Welcome to the Wizard101 Message Boards


Player Guide
Fansites
News
Game Updates
Help

Follow important game updates on Twitter @Wizard101 and @KI_Alerts, and Facebook!

For all account questions and concerns, contact Customer Support.

By posting on the Wizard101 Message Boards you agree to the Code of Conduct.

"Final Word" my saggy left jacket sleeve.

AuthorMessage
Mastermind
Jun 06, 2009
398
You have stated the following about Enchanted Treasure Cards:

"The trading of enchanted cards was never intended; it was an error on our part that players were able to use this system to gain access to spells they were never suppose to receive. Yes, this has been an issue in PvP, but that's really a minor part of the overall problem (as PvP is a relatively minor part of the overall W101 experience.)

Please understand that we went to great lengths to craft and balance the difficulty and "fun factor" of our game. We spent thousands of hours pouring over spreadsheets, implementing, testing, and then repeating that process until we got it right. We planned for players to have "easy" fights and "hard" fights. We planned on solo areas, and areas where we wanted them to ask other players for assistance, fostering social connections. As part of this process -- and to make each class feel special -- we created a handful of custom, unique spell that were restricted to each class. We wanted each player to feel like they could do something that other players could not. Each class was engineered to have areas of strength and weakness, so that the style of game play (and strategy) would different from one player to the next. We wanted to foster a sense of identity, to make the game interesting (and different) based on the path that the player chose to follow, and (of course) to make the game balanced across 300+ hours of gameplay.

After all that effort, we made a mistake, one which allowed player to use 50 gold enchantment cards to circumvent these class restriction. Oops! I wish this mistake had never been made in the first place; had the class restrictions been properly enforced from the beginning, players would have thought "well, that makes sense" and not given it another thought.

The problem is, this may seem like a minor issue, but it is not. This one oversight fundamentally dilutes the unique nature of each class. Replicating these spells creates a huge imbalance in our system, not just in PvP, but in the overall play cycle and in the experience of the game we spent so much time and energy crafting. If everyone can cast everything, what's the point of having classes at all? To borrow a phrase from The Incredibles, "When everyone's Super, then no one is." In my eyes, being able to mass produce a collection of class-restricted, high level spells for a trivial amount of gold falls pretty clearly into the category of stuff we should fix. And so, we are fixing it.

I certainly realize that you may not agree with this decision. Much like a parent sometimes the "right" decision is not necessarily the most popular one. In this case, I recognize that some people will be unhappy with this fix. But as the director of the game, I have to look out for the health of the game as a whole. It's my call to make, and I stand by my decision. You may not agree, but I do hope you will understand."

Now hang on. Hang on just a minute.

First of all, you state this is for the sake of balance. Hmm... obscene Crown Item bonuses and Pet Spells and Abilities, both available to Novices... what exactly is balanced here? Yeah, balance isn't exactly what I'd call "high on your agenda."

Next, you assert that this is a problem of great magnitude. I haven't seen a single thread complaining about Enchanted Treasure Cards. A plethora (such a good word, isn't it?) of people complain about the quite fair Schools of Balance, Storm, Ice, Myth, and Life, so trust me when I say that if it was a problem, someone would have piped up.
Also, if this was so problematic, why did you take 1 1/2 years of your sweet time to deal with it? Seeing as no one complained... why? Why not just let sleeping dogs lie?

Also, you say that this could be done for an, and I quote, "trivial amount of gold." Well, why not just increase the price of the Tough and Keeneyes cards to, say, 2000+? I highly doubt that people would want to blow 8000 Gold to make four Cards to trade; you could buy a Castle for that! The rarity of Enchanted Treasure Cards would increase by a theoretically astronomical (two more good words) amount.

Considering that the greatest misuse (in fact, the ONLY misuse) of Enchanted Treasure Cards was in the Arena, another good alternative would have been to ban Enchanted (or all) Treasure Cards in the Arena.

Level restrictions would also be better accepted. Say, for example, that someone wanted the Triton Spell. With this idea, they would have to be at least Level 35 (Level groups of 5 are common in Wizard 101, and quite easy to keep track of) in order to be able to accept an Enchanted Triton in a Trade.

A limit of the number of Enchanted Treasure Cards we could have at any one time (say, 1 per 10 Levels, so 1 at 1-9, 2 at 10-19, 3 at 20-29, etc.) is also a viable option.

Finally, if all else is intolerable (and it had better be so for an extremely good reason), you could allow us to place Treasure Cards, both normal and Enchanted, in our Shared Bank. That way, we could not use a Treasure Card we hadn't already earned.

-FoxFyr

Mastermind
Jul 26, 2009
340
FoxFyr wrote:
You have stated the following about Enchanted Treasure Cards:

"The trading of enchanted cards was never intended; it was an error on our part that players were able to use this system to gain access to spells they were never suppose to receive. Yes, this has been an issue in PvP, but that's really a minor part of the overall problem (as PvP is a relatively minor part of the overall W101 experience.)

Please understand that we went to great lengths to craft and balance the difficulty and "fun factor" of our game. We spent thousands of hours pouring over spreadsheets, implementing, testing, and then repeating that process until we got it right. We planned for players to have "easy" fights and "hard" fights. We planned on solo areas, and areas where we wanted them to ask other players for assistance, fostering social connections. As part of this process -- and to make each class feel special -- we created a handful of custom, unique spell that were restricted to each class. We wanted each player to feel like they could do something that other players could not. Each class was engineered to have areas of strength and weakness, so that the style of game play (and strategy) would different from one player to the next. We wanted to foster a sense of identity, to make the game interesting (and different) based on the path that the player chose to follow, and (of course) to make the game balanced across 300+ hours of gameplay.

After all that effort, we made a mistake, one which allowed player to use 50 gold enchantment cards to circumvent these class restriction. Oops! I wish this mistake had never been made in the first place; had the class restrictions been properly enforced from the beginning, players would have thought "well, that makes sense" and not given it another thought.

The problem is, this may seem like a minor issue, but it is not. This one oversight fundamentally dilutes the unique nature of each class. Replicating these spells creates a huge imbalance in our system, not just in PvP, but in the overall play cycle and in the experience of the game we spent so much time and energy crafting. If everyone can cast everything, what's the point of having classes at all? To borrow a phrase from The Incredibles, "When everyone's Super, then no one is." In my eyes, being able to mass produce a collection of class-restricted, high level spells for a trivial amount of gold falls pretty clearly into the category of stuff we should fix. And so, we are fixing it.

I certainly realize that you may not agree with this decision. Much like a parent sometimes the "right" decision is not necessarily the most popular one. In this case, I recognize that some people will be unhappy with this fix. But as the director of the game, I have to look out for the health of the game as a whole. It's my call to make, and I stand by my decision. You may not agree, but I do hope you will understand."

Now hang on. Hang on just a minute.

First of all, you state this is for the sake of balance. Hmm... obscene Crown Item bonuses and Pet Spells and Abilities, both available to Novices... what exactly is balanced here? Yeah, balance isn't exactly what I'd call "high on your agenda."

Next, you assert that this is a problem of great magnitude. I haven't seen a single thread complaining about Enchanted Treasure Cards. A plethora (such a good word, isn't it?) of people complain about the quite fair Schools of Balance, Storm, Ice, Myth, and Life, so trust me when I say that if it was a problem, someone would have piped up.
Also, if this was so problematic, why did you take 1 1/2 years of your sweet time to deal with it? Seeing as no one complained... why? Why not just let sleeping dogs lie?

Also, you say that this could be done for an, and I quote, "trivial amount of gold." Well, why not just increase the price of the Tough and Keeneyes cards to, say, 2000+? I highly doubt that people would want to blow 8000 Gold to make four Cards to trade; you could buy a Castle for that! The rarity of Enchanted Treasure Cards would increase by a theoretically astronomical (two more good words) amount.

Considering that the greatest misuse (in fact, the ONLY misuse) of Enchanted Treasure Cards was in the Arena, another good alternative would have been to ban Enchanted (or all) Treasure Cards in the Arena.

Level restrictions would also be better accepted. Say, for example, that someone wanted the Triton Spell. With this idea, they would have to be at least Level 35 (Level groups of 5 are common in Wizard 101, and quite easy to keep track of) in order to be able to accept an Enchanted Triton in a Trade.

A limit of the number of Enchanted Treasure Cards we could have at any one time (say, 1 per 10 Levels, so 1 at 1-9, 2 at 10-19, 3 at 20-29, etc.) is also a viable option.

Finally, if all else is intolerable (and it had better be so for an extremely good reason), you could allow us to place Treasure Cards, both normal and Enchanted, in our Shared Bank. That way, we could not use a Treasure Card we hadn't already earned.

-FoxFyr


Well said.

Explorer
Mar 11, 2010
62
FoxFyr wrote:

Now hang on. Hang on just a minute.

First of all, you state this is for the sake of balance. Hmm... obscene Crown Item bonuses and Pet Spells and Abilities, both available to Novices... what exactly is balanced here? Yeah, balance isn't exactly what I'd call "high on your agenda."

Next, you assert that this is a problem of great magnitude. I haven't seen a single thread complaining about Enchanted Treasure Cards. A plethora (such a good word, isn't it?) of people complain about the quite fair Schools of Balance, Storm, Ice, Myth, and Life, so trust me when I say that if it was a problem, someone would have piped up.
Also, if this was so problematic, why did you take 1 1/2 years of your sweet time to deal with it? Seeing as no one complained... why? Why not just let sleeping dogs lie?

Also, you say that this could be done for an, and I quote, "trivial amount of gold." Well, why not just increase the price of the Tough and Keeneyes cards to, say, 2000+? I highly doubt that people would want to blow 8000 Gold to make four Cards to trade; you could buy a Castle for that! The rarity of Enchanted Treasure Cards would increase by a theoretically astronomical (two more good words) amount.

Considering that the greatest misuse (in fact, the ONLY misuse) of Enchanted Treasure Cards was in the Arena, another good alternative would have been to ban Enchanted (or all) Treasure Cards in the Arena.

Level restrictions would also be better accepted. Say, for example, that someone wanted the Triton Spell. With this idea, they would have to be at least Level 35 (Level groups of 5 are common in Wizard 101, and quite easy to keep track of) in order to be able to accept an Enchanted Triton in a Trade.

A limit of the number of Enchanted Treasure Cards we could have at any one time (say, 1 per 10 Levels, so 1 at 1-9, 2 at 10-19, 3 at 20-29, etc.) is also a viable option.

Finally, if all else is intolerable (and it had better be so for an extremely good reason), you could allow us to place Treasure Cards, both normal and Enchanted, in our Shared Bank. That way, we could not use a Treasure Card we hadn't already earned.

-FoxFyr


I agree with you on one point, and that is the crowns gear. Everything else, however, is completely warped out of proportion (not to mention condescending, which, as you'll recall, I've said before... fix it). And once again, I'll tell you that the "ONLY misuse" of enchanted treasure cards was ANY TIME AT ALL. They were not intended to be used as they were; why should they be allowed to stay that way? As for letting sleeping dogs lie, I really don't think that's a good strategy. Imagine, perhaps, that a bug existed that allowed players to earn infinite amounts of gold extremely quickly. I doubt many people would complain about that... Does that mean that it should be left as it is? Just back down already and avoid the brouhaha (which is, incidentally, a much better word than plethora, theoretically, or astronomical) that this thread is going to create.

Regards,
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer

Mastermind
Jun 06, 2009
398
mythomagic6 wrote:
FoxFyr wrote:

Now hang on. Hang on just a minute.

First of all, you state this is for the sake of balance. Hmm... obscene Crown Item bonuses and Pet Spells and Abilities, both available to Novices... what exactly is balanced here? Yeah, balance isn't exactly what I'd call "high on your agenda."

Next, you assert that this is a problem of great magnitude. I haven't seen a single thread complaining about Enchanted Treasure Cards. A plethora (such a good word, isn't it?) of people complain about the quite fair Schools of Balance, Storm, Ice, Myth, and Life, so trust me when I say that if it was a problem, someone would have piped up.
Also, if this was so problematic, why did you take 1 1/2 years of your sweet time to deal with it? Seeing as no one complained... why? Why not just let sleeping dogs lie?

Also, you say that this could be done for an, and I quote, "trivial amount of gold." Well, why not just increase the price of the Tough and Keeneyes cards to, say, 2000+? I highly doubt that people would want to blow 8000 Gold to make four Cards to trade; you could buy a Castle for that! The rarity of Enchanted Treasure Cards would increase by a theoretically astronomical (two more good words) amount.

Considering that the greatest misuse (in fact, the ONLY misuse) of Enchanted Treasure Cards was in the Arena, another good alternative would have been to ban Enchanted (or all) Treasure Cards in the Arena.

Level restrictions would also be better accepted. Say, for example, that someone wanted the Triton Spell. With this idea, they would have to be at least Level 35 (Level groups of 5 are common in Wizard 101, and quite easy to keep track of) in order to be able to accept an Enchanted Triton in a Trade.

A limit of the number of Enchanted Treasure Cards we could have at any one time (say, 1 per 10 Levels, so 1 at 1-9, 2 at 10-19, 3 at 20-29, etc.) is also a viable option.

Finally, if all else is intolerable (and it had better be so for an extremely good reason), you could allow us to place Treasure Cards, both normal and Enchanted, in our Shared Bank. That way, we could not use a Treasure Card we hadn't already earned.

-FoxFyr


I agree with you on one point, and that is the crowns gear. Everything else, however, is completely warped out of proportion (not to mention condescending, which, as you'll recall, I've said before... fix it). And once again, I'll tell you that the "ONLY misuse" of enchanted treasure cards was ANY TIME AT ALL. They were not intended to be used as they were; why should they be allowed to stay that way? As for letting sleeping dogs lie, I really don't think that's a good strategy. Imagine, perhaps, that a bug existed that allowed players to earn infinite amounts of gold extremely quickly. I doubt many people would complain about that... Does that mean that it should be left as it is? Just back down already and avoid the brouhaha (which is, incidentally, a much better word than plethora, theoretically, or astronomical) that this thread is going to create.

Regards,
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer


And I repeat: look "condescending" up.

Now, if you could actually say HOW my post "warps things out of proportion" I might be inclined to - who knows? - take your presence on this thread seriously. Otherwise, it just looks like you want to suck up to KI (I repeat: just LOOKS LIKE).

Your example of a bug that gives Gold... that's a bug, not a game feature. So that example goes out the metaphorical (while we're listing good words, this one is... not so much) window.

As for Enchanted Treasure Card misuse, how exactly is a situation in which an NPC is the target, no one is hurt, and only an infinitesimal (now THERE'S a word for you) fraction of the player base (a maximum of four players) is assisted - how is that misuse? Do tell.

I highly doubt you actually did anything more than read the first few sentences... are you saying that you seriously don't think ANY of these ideas would have sufficed? Or do you just hate anyone who disagrees with you on principle (remember the argument in the original "Final Word" thread? That was highly entertaining! Though, I somehow remember you throwing in the towel)?

P.S.: Ipersonally prefer "pandemonium" to "brouhaha", although it is a good word.

P.P.S.: I hope you're not trying to use your character's Level to intimidate me somehow. I have a nasty tendency to stand up to my superiors, and take an almost sadistic pleasure in doing so to those who only think they're superior. So if you are, it's backfiring.

P.P.P.S.: Seeing as you seem intelligent, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not under the impression that you and you alone are allowed to use condescension.

Explorer
Jun 30, 2009
61
Well, if in the game they had any badges for:
Anarchist
Trouble Brewer
Brawl Starter
Havoc Bringer or
Chaos Caster, you would get it.

First off note the title.
Note a specific word in the title.
Final

Yes, final. That means there is going to be no more changes.
Second off, the crowns items are not all for Novices.
You aquire them throughout later stages of the game. The "Robes of the Deep" that give you triton are for level 45 and up, and cost $20 worth of crowns.
This is a problem of great magnitude. If you were fighting a GM life, wouldn't you be mad if the life could do a storm lord, or a GM storm could do a bartleby?
I quote "if it was so problematic, why did you take 1 1/2 years of your sweet time."
The more problematic it is, the longer it takes to deal with.
And if you changed the price of treasure cards to 2000+, you would be bankrupting storm wizards, trying to by accuracy spells for their wild bolts, you would be putting the life wizards in debt, while they try to buy spells to increase their centaurs damage.
Also, in several places you need to check your MUGS.
Mechanics
Usage
Grammar
Spelling.
Spelling most of all, *jean*us

Explorer
Mar 11, 2010
62
FoxFyr wrote:
mythomagic6 wrote:
FoxFyr wrote:

Now hang on. Hang on just a minute.

First of all, you state this is for the sake of balance. Hmm... obscene Crown Item bonuses and Pet Spells and Abilities, both available to Novices... what exactly is balanced here? Yeah, balance isn't exactly what I'd call "high on your agenda."

Next, you assert that this is a problem of great magnitude. I haven't seen a single thread complaining about Enchanted Treasure Cards. A plethora (such a good word, isn't it?) of people complain about the quite fair Schools of Balance, Storm, Ice, Myth, and Life, so trust me when I say that if it was a problem, someone would have piped up.
Also, if this was so problematic, why did you take 1 1/2 years of your sweet time to deal with it? Seeing as no one complained... why? Why not just let sleeping dogs lie?

Also, you say that this could be done for an, and I quote, "trivial amount of gold." Well, why not just increase the price of the Tough and Keeneyes cards to, say, 2000+? I highly doubt that people would want to blow 8000 Gold to make four Cards to trade; you could buy a Castle for that! The rarity of Enchanted Treasure Cards would increase by a theoretically astronomical (two more good words) amount.

Considering that the greatest misuse (in fact, the ONLY misuse) of Enchanted Treasure Cards was in the Arena, another good alternative would have been to ban Enchanted (or all) Treasure Cards in the Arena.

Level restrictions would also be better accepted. Say, for example, that someone wanted the Triton Spell. With this idea, they would have to be at least Level 35 (Level groups of 5 are common in Wizard 101, and quite easy to keep track of) in order to be able to accept an Enchanted Triton in a Trade.

A limit of the number of Enchanted Treasure Cards we could have at any one time (say, 1 per 10 Levels, so 1 at 1-9, 2 at 10-19, 3 at 20-29, etc.) is also a viable option.

Finally, if all else is intolerable (and it had better be so for an extremely good reason), you could allow us to place Treasure Cards, both normal and Enchanted, in our Shared Bank. That way, we could not use a Treasure Card we hadn't already earned.

-FoxFyr


I agree with you on one point, and that is the crowns gear. Everything else, however, is completely warped out of proportion (not to mention condescending, which, as you'll recall, I've said before... fix it). And once again, I'll tell you that the "ONLY misuse" of enchanted treasure cards was ANY TIME AT ALL. They were not intended to be used as they were; why should they be allowed to stay that way? As for letting sleeping dogs lie, I really don't think that's a good strategy. Imagine, perhaps, that a bug existed that allowed players to earn infinite amounts of gold extremely quickly. I doubt many people would complain about that... Does that mean that it should be left as it is? Just back down already and avoid the brouhaha (which is, incidentally, a much better word than plethora, theoretically, or astronomical) that this thread is going to create.

Regards,
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer


And I repeat: look "condescending" up.

Now, if you could actually say HOW my post "warps things out of proportion" I might be inclined to - who knows? - take your presence on this thread seriously. Otherwise, it just looks like you want to suck up to KI (I repeat: just LOOKS LIKE).

Your example of a bug that gives Gold... that's a bug, not a game feature. So that example goes out the metaphorical (while we're listing good words, this one is... not so much) window.

As for Enchanted Treasure Card misuse, how exactly is a situation in which an NPC is the target, no one is hurt, and only an infinitesimal (now THERE'S a word for you) fraction of the player base (a maximum of four players) is assisted - how is that misuse? Do tell.

I highly doubt you actually did anything more than read the first few sentences... are you saying that you seriously don't think ANY of these ideas would have sufficed? Or do you just hate anyone who disagrees with you on principle (remember the argument in the original "Final Word" thread? That was highly entertaining! Though, I somehow remember you throwing in the towel)?

P.S.: Ipersonally prefer "pandemonium" to "brouhaha", although it is a good word.

P.P.S.: I hope you're not trying to use your character's Level to intimidate me somehow. I have a nasty tendency to stand up to my superiors, and take an almost sadistic pleasure in doing so to those who only think they're superior. So if you are, it's backfiring.

P.P.P.S.: Seeing as you seem intelligent, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not under the impression that you and you alone are allowed to use condescension.


Technically the treasure cards being used as they were WAS a bug, just a long-lasting one. And once again, I'll tell you that it's more of an implied condescension than an overt one, which, in a way, makes it exponentially worse. As for warping things out of proportion, the solutions that it created were not as stupefyingly miraculous as you seem to make them out to be. I did, in fact, read through the entire post, although perhaps should have addressed the issues more specifically; if you so desire, perhaps I shall. As for throwing down the towel on the KI started thread? It gets intensely monotonous seeing the same arguments over and over and rebutting them the same way; I considered any further posting redundant.

Regards,
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer

P.S. ^All that is is my signature

Defender
Dec 17, 2008
178
I don't see whats wrong with how things currently are. Enchanted treasure cards were a huge problem before, and there were many threads that were complaining about it. Wild bolt was the most used enchanted treasure card used in PvP. Enchanted wild bolts had better accuracy, and with the use of accuracy boosting PvP gear, even more accurate than a grandmaster storm wizard in full grandmaster gear.

Since the update, the complaints about wild bolt have died down and are now barely existent.

As for gear that gives high level item cards to lower level wizards, there aren't many that I can think of, besides hybrid pets, which provide 1 of these upper level spells, which cost 5-7 pips to cast, and which do not have a base damage of 1000. Idk, but that sounds a lot better than wild bolt.

As for that level 35 triton robe, isn't that retired? It was one of those old crowns gear that is no longer sold...

Mastermind
Jun 06, 2009
398
Da1Meeper wrote:
Well, if in the game they had any badges for:
Anarchist
Trouble Brewer
Brawl Starter
Havoc Bringer or
Chaos Caster, you would get it.

First off note the title.
Note a specific word in the title.
Final

Yes, final. That means there is going to be no more changes.
Second off, the crowns items are not all for Novices.
You aquire them throughout later stages of the game. The "Robes of the Deep" that give you triton are for level 45 and up, and cost $20 worth of crowns.
This is a problem of great magnitude. If you were fighting a GM life, wouldn't you be mad if the life could do a storm lord, or a GM storm could do a bartleby?
I quote "if it was so problematic, why did you take 1 1/2 years of your sweet time."
The more problematic it is, the longer it takes to deal with.
And if you changed the price of treasure cards to 2000+, you would be bankrupting storm wizards, trying to by accuracy spells for their wild bolts, you would be putting the life wizards in debt, while they try to buy spells to increase their centaurs damage.
Also, in several places you need to check your MUGS.
Mechanics
Usage
Grammar
Spelling.
Spelling most of all, *jean*us


Oh my great-aunt's pet flea! I had NO IDEA that was what "Final" meant. Thank you SO much.

Well, the problem of obscene crown bonuses is still around; trying to deny it will only make us think less of you. No one wants that, am I right?

Funny how KingsIsle had time to implement the Mounts, take out certain Crown items, put new Crown items in, ban Enchanted Treasure Cards from the Bazaar, and throughout all of this seemed to forget about the Enchanted Treasure Cards being traded.

I've got some news for you: those particular Level 48 Spells aren't... really... that... extraordinary.

Storm Wizards were never, are not, and will never be required to use WildBolt. Ever. Not once. As for Centaur, Here's a novel concept: Blades and Traps! Also, at the levels at which those spells are obtained, one can expect a random drop of an Enchantment Card from enemies. This holds particularly true for Centaur.

Finally, I invite you to actually POINT OUT where you believe I made any errors with spelling, grammar, usage of words, or mechanics. I don't see any mistakes.


Mastermind
Jun 06, 2009
398
mythomagic6 wrote:
FoxFyr wrote:
mythomagic6 wrote:
FoxFyr wrote:

Now hang on. Hang on just a minute.

First of all, you state this is for the sake of balance. Hmm... obscene Crown Item bonuses and Pet Spells and Abilities, both available to Novices... what exactly is balanced here? Yeah, balance isn't exactly what I'd call "high on your agenda."

Next, you assert that this is a problem of great magnitude. I haven't seen a single thread complaining about Enchanted Treasure Cards. A plethora (such a good word, isn't it?) of people complain about the quite fair Schools of Balance, Storm, Ice, Myth, and Life, so trust me when I say that if it was a problem, someone would have piped up.
Also, if this was so problematic, why did you take 1 1/2 years of your sweet time to deal with it? Seeing as no one complained... why? Why not just let sleeping dogs lie?

Also, you say that this could be done for an, and I quote, "trivial amount of gold." Well, why not just increase the price of the Tough and Keeneyes cards to, say, 2000+? I highly doubt that people would want to blow 8000 Gold to make four Cards to trade; you could buy a Castle for that! The rarity of Enchanted Treasure Cards would increase by a theoretically astronomical (two more good words) amount.

Considering that the greatest misuse (in fact, the ONLY misuse) of Enchanted Treasure Cards was in the Arena, another good alternative would have been to ban Enchanted (or all) Treasure Cards in the Arena.

Level restrictions would also be better accepted. Say, for example, that someone wanted the Triton Spell. With this idea, they would have to be at least Level 35 (Level groups of 5 are common in Wizard 101, and quite easy to keep track of) in order to be able to accept an Enchanted Triton in a Trade.

A limit of the number of Enchanted Treasure Cards we could have at any one time (say, 1 per 10 Levels, so 1 at 1-9, 2 at 10-19, 3 at 20-29, etc.) is also a viable option.

Finally, if all else is intolerable (and it had better be so for an extremely good reason), you could allow us to place Treasure Cards, both normal and Enchanted, in our Shared Bank. That way, we could not use a Treasure Card we hadn't already earned.

-FoxFyr


I agree with you on one point, and that is the crowns gear. Everything else, however, is completely warped out of proportion (not to mention condescending, which, as you'll recall, I've said before... fix it). And once again, I'll tell you that the "ONLY misuse" of enchanted treasure cards was ANY TIME AT ALL. They were not intended to be used as they were; why should they be allowed to stay that way? As for letting sleeping dogs lie, I really don't think that's a good strategy. Imagine, perhaps, that a bug existed that allowed players to earn infinite amounts of gold extremely quickly. I doubt many people would complain about that... Does that mean that it should be left as it is? Just back down already and avoid the brouhaha (which is, incidentally, a much better word than plethora, theoretically, or astronomical) that this thread is going to create.

Regards,
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer


And I repeat: look "condescending" up.

Now, if you could actually say HOW my post "warps things out of proportion" I might be inclined to - who knows? - take your presence on this thread seriously. Otherwise, it just looks like you want to suck up to KI (I repeat: just LOOKS LIKE).

Your example of a bug that gives Gold... that's a bug, not a game feature. So that example goes out the metaphorical (while we're listing good words, this one is... not so much) window.

As for Enchanted Treasure Card misuse, how exactly is a situation in which an NPC is the target, no one is hurt, and only an infinitesimal (now THERE'S a word for you) fraction of the player base (a maximum of four players) is assisted - how is that misuse? Do tell.

I highly doubt you actually did anything more than read the first few sentences... are you saying that you seriously don't think ANY of these ideas would have sufficed? Or do you just hate anyone who disagrees with you on principle (remember the argument in the original "Final Word" thread? That was highly entertaining! Though, I somehow remember you throwing in the towel)?

P.S.: Ipersonally prefer "pandemonium" to "brouhaha", although it is a good word.

P.P.S.: I hope you're not trying to use your character's Level to intimidate me somehow. I have a nasty tendency to stand up to my superiors, and take an almost sadistic pleasure in doing so to those who only think they're superior. So if you are, it's backfiring.

P.P.P.S.: Seeing as you seem intelligent, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not under the impression that you and you alone are allowed to use condescension.


Technically the treasure cards being used as they were WAS a bug, just a long-lasting one. And once again, I'll tell you that it's more of an implied condescension than an overt one, which, in a way, makes it exponentially worse. As for warping things out of proportion, the solutions that it created were not as stupefyingly miraculous as you seem to make them out to be. I did, in fact, read through the entire post, although perhaps should have addressed the issues more specifically; if you so desire, perhaps I shall. As for throwing down the towel on the KI started thread? It gets intensely monotonous seeing the same arguments over and over and rebutting them the same way; I considered any further posting redundant.

Regards,
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer

P.S. ^All that is is my signature


Actually, KingsIsle was able to shut down the selling of Enchanted Treasure Cards in the Bazaar, so it's safe to say that they could have shut down the trading if they wanted to... if it were a bug, it would not have gone unnoticed by KingsIsle.

While we are on the topic of implied condescension... well, take a look at your last sentence in your most recent post.

I'm sorry, but I am incapable of finding anything in your disappointingly brief response on the "warping out of proportion" topic other than ambiguous and enigmatic drivel. I have no idea what you are talking about, and quite frankly, I suspect that was your intention; as it clearly isn't working in the way a person would want should that be their goal, I suggest specifics next time.

Also, I did not simply repetitively post the same arguments in the KingsIsle-initiated post, but thought of new material (let me rephrase that: I figured out another flaw in KingsIsle's reasoning) each time. We both did so; I will not insinuate that about you.

This IS getting rather fun, wouldn't you agree? I love a good verbal argument.

Illuminator
Feb 09, 2009
1469
What saddens me is that this could've been an incredulously (SAT word) persuasive argument (regardless of it being right or wrong) if it wasn't for the fact that it was sodden (another SAT word) with disdain and superciliousness (two SAT words in a row!). By reacting to KI's post in a somewhat irate (another SAT word) tone, you decimated (another SAT word) your chances of this post acquiring (another SAT word) anything but a preponderance (another SAT word) of belligerent (another SAT word) comments.

To speak candidly (another SAT word), I concur (another SAT word) with mythomagic6 when he called you out on your hyperbolic (another SAT word) attitude when you emphasized the erroneousness (*gasp* ANOTHER two SAT words in a row! Is this getting annoying yet?) of KI's decision and the effectiveness of your solutions. They weren't astonishing and I'm willing to bet KI thought of these solutions before you did, contemplated (another SAT word) them, and still, after much deliberation (another SAT word), made the decision they made.

What was most shocking to me was how profoundly you assailed (another SAT word) anyone who had a deviatory (another SAT word) mindset from yours. People think in diverse ways; it's part of what makes us individuals. Not everyone thinks like you. At the look of the comments on your post, it doesn't look like anyone thinks like you.

By the way, I looked up "condescending" in the dictionary as you so smugly suggested mythomagic6 to do. It reads, "Condescending- noun; behaving toward other people in a way that shows you consider yourself socially or intellectually superior to them." That definitely describes you! It even has your picture below the definition.

Explorer
Mar 11, 2010
62
AkihiroHattori5 wrote:
What saddens me is that this could've been an incredulously (SAT word) persuasive argument (regardless of it being right or wrong) if it wasn't for the fact that it was sodden (another SAT word) with disdain and superciliousness (two SAT words in a row!). By reacting to KI's post in a somewhat irate (another SAT word) tone, you decimated (another SAT word) your chances of this post acquiring (another SAT word) anything but a preponderance (another SAT word) of belligerent (another SAT word) comments.

To speak candidly (another SAT word), I concur (another SAT word) with mythomagic6 when he called you out on your hyperbolic (another SAT word) attitude when you emphasized the erroneousness (*gasp* ANOTHER two SAT words in a row! Is this getting annoying yet?) of KI's decision and the effectiveness of your solutions. They weren't astonishing and I'm willing to bet KI thought of these solutions before you did, contemplated (another SAT word) them, and still, after much deliberation (another SAT word), made the decision they made.

What was most shocking to me was how profoundly you assailed (another SAT word) anyone who had a deviatory (another SAT word) mindset from yours. People think in diverse ways; it's part of what makes us individuals. Not everyone thinks like you. At the look of the comments on your post, it doesn't look like anyone thinks like you.

By the way, I looked up "condescending" in the dictionary as you so smugly suggested mythomagic6 to do. It reads, "Condescending- noun; behaving toward other people in a way that shows you consider yourself socially or intellectually superior to them." That definitely describes you! It even has your picture below the definition.


As much as I like the backup, you're also rather obnoxious... No need to drape your reply with unnecessarily complicated words (several don't fit the situation; for example, it would be difficult for something to be "incredulously persuasive"... it just doesn't make sense). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for SAT words -- I've taken it three times -- but don't do it like you are, it's like you're sinking even below FoxFyr's level (and to you, FoxFyr, although you may disagree with me on several accounts, I rather like you :P ). By the way, to talk of concurring with me isn't very candid either.
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer
P.S. Condescending is an adjective, not a noun :?

Explorer
Mar 11, 2010
62
FoxFyr wrote:

Actually, KingsIsle was able to shut down the selling of Enchanted Treasure Cards in the Bazaar, so it's safe to say that they could have shut down the trading if they wanted to... if it were a bug, it would not have gone unnoticed by KingsIsle.

While we are on the topic of implied condescension... well, take a look at your last sentence in your most recent post.

I'm sorry, but I am incapable of finding anything in your disappointingly brief response on the "warping out of proportion" topic other than ambiguous and enigmatic drivel. I have no idea what you are talking about, and quite frankly, I suspect that was your intention; as it clearly isn't working in the way a person would want should that be their goal, I suggest specifics next time.

Also, I did not simply repetitively post the same arguments in the KingsIsle-initiated post, but thought of new material (let me rephrase that: I figured out another flaw in KingsIsle's reasoning) each time. We both did so; I will not insinuate that about you.

This IS getting rather fun, wouldn't you agree? I love a good verbal argument.


When I speak of warping things out of proportion, what I'm really referring to are your arguments back on the KI started thread, and I really don't feel like going back to read that (although if you really don't believe me, I'll go back and do so, as I stated previously). And I'm afraid that, contrary to what you may think, you did post the same argument over and over again, just under a different veil. Admittedly, not ALL of your arguments were repeated, but towards the end when neither of us was posting as much as we were previously, a bunch of little people were putting in their own arguments, most of which were almost directly copied from your original ones; this is, most of all, what turned me away.
And just like you, I've always loved arguing. As such, I very much hope this thread will go in .
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer
P.S. Rather than integrating my good words into my post, I've got a list here; exchanging vocabulary can be rather fun as well.
1. Paradigm
2. Quadragintesimal (one of my personal favorites)
3. Zwitterion (another personal favorite)
4. Decalcomania
and
5. (Oh, I really can't help but do this one... sorry!) Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis


Illuminator
Feb 09, 2009
1469
I guess I didn't make my point clear; it was intended to be obnoxious and show how peppering your argument with uncommonly used words doesn't enhance your argument, especially when you point it out.

Mastermind
Jun 06, 2009
398
mythomagic6 wrote:
AkihiroHattori5 wrote:
What saddens me is that this could've been an incredulously (SAT word) persuasive argument (regardless of it being right or wrong) if it wasn't for the fact that it was sodden (another SAT word) with disdain and superciliousness (two SAT words in a row!). By reacting to KI's post in a somewhat irate (another SAT word) tone, you decimated (another SAT word) your chances of this post acquiring (another SAT word) anything but a preponderance (another SAT word) of belligerent (another SAT word) comments.

To speak candidly (another SAT word), I concur (another SAT word) with mythomagic6 when he called you out on your hyperbolic (another SAT word) attitude when you emphasized the erroneousness (*gasp* ANOTHER two SAT words in a row! Is this getting annoying yet?) of KI's decision and the effectiveness of your solutions. They weren't astonishing and I'm willing to bet KI thought of these solutions before you did, contemplated (another SAT word) them, and still, after much deliberation (another SAT word), made the decision they made.

What was most shocking to me was how profoundly you assailed (another SAT word) anyone who had a deviatory (another SAT word) mindset from yours. People think in diverse ways; it's part of what makes us individuals. Not everyone thinks like you. At the look of the comments on your post, it doesn't look like anyone thinks like you.

By the way, I looked up "condescending" in the dictionary as you so smugly suggested mythomagic6 to do. It reads, "Condescending- noun; behaving toward other people in a way that shows you consider yourself socially or intellectually superior to them." That definitely describes you! It even has your picture below the definition.


As much as I like the backup, you're also rather obnoxious... No need to drape your reply with unnecessarily complicated words (several don't fit the situation; for example, it would be difficult for something to be "incredulously persuasive"... it just doesn't make sense). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for SAT words -- I've taken it three times -- but don't do it like you are, it's like you're sinking even below FoxFyr's level (and to you, FoxFyr, although you may disagree with me on several accounts, I rather like you :P ). By the way, to talk of concurring with me isn't very candid either.
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer
P.S. Condescending is an adjective, not a noun :?


Oh good, the feeling is mutual. This is somewhat awkward to say (and a certain group of people is probably going to get offended - so apologies in advance to them), but... well, you're basically the only person I have to really think to argue with. Intellectually stimulating - ahem - "heated debates" are the trademark of my nirvana.

Woah... "pneumonoultramicroscopicsililicovolcanoconiosis" is my favorite word! Admittedly I'm not entirely sure what it means (I think it's a lung disease), but it's the longest word I know (I think the longest word in the English language is 309 letters and means "someone who can see the future" but I'm unsure on that as well).

At any rate... if a bunch of "little people," as you so *condescendingly* put it, repeated my arguments... I'm hardly responsible for that.

I think I shall go back and read my posts on the KingsIsle-initiated thread more closely, to check for any redundancy I missed.

Here's some words I have... truth be told, "decalcomania" and "zwitterion (Gee, "hybrid" plus "ion." How exactly do I miss that German on the first read?)" are much more interesting.

- Zygomorphic
- Chalcolithic
- Inundate

Ciao for now,
Dugan DragonCloud, Level 46 Sorcerer and advancing (or WOULD BE, if not for that Tower of War... you'd have to be either brash, inebriate, or possessed of extremely advanced strategic skill to even think of soloing that)

Mastermind
Jun 06, 2009
398
matvince90 wrote:
I don't see whats wrong with how things currently are. Enchanted treasure cards were a huge problem before, and there were many threads that were complaining about it. Wild bolt was the most used enchanted treasure card used in PvP. Enchanted wild bolts had better accuracy, and with the use of accuracy boosting PvP gear, even more accurate than a grandmaster storm wizard in full grandmaster gear.

Since the update, the complaints about wild bolt have died down and are now barely existent.

As for gear that gives high level item cards to lower level wizards, there aren't many that I can think of, besides hybrid pets, which provide 1 of these upper level spells, which cost 5-7 pips to cast, and which do not have a base damage of 1000. Idk, but that sounds a lot better than wild bolt.

As for that level 35 triton robe, isn't that retired? It was one of those old crowns gear that is no longer sold...


Actually, having searched the Dorms, Ravenwood Commons, and even the PvP section of the Forum here, I can say with absolute certainty that there are no threads with a topic along the lines of "Enchanted Treasure Cards are bad, they should be banned."

Explorer
Mar 11, 2010
62
FoxFyr wrote:
mythomagic6 wrote:
AkihiroHattori5 wrote:
What saddens me is that this could've been an incredulously (SAT word) persuasive argument (regardless of it being right or wrong) if it wasn't for the fact that it was sodden (another SAT word) with disdain and superciliousness (two SAT words in a row!). By reacting to KI's post in a somewhat irate (another SAT word) tone, you decimated (another SAT word) your chances of this post acquiring (another SAT word) anything but a preponderance (another SAT word) of belligerent (another SAT word) comments.

To speak candidly (another SAT word), I concur (another SAT word) with mythomagic6 when he called you out on your hyperbolic (another SAT word) attitude when you emphasized the erroneousness (*gasp* ANOTHER two SAT words in a row! Is this getting annoying yet?) of KI's decision and the effectiveness of your solutions. They weren't astonishing and I'm willing to bet KI thought of these solutions before you did, contemplated (another SAT word) them, and still, after much deliberation (another SAT word), made the decision they made.

What was most shocking to me was how profoundly you assailed (another SAT word) anyone who had a deviatory (another SAT word) mindset from yours. People think in diverse ways; it's part of what makes us individuals. Not everyone thinks like you. At the look of the comments on your post, it doesn't look like anyone thinks like you.

By the way, I looked up "condescending" in the dictionary as you so smugly suggested mythomagic6 to do. It reads, "Condescending- noun; behaving toward other people in a way that shows you consider yourself socially or intellectually superior to them." That definitely describes you! It even has your picture below the definition.


As much as I like the backup, you're also rather obnoxious... No need to drape your reply with unnecessarily complicated words (several don't fit the situation; for example, it would be difficult for something to be "incredulously persuasive"... it just doesn't make sense). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for SAT words -- I've taken it three times -- but don't do it like you are, it's like you're sinking even below FoxFyr's level (and to you, FoxFyr, although you may disagree with me on several accounts, I rather like you :P ). By the way, to talk of concurring with me isn't very candid either.
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer
P.S. Condescending is an adjective, not a noun :?


Oh good, the feeling is mutual. This is somewhat awkward to say (and a certain group of people is probably going to get offended - so apologies in advance to them), but... well, you're basically the only person I have to really think to argue with. Intellectually stimulating - ahem - "heated debates" are the trademark of my nirvana.

Woah... "pneumonoultramicroscopicsililicovolcanoconiosis" is my favorite word! Admittedly I'm not entirely sure what it means (I think it's a lung disease), but it's the longest word I know (I think the longest word in the English language is 309 letters and means "someone who can see the future" but I'm unsure on that as well).

At any rate... if a bunch of "little people," as you so *condescendingly* put it, repeated my arguments... I'm hardly responsible for that.

I think I shall go back and read my posts on the KingsIsle-initiated thread more closely, to check for any redundancy I missed.

Here's some words I have... truth be told, "decalcomania" and "zwitterion (Gee, "hybrid" plus "ion." How exactly do I miss that German on the first read?)" are much more interesting.

- Zygomorphic
- Chalcolithic
- Inundate

Ciao for now,
Dugan DragonCloud, Level 46 Sorcerer and advancing (or WOULD BE, if not for that Tower of War... you'd have to be either brash, inebriate, or possessed of extremely advanced strategic skill to even think of soloing that)


Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is a form of silicosis (indeed, it's a lung disease) caused by microscopic particles of volcanic ash. As far as I know, the longest word in the English language contains 189,819 letters, and is the full name of the largest protein known to man (also called "titin"). As for "zwitterion", it is a particle that is both positively and negatively charged (it has something to do with polarity, but I'm more a physics person than a chemistry person ).
I think I'll pull out some more obscure ones here...
1. Quaquaversal
2. Quadrumanous
3. Quadrivoltine

Until next time,
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer (and, if I were to come across you, I'd be more than willing to help you through the Tower of War)

Mastermind
Jun 06, 2009
398
mythomagic6 wrote:
FoxFyr wrote:
mythomagic6 wrote:
AkihiroHattori5 wrote:
What saddens me is that this could've been an incredulously (SAT word) persuasive argument (regardless of it being right or wrong) if it wasn't for the fact that it was sodden (another SAT word) with disdain and superciliousness (two SAT words in a row!). By reacting to KI's post in a somewhat irate (another SAT word) tone, you decimated (another SAT word) your chances of this post acquiring (another SAT word) anything but a preponderance (another SAT word) of belligerent (another SAT word) comments.

To speak candidly (another SAT word), I concur (another SAT word) with mythomagic6 when he called you out on your hyperbolic (another SAT word) attitude when you emphasized the erroneousness (*gasp* ANOTHER two SAT words in a row! Is this getting annoying yet?) of KI's decision and the effectiveness of your solutions. They weren't astonishing and I'm willing to bet KI thought of these solutions before you did, contemplated (another SAT word) them, and still, after much deliberation (another SAT word), made the decision they made.

What was most shocking to me was how profoundly you assailed (another SAT word) anyone who had a deviatory (another SAT word) mindset from yours. People think in diverse ways; it's part of what makes us individuals. Not everyone thinks like you. At the look of the comments on your post, it doesn't look like anyone thinks like you.

By the way, I looked up "condescending" in the dictionary as you so smugly suggested mythomagic6 to do. It reads, "Condescending- noun; behaving toward other people in a way that shows you consider yourself socially or intellectually superior to them." That definitely describes you! It even has your picture below the definition.


As much as I like the backup, you're also rather obnoxious... No need to drape your reply with unnecessarily complicated words (several don't fit the situation; for example, it would be difficult for something to be "incredulously persuasive"... it just doesn't make sense). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for SAT words -- I've taken it three times -- but don't do it like you are, it's like you're sinking even below FoxFyr's level (and to you, FoxFyr, although you may disagree with me on several accounts, I rather like you :P ). By the way, to talk of concurring with me isn't very candid either.
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer
P.S. Condescending is an adjective, not a noun :?


Oh good, the feeling is mutual. This is somewhat awkward to say (and a certain group of people is probably going to get offended - so apologies in advance to them), but... well, you're basically the only person I have to really think to argue with. Intellectually stimulating - ahem - "heated debates" are the trademark of my nirvana.

Woah... "pneumonoultramicroscopicsililicovolcanoconiosis" is my favorite word! Admittedly I'm not entirely sure what it means (I think it's a lung disease), but it's the longest word I know (I think the longest word in the English language is 309 letters and means "someone who can see the future" but I'm unsure on that as well).

At any rate... if a bunch of "little people," as you so *condescendingly* put it, repeated my arguments... I'm hardly responsible for that.

I think I shall go back and read my posts on the KingsIsle-initiated thread more closely, to check for any redundancy I missed.

Here's some words I have... truth be told, "decalcomania" and "zwitterion (Gee, "hybrid" plus "ion." How exactly do I miss that German on the first read?)" are much more interesting.

- Zygomorphic
- Chalcolithic
- Inundate

Ciao for now,
Dugan DragonCloud, Level 46 Sorcerer and advancing (or WOULD BE, if not for that Tower of War... you'd have to be either brash, inebriate, or possessed of extremely advanced strategic skill to even think of soloing that)


Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is a form of silicosis (indeed, it's a lung disease) caused by microscopic particles of volcanic ash. As far as I know, the longest word in the English language contains 189,819 letters, and is the full name of the largest protein known to man (also called "titin"). As for "zwitterion", it is a particle that is both positively and negatively charged (it has something to do with polarity, but I'm more a physics person than a chemistry person ).
I think I'll pull out some more obscure ones here...
1. Quaquaversal
2. Quadrumanous
3. Quadrivoltine

Until next time,
Jacob Deathbringer, Grandmaster Necromancer (and, if I were to come across you, I'd be more than willing to help you through the Tower of War)


HOLY CHEESE ON RYE!! The longest word is equal to or longer than 189,819 letters?

By the way, I checked my posts on the KingsIsle-created thread, and... "THE RESULTS ARE IN!"* While I did indeed repeat some of my points and/or ideas, I gave warning ("Here's a recap," "I have gone over this before," etc.). I still miss the TCBM... and had only just banished it from my mind when I had to read the posts over. Dang it.

Anyway, I'm not at a peak word-wise, so...

inassumptious
ennui
inimical

*That was quoted from someone in the KingsIsle-initiated thread... "lizardlord" to be precise.

Mastermind
Jun 06, 2009
398
AkihiroHattori5 wrote:
What saddens me is that this could've been an incredulously (SAT word) persuasive argument (regardless of it being right or wrong) if it wasn't for the fact that it was sodden (another SAT word) with disdain and superciliousness (two SAT words in a row!). By reacting to KI's post in a somewhat irate (another SAT word) tone, you decimated (another SAT word) your chances of this post acquiring (another SAT word) anything but a preponderance (another SAT word) of belligerent (another SAT word) comments.

To speak candidly (another SAT word), I concur (another SAT word) with mythomagic6 when he called you out on your hyperbolic (another SAT word) attitude when you emphasized the erroneousness (*gasp* ANOTHER two SAT words in a row! Is this getting annoying yet?) of KI's decision and the effectiveness of your solutions. They weren't astonishing and I'm willing to bet KI thought of these solutions before you did, contemplated (another SAT word) them, and still, after much deliberation (another SAT word), made the decision they made.

What was most shocking to me was how profoundly you assailed (another SAT word) anyone who had a deviatory (another SAT word) mindset from yours. People think in diverse ways; it's part of what makes us individuals. Not everyone thinks like you. At the look of the comments on your post, it doesn't look like anyone thinks like you.

By the way, I looked up "condescending" in the dictionary as you so smugly suggested mythomagic6 to do. It reads, "Condescending- noun; behaving toward other people in a way that shows you consider yourself socially or intellectually superior to them." That definitely describes you! It even has your picture below the definition.


Okay, let's start off by pointing out that neither mythomagic6 nor I are anywhere near as prolific as you in this post, "SAT-word (Tch. Layman's terms)"-wise. By the way, if a word as mind-bogglingly simple as "irate," "sodden," or "concur" is on the SAT as a word of interest, then this is indeed a failure of a country.

Also, I recommend proper usage of those - ahem - "trademarks of an advanced vocabulary" in your future posts. To speak candidly means to speak without bias; agreeing with either one of us completely negates that word. Also, "incredulous" means "disbelieving;" a "disbelievingly persuasive" argument... well, that can be construed as an oxymoron.

It is also worth pointing out that nowhere in my original post did I "profoundly assail" any posters with a "deviatory mindset."

And of course my post had a "somewhat irate" tone; I AM somewhat irate!

"Condescending," as mythomagic6 so correctly pointed out, is an adjective, not a noun. It is defined as "showing or characterizard by condescension (great dictionary, am I right?)" which is defined as "voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior." Mythomagic6 semms to have a good job and a colege degree; I don't have my master's yet. How exactly is he my inferior?

Administrator