Artisan Archive
Thread: A toy, or a game.
Page 2 of 2
Bugbait
Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:20 pm
#14
First time MMPORG players probably think it's a game. Experienced MMPORG players know it's a toy. There are little to no challenges in SWG for anyone with previous MMPORG experience. The combat is simplistic to say the least. Unless I'm PVP'ing I'm generally wathcing TV, writing code, or crafting with my other character at the same time. SWG combat is a case of: (1) Put on good armour, (2) Equip good weapon, (3)Get buffed, (4) Eat food, (5) Spam specials until the target is dead, (6)Repeat. Yes, I realise a combat rebalance is coming and I eagerly await it. Hopefully it will add some challenge to the game.
Crafting? It takes time but there's really very little skill in crafting as well once you understand how the calculations work (about5 minutes of forum reading will do that). Professions? I question the wisdom of allowing 3.5 Master's. It allows a single person to be quite powerful and self sufficient. The list goes on...
Srednii
Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:02 pm
#15
I shall point you all to the harvester cert poll conducted by Guruweaver. I think it shows fairly well that there is a consensus on this issue.
The pro cert crowd (all three of them) just arn't willing to accept it.
Bugbait
Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:41 pm
#16
I shall direct you to the explanations on why the poll was invalid or pointless. Yourgrasp of statistics is about as robust as your understanding of economics. Both sides are being equally block headed if you really want to go down that road. You live in your delusion and we'll live in ours
Srednii wrote:
I shall point you all to the harvester cert poll conducted by Guruweaver. I think it shows fairly well that there is a consensus on this issue.
The pro cert crowd (all three of them) just arn't willing to accept it.
.In a thread that is discussing the "challenges" in the currentgame (or lack there of)you seem particularly obsessed about a "dead" argument. For someone who has repeatedly mentioned that the harvester certification argument is dead you sure do bring it up a lot.
Srednii
Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:17 am
#17
Ok, give me something that isn't opinion to shoot down and I'll do so. My recolection of the various debates have nothing left to counter that can be countered, so I'm afraid claiming that there'sstill points left unargued (while convieniently not listing them) doesn't cut it.
This thread itself put forth another variation of the "it's not balanced" argument with bianca claiming that everyone is making millions. Everyone is getting ultrarich. I countered with the fact that everyone isn't getting rich, a noob can't walk off the street and become fabulously wealthy with no effort. Making wild claims that they can doesn't help a pro cert argument. She's also worried that there are too many millionairs, which I pointed out wasn't a big deal. All it was is inflation. In RL 30 years ago my parent bought a house for 25k. Houses are going for 150-200k now where I live. A wage of 50k a year today would have been what, 20k? less? 30 years ago. That doesn't make the guy making 50k today rich. It's just inflation. And in SWG the biggest cause of inflation was the duping.
So 9 months ago the average person might have had 100k. And now they've got 10mill. Big deal, that doesn't make the average person "so wildly rich that prices of anything is meaningless". 9 months ago armor was cheaper, weapons were cheaper, food was cheaper (was anyone using food 9 months ago? 
). Slicing was cheaper, buffs were cheaper.
). Slicing was cheaper, buffs were cheaper.Maintenance, shuttle prices, and a few other static money sinks havn't increased, so maby the devs should look at that. But that's another issue.
Bianca seems to lack an understanding of how inflation works. Do you agree with her assertation that it's too easy to become wildly rich? That any noob can do so with no effort? Perhaps you're waving that accusation of an inability to understand basic economics at the wrong people.
Bugbait
Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:38 am
#18
Srednii wrote:
Ok, give me something that isn't opinion to shoot down and I'll do so. My recolection of the various debates have nothing left to counter that can be countered, so I'm afraid claiming that there'sstill points left unargued (while convieniently not listing them) doesn't cut it.
Bugbait:
Give you something that isn't opinion? That'sdifficult for both sides since even numbers and "facts" are open to interpretation and thus opinion will inevitably creep in.I love theunreasonable restrictions the anti-cert crowd (namely you and Scoooter) try to impose onanydebates. No opinion, no economic theory. No wonder we never get anywhere. I have clearly listed the points more than once on the most recent harvester certification thread. I suggest the arguments raised there be continued in the thread andnot here.
This thread itself put forth another variation of the "it's not balanced" argument with bianca claiming that everyone is making millions. Everyone is getting ultrarich. I countered with the fact that everyone isn't getting rich, a noob can't walk off the street and become fabulously wealthy with no effort. Making wild claims that they can doesn't help a pro cert argument. She's also worried that there are too many millionairs, which I pointed out wasn't a big deal. All it was is inflation. In RL 30 years ago my parent bought a house for 25k. Houses are going for 150-200k now where I live. A wage of 50k a year today would have been what, 20k? less? 30 years ago. That doesn't make the guy making 50k today rich. It's just inflation. And in SWG the biggest cause of inflation was the duping.
So 9 months ago the average person might have had 100k. And now they've got 10mill. Big deal, that doesn't make the average person "so wildly rich that prices of anything is meaningless". 9 months ago armor was cheaper, weapons were cheaper, food was cheaper (was anyone using food 9 months ago?
Maintenance, shuttle prices, and a few other static money sinks havn't increased, so maby the devs should look at that. But that's another issue.
I agree with this to an extent. We should be looking at buying power more than nominalcredit "value"I guess. Using the word "value" very loosely here since there are various definitions of this word.
Bianca seems to lack an understanding of how inflation works. Do you agree with her assertation that it's too easy to become wildly rich? That any noob can do so with no effort? Perhaps you're waving that accusation of an inability to understand basic economics at the wrong people.
I do agree that it is too easy to become rich. Wildy rich? Well, that's a very subjective term. It was very easy for some of my RL friends to suddenly increase their wealth (mainly combat types) by simply harvesting non-animal resources. I would prospect for them and even find contracts (selling raw resources to elite crafters) for them. At times I wouldeven advise how they could increase their profits if they were willing to hold on to certain resources. Yes, I consider this too easy. Not only did they run misisons for cash and loot they also heavily augmented their wealth with little to no effort.
Linking this back into inflation: Their buying power was significantly increased at the same time. By simply buying some harvesters they were able to increase the quality of their armour and weapons in a matter of days.
I have a pure combat character (doesn't even have Scout for harvesting) as well as a pure crafter (no combat skills what so ever). The rate at which my combat character can earn money due to his ability to hunt veryeffectively (2 elite combat professions) and harvest is ridiculous. I sell resourses to friends at a fraction (sub 10% at times) of market value because I don't have a strong desire to accumulate more wealth since there's not much to spend it on. For me I won the game months after I first started playing and I don't play nearly as muich as I did in other MMPORG's. I deleted my first character because I was bored one day and started again. Didn't take long to complete my template again and regain my original combat power. This is whyI think the game is too easy.
I don't see this question just being about harvester certifications like you and some others do. There are many aspects of the game that are simply too easy. I read Bianca's original post and saw the same as you on the surface. However, I think the deeper message is that there are those that oppose change because they want to remain powerful at any cost. These people think they have earned the riches and power they have now. To an extent I agree.
On the other hand there are those like myself who have the riches but feel the road thus far has been very unsatisfying. There are/were no challenges to speak of. You think harvester certifications will make me richer? It's the opposite. My combat character would loose the efficiency (ie. Use of Heavies) he has now butI think it's stupid that he can harvestbetter thanmy elite crafter who is a Master Artisan. Since he doesn't have the need for factories he has greater harvesting potential due to greater lot vacancy. Given his ability to augment his income by farming the Geo Labs, Nightsisters, Krayts, etc.the situation gets even sillier.
My interpretation of Bianca's original post was pigeon holing people into two categories:
- Those who refuse to support changes that negatively impact them (ie. perceived "nerfs") regardless of balance.
- Those who will support anything that contributes to balance regardless of how it may impact them.
Looking at it in this light I would agree that the majority of poeple fall into one of the above categories.
BiancaMinola
Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:09 am
#19
Any discussion of the economy, even by the devs, is opinion at this point.
Resources aren't tracked. Noone, from the newest noob, to the producers of this game has concrete 'facts' about the economy.
Most of my economic arguments are based on the premise that the devs HAVE put a clamp down on cash inflation - and resource inflation is rampant. If either of these are untrue, I would have to recalculate my position.
Until the devs actually do track resources, noone can say with absolute certainty what the economic situation is. Not your side, not ours.
This fact alone should concern anyone with an eye on 'the big picture'.
The economic argument would be the most powerful one for change (or the lack of need to change), but it can't be proven either way - yet.
I'm willing to leave Harv certs be, if there is consensus that resource tracking is necessary - we can argue it's merits or lack of when we have some concrete numbers.
HOWEVER I still contend that the game is too 'easy'. That there is no challenge. However, since proving a negative is impossible - it is the opposing sides obligation to prove that the gameischallenging, if you want to refute that statement.
So where is the 'challenge' in SWG? Time invested? Or, does noone care that the game is not challenging - because they just want to pretend to be someone/something they aren't.
Bianca Minola
Srednii
Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:25 pm
#20
Oh yeah! Well your grasp of funnness is about as robust as... um.. your grasp of funness! (yeah! phear my arguin skillz! )
) I'll point you to the first post, this thread isn't about the challenges. It's just another tack taken by a pro cert fanatic in an attempt to portray people who don't think certs are the answer as juevenile noobs. As soon as any discussion started she resorted to telling people to shut up. How one is supposed to engage in debate when ones points are ignored and one is told to shut up is beyond me. But then, Bianca doesn't want to debate, she just wants people to agree with her point of view, which is obviously superior because she's played the game since before launch and is uber.
Blustering about how I know nothing about statistics or economic theory isn't enough to refute what I've been saying. And what exactly is it about this mysterious economic theory I don't understand? Explainabout this mysterious and esoteric and completely judgemental opinionof economic theory and how it supports an argument for certs. I'm a reasonably intelligent man, I went sciences and pretty much ignored anything mathematical in university, but I figure if you'll only hold my hand through an explanation I'll surely see the light and join you and bianca and joined (we'll be a crowd of 4 pro certers then! they'll have to listen to us for sure!).
I mean, the no crowd has pretty much shot down every argument put for for certs, and we're left with some opinions and value judgements (ooo it's "unbalanced", the games "not fun") and this mysterious Economics argument that we're all too stupid to understand.
Srednii
Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:28 pm
#21
lol, and considering you keep resorting to 1 staring your opponents I think you may be reaching a little.
But please. Enlighten us poor duh heads.
Bugbait
Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:57 pm
#22
Srednii wrote:
Oh yeah! Well your grasp of funnness is about as robust as... um.. your grasp of funness! (yeah! phear my arguin skillz!
Bugbait replied:
Good thing I'm doing this from work and getting paid to reply else I'd feel very sorry for myself.
I'll point you to the first post, this thread isn't about the challenges. It's just another tack taken by a pro cert fanatic in an attempt to portray people who don't think certs are the answer as juevenile noobs. As soon as any discussion started she resorted to telling people to shut up. How one is supposed to engage in debate when ones points are ignored and one is told to shut up is beyond me. But then, Bianca doesn't want to debate, she just wants people to agree with her point of view, which is obviously superior because she's played the game since before launch and is uber.
I agree that Bianca's choice of words in the original postwere heavily laced with ulterior motives and baiting. From the responses it's clear that several people have taken the bait. Not sure if this was the intent or not.
In regards to debating I really don't think you should be championing such an argument given your concluding (?) post in the most recent harvester certification thread. You accuse of Bianca of not wanting to debate when you've done exactly the same thing. Once again, please refer to the recent certification thread. Being hypocritical is a good way to loose credibility in any debate but I'll assume you know this.
Blustering about how I know nothing about statistics or economic theory isn't enough to refute what I've been saying. And what exactly is it about this mysterious economic theory I don't understand? Explainabout this mysterious and esoteric and completely judgemental opinionof economic theory and how it supports an argument for certs. I'm a reasonably intelligent man, I went sciences and pretty much ignored anything mathematical in university, but I figure if you'll only hold my hand through an explanation I'll surely see the light and join you and bianca and joined (we'll be a crowd of 4 pro certers then! they'll have to listen to us for sure!).
For someone who accuses people of beating dead horses you certainly like repeating yourself and making others do the same. The problem we face here is that people are on different wavelengths. Most people who like cars can have an informed discussion or debate about them. However, it's not the same as engineers from competing motor companies having participating in a debate. Put a lay man and engineer together and see if a cohesive debate ensues. I'd be betting it would not.
The other problem is that people who don't understand economics are asking those of us who do to argue an ecocomic issue without use of such theories. That's like asking a doctor to perform surgery with only his bare hands. It might work but it's porbably going to be messy.
Explain the economic theory? StGabriel's posts were probably the most informed and relevant of the lot. Go reread them. He went into far more detail than I could've.
I mean, the no crowd has pretty much shot down every argument put for for certs, and we're left with some opinions and value judgements (ooo it's "unbalanced", the games "not fun") and this mysterious Economics argument that we're all too stupid to understand.
Not at all. Even now there are unaddressed points raised by the pro-cert crowd that every anti-cert person has ignored. Sounding like a broken record yet? Not surprising since half of my recent posts have asked the anti-cert crowd for counter-facts but you have failed to provide them. There's nothing mysterious about the numbers that have been presented. What is mysterious is how you continue to believe that every pro-cert argument has been "shot down" given the lack of response from the anti-cert camp when queried about the facts and basis behind their assertions.
If youwant to continue to ignore the arguments presented then that's your choice but don't stand there and accuse others of not participating in the debate when you continually fail to do so yourself. All rather pointless then isn't it?
Srednii
Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:44 pm
#23
BiancaMinola wrote:
HOWEVER I still contend that the game is too 'easy'. That there is no challenge. However, since proving a negative is impossible - it is the opposing sides obligation to prove that the gameischallenging, if you want to refute that statement.
I kinda think the games too easy as well. The fact that you can grind to master in days is the biggest thing for me. In Anarchy Online it took ages (6 months? a year? I can't recall atm)before people were maxing out their level. In galaxies people were maxed in the first month, and now we can do almost any class in less then a week, with some possible in less then a day.
Crafting is a little too easy. The way we automatically know how to make everything at master is too easy, there should be schematics we have to quest for, schematics that are rewards for various things. This is the sort of thing the devs should have put in the game before release, but alas the devs havespent 90% of their time and effort on the combat types.
Money making may be a little to easy as well, but they're nerfing that with the combat rebalance.
However resource harvesting doesn't create wealth the way missions do, it moves existing wealth around from player to player. So if everyone has equal access to resource harvesting then we're not getting fabulously wealthy from resource harvesting, we're getting a normal income in comparison with everyone else.
A BH is using say 8 harvesters, he's gathering resources and selling them to crafters, crafters are paying their money to the BH, this money isn't being poofed like mission rewards. That BH is then turning around and buying weapons and armor and other good from crafters, moving money back toward the crafters. Then selling more resources, buying more goods.
This isn't wealth creation, it's just letting the wealth flow back and forth. That BH is going to buy the equipment he needs no matter if he can harvest or not. If his ability to harvest and thus make money off resources is nerfed then prices for the goods he buys will have to drop, and he'll have to do more missions. But if SOE wants to keep him as a customer they have to make it possible for him to afford armor, and weapons, and food, and spices, and buffs, and all the other things a BH must have to play.
So where's the need for certs? Harvs are being used right now for normal players to sell enough to afford the basics. A few players have the drive and know how to put together mining emporiums and make tons of money, but they're the exception, not the rule.
As a crafter atm I use combat characters lots to supplement my own harvesting since all my lots are being sucked up by houses and factories and such. I need those combat lots to function as a crafter. If there were a function ingame to let us rent lots from other players I wouldn't care if combat types lost their ability to harvest. If there was a skillset in game I could take that would grant me the lots I need I wouldn't care if combat types lost their ability to harvest.
I wouldn't care because game balance would allow them to buy what they need. Right now the economy is running with this taken into account. Combat types have access to harvesters to make money, and use them to afford the goods they need. If every combat type lost this ability the game would adjust so they could still afford the goods they need.
But until I as a crafter have some other way of gaining access to enough lots to do my own mining you pro certers are whistling into the wind.
Srednii
Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:53 pm
#24
And you know, now that I think about it perhaps combat types harvesting resources is needed to keep the money flowing back and forth.
Think about it... combat types are the people who poof the money into the game via missions. That money then flows to the crafters as they buy goods. And as things stand now it flows back as crafters buy resources, and then if flows back again as combat types buy more goods. back and forth, back and forth.
Without money flowing from the crafters to the combat types we'd have money pooling on the crafter side. Crafters would be getting "fabulously wealthy".
And somehow I just can't see that as being a good thing. I suppose the devs could put enough money sinks onto the crafter side of the equation to keep the money from building up too much. But do we really want all the money generation to by combat related, and all the money deletion to be crafter releated? That would suck.
Page 2 of 2