Your blog post makes you sound like an egotistical asshole and takes a “my way is the only way” approach.
I mean, if the shoe fits and all that.
This is where you need some “take a bow” gif
I’m also baffled at the irrational and violent responses you generated. Okay, we should know better than to expect an audience that is receptive to logic. But still….
He’s getting a terrible response to the idea because it’s a terrible idea. The #1 crisis for NA and EU is that the population is dwindling. The reaction is so severe because it will drive players away and no one is going to resub because “break on gank” is introduced.
The real irony is that there are some good ideas that could bring players back that came out of the MVP discussions but those have been completely lost due to this controversy. If Syncaine hadn’t been as gung-ho to defend the idea, I suspect that the topics coming out of MVP would have been perceived more positively.
I would reply to your arguments, but you didn’t make any, you just question-begged over and over.
LOL – I was simply commenting on why he’s getting a bad reaction. I actually find the controversy it has caused to be more interesting than the actual suggestion itself.
Also, truth is, I like Syncaine and he’s already getting enough of an earful elsewhere that he doesn’t need me to follow him here to his place on the internet and keep hitting him with the same sticks and stones that are already being thrown at him.
LOL — I was simply commenting on the fact that you didn’t bother to support any of your dubious claims.
Also, truth is, I like honesty, and pretending that failing to support your insults with logical thought somehow makes them less insulting is quite disingenuous.
I have no problem backing up my comments. Here you go.
I’ll get to that post later with a reply post here. Spoiler alert: It’s not outright wrong, it just doesn’t connect the dots correctly.
At best you can maybe argue chicken and egg, but frankly the economy in DF has to be fixed if the game is ever going to work. SynCaine’s suggestion is about as good as a chance of that happening as anything and most critically AV is displaying some sort of interest in it! As a player base we should be jumping all over that.
The population ‘fixes’ that people like Uzik and yourself seem to be pushing are also important. Finishing content needs to be on the AV calendar. HOWEVER, the faucet/sink balance will be yet another game killer it was left at is currently is in game. AV should fix it while they evidently have the interest, and while doing that they could be a lot worse off than taking a hard look at EVE Online – a sandbox MMO economy done right.
@Syn- I believe I understand how you want the dots to connect, I just don’t believe they will connect that way. :)
I believe your vision is that if all the high-end tier gear is somehow removed from the game, people will be forced to run around in R30s and low-tier gear will become more valuable. The diversity will make the whole economy that much brighter because all this gear that’s not useful will become useful again.
And of course, the gear vacuum will force everyone outside of their holdings/safe zones because the world will be full of people happily hunting shiny little pixels.
That’s what I mean about an idealistic view of the world. That’s simply not a practical outcome of AV making this change.
@Rynnik- I hear the concern that great changes that brings people back won’t mean much if they won’t stay because the economy remains broken. I just don’t agree with the assumption that people left in the first place because of the economy (other than the complaint that there wasn’t enough “sand” for the sandbox).
“I just don’t agree with the assumption that people left in the first place because of the economy (other than the complaint that there wasn’t enough “sand” for the sandbox).”
Yah, fair. That isn’t my assumption though. People left for lots of reasons, but I DO assume that successful economic game play will stand in the way of DF realizing what some of our community of gamers, myself included, thinks this game can be.
With DF Asia where it is, economic balance makes a lot of sense as a chuck of ‘problem’ to bite off and chew and I think that is what AV was reflecting with their update. Personally I don’t believe there is a magic bullet – and if there is one AV would mess it up anyways. The hope is that AV doesn’t give up on this version while taking the year or two to address the whole breadth of problems from unreleased classes/dungeons etc, economy, and everything else that needs to be done. And someday when it is all done the population will follow. Raging about AV picking this one first to work on just seems really pointless.
I agree that there isn’t a magic bullet. We do, however, need to avoid the toxic bullets that make the problem worse.
And that is where our opinions diverge.
How does making the economy better make the game worse?
Or how does the gear sink proposed by destruction on gank make the economy worse?
I just don’t get what is the ‘toxic bullet’ I guess.
Let’s assume for a second that everything Syncaine proposes is 100% correct. I don’t agree that’s the case, but for the sake of argument, let’s just pretend…
Players would still rage quit over it. It’s that polarizing a topic. And that’s what makes it toxic.
If something is going to make people quit and not entice people to resub, why is that something we are even discussing?
For me, that’s the trump card. I also happen to think it’s a bad idea for all the reasons I stated on my blog and for others I didn’t mention (like balance problems) but even if I’m wrong on all those counts, can the game endure another exodus of players?
Yah. Of course it can endure another ‘exodus’ as long as it leads to a better game overall. While people may in fact quit over this, you can find a portion of the DF community willing to quit over anything, including, of course, the always present crew that quits over everything, everytime and yet still manages to forumfall the hell out of every announcement.
Like I said before, I think AV (at current rates of communication/patching/updating) needs a year or two to fix things up nice and tight. People leaving in a fit over gear drop changes won’t even factor into long term health in my opinion. I certainly don’t think people leaving (and since when did forum threats matter in that metric anyways) has any significance. AV financials might look alright after a bunch of Asian sales to coast for a while, and if they don’t, saving the couple of subs that keeping the economic side of the game in the gutter will keep around won’t make a bit of difference at all. Long term however the economy has to have some sort of sustaining balance or there is no chance in hell of a repeat of the 10 year anniversary CCP just had with EVE.
About getting back to that post; just can’t do it. Draft is 3+ pages already and its all dismantling strawmen or broken logic, not to mention a boring read.
The rage-quit thing a non-factor. The current population is tiny, and fixing the game is worth far more than retaining anyone who would actually quit over this change (hint: it’s not nearly as many as the forums suggest. Those same ragequit kids do this every week, over everything and nothing).
Most of your post is a non sequitur/ad hominem/confused mess. Huge sections are only tangentially connected to the central issue here. The central metaphor itself is misguided: items breaking on death is not an outpouring of creative idealism, it is a pragmatic and time-tested solution to an obvious problem that has existed since MMO’s were created. When you start off trying to prove that up is down and hot is cold, even when you succeed, you fail. p.s. Not to worry, you didn’t succeed.
A short interjection: “There are other deeper issues as well… Missing crafts like Enchanting.”
Hilarious. That really says it all. That’s depth, eh?
“However, they wouldn’t farm in such a way that would lead to meaningful PVP.
Players will work to minimize the risk as much as possible. Few will farm for great gear in great gear.”
If you define meaningful PVP so specifically as “PVP occuring while wearing the best gear”, then yes, any solution that leads to increased scarcity of the best gear would decrease “meaningful PVP”. When you move the goalposts in such an obvious fashion, people will notice.
“In some of the truly great and most epic fights, it’s not uncommon for gear bags to be traded frequently. If I just lost my 70k gear bag, if I can, I’ll re-gear and try to catch the guy before he can bank it.”
Personally, knowing that you can respawn and get your gear back from the person that killed you seems like a pretty hilariously bad thing, sounds quite unrealistic and cartoonish. If that’s how PVP works in Darkfall, then I’m not surprised that it’s not doing very well. It sounds more like Super Smash Bro’s than a hardcore realistic PVP MMO.
“If, as Syncaine had proposed, a portion of the contents of those bags was destroyed each time a person would have been ganked, not only would we not have continued the fight, but we all would have ended up fighting naked.”
How could you both have not continued the fight, and continued the fight until you were fighting naked? That’s a contradiction. Anyway, if you’re playing a hardcore MMO, and you keep dying and respawning and running back into the same fight quickly and easily:
A. That’s not very hardcore, so it’s really a semi-hardcore MMO.
B. GOOD. You should be naked, you just died a bunch, you should be dead–but naked is better than unchanged.
Anyway, cutting this short, Syn’s analysis seems to be, paraphrasing, “DF is a hardcore virtual world, with a broken economy, because not enough sinks”. Your reply starts with all the crap above, then actually ends with a pretty decent reply, basically saying “no, I think DF should be a full-loot PVP game with weird sparkly turn-ins to incentivise large scale PVP wearing the best gear”. This is about as far from a hardcore virtual world as one could imagine, and is pretty much just a copy of BG pvp in WoW, which one is not surprised to see after your little comment about missing depth “enchanting” ~_~. Personally that sounds horrendously boring, but I really have no idea, maybe that’d be a more popular game in the end. I just don’t understand why you wrote the first 4 paragraphs about a balanced economy, when your actual argument you close with has zero to do with a balanced economy. i also don’t see why you don’t just go back to WoW, it seems to have everything you’re asking for, in an already extant form.
“That’s what I mean about an idealistic view of the world. That’s simply not a practical outcome of AV making this change.”
You seem to have a different view of what practical means than I do. Other games have done that, and had that result, so the practical view would be that yes, that would be a practical result. I would call your post idealistic, as you’re imagining DF changing genres to be the game you’d rather play, and the view you’re arguing against practical, as its based on experience; but for some reason you use opposite definitions for these words.
Bravo. Nailed it. I particularly appreciate the part about ‘go back to WoW’. Such an original and well thought argument.
I am a great appreciator of irony, so I have to admit that my very favorite part of your response is the very first line: “Most of your post is a non sequitur/ad hominem/confused mess.” It’s almost like you were predicting what you were about to write… it’s really quite comical. :)
I also have to say that I do find remarks about Enchanting to be particularly confusing. Do you love Enchanting? Do you hate Enchanting? I have no fucking clue, but clearly you have very strong feelings about it. LOL.
“Bravo. Nailed it. I particularly appreciate the part about ‘go back to WoW’. Such an original and well thought argument.”
That’s not an argument, that’s an observation that what you’re asking AV to implement is basically current day WoW. In essence, your accusation of my unoriginality, in what is in actuality an observation I made, of you, is you calling yourself unoriginal.
“I am a great appreciator of irony, so I have to admit that my very favorite part of your response is the very first line: “Most of your post is a non sequitur/ad hominem/confused mess.” It’s almost like you were predicting what you were about to write… it’s really quite comical. :)”
Your response is not comical though, as “I’m rubber you’re glue” got old centuries ago. I would say it qualifies as unoriginal and poorly thought out, so I do indeed see the irony here.
“I also have to say that I do find remarks about Enchanting to be particularly confusing. Do you love Enchanting? Do you hate Enchanting? I have no fucking clue, but clearly you have very strong feelings about it. LOL.”
I’m not the one LOL’ing in every post, so I’m not sure why you think my feelings are stronger than yours, but I am not surprised that you find it confusing.
As before and as expected, you’ve failed to make a substantive response, too much time devoted to LOL’ing and getting confused between observations and arguments. Good ol’ Sid.
:) Scroll up. The only posts getting the “LOL” are the ones aimed at YOUR posts because they are ridiculous, absurd, and filled with cliches. Of course, I think you know that and it must be intentional.
I mean seriously, accusing me of non sequitur arguments and ad hominem attacks only to immediately follow it up with your own has to be a troll, right? And if it’s really not intentional, then I think that makes it so much more humorous.
Surprise, more insults from Sid. Don’t you ever get bored of this?
As a longtime blogger buddy of SynCaine’s, I would like to object to the fly-by-night, johnny-come-lately commenters who are just noticing this.
It’s pretty much why I visit often. (a la Zubon’s comment.)
Comments are closed.