It is what happened, I just checked the entire thread. Even YOU posted after Bishop said the change was final and questioned whether it should have been reworked instead of removed.Originally Posted by Palem
You said:
"I'm still waiting on a proper explaination of why fog needs to be removed instead of tweeked..."
That is a quote from YOU Palem, about four hours after Bishop had said:
"Fog is gone, its not coming back."
DHaren said:
"Then they shouldn't complain when changes get made that they don't like. If you don't contribute to the discussion you have no grounds to complain IMO."
Other people said things like:
"People ARE contributing to the discussion now that they are proposed changes. That's the whole POINT of posting proposed changes before posting the final changes so people can discuss them before they are set in stone. However, flat out stating that FOG is removed and never coming back, even though a lot of people want it to stay in the game is stupid. Bishop needs to put his blunt down and start listening to what people are saying.
Do you suggest we just make random posts during an age saying how much we like a certain spell? If we don't, are we therefore not allowed an opinion during end of age change discussions? How stupid is that?"
"To Bishop, Palem and DHaran,
Isn't the whole point of 'potential' changes for us to debate whether the change should happen or not? If Sean and Brian have already decided to remove Fog, then please just put it in the 'potential' changes that it is not 'potential' at all, it will be removed for sure. This will cut down on the debate about the matter. If Sean and Brian have not made a decision to remove it for sure, then I feel that moderators have a responsibility to pass on the message to them that the community still feels that Fog is an important game component. Moderators do NOT represent the views of the majority and if moderators are biased or only listen selectively, then you might just as well call it the moderators' changes and be done with it.
So, what I would like to know is that whether Fog removal is already decided by Sean and Brian or was it decided by the moderators?"
And even (Posted by Palem):
"Keep it civil guys.
Quite frankly, I don't care about the number of people for or against fog. If it's the right decision it's the right decision. I just want to be sure that it is the right decision.
My beef with removing fog is that you're removing a very significant strategical element from the game and this is supposed to be a strategy game. Fog is so very important that kds plan their ages AROUND fog. The only understandable reasoning I could find for it's removal was that it "causes less activity" and while I won't go on a ridiculous tirade (seriously, removing Plague? lol) I will point out...that's kind of the aim behind EVERY strategy. You chain people so they'll overpop and might miss a hit. You try to get better attack times than your opponent so you can outhit them. You come up with a good strategy to minimize the effectiveness of the enemy's hits. At the very least why isn't fog the same as chaining? Fog is really just speaking directly to the nature of the beast...
If the devs think Fog is overpowered, sure, I'll even agree with them, but why hastily do away with it? The only reason to do that is if the concept itself if harmful to the game. Fog is only harmful to the game if it's not appropriately open to countering, which in it's current state, it's not (I don't agree, but I'm reasonable enough to give in that perhaps it's too tough). So then change it. Make it a One-time spell, make it %-based, make it that you don't need to run an extra 30% rax to counter, but another 5% maybe.
I don't want to see this game dumbed down."
Not trying to rile anything up, just clearing up facts. Once the potential changes are posted, discussion of the changes is irrelevant since they are already going to happen.
Reply With Quote