Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormfront_NA
I do disagree at the referred cost to remove them, for the cost referred to is as high as buying and making many of the IO recipes already in the game. For instance 1M influence to remove a level 50 is really to high. Maybe because in real life I am experiencing a recession and I find myself appalled at throwing away millions of influence, I tend to be a bit reluctant at the throw away money concept.
|
1 mill is meaningless. A player could get a single drop or random roll and suddenly have millions upon millions (or billions if in PVP). A player can run papers with increased difficultly and generate 1 million in a very short time.
You don't address the fact we NEVER loose in this game. Every single time you defeat something (within the correct level ranges) you get something. Players are always creating more inf and there needs to be a sink to remove it from the game.
Quote:
|
I saw a poster, quoting developers, and appears to be a proponent of the influence sink dogma, and would like to point out, that like with many developer statements in the past have been reversed. For example, the idiotic need to have players travel across several zones for the heck of it; how often that has been asked to cease and desist by the players? And the developers response is always the same: Its too much fun to deprive you off, also players need to enjoy and learn the maps we worked so hard to craft. At first glance, the observation of a developer "dogma" sticking to it seems to be in favor of the "developers will never change it" Yet how can you explain the introduction of all those portals, "short cuts" such as Ouroboros, Vanguard, Mission Transporter, Base Teleporters, and so forth?
|
The game changes to add content, the devs have plans for future issues, the devs give rewards or have us spend money in booster packs - do any of those count?
Quote:
The point is that developers do change their positions, in some cases totally and in others partially.
I believe the developers will have to address at one time or the other, that players are being adverse affected by changes they make in the game. Do note I am not judging the changes as being good, bad or indifferent. But I will submit that those developer changes in general are motivated in improving the game. In the past respeccing and throwing away Singles was really never much of an issue, but with the IO architecture, the cost is significantly higher; and a reasonable person should realize that this aspect must be treated differently. Think of it like this, would you experience the same urgency when treating a scratch when compared to treating someone whose arm got blown off? I hope not.
I find the thought possibly disturbing with regards to influence sinks, and sincerely hope this will never be the case (as far as I can tell, that has not happened): Developers make game changes with the sole purpose to make players dump previous investments to replace with new investments, because the developers made the old powers useless. So far, this has not happened, the changes, solely, have been for game balance purposes and thus are bonafide changes.
|
I have the position that the devs are actually aware of all this and have all the information on the game. They don't make decisions/changes "just because". We are not be privy to their discussion, etc. as to why they do things.
Castle even indicates that here that it was discussed before the change was made. They make a change because they feel it the best thing to do for the game as a whole.
There were lots of changes that weren't popular (GDN/ED) but we couldn't be where we are now without them.
Quote:
Still there is a matter of justice or simply right or wrong...
If I design a build for my AT, and then respec to have the right power-slot structure, then buy IO sets to complete my AT; thus far it is I who is solely responsible if the AT build works as I intended or not. Fair enough?
|
Sure
Quote:
If the design does not work as I intended, whose fault is this? I trust, you will think: Its the players and not the developers. As a result any cost or loses in repairing or correcting the build should fully be asessed against the player, there is no justification to blame it on the developers; especially with tools such as MIDS' being available.
With me thus far?
|
Still here.
Quote:
|
Now say you do build an AT architecture and it does work, you employed IO recipes which have been stable for over a year, perhaps even two. Then the developers decide to rebalance the game, or a specific IO set or sets, or even how a power will now work, etc. These changes will in general impact players with these IOs or power sets in a negative manner (I said in general because the great majority of the time the effect is a loss of capability as opposed to an improvement). So the player, if they desire to continue enjoying that ALT, is going to have to likely respec and replace IO sets; this process can be somewhat costly to extremely costly. The question to you all, is it fair to assess the cost to the player solely? If not, is it fair to assign any cost all to the player? If one is to assign a cost to the player, how much percentage of it would be fair? Do note, the player is suffering damages (in the legal term) from a developer initiated activity.
|
This is still all over the BotZ change I see. First, go look at some of the new builds out there. Players have recovered and found new ways to slot their toons. To answer the question, yes, it is fair to place the costs on the player because the game changes and the player has the personal responsibility to know that and plan ahead. To expect that something will never change, NO matter how long in the game, is the player's fault.
Quote:
Some may argue, that the developer activity is done for the greater good, and likely that is the entire truth, but that should not forgive them from responsibility. Today a city planner decides a new street needs to be constructed to solve a traffic congestion issue. The city planner decides that a road needs to be constructed through your property, and has the right to do so under "Imminent Domain". So the devs have the rights to change the code, to make the game better under "Imminent Domain" clauses, which only makes good sense.
But Imminent Domain is not a do whatever you want clause, it has limitations which alllows for the citizens rights to be observed. The city planner, is responsible to buy your property at fair market value, the city planner can not just go knock down your fence and part of your house to build the road; the city planner has to pay reasonable reparations, they have a responsbility to the citizen; the tax payer.
So how does the above relates to the game?
Developers changes the game, how it works, to ensure the game is working as intended, to make sure its balanced, to maximize enjoyment, add more content, etc. They like the City Planner, have the right to make changes for the better good of society through Imminent Domain.
|
Ugh (and probably scooped by now) but it is
eminent domain. Imminent has a different
meaning.
Quote:
Developers should also experience similar responsibility for their actions just as City Planners do. That is a fair reparation to the ones negatively impacted by the City Planners activities must be done; same should be with our Developers.
Given that we can agree with very basic law principles; the next step is how to fairly decide how can developers make reparations to negatively impacted players by their actions?
|
First,
Castle addresses that again through balance. Secondly, players would have to account what the negative impact was to them - which could be next to nothing to billions of inf. It would be a huge waste of time trying to figure out how to equally and fairly compensate players, thus a respec.
Quote:
I do note that with most developer initiated changes, a free respec is provided. That is a good move with regards to making up for how powers work changes, so a player may choose to drop the power or even begin to use it. I can see in the rare occassion a power is improved, that no need for a respec or any allowance may be needed, for no negative impacts is experienced by the player.
But lets address an IO bonus degradation, or power ability degradation; how can a developer make reparations for that?
My suggestion of a free IO extractor tool, was a suggestion on how to mitigate the damage a player experience from a developer initiated change; it matters not if the developer change was good, bad or indifferent. The City Planner decision to put a road through your property may actually solve the problem, make the problem worse, or do nothing.
My basic point is, players like tax payers have a reasonable expectation to be treated honestly and fairly. I do understand that because of that, players should not be able to profiteer from the developers; but its entirely wrong for a developer to do changes with out having a responsibility assessed with it.
|
I would like to see this proof how the devs are messing with us and purposely being wrongful that reparations are needed. From my experience, the devs have been great with what they have given for a game. Castle took the responsibility since the information became public and explained their position. Get over it.
Quote:
Perhaps my socket extractor concept could be available on a time limit basis tied to a game change release, say it last for 2 weeks after the release. I have 34 level 50 ALTs fully IO slotted, if they were all impacted, it would take me quite a bit of time to fix them, I am sure there other players with far more ALTs than I do, perhaps a month might be fair...
Hugs
Stormy
|
As I said before, I like the other idea better.
