Ranger Archive
Thread: Revised harvesting changes..
Owen-Lars wrote:
Polls wont solve anything. Why? Because its not a competition and its not a whos right and whos wrong situation. Some people are starting to forget that so just thought id remind you of it.
On a personal level im not going to support something i dont agree with. Sure ill represent that opinion but that doesnt mean i will agree with it. Polls will acomplish nothing as each side has already been represented a long time ago.
QFE
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Owen-Lars wrote:
Polls wont solve anything. Why? Because its not a competition and its not a whos right and whos wrong situation. Some people are starting to forget that so just thought id remind you of it.
On a personal level im not going to support something i dont agree with. Sure ill represent that opinion but that doesnt mean i will agree with it. Polls will acomplish nothing as each side has already been represented a long time ago.
QFE
Owen-Lars wrote:
"Demanding that the flames stop (rightly so), and yetflaming me in the same post"
The reason i said it was because ive seen this happen again and again. You get into one of you're in depth 'discussions' and the flames always follow from you and against you. Theres a reason for that and its because from the outside it always apears like you are trying to win the discussion which is not what this is about. Youexpressed your point, as did others, it was represented, it was heard.Leave it at that.
"However, this is the second time I've had a strong opinion that didn't fit in with that of the more vocal members of this community, and this is the second time I've come under attacks by means of put-downs and flames"
Again its happened before and i supose that is nothing to do with you? Calc has overtly different views to me on some subjects, we discuss, we put our cases out but it never gets to the stage where you're discussions get to. Its not that you have an opposing view, lots of people do, and its not that you dont have good communication skills, its that you present it with an attitude that most people cant help but react to.
"Socongratulations, I give up, you can all carry on in blissful ignorance of any alternate points of view"
and
"I'll just sit back and watch you all let the devs push whatever they like on us and watch you all tryconvincing yourselves that you like it"
This is the type of attitude im talking about about. They dont agree with you then they must be against you. The devs do listen and do change/remove/add things based off our feedback so dont doubt that for a second. If we dont like something we say so, its gets communicated to the devs and they take it from there.
Yes you are to blame for the flame wars, yes i am and yes many others are. I was wrong to highlight you specifically but i did so because it was those comments that realy got to me.
Not many things getto me,most things i can either just laugh off or ignore it, this wasnt one.
My 'attitude' such as it is is this: I think a problem through, and present my argument, and I'll try to explain it from as many angles as I can think of, and it is usually feedback from others which helps me find different angles. I also consider the counter argument and either agree or point out the flaws in that argument. I wasn't aware this was an offensive trait. The reason I have been so vocal in this particular topic is because there are so many reasons for the view I support, and there are so many problems with the opposing view.
Your post seems to imply that I started off all the unpleasant personal remarks, since I assume you have read this thread diligently I find this quite a sensationally inaccurate thing for you to say. If you wanted to play referee here, then you should have reined in those who started making those remarks (Example:Phenix), rather than joining in with those who have a problem with me (for nothing more than upholding a point of view). Instead,you've just helped to validate all of the abuse I've recieved.
All because I back up a point of view and stick by it (in the absence of a satisfactory counter argument). I was under the impression that this thread was to talk through the best course of actionwith regard to the topic of the subject line, and I acted as such.
Furthermore,I don't think the flames are anything to do with me, because I when I'm debating something, I stick to business and don't stoop to personal remarks to undermine someone else's position, unlike some others (who seem to be surprised when I return their flames in kind). By blaming me, you imply it is a provocative action to not agree with something I disagree with, because that's all I've done, disagree. Nobody came up with an argument to persaude me to change my view. That is all I've done and it shouldn't be a problem, it certainly isn't a problem for me if someone doesn't agree, all I'll do is continue the debate until we get somewhere we can both live with. Although from all the flames I've had this doesn't seem to be so for others around here.
Sorry if it seems like I'm singling you out Owen, I'm not actually, you were just the last straw, and I think others in this so-called community need to look at themselves a little more closely before they criticise me. Those who have berratedme, have been doing exactly the same as what they berrated me for, and a good bit more.
So everyone, take heed from my case: You're all entitled to your point of view, as long as you eventually begin to tow the community line. If you keep upholding your own opinions, it ain't pretty.
I'll say this in advance ... oh what a surprise,one star!
Dariane_Kamutsovy wrote:
So in fact a lot of other professions "want" this, no matter what the Ranger community wants?
A lot of the Ranger community DOES want this. A lot of people have said they're happy that we're getting love. The biggest issue people seem to have with this is that an 0040 Ranger will out-harvest a MR when grouped. You and Dave are the most vocal about this, but that doesn't mean your opinions represent those of the community. This isn't about "us" vs. "them". This is about what is good for the game. Most other professions believe this change would be good for the game. A lot of Rangers think this would be good for the game. From what I've seen, you and dave are in the minority, even among the Rangers.But let's just assume it's 50/50. I'm not saying you don't have a right to an opinion, but I'd appreciate it if you stopped making statements like "what the Ranger community wants" when there isn't one specific view on what Rangers want. Assuming that your opinion is what most people feel isn't going to help anyone.
Phenix1050 wrote:
Dariane_Kamutsovy wrote:
So in fact a lot of other professions "want" this, no matter what the Ranger community wants?
A lot of the Ranger community DOES want this. A lot of people have said they're happy that we're getting love. The biggest issue people seem to have with this is that an 0040 Ranger will out-harvest a MR when grouped. You and Dave are the most vocal about this, but that doesn't mean your opinions represent those of the community. This isn't about "us" vs. "them". This is about what is good for the game. Most other professions believe this change would be good for the game. A lot of Rangers think this would be good for the game. From what I've seen, you and dave are in the minority, even among the Rangers.But let's just assume it's 50/50. I'm not saying you don't have a right to an opinion, but I'd appreciate it if you stopped making statements like "what the Ranger community wants" when there isn't one specific view on what Rangers want. Assuming that your opinion is what most people feel isn't going to help anyone.
I'm getting tired of this.
1. DaveG and I maybe the most vocal ones, but if it wasn't for DaveG to start with, no one would have read and done testing cause all they assumed was that the 40% bonus would be applied to the MR too. So instead of accusing us of being loud and outspoken, you might consider thanking DaveG for pointing it out and getting a clarification from Owen followed by a rectification from Tiggs which set this all in motion.
2. If you have done this, then you would also have read that I do not dismiss the bonus alltogether, but that it must be carefull measured against the numbers of Ranger0040-MR. Maybe DaveG would still have his doubts about it but I'm willing to give it a try.
3. It it's done correctly I won't have a problem with it and neither would the majority (as far as I understand from reading the several responses). And from those post I MAY assume there are more people thinking/feeling alike/having the same opinion.
4. Last but not least, the whole sentence is a question from me to all. This indicates also that I'm open to listen to responses and other opinions You hower read it as "So in fact a lot of other professions "want" this, no matter what the Ranger community wants!" (notice the end of the sentence). Don't start reading something that isn't there. Based on this "!" you read, your whole essay was based.
DaveG wrote:
My 'attitude' such as it is is this: I think a problem through, and present my argument, and I'll try to explain it from as many angles as I can think of, and it is usually feedback from others which helps me find different angles. I also consider the counter argument and either agree or point out the flaws in that argument. I wasn't aware this was an offensive trait. The reason I have been so vocal in this particular topic is because there are so many reasons for the view I support, and there are so many problems with the opposing view.
Your post seems to imply that I started off all the unpleasant personal remarks, since I assume you have read this thread diligently I find this quite a sensationally inaccurate thing for you to say. If you wanted to play referee here, then you should have reined in those who started making those remarks (Example:Phenix), rather than joining in with those who have a problem with me (for nothing more than upholding a point of view). Instead,you've just helped to validate all of the abuse I've recieved.
All because I back up a point of view and stick by it (in the absence of a satisfactory counter argument). I was under the impression that this thread was to talk through the best course of actionwith regard to the topic of the subject line, and I acted as such.
Furthermore,I don't think the flames are anything to do with me, because I when I'm debating something, I stick to business and don't stoop to personal remarks to undermine someone else's position, unlike some others (who seem to be surprised when I return their flames in kind). By blaming me, you imply it is a provocative action to not agree with something I disagree with, because that's all I've done, disagree. Nobody came up with an argument to persaude me to change my view. That is all I've done and it shouldn't be a problem, it certainly isn't a problem for me if someone doesn't agree, all I'll do is continue the debate until we get somewhere we can both live with. Although from all the flames I've had this doesn't seem to be so for others around here.
Sorry if it seems like I'm singling you out Owen, I'm not actually, you were just the last straw, and I think others in this so-called community need to look at themselves a little more closely before they criticise me. Those who have berratedme, have been doing exactly the same as what they berrated me for, and a good bit more.
So everyone, take heed from my case: You're all entitled to your point of view, as long as you eventually begin to tow the community line. If you keep upholding your own opinions, it ain't pretty.
I'll say this in advance ... oh what a surprise,one star!
Phenix1050 wrote:
Role playing is good, but sometimes, sacrifices must be made for the greater good. I don't see many people agreeing with you Dave.
Then you should read this thread more carefully. I have seen more people say they want no bonus than those who do. So far I have counted three people, yourself included, who explicitly say they want it. Many more say they don't.
Phenix1050 wrote:
Dave, I think more people want a system where a Master Ranger is viable in both solo and group harvesting. That doesn't imply a no-bonus, no-penalty system.
Phenix1050 wrote:
Dave a couple of more things:
- when grouped you kill stuff faster
-when grouped you can get higher missions
-when grouped you can have someone heal you
There will ALWAYS be an incentive to group. This is an Multiplayer game. Yes, it's a roleplaying game too. But nobody should be as effective by themselves as a group is. I'm sorry, but even solo hunters like you and me need to look at this from a bigger picture. In terms of the game, if we can ensure that a grouped Master Ranger is much better than a grouped 0040 Ranger, then we have done something good for the game. If it hurts our gameplay a little bit, but makes the game much better, then we have to suck it up. I'm willing to do this. And I'm going to tell you know, I'm 95% sure that there will be a bonus going in, so making suggestions to help make a system that contains a bonus but also keeps us powerful is better than arguing blindly against a system that promotes what the devs want (group interaction).
As Dariane said, you answered your own quesetions. The points you highlight, along with group penalty removal are more than sufficient encouragement to group.
The group bonus is not an encouragement to group, it's an enforcement to group. There is a significant difference, and enforcing rather than encouraging is not acceptable.
I'm aware the devs may not be reading this thread anymore, may I ask the rest of you where you are posting your test results, because I need to know a better place to air my views, hence showing the devs the bigger picture that they are missing. (Phenix, my pictuer is bigger than yours :smileyvery-happy.
please show me where I flamed you. No, you know what? Don't. Because this is just getting rediculous. The last pages have had less to do with harvesting and more to do with the interaction between the other Rangers. My suggestion? Let's agree that you have your opinoin and I have mine. Until something new happens, or you have some new point to your argument, neither of us should post here. I'm sorry you feel attacked, but I'm afraid from perspective, you started the flaming with the comment I highlighted above. I targeted my post to you, but I don't see where I directly attacked you. Incedentaly, all of this is useless. I assure you, if you can agree not to continue with this nonsence, (the nonsence we ALL have been engaged in, this wasn't a personal attack) I will happily let this thread die until we get more information.
Or perhaps you don't want it to drop to the bottom. Perhaps this is just some attempt to keep this thread on top, in a passive-agressive way to get yourself heard. I will assume it's not, since I respect you enough to assume you wouldn't behave that way. I think keeping this behavior up, and discussing semantics are only going to make our community angry, and make the developers ignore us. I've dealth with the devs before and I can tell you from experience that they do NOT respond well to people with attitudes. So far, our community HAS had an attitude-- on BOTH sides of the argument.
Let's let this issue go until we can have more information. I'm sure that Owen is presenting your concerns to the devs in the corr forums, where it's actually MORE likely to be heard. Like Owen said, he will not support an idea that he doesn't agree with, but it is his job to express our concerns. I'm sure Owen is on top of this, any further reiteration of the same ideas will only give you carpal tunnel syndrome sooner.
I'll be grabbing earlobes and putting you in your rooms in a minute!
(But only cos I care about you all and 'it's for your own good')
Almagill wrote:
Maybe we need to lock this one down and start fresh. Data from the testing (remember that?) will still be accessible, and it'll give folks a bit of time to cool down and just, well, cool down.
I'll be grabbing earlobes and putting you in your rooms in a minute!
(But only cos I care about you all and 'it's for your own good')
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=ranger&message.id=90929
Message Edited by Almagill on 02-22-2005 01:44 PM