Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 5:55:00 PM (view original):
There is absolutely a huge gap between complete black box not giving any detail and laying every detail on the table. There's a middle ground that could be useful for users without spoiling the mystery.

That's fair. And that's exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to figure out in my questions about prestige.

I thought you asked a great question and they gave nothing of any use in their answer

"We're making sure prestige is still as important as in 2.0" is actually a pretty good answer IF you trust the programmers to have a sense of how important prestige was in 2.0 so that they can evaluate battles and make sure prestige remains important.

Not trusting them to have played the game at a high level is what makes me dissatisfied with the answer.

I would also add there's the contradiction of preferences being very important in 3.0, which can be seen from battles in beta, which means prestige cannot be "still as important as in 2.0" where it was the major determinant since it is now sharing the stage with preferences.

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 5:55:00 PM (view original):
There is absolutely a huge gap between complete black box not giving any detail and laying every detail on the table. There's a middle ground that could be useful for users without spoiling the mystery.

That's fair. And that's exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to figure out in my questions about prestige.

I thought you asked a great question and they gave nothing of any use in their answer

"We're making sure prestige is still as important as in 2.0" is actually a pretty good answer IF you trust the programmers to have a sense of how important prestige was in 2.0 so that they can evaluate battles and make sure prestige remains important.

Not trusting them to have played the game at a high level is what makes me dissatisfied with the answer.

I would also add there's the contradiction of preferences being very important in 3.0, which can be seen from battles in beta, which means prestige cannot be "still as important as in 2.0" where it was the major determinant since it is now sharing the stage with preferences.

Yeah, what I take to be the goal (and what I think should be the goal) is this: if preferences are even, prestige is as effective as it was in 2.0. A preference advantage one way or the other can either mitigate or exacerbate a prestige advantage.

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 5:55:00 PM (view original):
There is absolutely a huge gap between complete black box not giving any detail and laying every detail on the table. There's a middle ground that could be useful for users without spoiling the mystery.

That's fair. And that's exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to figure out in my questions about prestige.

I thought you asked a great question and they gave nothing of any use in their answer

"We're making sure prestige is still as important as in 2.0" is actually a pretty good answer IF you trust the programmers to have a sense of how important prestige was in 2.0 so that they can evaluate battles and make sure prestige remains important.

Not trusting them to have played the game at a high level is what makes me dissatisfied with the answer.

I would also add there's the contradiction of preferences being very important in 3.0, which can be seen from battles in beta, which means prestige cannot be "still as important as in 2.0" where it was the major determinant since it is now sharing the stage with preferences.

Yeah, what I take to be the goal (and what I think should be the goal) is this: if preferences are even, prestige is as effective as it was in 2.0. A preference advantage one way or the other can either mitigate or exacerbate a prestige advantage.

That would be great, even if they just confirmed that idea, but their opaque answers leave us reading tea leaves, and ultimately asking us to extend a lot of faith that they've done nothing to earn.

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 6:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 5:55:00 PM (view original):
There is absolutely a huge gap between complete black box not giving any detail and laying every detail on the table. There's a middle ground that could be useful for users without spoiling the mystery.

That's fair. And that's exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to figure out in my questions about prestige.

I thought you asked a great question and they gave nothing of any use in their answer

"We're making sure prestige is still as important as in 2.0" is actually a pretty good answer IF you trust the programmers to have a sense of how important prestige was in 2.0 so that they can evaluate battles and make sure prestige remains important.

Not trusting them to have played the game at a high level is what makes me dissatisfied with the answer.

I would also add there's the contradiction of preferences being very important in 3.0, which can be seen from battles in beta, which means prestige cannot be "still as important as in 2.0" where it was the major determinant since it is now sharing the stage with preferences.

Yeah, what I take to be the goal (and what I think should be the goal) is this: if preferences are even, prestige is as effective as it was in 2.0. A preference advantage one way or the other can either mitigate or exacerbate a prestige advantage.

That would be great, even if they just confirmed that idea, but their opaque answers leave us reading tea leaves, and ultimately asking us to extend a lot of faith that they've done nothing to earn.

submitted that as a question for Friday's DevChat. We'll see what they say.

Someone who knows they are on the way out the door likely has zero motivation to meaningfully engage or listen to users. The guy who single-handedly changed the entire vision and direction of the game had nothing invested in its long-term success or user-base.

I'd like for someone in the dev chat to ask if seble is now posting in the forums under an alias or has connections to any aliases...

Seble Departure FAQ
Expected Comment: seble left, the game is going under.

They don't know us very well.
Expected Comment: seble left, the game still has a chance to survive this.

So Seble had to leave after deciding to change up the entire game!!! :(

Posted by jsajsa on 9/27/2016 7:22:00 PM (view original):
So Seble had to leave after deciding to change up the entire game!!! :(

probably left when he saw how ****** up he'd made everything and had no idea how to fix it without admitting total defeat.

Here's the best part of the announcement:
"It wasn't the verbal abuse from a small, vocal minority of HD coaches that drove him off, though. (We've all grown some pretty thick skin over the years and have developed the ability to cut through profanity and insults to pinpoint actual issues)."
Geez, they owned the haters and the whiners in one swipe.

So seble wasn't replaced? We have two guys both working on HD but they will just be spread thinner than before

But it's not done. Wis is sharing new information that was intentionally kept secret yet at the same time asking for our trust while they roll out the same party lines.

The change is done and it's not perfect. We have two choices : we do not buy the product or we give them a chance to make it right, call them their own. In the meantime, doing what Tarv has been doing or Chapel or anybody that point out problems is constructive. After a while, if the game does not meet my expectations, it's my decision to quit. No need to drive new players away or old ones by constantly whining. The change is made...

Posted by zorzii on 9/27/2016 9:36:00 PM (view original):
The change is done and it's not perfect. We have two choices : we do not buy the product or we give them a chance to make it right, call them their own. In the meantime, doing what Tarv has been doing or Chapel or anybody that point out problems is constructive. After a while, if the game does not meet my expectations, it's my decision to quit. No need to drive new players away or old ones by constantly whining. The change is made...

Only two choices? Limiting choice is the privilege of those in power. What about the third choice of expressing displeasure, of campaigning for change, of not being silenced?

whining is also a term often used by those in power to dismiss those dissenting who are not in power. It can be dismissed because it can ultimately be ignored. Any owners driven away because of talk in the forums either can't or won't think for themselves.