Board Thread:General Mod Discussion/@comment-26149161-20150731144946/@comment-27689279-20150803053227

LOTRMod wrote: First of all, I would like to say, I agree completely with the point about how treating myself and the admins as some kind of gods is unncessary, annoying, and silly. And maybe even blasphemous!

However, that doesn't mean everyone's opinions about the mod carry equal efficacy. Because at the end of the day, I am the one making the mod. I'm the one putting the work in, and it is absolutely not a community project as you seem to be implying. This is still my personal project, regardless of how large the fanbase gets, and I do it solely for my own personal enjoyment. If I stopped enjoying it, the mod would stop.

That might seem selfish, or arrogant, but I honestly assure you it's really not either of those; rather, I am a real person with a real life who makes this mod as a hobby (as you have stated, yes) and I wouldn't sink so much time into something if I didn't enjoy it.

And since you like them so much, here's a fallacy for you.

(Advice: linking to logical fallacies doesn't really help a cause. Most people aren't familiar with 'logical fallacies', and linking people to a site like that will only alienate them. It's much better to explain in your response why what the other person said is inaccurate, and leave out any explicit mentions of 'logical fallacy' entirely, as I will now go on to do)

I think the gold armour in the movie is completely unfitting of wood-elves, being far more suited to high elves or something from the first age. However, I will also admit that I made the current texture years ago in about half an hour and didn't put a great deal of effort into it, since by then I had made so many armour textures that it was starting to bore me. There certainly could be a better option, but there are many other options beside the two that currently present themselves.

Your opinion that the gold armour is good is just that, an opinion, although you may personally think that opinion is more valid. Both the movie and mod armours were designed based on what some person thought would look nice. In both cases this 'look good' was justified with references to lore. But someone still had to decide which elements of lore to draw from and which to assign less importance to.

The point about Rohan chainmail is a good one. I had heard that occasionally before, but this has made me realise that it's quite important, and I will now go to implement that in due course.

As regards the bosses: a mod that ignores lore for the sake of gameplay would be an abomination; a mod that ignores gameplay to follow lore entirely would be boring and not suited to the game medium. I tried to find a middle ground, with bosses that don't explicitly contradict Tolkien. The mod at least does better in that respect than things like LOTRO or SOM which invent loads of completely new creatures. So as I was scrolling through my email and deleting post notifications of people beating the dead horse (my past posts speak for themselves and disprove them all, check back if you need to), I came across this one. Since the "almighty" Mevans [sarcasm] has decided to come forth, I will take the opportunity to slip in another response and take the message straight to the top.

I now have it straight from you, certain things that the admins hastily tried to assume (and blindly wave around); and for that, they now have some grounds for the claims of: yes, it's not only your mod solely, but you get to decide what to do with it. I was never implying that it was a "community project" or "open sourced" like you made it sound (where the community gets to directly help you create the mod), I was pointing out that clearly there is a Suggestion forum and LoD, which means to a certain degree you are open to outside input. This is that outside input. Whether you want to take it or not is entirely up to you, but if you don't, that's why a resource pack exists. Getting the design in the mod is not my sole objective with this discussion, and I'll get to that later in my response.

To even try and cite that fallacy on any of my claims clearly shows that you did not read them thoroughly enough, or simply misused it in hopes to undermine the clear logical and factual reasons I've given, unlike the admins, who've been citing from their own personal opinions and feelings (which is mostly [but not only] where a fallacy can be used). This "fallacy" implies that I presented only 2 clear options (thus "black and white"), when in fact I presented much more. From not only just implementing the whole armor, to creating an entirely new unit, to adding only certain parts, and more; the assumption of the topic only being "add it whole or don't add it at all" ("black and white") is false. And logical fallacies are very important on determining the factual basis of a claim, and can be used at any time to disprove a claim (should the fallacy match the claim, in this case I just proved yours does not). Whether the opposing individual is aware of such fallacies, is their own problem and loss.

Even now do you only cite "I think" as some kind of factual basis, and nothing of "why" it doesn't make factual sense to be added. "More suited to High Elves or First Age", how? There is no specific quote in the book which favors High Elves over Wood-elves for a specific armor color. Is it the color? The gold and red in the movie Wood-elven design has many book lore and cultural ties in the Mirkwood forest, despite the constant blind criticism that it's "uncanon". And someone recently tried to cite "Greenwood" (the color in the name as some kind of source) and "blending into the forest" as some kind of backing for the current armor? It is no longer called that, but "Mirkwood", and forest camoflauge is completely irrelevant in a large scale field battle, where these Wood-elven soldiers are present in the lore, this is undeniable (notably the Plains of Dagorlad [Last Alliance], plains of Erebor and Dale). The whole assumption that they need some kind of "camoflauge" with the green, in an open field combat setting, is unnecessary and illogical, as in large scale soldier battles like these, they charged head on in the open, not "sneaking up on". This was made clear in the past (maybe check previous threads), but I will bring this defense back into this thread for the sake of context. With that said, the disproven issue of "camoflauge" and the subjective issue of color is out of the question. Now going into the objective, it is undeniablly clear to see which presents objectively more: plain vs detail, horns, etc. This simple fact, which is clearly observable by you, me, and anyone else putting the two side-by-side, is what you and the admins continually try to deny.

Despite your and the admins' inability to respond with any fact (other than "I think"), and all the logic put forward in my statements, why else then would the movie design have a negative or unproductive result on the mod that you make it seem? It has lore and cultural ties to the book, so there's no way you or anyone can write it off as "uncanon" anymore. I've presented all the ties and logical reasons why it makes sense in an army setting. You said you were "bored" when you had to make it because there were bigger tasks to be completed; the work that the movies did for design has already been done for you, including the lore research and development behind it. Because of this, there's literally no effort required in thinking of something new that would "bore" you, only implementation. There is no other answer as to why it "can't be added" other than biased and subjective reasons. My claims are merely just stating the visibly obvious, not from my personal feelings, which does not make them "opinion" like yours and many of the admins' posts (which heavily rely on "I think").

Even with the facts, despite the logic, and despite the favor that the movie design has received from people who've used it, you may choose never to implement it, whether as a whole, parts, or what not. And again that's why the resource pack exists, for those who are willing to break out of the closed mentality. But it also doesn't hurt to put these things forward, in hopes to seek an improvement for all. If I may cite, Taylor Swift vs. Apple (don't get the wrong impression from this example, I am far from a fan of hers, but it's a very specific example that relates to the issue at hand). She isn't part of direct development at Apple, merely a user in their ecosystem of music (the community in relation to you). But when they [Apple] made a decision that she (and other artists) knew went against all logical and factual grounds, she did not hesitate to write a letter and seek improvement in their service. That is essentially what is going on here. Would change, at your hand, be nice (this is in relation to Apple going back on their decision)? Absolutely; but the signs show the latter, and I haven't set my hopes high in it ever happening. But going back to the start of my response, getting the design in the mod is not my sole objective in this discussion.

Going back to the root of it all, I was responding to a specific point in the Suggestion forum that stated:

"Changing (fill in the blank) to look more like the movie." Mevans bases this mod off book lore, so no more of this. -Edacnik

This statement really spoke out to me (and apparentlly others, as I wasn't the one who started this new thread in the first place). Mainly because it makes no logical and factual sense (I've already proved why), yet the admins go around and write off some actual great design suggestions with this assumption. In this discussion, both in that thread and the present, I have disproved this closed minded, biased mentality, as a mere unwillingness to accept the objectively better movie designs because of a deep bias to the books (which possesses no factual backing whatsoever; if it did, there wouldn't be so many "I thinks").

If an "admin", who is just as much a person as the rest of us, honestly believes that he has the right to speak down to the rest of us, in matters of what our choices are (as Sinth put it earlier in this thread) or what there should be "no more of" (even when the suggestions are not even uncanon), on the basis that we're "just users", is what you yourself addressed in your own statement. That the exaggerated reverence these admins seem to think they are entitled to needs to end. Because it's a very tragic sight to see an admin put forward something as illogical and factually incorrect as the quote above, and see the rest of the community back down in awe and blind trust. And the closed minded mentality against movie design needs to end as well, because it is factually incorrect. That is all; there is no animosity from my end, I am simply pointing out a change which holds no negatives, only benefits, and has the right to be known and considered. And that this illogical bias coming from the admins should be done away with, because it misleads many of the other users that use this Wiki.

And now that we're nearing to a definite ending to this discussion (I sincerely hope, as there's really nothing left to prove, only defend my integrity that is very capable of being twisted), I would like to sum up the core of my stance. Expose and expell the blind book bias against movie design (not timeline and lore), which has been undeniably shown to be factually incorrect. All at the same time injecting the possibility of the movie design (such as, but mainly, the Wood-elven armor design), since the discussion was on the topic of movie design. I provide these lengthy factual standpoints to back my claims, keep the discussion on a logical plane (and out of the plane of personal attacks, direct name calling, etc. Which has unfortunately happened towards me), and all at the same time to disprove the delusional bashing of movie design. This bashing is based on the claim "the mod is based off book lore", when movie designs are, more or less, also based on the book; making the admin point above (directly quoted) and the mentality that goes with it (which many of the other admins reflect as well) uncalled for, unecessary, and factually misleading for the rest of the community. It should not be implied that from these lengthy posts, I am trying to force anything on you; I am merely injecting the possibility of these changes on the grounds of the discussion: movie design.

I respect the work you've done on the mod as a whole, Mevans. I have put before you facts, agreement where it's due, and a prospect of a wider horizon (more openness to movie design). Again however you choose to internalize all of it is entirely up to you, and that isn't for me to argue against. But despite the very high possibility you will choose the latter, and even if I have something to fall back on (the resource pack), one thing remains apparent: everything that I've stated, about the possible changes and towards the blind book bias, are true, and backed by real observable evidence. It is in this, that I aimed for in the discussion: disproving the bias against movie design specifically, but also slipping in the prospect of some changes based on some movie designs as a secondary objective (but it doesn't make it any less important to me and others, just not necessarily the highlight of my stance). Any offense, disrespect, or resentment taken from any of my statements is a result of misinterpretation or twisting of my points.

 Elvenking of the Woodland Realm  05:32, August 3, 2015 (UTC)