiotic. If I can't use the loot, if I can't see it being useful in the future, I sell it.
Comments
problem is 1. the OP didnt submit evidence. He submited assumed evidence without clarification 2. the OP didnt submit it as hypothesis but as fact.
Bad evidence is still evidence.
no its not.
I cant say 'santa is real and my evidence is that its cold up north'
sorry...no good, failed
Evidence is just something presented to prove your case. It doesn't have to be good. It doesn't even have to make sense.
It's hardly fair bringing Santa into it. Now if I say he doesn't exist, I get on the Naughty list.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
you are saying 'hey I provided evidence I am done'
no sorry massive fail. The quality of the evidence matters.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Of course the quality of evidence matters, but just poking holes in the evidence presented, without ever disproving the initial idea is just as shoddy a job as presenting bad evidence. It doesn't actually prove anything, other than the evidence was bad. The idea presented could still be a fact.
Example 1:
Person A could present the idea that developers do not implement housing because not enough people ask for it, and their proof could be that they themselves have never asked for it. This is really bad evidence. Player B's counter argument, disproving the evidence only, is that they themselves have asked for it or that Person A can't possibly know what players are asking for because they have no access to the information. The evidence is shown to be false, but the initial idea hasn't been proven false. It could still be true. The conversation is now, a "He said, she said" conversation and goes nowhere. If Person B is going to participate in a conversation or debate with Person A, they need to disprove the idea, with evidence. Hopefully the evidence to disprove the idea is more definitive than the evidence to support the idea.
Example 2:
Person A could present the idea that developers do not implement housing because not enough people ask for it, and their proof could be that they themselves have never asked for it. This is really bad evidence. Player B's counter argument, disproving the idea is that there exists evidence that players are asking for and about housing on forums. In addition to this, two developers, Trion and Blizzard, are implementing some form of housing in future updates to their games. One current developer, Bioware launched their game with a form of housing*. Developers can't be neglecting housing because not enough people are asking for it because developers are no longer neglecting housing. The idea presented cannot be true, because the idea depends on developers not implementing housing. If developers are implementing housing, the idea is false.
** edit **
* The player ships are housing. It's a personal instance, where you can craft, access your bank, and pick up space missions, which are started and completed in the personal instance. It's the one thing, other than the personal story that they added which wasn't a direct copy of WoW's mechanics.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
totally disagree.
here is what you are saying:
you: 'santa is real and my evidence is because its cold up there and he likes cold weather'
me: 'that is b*llshit how do you even know he likes cold weather'?
you: 'that is my evidence, I have provided evidence now its your job to proove your claims, I dont have to proove anything though because I already shown my evidence'
total insanity. I rarely say this but often feel it. I feel that you are just f8cking with me which if you are is clever expect that in your cleverness you are making yourself look not to sharp. I actually think that happens alot here but I play along and rarely say anything.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
totally disagree.
here is what you are saying:
you: 'santa is real and my evidence is because its cold up there and he likes cold weather'
me: 'that is b*llshit how do you even know he likes cold weather'?
you: 'that is my evidence, I have provided evidence now its your job to proove your claims, I dont have to proove anything though because I already shown my evidence'
total insanity. I rarely say this but often feel it. I feel that you are just f8cking with me which if you are is clever expect that in your cleverness you are making yourself look not to sharp. I actually think that happens alot here but I play along and rarely say anything.
In that conversation the only thing proven is that both parties are equally bad at having a debate. Obviously I would have said that he's dressed for cold weather, duh. You don't run around in a thick coat with fur trim around the equator.
You don't win a debate by arguing about the points of information, you win a debate by disproving the other point of view. You can argue the points of information...but then you have to hope the judges rule in your favor.
In the example above, when you ask how I know Santa likes cold weather, it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Even if I couldn't prove Santa likes cold weather, that doesn't disprove the existence of Santa. It doesn't prove Santa's existence either. You haven't definitively won the debate on Santa's existence and neither have I. If you want to win the debate on Santa's existence, you have to disprove his existence, not my flawed logic in saying he exists. Prove that Santa can't exist, not that I can't argue that he exists. If I want to win, I have to prove he must exist.
** Addendum **
Santa does exist as an individual, with personality traits and known exploits. He is just as real as any other person who is no longer alive. Dead people only conclusively exist in our memories. Santa only conclusively exists in our memories. Santa is just as real as any other well known person who also happens to be dead, such as Abraham Lincoln.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
totally disagree.
here is what you are saying:
you: 'santa is real and my evidence is because its cold up there and he likes cold weather'
me: 'that is b*llshit how do you even know he likes cold weather'?
you: 'that is my evidence, I have provided evidence now its your job to proove your claims, I dont have to proove anything though because I already shown my evidence'
total insanity. I rarely say this but often feel it. I feel that you are just f8cking with me which if you are is clever expect that in your cleverness you are making yourself look not to sharp. I actually think that happens alot here but I play along and rarely say anything.
In that conversation the only thing proven is that both parties are equally bad at having a debate. Obviously I would have said that he's dressed for cold weather, duh. You don't run around in a thick coat with fur trim around the equator.
You don't win a debate by arguing about the points of information, you win a debate by disproving the other point of view. You can argue the points of information...but then you have to hope the judges rule in your favor.
In the example above, when you ask how I know Santa likes cold weather, it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Even if I couldn't prove Santa likes cold weather, that doesn't disprove the existence of Santa. It doesn't prove Santa's existence either. You haven't definitively won the debate on Santa's existence and neither have I. If you want to win the debate on Santa's existence, you have to disprove his existence, not my flawed logic in saying he exists. Prove that Santa can't exist, not that I can't argue that he exists. If I want to win, I have to prove he must exist.
** Addendum **
Santa does exist as an individual, with personality traits and known exploits. He is just as real as any other person who is no longer alive. Dead people only conclusively exist in our memories. Santa only conclusively exists in our memories. Santa is just as real as any other well known person who also happens to be dead, such as Abraham Lincoln.
I'm not real happy with this post...it's too long winded.
In the example about Santa, "my" argument doesn't definitively prove the existence of Santa. "Your" argument doesn't definitively disprove the existence of Santa. If you want to win the debate, you must present evidence that Santa cannot exist. If I want to win the debate, I must present evidence that Santa must exist. If neither of us achieve our goals, neither of us has won the debate.
Concerning the discussion on housing, the original idea is "enough". That person doesn't win by default, but they don't lose by having bad points of information. You must prove that their idea cannot be true in order to win the debate.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
your leaving out the most important part.
You are saying BECAUSE you gave evidence regardless of the quality THERFORE it means the other person can not say you are wrong without providing evidence.
you are NOT saying that both parties are equally responsible for quality evidence you are saying only one party is and not the other becuase the other gave evidence first regardless of the quality.
any more clear?
so to recap:
you: santa is real because its cold and he likes the cold
me: not true, how do you know he doesnt like the colkd
you: you have to proove its not true.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
actually it was more like this
you: 'people havent been asking for housing'
me:'people would like housing if it was done right'
you:'proove it'
me'wait, proove people havent been asking for housing'
you: 'I dont have to'
that is how it played out.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
your leaving out the most important part. You are saying BECAUSE you gave evidence regardless of the quality THERFORE it means the other person can not say you are wrong without providing evidence. you are NOT saying that both parties are equally responsible for quality evidence you are saying only one party is and not the other becuase the other gave evidence first regardless of the quality. any more clear? so to recap: you: santa is real because its cold and he likes the cold me: not true, how do you know he doesnt like the colkd you: you have to proove its not true.
actually it was more like this
you: 'people havent been asking for housing'
me
eople would like housing if it was done right'
you
roove it'
me'wait, proove people havent been asking for housing'
you: 'I dont have to'
that is how it played out.
Wait a minute here. Don't get happy with the who said what stuff.
Somebody else said developers are not implementing housing because not enough players are asking for housing. I never said that. I've provided a couple of examples to show that players have been asking for housing and are interested in housing. I've also said that since Trion, Blizzard and Bioware are implementing housing or have already implemented housing, that the idea, "Developers are not implementing housing because not enough players are asking for it" cannot be true. You've substituted me for the person who originally said that developers aren't implementing housing because not enough people are asking for it. That wasn't me.
But, in a debate, assuming you have two sides (A &
Example: We have A, B and ToD. ToD is the Topic of Discussion.
A: Developers haven't implemented housing because not enough players are asking for it. My evidence is {put some flimsy evidence here}.
ToD: Holy cow! I now exist!
B: That's flimsy evidence.
A: Whatever. I don't have to present any more evidence, I know I'm right.
ToD: I still exist! WhooHooo!
At this point, A is in a "Lose" state because they haven't proven their point. B is not yet in a "Win" state...they haven't proven their point either. They've only proven that A shouldn't enter debates, not that the ToD is false.
B: Oh yeah? Well {put some good evidence here that the original topic of discussion is wrong}!
A: Oh noes! Not only have I lost, I've let B win because of their better arguments!
ToD: NoOoOoOoOoOoOo!
B is now the winner. ToD has been proven false and ceases to exist until the next thread comes up.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The serious decisions usually involves research.
Research in this case can range from running focus groups, to gathering related marketing data. I do not know what kind of business job you have. But all the business development people (inside a large company) i have worked with are always very meticulous about making their case.
Now obviously if the decision is to put ONE guy on something for 3 weeks, a first line manager can do that on his own intuition. However, any serious investment (like R&D in cell phone) would take an unbelievable amount of research, meeting and red tape.
Heck, in the last business development effort i am involved in, my company hired another company to do an estimation of the market size (based on which existing market segment would be interested in this new segment), and several focus groups of potential customers (sorry, i cannot be more specific than that).
I thought you were orginally stating the players dont want housing. I might have been mistaken.
I am not saying in the grand scheme of things that anyone who makes a claim be it in response to someone else or not should be able to provide evidence in the case like this. However what has been implied is that the first person doesnt have to provide any evidence that is of any value but the second person does and that is where i have a problem.
additionally i dont care what anyone says, baseless evidence is, as far as I am concerned, not evidence at all and I will not consider it valid. I am not going to allow for someone to say random sh*t and call it evidence that is nuts.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
your leaving out the most important part. You are saying BECAUSE you gave evidence regardless of the quality THERFORE it means the other person can not say you are wrong without providing evidence. you are NOT saying that both parties are equally responsible for quality evidence you are saying only one party is and not the other becuase the other gave evidence first regardless of the quality. any more clear? so to recap: you: santa is real because its cold and he likes the cold me: not true, how do you know he doesnt like the colkd you: you have to proove its not true.
actually it was more like this you: 'people havent been asking for housing' meeople would like housing if it was done right' youroove it' me'wait, proove people havent been asking for housing' you: 'I dont have to' that is how it played out.
Wait a minute here. Don't get happy with the who said what stuff. Somebody else said developers are not implementing housing because not enough players are asking for housing. I never said that. I've provided a couple of examples to show that players have been asking for housing and are interested in housing. I've also said that since Trion, Blizzard and Bioware are implementing housing or have already implemented housing, that the idea, "Developers are not implementing housing because not enough players are asking for it" cannot be true. You've substituted me for the person who originally said that developers aren't implementing housing because not enough people are asking for it. That wasn't me. But, in a debate, assuming you have two sides (A &
I thought you were orginally stating the players dont want housing. I might have been mistaken.
I am not saying in the grand scheme of things that anyone who makes a claim be it in response to someone else or not should be able to provide evidence in the case like this. However what has been implied is that the first person doesnt have to provide any evidence that is of any value but the second person does and that is where i have a problem.
additionally i dont care what anyone says, baseless evidence is, as far as I am concerned, not evidence at all and I will not consider it valid. I am not going to allow for someone to say random sh*t and call it evidence that is nuts.
You should let them say random things and call it evidence. Especially if you have points of information that refute their original claim. Then you can refute both their evidence and their original claim.
The reason the second person (you) would take the extra step to refute their claim in addition to their evidence is because their claim could still be true, whether their evidence supports it or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Sean, Lizard, it is time you guys gave up this fight. Neither of you are ever going to see eye to eye.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
the problem is the way things turned out was that the second person DID provide evidence and the first person refused to accept it AND refused to proove his own evidence becuase he made it first.
Never the less, we will play by your rules. so here is my response.
'players do want housing because its obvious'
obvious being my evidence.
now, your turn
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
the problem is the way things turned out was that the second person DID provide evidence and the first person refused to accept it AND refused to proove his own evidence becuase he made it first.
Never the less, we will play by your rules. so here is my response.
'players do want housing because its obvious'
obvious being my evidence.
now, your turn
Well, there's not a lot you can do about that. An actual debate requires all parties to actually listen to the other participant's evidence, whether it's good or not. This is, after all, an internet forum. The closest thing I could think of to what everyone is actually doing here is a debate. Debates have rules and judges...we have other people on the forums who are just as irrational as we are.
To continue to your example, I'd say:
If it were obvious, you'd have some real world examples displaying player's wanting housing enough for developers to implement it. There must be something you've seen that would lead you to this belief, you just didn't bother to bring it to the debate. Then there's be the equivalent of a debate nerd high five because you got served. I suppose...I'm not entirely sure there's even a debate nerd equivalent of a high five.
Even so, I haven't won the debate at that point. I've pointed out the evidence is bad, but your original statement 'Players want housing' could still be true. I haven't proven that players do not want housing, only that saying something "is obvious" is poor evidence.
I can't continue using your example because I believe players want housing. Given that Bioware implemented housing in SWToR, Blizzard is implementing a form of housing in WoW and Trion is putting housing in Rift, developers believe players want housing too. I would have to make up evidence or ignore evidence that I know exists to do continue with your example.
I think you're getting me confused with that other poster again.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think either you are not aware of how things played out or you simply have not read the various times i have given examples. I am trying to explain that the person appiled DIFFERENT rules for the second person then the first person BECAUSE they were first and the first person could have far more relaxed rules applied to them then the second person, best I can tell you agree with that method of debate. I however do not.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
[quote]Originally posted by SEANMCAD
I think either you are not aware of how things played out or you simply have not read the various times i have given examples. I am trying to explain that the person appiled DIFFERENT rules for the second person then the first person BECAUSE they were first and the first person could have far more relaxed rules applied to them then the second person, best I can tell you agree with that method of debate. I however do not.[/b][/quote]
I've read your examples, but I haven't reviewed the entire thread. I try to not read entire threads if I can help it.
It doesn't matter what rules the first person wanted to apply to the debate. The topic being discussed is either true, or it's false. It's true or false before any arguments are made. The arguments don't make it true or false, they're just supposed to reveal whether the topic is true or false.
Now, if the second person's only goal is to show that the first person's arguments are bad, fine. That's pretty easy and they've won. If the second person's goal is to show that the topic is actually false, instead of true as the first person said, they need to prove the topic false, above and beyond proving the first person's arguments invalid. It's not about rules being fair or evenly applied, it's about getting the status of the topic's state - true or false.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Oh no. It's too late now. We have effectively killed the topic and buried the body. We're on to something else now.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
99% of them could be thrown behind it (themepark players that is) if you offered more storage.
Still, it'd not be used for anything other than that. So. Just more storage would be a better sell than setting a point at x,y to run to.
a yo ho ho
I really think extra storage and display cases are being very short sighted and speaking for myself as someone intrested in the idea of housing I could care less about those features.
What housing can do is really more intresting to those who like crafting and player markets. That is where it can really get intresting.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Seem as if developers now days see no importance in this feature known as player housing. The quote has a point. If Developers put too much resources into Housing over other features, than players may not be interested in the game and wont build houses regardless of how detailed that feature is.but why has this feature been tossed under the bus over the last few years?seem like this feature has become very unpopular in the developers offices lately.Player Housing seem like a dynamic feature that gives players something to do when raiding/leveling/other grinds come to a end. Seem like a win win feature from a consumer point of view, but not from a developer.What turn of events causes this?
Dunno, but I'm kind of glad they're putting focus on something other than housing. I've always thought it was kind of dumb and when they allow players to drop down houses anywhere in the world like UO and SWG it ruins the environment.
the entire problem is the attitude of the fist statement made by the developers 'if players do not like the game they will not build a house.'
The suggestion being that housing is not part of the game. That is a bad design flaw from the very start. What parameters are considered 'the game' well if a feature in your game is not considered part of the core game then its going to fail.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Well the discussion was even theme park players would like to display their loot somewhere.
I don't think that's the case because plenty of themeparks, even those with housing, rarely do you see people go.. "Come to my house and look at my stuff." Even more rarely do you log in and go.. "I think I'd like to go look at someone's digitally owned goods."
I've played games with crafting, farming, and player markets ran from the house. EQ2 FFXI being prime examples. And really the argument can be made; it was a lot of hassel to travel to these specific areas just for that. When a more publicly accessed area without any loading involved worked more efficiently. Like WoW's auction house / vendors.
LotRO offers a bit of both worlds and really giving people more options to play how they want is never a bad thing.
As per this discussion though; housing isn't a desired feature for a lot of players. If it's there, cool. If it's not, generally no one cares.
a yo ho ho
It is obvious that developers should not spend precious resources that only a "few" people will ever use in-game. They should instead forcus on innovative new features that gamers are demanding, shouting from the rooftops. All gaming studios should spend tens of millions on features like voice-overs for quest givers! Everyone is crazy about voiceo <SPACEBAR>
...
"If MMORPG players were around when God said, "Let their be light" they'd have called the light gay, and plunged the universe back into darkness by squatting their nutsacks over it."
-Luke McKinney, The 7 Biggest Dick Moves in the History of Online Gaming
"In the end, SWG may have been more potential and promise than fulfilled expectation. But I'd rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
-Raph Koster
I don't. I have no interest whatsoever in putting up a museum to my own greatness. It's idiotic. If I can't use the loot, if I can't see it being useful in the future, I sell it.
I think trophies are stupid.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None