Survival Mode/Hardcore Mode

[ven]

Feel free to edit my reply and put everything in what you think is the correct context. I don't see any problem with how I replied.

At any rate, C&I isn't about details but about general ideas which will be tweaked by the devs. The suggestion I'm making is that players who prefer the challenge of survival instead of pvp'ing have the alternative of playing a different game mode, with reward and even higher risks.

[Burinn]

Feel free to edit my reply and put everything in what you think is the correct context. I don't see any problem with how I replied.

At any rate, C&I isn't about details but about general ideas which will be tweaked by the devs. The suggestion I'm making is that players who prefer the challenge of survival instead of pvp'ing have the alternative of playing a different game mode, with reward and even higher risks.

You literally broke up his entire post into individual sentences and acted like they were totally separate thoughts. I think that's the definition of out of context.

[ven]

I'm used to different forum rules. I think it's better for the users when posts are clean and don't have content unrelated to the reply, not as you just did above. Anyone can check the original and it's easier to read.

My quotes of him are indeed different points of his post, but if it makes you happy go ahead and put all my replies together right under a full quote of his text.

[Burinn]

I'm used to different forum rules. I think it's better for the users when posts are clean and don't have content unrelated to the reply, not as you just did above. Anyone can check the original and it's easier to read.

My quotes of him are indeed different points of his post, but if it makes you happy go ahead and put all my replies together right under a full quote of his text.

I don't think it's anyone's responsibility but your own to convey your thoughts in such a way that people will:

A.) Take you seriously
B.) Accurately represent your ideas

If you aren't communicating in such a way I think it's safe to say the onus is on you.

[sytae432]

This in my opinion wouldn't work because people would :
Make HC characters for higher caps and LP gain, then use those characters as bot farmers/miners and never risk anything
then Use reg characters for PvP interactions.

It would essentially just make super OP alts.

[Ysh]

I'm used to different forum rules. I think it's better for the users when posts are clean and don't have content unrelated to the reply, not as you just did above. Anyone can check the original and it's easier to read.

My quotes of him are indeed different points of his post, but if it makes you happy go ahead and put all my replies together right under a full quote of his text.

I can talk a specific example for what I have issue for.

You say this in original posting:

For this game mode to be more rewarding, the stats of survival chars would be capped at 500/510/530. Alternatively, they could have an increased rate of LP gain.

I then argue that these benefits are not a good thing to try and do. Then I go and conclusion with:

If you want to play a hard game without some benefits over people who do not, I can see this being fine. Not sure why anyone will want this one though.

Meaning: I think it is fine if you can play hard mode with no benefit. But, I do not know if someone will want to do this without some benefits like you suggest in the OP.
Then your rebuttal is:

Not sure why anyone will want this one though.

It's on my first paragraph. Besides, with current limitation on the social aspect of the game, what many of us have been doing is simply quit when they finish a developed hermitage. The passage from PvE to PvP that people expect to happen to keep the game moving isn't interesting to everyone.

Which is deceptive. You do not include the portion of my postings where I disagree because I refute that adding benefit is something that will happen. This is highly relevant. You make it look like I did not read your postings where you explain why people will want it.

In summary, when I say:

Not sure why anyone will want this one though.

I am meaning in the context:

Not sure why anyone will want to play a harder game with no benefits.

Whereas using your tricks you make it appear that I am meaning:

Not sure why anyone will want to play a harder game at all.

The other points you quote of mine have similar issues. You respond to the single quoted sentence as if the other sentences before or after it have not existed. Clearly any single points of mine will not make sense in the vacuum with itself only. I think the style of postings you do (splitting the post up) is fine to do, but you must be fair with doing it.

[ven]

This in my opinion wouldn't work because people would :
Make HC characters for higher caps and LP gain, then use those characters as bot farmers/miners and never risk anything
then Use reg characters for PvP interactions.

Possibly, but there are some measures to minimize that. Ideally, this would be a game mode in which staying behind walls doesn't mean you're safe, and it shouldn't allow any kind of risk-free gamestyle. Repetitive actions could lead to diseases reducing certain stats, and sharing of items between survival and non-survival accounts could also be restricted. But, granted, I think that's the biggest problem with my suggestion.

I am meaning in the context:

Not sure why anyone will want to play a harder game with no benefits.

Yes and that's what how I understood it. My reply was asking to check the first paragraph of the OP, which says people already choose to play a harder game without benefits.

[Ysh]

I am meaning in the context:

Not sure why anyone will want to play a harder game with no benefits.

Yes and that's what how I understood it. My reply was asking to check the first paragraph of the OP, which says people already choose to play a harder game without benefits.

I read the first paragraph. But if no benefits is the suggesting, why do you say:

For this game mode to be more rewarding, the stats of survival chars would be capped at 500/510/530. Alternatively, they could have an increased rate of LP gain.

We can clear this now. Do you wish for this hardmode to have some benefit or not? I suggest adjusting the OP accordingly for preventing more confusion.

[ven]

People already choose to play a harder game without any direct benefits.

My suggestion is a game mode that provides a few rewards for a high-risk gameplay.

[Ysh]

People already choose to play a harder game without any direct benefits.

This was not in question by any one. I also do not think it is relevant at all to these discussings.

My suggestion is a game mode that provides a few rewards for a high-risk gameplay.

Then my previous points are standing as written. Can you explain where some communication issues are happening here? You are talking past me and I hope it can not be purposeful.