Liam Vs Sanc

[TheRock]

Rocko, the simple fact is that allowing one person to make changes because you paid for it, opens the door for others to claim they should be able to do the same if they pay for it. You are not paying for a service, because it's not a service that can be open to everyone. It's a bribe to get changes YOU like. Yea, not gonna happen.

Why can't it be open to everyone?

As long as people are qualified to do it, I wouldn't mind other people doing it, either. Let the Trollfags take up a collection for Realest. Let BIO pool for flogger. I don't care. Let's let EVERYONE try and pay for it. Why would that be a bad thing? Arcadia makes more money? Winning. Players get good changes? Winning.

You say "not paying for a service" because "it's not a service that can be open to everyone". I'm not sure you understand how services work, but one of the requirements is not that they be open to everyone. I also never said anything about changes I like, just changes that don't suck.

I feel like baka and Kuhan are agreeing with me, even though they say they don't.

"Do the changes suck though? Sure". "

Not for game mechanics changes tho lol, itd be backwards for that: jd > bishop > devs. "

Nobody's overly thrilled with the way things go now (sorry, Sean and Brian, but it's true - you two do a nice job supporting the game, but this latest round of changes looks even more like a troll than the last round). Here's an opportunity to make the changes GREAT, but all everyone wants to get hung up on is, "This guy plays in a kingdom that usually does well, we can't trust him!!!" Ridiculous. I'm a capitalist, though - take up a competing collection, highest bid wins. Sean and Brian can put their caps on what can and can't be changed (ie, no saying "EVERY RACE WILL NOW BE NAMED AFTER DEAD GAY PORN STARS") and go from there.

[Bishop]

You might persuade the devs to allow donations for a particular feature, but paying to allow someone to make changes is a whole different kettle of fish.

[DHaran]

You're also getting all bent out of shape over the prelim changes, which are always improved based on player feedback. Jdorje can just keep making suggestions and get support as he has been, that's how changes get made and will continue to get made. If I'm not mistaken the proposed change to the bounce meter was his idea. Good ideas get heard.

[Ezzerland]

You might persuade the devs to allow donations for a particular feature, but paying to allow someone to make changes is a whole different kettle of fish.

imho, this is a matter of perspective. Paying to be granted an audience vs paying to bend over and do what you're told. Quite a huge difference between my perspective and yours.

[Bishop]

Your perspective isn't the one that makes these decisions though, I'm just laying it out as it stands.

[TheRock]

You might persuade the devs to allow donations for a particular feature, but paying to allow someone to make changes is a whole different kettle of fish.

Paying for an individual feature would be like asking a doctor to fix only one of your 10 broken fingers. Might help a little but typing would still suck ;)

You're also getting all bent out of shape over the prelim changes, which are always improved based on player feedback. Jdorje can just keep making suggestions and get support as he has been, that's how changes get made and will continue to get made. If I'm not mistaken the proposed change to the bounce meter was his idea. Good ideas get heard.

I'm bent out of shape about the system through which the changes are made, because from what we've seen for ages, they aren't great. Sure, this latest round is preliminary, but you and I went over just how bad they are, to the point where there is zero reason to play FIVE races. Think about that. Those changes were for our consideration, yet over half the races are just useless.

The idea of a democracy of knowledge is a fantasy. The 80/20 rule wouldn't even apply here - this is more like the 99.9/.1 rule, where .1% of the players know 99.9% of the game, compared to less than half for most. To have a post somewhere that all people can respond to changes is a nice, democratic idea, but it's foolish. Most people do not understand the game well enough to come up with the sweeping comprehensive changes that would make the game significantly better.

I'm not saying that to boast - I don't put myself in that group, at all. That's part of the reason I don't post in those silly response threads. The other reason is the sheer volume of noise. This "democracy of knowledge", that everyone should have an opinion, is silly.

Baka's idea that we're all stuck with the same bad changes completely ignores that they're bad changes. I'm not questioning the validity of that statement, it's just completely irrelevant. I'm not questioning fairness - we all start with the same 400 acres. I'm questioning playability and enjoyability. The game's features and dynamics could be made significantly better.

Bishop, I've spoken with you in private about this. Without a guarantee of any kind of voice, I'm not sure how to persuade people to put in the time and effort.

[KuhaN]

You're also getting all bent out of shape over the prelim changes, which are always improved based on player feedback. Jdorje can just keep making suggestions and get support as he has been, that's how changes get made and will continue to get made. If I'm not mistaken the proposed change to the bounce meter was his idea. Good ideas get heard.

True.

Jd also was spamming about making ud offense losses not -100%, which got heard.

I really liked his game mechanics changes thread though, so if bishop/devs can look at that thread again and get some ideas from it, it'd be awesome (unless you already have ofc).

[Realest]

but that's the problem in the system - you have to wade through spam before good **** gets heard. I am aware Bishop does a great job filtering a majority of the junk already, but it's just the nature of the beast that if you are overwhelmed with too much, some things will inevitably slip through the cracks.

How many ages have I had to spam instant war spoils at war end for it to finally be introduced? What purpose do basic race tinkers change when the core construct is what is broken? Seeking race parity is just a fruitless endeavour because it's never going to be achieved.

If dorje's playing is the reason why you won't listen to him, what if dorje pledges to sit out an age? You have advanced anti-cheat tools now, so it shouldnt be hard to hold him to a 1 age break. Is that what it'll take? Get ASF to sit out, get flogger, get me, get whoever. For every excuse you have as to why this can't happen, we can offer an equally valid counter proposal. It just depends if improving the game is really the forefront of your aims.

[Ezzerland]

Your perspective isn't the one that makes these decisions though, I'm just laying it out as it stands.

Right, which is why I offer an alternative to yours.

[Bishop]

Right, which is why I offer an alternative to yours.

I didnt get it then, use smaller words :p

[jamaica]

I agree with TheRock. I'm ignoring the "pay" thing, bc it's the principles that I agree with (not the money part.)

Think about it, every age the race&pers changes happen without warrant or consistency. The devs have been good at releasing "aesthetic" changes recently, but there is no insight towards the type of gameplay they are trying to achieve. In other words, there is little rhyme or reason with the r&p changes, yet every single age people just pick the best option (which is easily identifiable nowadays.)

The common Utopian is content with mediocre r&p changes - but only because it's the norm. I think it's time to bust the norm.

[Bishop]

I can assure you that the age changes aren't just arbitrarily decided.

[Palem]

I vote that next age changes are arbitrarily decided.

Rock Paper Scissors tournament to decide which random bonuses/penalties are put in!