What would your suggestions be for better temporal immersion?

[CastIronFabric]

8 hours ago, EnbyKaiju said:

VS is a perfect example of that. I remember when there was an exploit to just totally bypass one of the main story segments to get to the loot and I am so glad they patched that out.

There are times when invisible walls frustrate me, and times when I absolutely believe they are necessary to prevent folks from just skipping important parts of the game. Though I think giving folks the opportunity to get an elk, and get it cheaper, definitely was a way to encourage folks to engage with that part of the story more and to do it the way the devs intended.

I call that damn good game design.

There are moments that people do not notice when they should be giving themselves pause.

Suggesting others should play a game the way a developer intended would be one of those times.

[Thorfinn]

37 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

Let me ask you a simple quesiton.

If I got into a cave and I put blocks around me so that monsters can not attack me, am I hacking the system? should developer take time to remove that ability so that I am forced to fight with monsters?

OR..if you think its cheeky you can just simply not do that.

 

How about I don't care? If the devs think that would would make for a better game, fine. It's their game. I can either get with the program, find another game, or stick with, say 1.19, so I don't have to worry about bowtorn. Or I could mod out the pieces parts I don't like. They allow you to download any version from the last several years. Replace the parts you hate with the old code. Or start your own game company. There are lots of options that don't entail negativity towards others.

[CastIronFabric]

30 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

How about I don't care? If the devs think that would would make for a better game, fine. It's their game. I can either get with the program, find another game, or stick with, say 1.19, so I don't have to worry about bowtorn. Or I could mod out the pieces parts I don't like. They allow you to download any version from the last several years. Replace the parts you hate with the old code. Or start your own game company. There are lots of options that don't entail negativity towards others.

that even gets worse not only do you want to force people to play as the developer dictates, you do not even care about their opinion on the matter.

that should make you pause.

But with your stance you are basically taking the position that any and all suggestions, ideas or change requests need to stop because it would contradict the developers intention.

[Thorfinn]

22 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

that even gets worse not only do you want to force people to play as the developer dictates, you do not even care about their opinion on the matter.

that should make you pause.

Why? If the game developer's vision is in a direction I like, great. If not there are options. I'm on the side of letting Tyron and Saraty develop the game of their dreams. Why can't you just let them?

[CastIronFabric]

28 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Why? If the game developer's vision is in a direction I like, great. If not there are options. I'm on the side of letting Tyron and Saraty develop the game of their dreams. Why can't you just let them?

so here is the logic

1. if you agree with the developers vision then nobody else should question those decisions because the its how the developer has decided to make the game

2. if you do not agree with the developer vision on a feature then you can dispute it.

and to be clear when I say you I mean specifically you not the abstract 'you'

do I have that right?

Edited Monday at 03:39 PM by CastIronFabric

[LadyWYT]

2 hours ago, CastIronFabric said:

If I got into a cave and I put blocks around me so that monsters can not attack me, am I hacking the system? should developer take time to remove that ability so that I am forced to fight with monsters?

It's definitely abusing game mechanics, however, it's also a classic example of an exploit that can't really be patched out due to the core game design. The player is meant to be able to break and place blocks at will; the only locations they cannot do so currently are the story locations, since allowing players complete freedom there results in strategies endemic to the other block game. The devs could, of course, let monsters simply walk through blocks, but to the player that's not going to feel fair at all. The enemies could break blocks, but that introduces the problem of players getting their builds destroyed, which isn't ideal. Letting enemies only destroy certain types of blocks, like dirt and cobblestone, or preventing enemies from destroying chiseled blocks entirely doesn't fix the problem either, since players will just use different blocks or otherwise turn every block into a chiseled one in order to mess with monster pathing.

Thus for this specific example, it's easier to just let it be and not worry about it. 

[Thorfinn]

2 hours ago, CastIronFabric said:

2. if you do not agree with the developer vision on a feature then you can dispute it.

and to be clear when I say you I mean specifically you not the abstract 'you'

do I have that right?

I'll leave that as a maybe. Where did I do that? Recently, I mean. If I've done so, then, yeah, that would be hypocritical. The closest I can think of was saying that in my testing, I'd leave thrown flint spear at 4 damage, and save 3 for stone spear. Otherwise, those who have not mastered combat will have real trouble with brown bears. But I don't recall beating people over the head with it.

[Thorfinn]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

Thus for this specific example, it's easier to just let it be and not worry about it. 

The story locations take care of that for you. If all you have learned is combat with exploits, you are in for a rude awakening. I think I'd do something similar in procedural ruins so the RA is not a complete surprise. But maybe no placed blocks and 10x structural points for all blocks in the ruin. You can still dig your pits, but it's going to  be a much bigger commitment in time, maybe in tool durability, than it is in caverns.

[CastIronFabric]

2 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

It's definitely abusing game mechanics...

I want to make sure I completely understand your position on this before I respond.

You are stating that if you go into a cave to do some prospecting and you place dirt blocks around to protect yourself from getting attacked by difters you consider that 'abusing game mechanics' 

do I have the correct?

[CastIronFabric]

1 hour ago, Thorfinn said:

I'll leave that as a maybe. Where did I do that? Recently, I mean. If I've done so, then, yeah, that would be hypocritical. The closest I can think of was saying that in my testing, I'd leave thrown flint spear at 4 damage, and save 3 for stone spear. Otherwise, those who have not mastered combat will have real trouble with brown bears. But I don't recall beating people over the head with it.

you do it all the time.

If its a feature you like and someone challenges you on it you eventually resort to 'this is the way the developer intends for it to be and that is how it should be because that is how they intend it to be'.

Now how SPECIFICALLY you know what the developer intends or not is another subject but yes you do that rather often.

Edited Monday at 06:53 PM by CastIronFabric

[LadyWYT]

6 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

You are stating that if you go into a cave to do some prospecting and you place dirt blocks around to protect yourself from getting attacked by difters you consider that 'abusing game mechanics' 

do I have the correct?

Yep. But to make sure that I'm very clear here: this particular exploit is not something I would be inclined to fix, if I were in the devs' shoes, since trying to fix it is likely to cause more problems than the exploit itself in this specific scenario. 

[CastIronFabric]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

Yep. But to make sure that I'm very clear here: this particular exploit is not something I would be inclined to fix, if I were in the devs' shoes, since trying to fix it is likely to cause more problems than the exploit itself in this specific scenario. 

I am going to try and backpaddle my way out of this conversation. I do not feel like its built on a foundation that I could reasonably work with

[Thorfinn]

2 hours ago, CastIronFabric said:

If its a feature you like and someone challenges you on it you eventually resort to 'this is the way the developer intends for it to be and that is how it should be because that is how they intend it to be'.

How do you have any idea what I like? Are you one of the voices in my head?

But I was really asking about the flip side. When have I said, "The devs made a crappy decision here and must change this to suit my preferences immediately!"

[CastIronFabric]

6 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

Why? If the game developer's vision is in a direction I like, great. If not there are options. I'm on the side of letting Tyron and Saraty develop the game of their dreams. Why can't you just let them?

here is where you said if you 'if not there are options'.

what does that mean exactly? are you saying that if you do not agree with the vision of the devs that you think your suggestions to change it is valid? despite saying the devs decisions are basically immutable?

by 'if not there are options' do you mean if its not the vision of the developers? if so, how do you know which features they have created are in their vision or not without asking them?

Edited Monday at 09:56 PM by CastIronFabric

[Thorfinn]

1 minute ago, CastIronFabric said:

what does that mean exactly?

I laid several out in a post a few before that one.

7 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

I can either get with the program, find another game, or stick with, say 1.19, so I don't have to worry about bowtorn. Or I could mod out the pieces parts I don't like. They allow you to download any version from the last several years. Replace the parts you hate with the old code. Or start your own game company. There are lots of options that don't entail negativity towards others.

Sorry about the interchanging person there. Not my intention, and didn't catch it earlier. But these are just a few of the options you have.

[Thorfinn]

12 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

despite saying the devs decisions are basically immutable?

I'm pretty sure I never said that. It's not true, that's for sure. Changing damage on spears, for example. What I meant to convey is that their decisions are exactly that -- theirs to make. Obviously they don't object to feedback. Saraty even responded recently to say they agreed they have over-nerfed spears. Tyron said a while back they over-nerfed healing, particularly WRT the RA.

But at the end of the day, it's their decision. If I don't like it, well, I can adapt or figure out something constructive to do about it rather than beat on fellow gamers.

[RogueVali]

@Thorfinn
What you seem to forget is that they're also making a product.

We, as clients, have every right to express our concerns and opinions about it. We are fkn customers. Well not you I guess, you're more of a blind follower, but yeah. Concerns are to be shared, considered, and acted upon. One way or the other. They might address it, act on it, or disregard it, if they think their vision is the right one.

But our bastard right is to be able to share our opinions and concerns.

Heh. If it wasn't for the considerable backlash, they'd prolly roll with straight up insane spear nerf in its full form. Sure they're still far from perfect, but it's thanks to feedback they weren't utterly trashed.

Edited Tuesday at 05:56 AM by RogueVali
Pinged and expanded, so you don't moan again about internet anonimity for some reason.

[CastIronFabric]

15 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

I'm pretty sure I never said that. It's not true, that's for sure. Changing damage on spears, for example. What I meant to convey is that their decisions are exactly that -- theirs to make. Obviously they don't object to feedback. Saraty even responded recently to say they agreed they have over-nerfed spears. Tyron said a while back they over-nerfed healing, particularly WRT the RA.

But at the end of the day, it's their decision. If I don't like it, well, I can adapt or figure out something constructive to do about it rather than beat on fellow gamers.

so I was originally correct, ok my misunderstanding.

your position is that feature in the game as it is has been the developers decision on how the game should be, therefore its pointless to disagree with such decisions. As such criticism of the game design from anyone (including yourself) is really unwarranted.

fair enough, got it

However, what does it mean if you are making suggestions to a feature that does not exist and has not been created yet and the developers have not weighed in on? You cant really pull the 'this is how the devs decided to do it' card if you are talking about drifters coming out of a portal, that would  not make sense becasue the feature does not exist.

Additionally, even if its a feature that does not exist you cant really weigh in on it because its value is not determined by you but rather determined by the developers and if they developers have not weight in on it, then you logically have no position to make an opinon on it.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 01:23 PM by CastIronFabric

[CastIronFabric]

7 hours ago, RogueVali said:

@Thorfinn
What you seem to forget is that they're also making a product.

We, as clients, have every right to express our concerns and opinions about it. We are fkn customers. Well not you I guess, you're more of a blind follower, but yeah. Concerns are to be shared, considered, and acted upon. One way or the other. They might address it, act on it, or disregard it, if they think their vision is the right one.

But our bastard right is to be able to share our opinions and concerns.

Heh. If it wasn't for the considerable backlash, they'd prolly roll with straight up insane spear nerf in its full form. Sure they're still far from perfect, but it's thanks to feedback they weren't utterly trashed.

keep in mind, the feature in question that started this entire conversation does not even exist. It was an idea suggested by players and not weighed in on at all from the developers.

So we already have a logic flaw in the argument of 'if the developer wants it so it shall be' because the developer has not weighed in on this idea at all, likely does not even know it exists.

[Thorfinn]

1 hour ago, CastIronFabric said:

our position is that feature in the game as it is has been the developers decision on how the game should be, therefore its pointless to disagree with such decisions. As such criticism of the game design from anyone (including yourself) is really unwarranted.

Not unwarranted. Just not something that should go on multiple pages saying the same exact thing. Saying spears are now too weak or prospecting is too hard should take a couple posts, tops. Maybe a half-dozen more if people misunderstand what you are saying. Would hardly surprise me if there's a language barrier. I try to avoid colloquialisms, but catch myself having done so from time to time, like I just did in the previous clause. Though "catch" in that context is probably common enough usage that it's widely understood.

In any event, threads like that make it hard to keep track of how many people hate some new feature because if you are not actively participating, it's easy to lose track of whether this is someone's repeat post or this is a new person who also thinks the same. It gives the superficial appearance that something is vastly more unpopular than it really is.

1 hour ago, CastIronFabric said:

However, what does it mean if you are making suggestions to a feature that does not exist and has not been created yet and the developers have not weighed in on?

Sure. Again, most people, including the devs, are smart enough to be able to figure out what you are saying in a post or two, maybe a couple more if people misunderstood what you were suggesting and need clarifications. I can't speak for others, but that's why I often do exactly what I I'm denouncing -- otherwise there would be 100 posts from 3 people, making it seem as if it is far more popular than it really is.

Same thing happens on ModDB. People mistake long-standing mods with 50 releases as being more popular than they really are. Yes, maybe there are 10,000 total downloads, but a large share of those are almost certainly the same people simply downloading the update. I doubt Tyron is fooled, and properly uses the change in number of downloads as a rough guide to whether a given idea is gaining or losing popularity.

[CastIronFabric]

2 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Not unwarranted. Just not something that should go on multiple pages saying the same exact thing. Saying spears are now too weak or prospecting is too hard should take a couple posts, tops. Maybe a half-dozen more if people misunderstand what you are saying. Would hardly surprise me if there's a language barrier. I try to avoid colloquialisms, but catch myself having done so from time to time, like I just did in the previous clause. Though "catch" in that context is probably common enough usage that it's widely understood.

In any event, threads like that make it hard to keep track of how many people hate some new feature because if you are not actively participating, it's easy to lose track of whether this is someone's repeat post or this is a new person who also thinks the same. It gives the superficial appearance that something is vastly more unpopular than it really is.

Sure. Again, most people, including the devs, are smart enough to be able to figure out what you are saying in a post or two, maybe a couple more if people misunderstood what you were suggesting and need clarifications. I can't speak for others, but that's why I often do exactly what I I'm denouncing -- otherwise there would be 100 posts from 3 people, making it seem as if it is far more popular than it really is.

Same thing happens on ModDB. People mistake long-standing mods with 50 releases as being more popular than they really are. Yes, maybe there are 10,000 total downloads, but a large share of those are almost certainly the same people simply downloading the update. I doubt Tyron is fooled, and properly uses the change in number of downloads as a rough guide to whether a given idea is gaining or losing popularity.

sorry you lost me so I will put it another way, using your logic

1. If what the developers decides to do is the final say and people should  not dispute it then spear changes are fine, per your own logic.

2. drifters coming out of portals is not even something the developers have weighed in on, so per your logic, its value is undetermined until they do so its not worth talking about.

This has nothing to do with me, so I am confused there.

 

Edited Tuesday at 02:49 PM by CastIronFabric

[Thorfinn]

@RogueVali, I agree with you. And even sympathize somewhat if one has a recent enough experience with something that is particularly annoying, and it makes the tone of the post, um, strident. If one is brainstorming, a discussion thread makes perfect sense. If one is already set in his opinion, a poll is more useful.

BTW, I really appreciate the effort you made to get rid of the colloquialisms and texting shortcuts, some of which I still don't know what they mean, as they appear to mean multiple things depending on context, and adopt the style that was the norm here when you showed up.

[Thorfinn]

6 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

1. If what the developers decides to do is the final say and people should  not dispute it then spear changes are fine, per your own logic.

Again, no. That is not my logic. Clearly a language barrier. Feel free to express your discontent. But, seriously, how many posts does it take to say, "Spears have been nerfed too much. I'd suggest doing X."

8 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

2. drifters coming out of portals is not even something the developers have weighed in on,

Except he did, It would have been the most obvious thing in the world, and probably the easiest, to just have drifters appear from the portal if that's what Tyron wanted. He wouldn't have had to make a code block to randomize the spawn point. Why he did as he did is a matter of speculation, that he did as he did is not. He's already weighed in on which he preferred at that point, by adding extra time and effort to select the radius method. 

[CastIronFabric]

8 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Again, no. That is not my logic. Clearly a language barrier. Feel free to express your discontent. But, seriously, how many posts does it take to say, "Spears have been nerfed too much. I'd suggest doing X."

Except he did, It would have been the most obvious thing in the world, and probably the easiest, to just have drifters appear from the portal if that's what Tyron wanted. He wouldn't have had to make a code block to randomize the spawn point. Why he did as he did is a matter of speculation, that he did as he did is not. He's already weighed in on which he preferred at that point, by adding extra time and effort to select the radius method. 

Let me make sure I understand

you are saying that Tyron has explicitly stated that they want drifters to appear from the portal as a new change

Can you please give me the source of that, thank you. Please understand if your response is highly obfuscated I will likely just move on

Edited Tuesday at 03:12 PM by CastIronFabric

[Thorfinn]

Just now, CastIronFabric said:

you are saying that Tyron has explicitly stated that they want drifters to appear from the portal as a new change

For the love of Pete, no! 

Revealed preference, even though credited to Paul Samuelson, is considered one of the most important economic insights of all time. It is the explicit underpinning of supply and demand, for example. Basically, it's that a person's actions are the true measure of his valuations, not his verbal proclamations. Does a man truly like Pepsi more than Coke if, when given the choice, and all else equal, he orders Coke?

As applies here, Tyron's actions, writing code to randomize the spawn around a point, argues very strongly that he truly preferred random over the much easier fixed spawn, even though it required extra effort. At the time, he placed a higher value on variable spawn points. If he had done it the other way around, all we could say is that at the time, he didn't value the difference enough to make writing the extra code worthwhile.

If despite my best efforts, you still don't understand revealed preference, please read up on it. The Wiki is unnecessarily complicated because economists have a deep seated need to have their field thought of as hard science, so everything has to be quantified and measured and parameterized, in order to be able to take the derivative and find local minima and maxima, but skip all that worthless dreck. If you understand the summary and the first paragraph under Definition and Theory, you are good.

This is the most straightforward youtube I found in a single search. For this discussion, all you need to understand is the part up to "What the **** Bill?"