Trade Hate: Which one takes more skill?

"

MierenEronaile wrote:

@AlbinosaurusRex

I feel its quite important to mention here that I agree with this

'Here's the thing. A SFL wouldn't solve any of the game's problems. Fixing trade and easing the progression curve (just a little) would be more meaningful to the game as a whole. I'd rather they keep their priorities in perspective.'

That is not an argument against SFL, however. Its something that should be done at a higher priority, but not an actual argument against SFL.

Assuming you are actually someone who thinks those things need improving, as I personally am not to fussed.

Fair enough, but the reasons against it are found throughout these forums, and this thread in particular. I've even provided several.

"

rrtson wrote:

"

mazul wrote:

Make a server-wide ingame poll that goes on for a week and that you can only vote once. If at least 30% would be interested in a such, implement it :).

Fact: more often than not, people don't know what the fuck they want. So GGG (and other smart people) have to make the decision for the rest of the masses.

This is the reason why shitty presidents get reelected every year in democratic countries. You have a bunch of fools voting for the candidate that smiles the nicest, promises the biggest, and talks the loudest, when in fact their policies are the shittiest.

Up until this point, there have been absolutely zero good arguments from you obnoxious SFL supporters, and I don't believe ol' Joe Newbie will have the slightest idea what a "self-found league" even implies.

GGG doesn't know what people want either. Remember they are a small company and this is their first game. Neither of them are game psychologists.

By allowing voting about certain things, they gain a "we let you vote about it" argument regardless of the outcome.

@AlbinosaurusRex

They are, and you have, but it would take way more effort than I want to go through to find enough of those arguments for you to accept I addressed a reasonable amount of them. If you post more in this thread at some point and I see them Ill try and address them but going looking would take forever and I am busy trying to level empower /shrug.

@rrston

So basically 'I am smarter than everyone else and understand everything better so we should not have SFL'

Cool.

"

mazul wrote:

GGG doesn't know what people want either. Remember they are a small company and this is their first game. Neither of them are game psychologists.

By allowing voting about certain things, they gain a "we let you vote about it" argument regardless of the outcome.

I actually agree with you here. I wouldn't run it for a week though. I'd run it for a whole month. Hell, running it until the next expansion would be perfect. Let the numbers speak for themselves. These kinds of statistics would be useful. And just so you don't think I'm contradicting myself, let me explain:

A) A few people wanting something is not justification to change the game unless the reasons are substantial and important. This is because it has the potential to upset the majority (and often will).

B) A lot of people wanting something is justification, because (as you said) pleasing your player base is a worthy reason. Even if some people dislike it, enough people want it that it would be better overall to provide it.

As your initial suggestion stated, I think 30% is a large enough number to justify creating a SFL. I just don't believe that many people want it, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.

"

MierenEronaile wrote:

@rrston

So basically 'I am smarter than everyone else and understand everything better so we should not have SFL'

Cool.

This is the second person I've seen you attack via straw-man fallacy. It only makes your side look weaker--as though it cannot defend itself with facts/reason/logic.

"

mazul wrote:

GGG doesn't know what people want either. Remember they are a small company and this is their first game. Neither of them are game psychologists.

By allowing voting about certain things, they gain a "we let you vote about it" argument regardless of the outcome.

Great idea. GGG should've also let people vote on what language they coded the game in, what color palette the art style was styled under, and what the name of their company stood for. /s

Letting people vote on things works in very few scenarios, where the details and consequences of each choice is clearly outlined/obvious. So far, I count about 5 of you in this thread who repeatedly post in support of SFL, while the other 30+ of us are against it. I think that gives a pretty good estimate of the vocal SFL minority.

"

rrtson wrote:

"

mazul wrote:

GGG doesn't know what people want either. Remember they are a small company and this is their first game. Neither of them are game psychologists.

By allowing voting about certain things, they gain a "we let you vote about it" argument regardless of the outcome.

Great idea. GGG should've also let people vote on what language they coded the game in, what color palette the art style was styled under, and what the name of their company stood for. /s

Letting people vote on things works in very few scenarios, where the details and consequences of each choice is clearly outlined/obvious. So far, I count about 5 of you in this thread who repeatedly post in support of SFL, while the other 30+ of us are against it. I think that gives a pretty good estimate of the vocal SFL minority.

Don't be ridiculous. Comparing behind the scenes decisions about the style of the game and how it's coded against giving a section of the player base something they want are not even the same category. As you said, voting works in a few scenarios, and this would be one of those.

Don't get me wrong. I'm definitely against SFL, but I'm at least a bit fair about it. If it were my game, and I ran a poll asking about it that returned a 30-50% positive feedback, you bet I would consider it in my best interest to provide it.

"

rrtson wrote:

So far, I count about 5 of you in this thread who repeatedly post in support of SFL, while the other 30+ of us are against it. I think that gives a pretty good estimate of the vocal SFL minority.

Go on, list the 30 of you against it.

"

MierenEronaile wrote:

"

rrtson wrote:

So far, I count about 5 of you in this thread who repeatedly post in support of SFL, while the other 30+ of us are against it. I think that gives a pretty good estimate of the vocal SFL minority.

Go on, list the 30 of you against it.

Actually, I would be curious about the truth of this as well. Make a list of all the names of people for and against it, and just count the number of names. I wonder how those numbers really fall. Ultimately, it's still an extremely small sample size, so it's nearly meaningless, but it would be interesting to know.

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

Don't get me wrong. I'm definitely against SFL, but I'm at least a bit fair about it. If it were my game, and I ran a poll asking about it that returned a 30-50% positive feedback, you bet I would consider it in my best interest to provide it.

The only way I would take the poll even slightly seriously is if the votes were from accounts that have been active for at least 4+ months.

It would be too easy for newer players to complain about drop rates, and falsely assume that a SFL would somehow solving things, when in fact a SFL would probably have the exact same drop rates. Maybe put in big-red letters: "The only thing that will change in a SFL is no trading."

"

MierenEronaile wrote:

Go on, list the 30 of you against it.

Go count it yourself. We're not the ones crying for a new league.