Debate Rounds (3)
This is an experience like no other. You take a noob level one trash tier player and you nurture it and make that beautiful set of pixels on your screen become that Level 110 major pro that wrecks the noobs to the highest degrees imaginable.
Along the way, you will come across monsters, or at the very least obstacles to you leveling up. In addition, each level requires more XP (experience points) to get to the next level than the difference between the previous one. Depending on which MMORPG you are playing, HP (health points) can be a factor and dying can either mean literally dying for good and having to start back form level 1 or perhaps having to lose all items you gained in your inventory and remaining at your level but super poor. Different MMORPGs have difference severity of punishment for failure as some are specifically designed to be more chilled out than others and cater for a different temperament of player/gamer.
The Contender here seems discontented with the fact that you can fight a low level char many times and still reach high levels rather than risking it on a higher level char to level up faster (at the higher peril of death being more probable) this is similar to real life where the difference between the same numeric levels of higher ranks is often far more severe than the difference between lower ranks. So, for instance, the difference between a black belt and brown belt, in a martial art is often far more severe than between a yellow and white belt.
The realism is on point to a degree but of course it's only fun if it's simple and not mind-boggling. Who wants to have to strategize an entire war strategy every time they want to level up? sure some players do, there's online chess for that or even complex war strategy MMORPGs specifically for those specialized player types.
I think the issue my opponent has is with the fighting-styled games where everything is far too simplified and unrealistic. What my opponent has failed to understand is that games aren't always suppose dot be super realistic even fi it is 'role-playing' a real scenario.
My opponent states that player-vs-player feels annoying and repetitive and that he/she dislikes players who abuse lower levels over and over to level up as oppose to constantly increasing the odds of losing or at least maintaining it by challenging higher levels sooner than is comfortable. My opponent's entire basis for this is that he/she doesn't happen to like it despite the billion-dollar corporations running these games having a massive userbase of hardcore lovers and loyal players. This is simply absurd and I hope to see something remotely substantial in Round 3.
Ogarth forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable behavior in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Pro. There were alot of problems with Con's case. Specifically, applying their own subjective values onto a topic in too narrow of a frame. Pro was able to refute Con's claims against grinding, lack of social immersion, and noob-hunting. Pro showed that these games tailor to the specific tastes of gamers and accurately expressed the truism that it's subjective depending on the individual gamer. Lastly, Pro's final round was left unchallenged by Con. Due to Pro remaining standing in the end amongst other reasons given above, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. This is a clear win for Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.