@Vhaeyne A whitelist system could very well be a good option. How that would function is another thing, but the more we learn about the games system, the more we can speculate. Will look into that as well as soon as i have more info.
I hear where you are coming from in your suggestions, but i see it as we are on two separate ends of a scale. With that, of course we are going to see differently on many aspects, and especially since we see RP in different ways.
Same goes for you bud with my comments, and a text to text debate is always tricky to get perfect.
I am hopeful we can at the end reach an even solution for all sides.
@Vhaeyne A whitelist system could very well be a good option. How that would function is another thing, but the more we learn about the games system, the more we can speculate. Will look into that as well as soon as i have more info.
I hear where you are coming from in your suggestions, but i see it as we are on two separate ends of a scale. With that, of course we are going to see differently on many aspects, and especially since we see RP in different ways.
Same goes for you bud with my comments, and a text to text debate is always tricky to get perfect.
I am hopeful we can at the end reach an even solution for all sides.
As an olive branch, I will give you this...
In asking for this feature, I think you should want the shops to have a separate black/white list to your personal ignore list.
Player stalls do not require the attendance of the character or for that character to be online.[7]
An attendant NPC is assigned to the stall.[8][6] This may be an "image" of the player.
What is hinted at here is very similar to retainers in FFXIV. When you sell things on the AH in FFXIV the lore is that your NPC retainer takes the goods and does this for you. That retainer as its own character should have the black/white list feature you are asking for.
This way you could feasibly have multiple shops with multiple retainers granting different tiers of access to your goods.
What this also potentially prevents is Noaani's worry about the list ruining espionage. The scope of what I just proposed is a larger feature, but if our "attendant NPC" is already customizable, then that is where I would want to place the black/white list feature.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
Personal player stalls can have hired NPC sellers for when you are away or offline...and they might even have your own appearance when you're offline... so we should expect Permissions - same as on our Freeholds.
And that will be based on what our characters want, since those NPC sellers will be working for us.
AH is different - probably should not have any kind of block or permissions since an auction is typically brokering items we have given to a neutral third-party.
@Vhaeyne A whitelist system could very well be a good option. How that would function is another thing, but the more we learn about the games system, the more we can speculate. Will look into that as well as soon as i have more info.
I hear where you are coming from in your suggestions, but i see it as we are on two separate ends of a scale. With that, of course we are going to see differently on many aspects, and especially since we see RP in different ways.
Same goes for you bud with my comments, and a text to text debate is always tricky to get perfect.
I am hopeful we can at the end reach an even solution for all sides.
As an olive branch, I will give you this...
In asking for this feature, I think you should want the shops to have a separate black/white list to your personal ignore list.
Player stalls do not require the attendance of the character or for that character to be online.[7]
An attendant NPC is assigned to the stall.[8][6] This may be an "image" of the player.
What is hinted at here is very similar to retainers in FFXIV. When you sell things on the AH in FFXIV the lore is that your NPC retainer takes the goods and does this for you. That retainer as its own character should have the black/white list feature you are asking for.
This way you could feasibly have multiple shops with multiple retainers granting different tiers of access to your goods.
What this also potentially prevents is Noaani's worry about the list ruining espionage. The scope of what I just proposed is a larger feature, but if our "attendant NPC" is already customizable, then that is where I would want to place the black/white list feature.
I could se the option to have a separate block list in stores, perhaps if they allow modding, but if the devs would go for making two separate ban options, that would be useful of course.
As for going half way, an interesting espionage option could be that the AI you get to do your sales for you, does not always have that list at hand. Could be on a RNG perhaps, and if the player does not know if it´s an NPC or a player dealing with the trade... could be adding to intrigues and tension. A spy " could " manage to get what they want, or get busted if the list is in that stall at that point.
At this stage, i have a massive heat allergy and feeling a bit under the weather, and not eaten yet..so i may be less coherent at this point, but i stand by my hopes of us all coming to a conclusion good for all.
Personal player stalls can have hired NPC sellers for when you are away or offline...and they might even have your own appearance when you're offline... so we should expect Permissions - same as on our Freeholds.
And that will be based on what our characters want, since those NPC sellers will be working for us.
AH is different - probably should not have any kind of block or permissions since an auction is typically brokering items we have given to a neutral third-party.
A general AH i think should be fully open to anyone even if you sell items there and you banned someone. I see it as another person selling, and they cannot keep track of everyone.
I'm going to give you a rundown of these few posts here.
You to Vhaeyne; I disagree with your position
Vhaeyne to you; ok cool, but to be clear, can you state what it is you think my position is.
You to Vhaeyne; No, I just disagree.
Me to you; that isn't an answer to the question he asked.
You to me; What part about "I disagree" isn't an answer to "can you state what it is you disagree with"
Dygz to you (not following the conversation, as always); That is just Noaani. They like answers to direct questions, and since I don't like being questioned, that is why I have them on ignore.
Vhaeyne wanted to make sure you had the right idea of what his position was, you read his post, quoted it, and then simply said that you disagree. That doesn't instill a lot of confidence that you are actually understanding what is being said - as you very clearly didn't understand that question, nor my post that followed pointing out that you clearly didn't understand that post.
The reason I backed Vhaeyne up here is because after reading his posts in this thread, I didn't know what his position on the matter was - and he and I have discussed things at length for a year or so here. If I am reading his posts and not seeing a position he has on the topic, I am unable to see how you can not only see his position, but understand enough of it to disagree with it. Since he would be aware that he hadn't shared his position on the topic at that point, he asked you what you thought it was in hopes that you would realize that he hadn't actually shared any position at all, let alone one that you disagree with.
The funny thing about this is that I am not against the notion of a blacklist - I am, however, against anything that will have a negative impact on other aspects of the game, as this would on espionage.
As I said many times, it is the account wide nature of it that I am saying makes it an automatic no-go, not the blacklist part of it. I don't personally see the rest of it as being worth it (it would create a needless barrier to players at times) but if there are good enough reasons to have it, that barrier is not an automatic no-go like the account wide nature of the suggestion is. Rather, it is something that can have the pros and cons weighted for. The problem there is, the only real reason given so far is RP - and that isn't a good enough reason to create that barrier.
As I said earlier in this thread, but Vhaeyne said quite well here...
What is sad is that the conversation has not entered a stale area yet. There are plenty of benefits and flaws to explore in your idea, but you only seem to think exploring the benefits is progress.
If you want discussion on this idea, cool, we are having that. People will point out flaws in the idea, and that is a good thing. With those flaws, rather than attacking the player that is providing them, look at it as a positive and attempt to come up with ways to negate them.
No @Noaani i did not say that, but i will quote what i DID say below.
I said
Quote : I have listened to you, i have read it, but in many ways i disagree. You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree. When arguing for a time, people enter a stale area, and it becomes non constructive. You are set in your opinion, as am i in mine.
I would say, let us agree to disagree, and let it be.
/Quote
In the end, we actually came to somewhat of a common point.
I feel, a lot of the points came from personal opinions rather than actual game mechanics, and arguing on a personal matter in a forum as this is not the place. I got to the conclusion it´s very much personal because of the wordings, such as
* If you think my behavior is harsh, get thicker skin.
* Personally, I would never in a million years block sales from someone I hate.
* It is just a waste of money to me.
* If I had rare and powerful items I don't think I would put them in my stall.
* That is just me, though.
* To me, the personal stalls are just vending machines. I don't see anything personal about them.
* As a buyer, I would not expect anything I bought from a vending machine to be super valuable.
* I just think it is an extra feature that could introduce more problems than it solves.
* If you were RPing with someone, I am very skeptical that you would block/ignore them.
* I feel like Ashes may have plenty of people willing to throw down over shop refusal.
* In open world situations like IRL and Ashes I don't see blocking people as a power move that makes problems go away.
and from those, i took the conclusion, that the person took his/her idea from a personal POV, not from an actual written system.
Now, i would like for us to go onward from this is possible. I have absolutely seen ups and downs to both sides, and i very much agreed that a whitelisting could be a good option instead, and also a system of RNG that could be in use for the NPC running the stall when the player is logged out, that could generate a chance of the NPC to have or not have the blacklist in use, to make espionage a risky matter without making it unusable. The thing of it being account wide could for sure be skipped, and if and only if it would warrant a need for it, the actual GM´s could implement it on a situational basis instead. No problem with that.
I am openly stating, my idea came from a general concept of thinking out loud. I fully accept that it´s not perfect, i fully admit it´s not rock solid, but i stand firm in my personal hope that we will be protected from as much of harassments and what not as possible.
I appreciate talks and back and forth idea spit balling ( i think it´s called ) but i hope you can agree, that it´s also fair to keep true to what´s been said and not said...and not translate to what one " thinks " or " feels ". In this case, i think we both did some of that, and from my side, i apologize it it came across as such.
Now, i have been made aware of the Escrow system among other things, and that many of the issues i have had in mind will be either cleared by this, or other systems in game. There are also the aspect of selling in both a private stall as in the " general trade house " if i understood it correctly, so that as well put a new spin on things, and much much more.
So, as an olive branch from myself to you, i absolutely appreciate opinions and debates, but perhaps we came off on the wrong foot in this, where both sides are equally hopeful for the best results of the project in mind.
I hope we can walk the same path from here as bud´s instead, and work for just that.
I did not say that, but i will quote what i DID say below.
You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree.
Again, what we are saying is that at the point in time when you said this, Vhaeyne had not yet expressed an opinion, yet you still felt it ok to say you disagree with his opinion.
THAT is the issue. We can all express our own opinions, we can all agree or disagree with whom ever we please. That is kind of the point of these forums.
What we cant do though, or at least shouldnt do, is say we disagree with someone's opinion when they have not yet made their opinion known.
This is like me saying now that I disagree with your opinion on combat trackers on Ashes. I cant say that, because I have no idea what your opinion on them actually is as yet.
What I hope is that when there are disagreements with things that you want, that you realize that this is a good thing and work out if the thing you want can be worked around the issues presented - assuming the issues presented need to be worked around (a thing conflicting with an existing system or desire needs to be worked around, someone just saying they dont like it for no actual reason does not need to be worked around).
If that is what you consider "walking the same path", then that is what I have been doing.
Just to clarify my constant wording to ensure it clear when I am saying something as an opinion.
I have noticed that if you don't explicitly clarify that you are stating something as an opinion. People on here will lose their minds as if you are stating facts. Asking for links to the WIKI and where it states that what you just said is correct. I started using this wording more often months ago, and it seems to result in more productive discussions. Rather than getting bogged down in semantics(Some still try).
I think in our conversations in this thread, I could have been more particular about explicitly stating my examples of problems with your suggestion as "examples of problems". When writing them, I was focused more on trying to illustrate scenarios that people favoring your suggestion might not have considered. I am the type of person who loves to play devil's advocate. I do need to try to be better at making this clear on here.
You said :
I feel, a lot of the points came from personal opinions rather than actual game mechanics, and arguing on a personal matter in a forum as this is not the place.
I strongly take issue with this (This ironically is an opinion). The forums are 100% the place for us as players to give our feedback on what we do and don't want to see with Ashes. Feedback is how you give your opinion. When you create any thread on here. If the topic of is interest to me, you can expect my feedback.
All the examples of scenarios I gave come from my experiences in other competitive open world games. Yes, Ashes is different, but if you have driven a car and a truck, then you might have a good idea of what it would be like to drive a van.
The forum would be nothing but links to the WIKI and "We don't know yet" without opinions.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
You have no problem providing links for stuff you think supports your opinion.
You just like to ignore and dismiss links that don't support your opinion as "everything can change".
You have no problem providing links for stuff you think supports your opinion.
You just like to ignore and dismiss links that don't support your opinion as "everything can change".
Did I miss a link? What are you talking about?
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
On the first page, you posted a link to dev quotes on the Wiki regarding Risk v Reward to support your opinion about the game's focus on Risk Reward.
But, then in the "What tools are given to Roleplayers?" thread you write: "It is clear to me that Role Playing is not a focus in Ashes."
Despite there being dev quotes like: "A MMO lives and breathes on its community and we don't really want to give short shrift to any one of those types. All of them are important: the RPers are important, the people who just want to hang out in the Inn and talk are important, they all add to the game and so we want to make sure that we take care of all of them... You can run a business based on RPing."
---Jeffrey Bard
The idea behind the tavern games is to create another social interface. This is where players that are loving the RP aspect of MMORPGS- they want to walk into a tavern and meet new people and play games.
---Steven Sharif
And I'm saying, in response to your assertion:
"The forum would be nothing but links to the WIKI and 'We don't know yet' without opinions."
that you have no problem sharing links that support your opinions, but in response to features you don't like you dismiss dev quotes as if they are non-existent - as in it should not be possible for you to have the opinion that Ashes does not have a focus on roleplaying because there are plenty of dev quotes that demonstrate the devs do have a focus on roleplaying.
And, when you truly wish to be dismissive of dev quotes you don't like, you just say. "Everything can change."
On the first page, you posted a link to dev quotes on the Wiki regarding Risk v Reward to support your opinion about the game's focus on Risk Reward.
But, then in the "What tools are given to Roleplayers?" thread you write: "It is clear to me that Role Playing is not a focus in Ashes."
Despite there being dev quotes like: "A MMO lives and breathes on its community and we don't really want to give short shrift to any one of those types. All of them are important: the RPers are important, the people who just want to hang out in the Inn and talk are important, they all add to the game and so we want to make sure that we take care of all of them... You can run a business based on RPing."
---Jeffrey Bard
The idea behind the tavern games is to create another social interface. This is where players that are loving the RP aspect of MMORPGS- they want to walk into a tavern and meet new people and play games.
---Steven Sharif
And I'm saying, in response to your assertion:
"The forum would be nothing but links to the WIKI and 'We don't know yet' without opinions."
that you have no problem sharing links that support your opinions, but in response to features you don't like you dismiss dev quotes as if they are non-existent - as in it should not be possible for you to have the opinion that Ashes does not have a focus on roleplaying because there are plenty of dev quotes that demonstrate the devs do have a focus on roleplaying.
And, when you truly wish to be dismissive of dev quotes you don't like, you just say. "Everything can change."
If this is all you have to assert that Intrepid plan on supporting RP'ers with Ashes, then I hate to say it - they have said more than this about having a top end raid game on par with WoW.
There is nothing concrete in that statement other than then saying sure, we want RP'ers to pay a subscription as well.
A MMO lives and breathes on its community and we don't really want to give short shrift to any one of those types. All of them are important: the RPers are important, the people who just want to hang out in the Inn and talk are important, they all add to the game and so we want to make sure that we take care of all of them... You can run a business based on RPing."
---Jeffrey Bard
The idea behind the tavern games is to create another social interface. This is where players that are loving the RP aspect of MMORPGS- they want to walk into a tavern and meet new people and play games.
---Steven Sharif
I am not moved by these old dev quotes. Not because it doesn't support my opinion, but because anyone would say the same thing when running a company and trying to appeal to a larger audience.
Also, these quotes are just the devs giving their opinions on how they would like things to be. The WOW devs said all of this same stuff before WOWs launch too. The DDO Devs said the same stuff. I have seen this line of dialogue so much that I know it is just boilerplate "Come try our MMO please" talk.
I will believe it when I see it. Even games like Darkfall and Mortal Online tried to appeal to RPers.
"Appeal to RP" Should be a logical fallacy at this point.
And I'm saying, in response to your assertion:
"The forum would be nothing but links to the WIKI and 'We don't know yet' without opinions."
that you have no problem sharing links that support your opinions, but in response to features you don't like you dismiss dev quotes as if they are non-existent - as in it should not be possible for you to have the opinion that Ashes does not have a focus on roleplaying because there are plenty of dev quotes that demonstrate the devs do have a focus on roleplaying.
And, when you truly wish to be dismissive of dev quotes you don't like, you just say. "Everything can change."
I dismiss dev quotes that are just these simple dev opinions. Ion Hazzikostas says that every expansion and no new RP features make it into WOW year after year. It is not that I think devs are liars. It is that they don't know how things will turn out after the process of game development is completed.
Steven says: "It would be cool if...", often on the live streams. He comes up with these one off features that are very obvious to be jokes or not in development. It is because he is a gamer. I do that too.
I can say everything can change so easily because Steven says that literally before he shows us anything. He has said a million times the combat system is getting revamped. Even he is not sure how it will be in the end.
So yes, everything is subject to change. That is just the reality of game development. Some things sound better on paper and don't work in practice. It is not until these features are developed and tested that the devs will know what is staying in the game.
When I share links, it is not "This is fact", It is "This is what we know right now". There is a difference. I sometimes even say that with the links I use.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
Please share a link/quote where Steven says "everything can change".
135 results for just the term "Subject to change" on the wiki.
Or you can just pick a live stream at random and wait for Steven to discuss a system or feature.
Up to you.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
That's a fail.
For one thing... most of those are duplicates. It's, like, 13 or so repeated instances.
For another, I didn't ask you for a link that states that some things are subject to change.
I asked you for a dev quote that states everything is subject to change.
That's a fail.
For one thing... most of those are duplicates. It's, like, 13 or so repeated instances.
For another, I didn't ask you for a link that states that some things are subject to change.
I asked you for a dev quote that states everything is subject to change.
Since you want it to be explicit.
In this edition of Know Your Nodes, we’ll be going over how you can advance and destroy a Node. If you missed our previous article in this series, we highly recommend you check out Know Your Nodes: The Basics. As a disclaimer, we want to note that our game is still in development, so all design decisions are subject to change during our Alphas and Betas. With that in mind, this series will provide you details on our current design plan for Nodes.
Or
You can pick a live stream at random and wait for Steven to show anything about the game. He will say nearly the same thing every time.
I would bet we both believe with all of our hearts that Steven and Intrepid have a clear "Vision" for the game they want to make. The reality of game design is that you don't always make that exact vision in the process. Sometimes to make a better game because things need to change. We might just end up with a better game than the one Steven imagined. That is what team work and dedication can do in a large group project.
As supporters, we should not be lying to ourselves thinking everything is set in stone. We need to roll with the punches, just as the devs are doing.
I am sure when the devs started the "Know your nodes" series years ago, they had every intent on doing a video for every node. Things change, game development hard. I am sure something more important came up to change the plan to make that series. This is fine.
I am happy with changes as long as they keep clawing and crawling their way to a better game. Which looks to be the case.
I mean, I am not sure how much more explicit you can get than Intrepid literally saying all design decisions are subject to change during Alpha and Beta.
In terms of vision of a product an that products end result - they are almost never the same. In my previous career as a chef, no dish or menu I designed was ever even close to how I originally envisioned it. In my current career (with products that are exponentially more complex), individual product visions often end up turning in to multiple products, or even in to minor features on existing products.
The only thing that is a constant is that the product never ends up as originally envisioned.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
LMAO. That is specifically regarding Nodes. And even more specifically regarding the Know Your Nodes articles. Which is why they stopped being posted after the third article.
Context is always important.
Thanks for the link, though.
LMAO. That is specifically regarding Nodes. And even more specifically regarding the Know Your Nodes articles. Which is why they stopped being posted after the second article.
Context is always important.
Thanks for the link, though.
You can't be helped.
Let's try this again. From the kickstarter:
Risks and challenges
Game design is inherently risky, and Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Games are probably the most challenging genre in the industry. We are a team of veterans who are aware of and have lived through these challenges, and we're coming at this project with the kind of expertise that allows us to mitigate and manage them. More importantly, we see this project as a way for us to 'do it right.'
However, we are not oracles, and unforeseen problems will almost certainly rear their ugly head. We have accounted for these unknowns in our budget and schedule, but in the event that is not enough, we will be open and honest about what those issues are, and how we're going to address them.
We also may find that certain systems or mechanics that we're talking about today simply aren't fun or good for the health of the game. In those cases, be aware that the game may change in fundamental ways as we work through feedback, testing, and polish. The vision will always remain the same, but how we get there might not.
With all that being said, we are aware of these risks and challenges and are confident in our ability to release Ashes of Creation as a finished product. Come hell or high water, we're going to get this thing done.
Or as always...
Just pick a random live stream and wait for Steven to introduce a video showing off something new.
We do know that it won't be everything.
And we also know some of the things will not not be changed significantly.
This is true, but we don't know which things wont be changed, and as such everything is subject to change.
If you are adamant that not everything is subject to change, name one thing that will be in the game exactly as we all currently expect it to be - if you cant name one thing, you have to admit that everything is subject to change.
Comments
I hear where you are coming from in your suggestions, but i see it as we are on two separate ends of a scale. With that, of course we are going to see differently on many aspects, and especially since we see RP in different ways.
Same goes for you bud with my comments, and a text to text debate is always tricky to get perfect.
I am hopeful we can at the end reach an even solution for all sides.
As an olive branch, I will give you this...
In asking for this feature, I think you should want the shops to have a separate black/white list to your personal ignore list.
What is hinted at here is very similar to retainers in FFXIV. When you sell things on the AH in FFXIV the lore is that your NPC retainer takes the goods and does this for you. That retainer as its own character should have the black/white list feature you are asking for.
This way you could feasibly have multiple shops with multiple retainers granting different tiers of access to your goods.
What this also potentially prevents is Noaani's worry about the list ruining espionage. The scope of what I just proposed is a larger feature, but if our "attendant NPC" is already customizable, then that is where I would want to place the black/white list feature.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
And that will be based on what our characters want, since those NPC sellers will be working for us.
AH is different - probably should not have any kind of block or permissions since an auction is typically brokering items we have given to a neutral third-party.
I could se the option to have a separate block list in stores, perhaps if they allow modding, but if the devs would go for making two separate ban options, that would be useful of course.
As for going half way, an interesting espionage option could be that the AI you get to do your sales for you, does not always have that list at hand. Could be on a RNG perhaps, and if the player does not know if it´s an NPC or a player dealing with the trade... could be adding to intrigues and tension. A spy " could " manage to get what they want, or get busted if the list is in that stall at that point.
At this stage, i have a massive heat allergy and feeling a bit under the weather, and not eaten yet..so i may be less coherent at this point, but i stand by my hopes of us all coming to a conclusion good for all.
A general AH i think should be fully open to anyone even if you sell items there and you banned someone. I see it as another person selling, and they cannot keep track of everyone.
You to Vhaeyne; I disagree with your position
Vhaeyne to you; ok cool, but to be clear, can you state what it is you think my position is.
You to Vhaeyne; No, I just disagree.
Me to you; that isn't an answer to the question he asked.
You to me; What part about "I disagree" isn't an answer to "can you state what it is you disagree with"
Dygz to you (not following the conversation, as always); That is just Noaani. They like answers to direct questions, and since I don't like being questioned, that is why I have them on ignore.
Vhaeyne wanted to make sure you had the right idea of what his position was, you read his post, quoted it, and then simply said that you disagree. That doesn't instill a lot of confidence that you are actually understanding what is being said - as you very clearly didn't understand that question, nor my post that followed pointing out that you clearly didn't understand that post.
The reason I backed Vhaeyne up here is because after reading his posts in this thread, I didn't know what his position on the matter was - and he and I have discussed things at length for a year or so here. If I am reading his posts and not seeing a position he has on the topic, I am unable to see how you can not only see his position, but understand enough of it to disagree with it. Since he would be aware that he hadn't shared his position on the topic at that point, he asked you what you thought it was in hopes that you would realize that he hadn't actually shared any position at all, let alone one that you disagree with.
The funny thing about this is that I am not against the notion of a blacklist - I am, however, against anything that will have a negative impact on other aspects of the game, as this would on espionage.
As I said many times, it is the account wide nature of it that I am saying makes it an automatic no-go, not the blacklist part of it. I don't personally see the rest of it as being worth it (it would create a needless barrier to players at times) but if there are good enough reasons to have it, that barrier is not an automatic no-go like the account wide nature of the suggestion is. Rather, it is something that can have the pros and cons weighted for. The problem there is, the only real reason given so far is RP - and that isn't a good enough reason to create that barrier.
As I said earlier in this thread, but Vhaeyne said quite well here... If you want discussion on this idea, cool, we are having that. People will point out flaws in the idea, and that is a good thing. With those flaws, rather than attacking the player that is providing them, look at it as a positive and attempt to come up with ways to negate them.
I said
Quote : I have listened to you, i have read it, but in many ways i disagree. You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree. When arguing for a time, people enter a stale area, and it becomes non constructive. You are set in your opinion, as am i in mine.
I would say, let us agree to disagree, and let it be.
/Quote
In the end, we actually came to somewhat of a common point.
I feel, a lot of the points came from personal opinions rather than actual game mechanics, and arguing on a personal matter in a forum as this is not the place. I got to the conclusion it´s very much personal because of the wordings, such as
* If you think my behavior is harsh, get thicker skin.
* Personally, I would never in a million years block sales from someone I hate.
* It is just a waste of money to me.
* If I had rare and powerful items I don't think I would put them in my stall.
* That is just me, though.
* To me, the personal stalls are just vending machines. I don't see anything personal about them.
* As a buyer, I would not expect anything I bought from a vending machine to be super valuable.
* I just think it is an extra feature that could introduce more problems than it solves.
* If you were RPing with someone, I am very skeptical that you would block/ignore them.
* I feel like Ashes may have plenty of people willing to throw down over shop refusal.
* In open world situations like IRL and Ashes I don't see blocking people as a power move that makes problems go away.
and from those, i took the conclusion, that the person took his/her idea from a personal POV, not from an actual written system.
Now, i would like for us to go onward from this is possible. I have absolutely seen ups and downs to both sides, and i very much agreed that a whitelisting could be a good option instead, and also a system of RNG that could be in use for the NPC running the stall when the player is logged out, that could generate a chance of the NPC to have or not have the blacklist in use, to make espionage a risky matter without making it unusable. The thing of it being account wide could for sure be skipped, and if and only if it would warrant a need for it, the actual GM´s could implement it on a situational basis instead. No problem with that.
I am openly stating, my idea came from a general concept of thinking out loud. I fully accept that it´s not perfect, i fully admit it´s not rock solid, but i stand firm in my personal hope that we will be protected from as much of harassments and what not as possible.
I appreciate talks and back and forth idea spit balling ( i think it´s called ) but i hope you can agree, that it´s also fair to keep true to what´s been said and not said...and not translate to what one " thinks " or " feels ". In this case, i think we both did some of that, and from my side, i apologize it it came across as such.
Now, i have been made aware of the Escrow system among other things, and that many of the issues i have had in mind will be either cleared by this, or other systems in game. There are also the aspect of selling in both a private stall as in the " general trade house " if i understood it correctly, so that as well put a new spin on things, and much much more.
So, as an olive branch from myself to you, i absolutely appreciate opinions and debates, but perhaps we came off on the wrong foot in this, where both sides are equally hopeful for the best results of the project in mind.
I hope we can walk the same path from here as bud´s instead, and work for just that.
Again, what we are saying is that at the point in time when you said this, Vhaeyne had not yet expressed an opinion, yet you still felt it ok to say you disagree with his opinion.
THAT is the issue. We can all express our own opinions, we can all agree or disagree with whom ever we please. That is kind of the point of these forums.
What we cant do though, or at least shouldnt do, is say we disagree with someone's opinion when they have not yet made their opinion known.
This is like me saying now that I disagree with your opinion on combat trackers on Ashes. I cant say that, because I have no idea what your opinion on them actually is as yet.
This is unproductive.
What I hope is that when there are disagreements with things that you want, that you realize that this is a good thing and work out if the thing you want can be worked around the issues presented - assuming the issues presented need to be worked around (a thing conflicting with an existing system or desire needs to be worked around, someone just saying they dont like it for no actual reason does not need to be worked around).
If that is what you consider "walking the same path", then that is what I have been doing.
Just to clarify my constant wording to ensure it clear when I am saying something as an opinion.
I have noticed that if you don't explicitly clarify that you are stating something as an opinion. People on here will lose their minds as if you are stating facts. Asking for links to the WIKI and where it states that what you just said is correct. I started using this wording more often months ago, and it seems to result in more productive discussions. Rather than getting bogged down in semantics(Some still try).
I think in our conversations in this thread, I could have been more particular about explicitly stating my examples of problems with your suggestion as "examples of problems". When writing them, I was focused more on trying to illustrate scenarios that people favoring your suggestion might not have considered. I am the type of person who loves to play devil's advocate. I do need to try to be better at making this clear on here.
You said :
I strongly take issue with this (This ironically is an opinion). The forums are 100% the place for us as players to give our feedback on what we do and don't want to see with Ashes. Feedback is how you give your opinion. When you create any thread on here. If the topic of is interest to me, you can expect my feedback.
All the examples of scenarios I gave come from my experiences in other competitive open world games. Yes, Ashes is different, but if you have driven a car and a truck, then you might have a good idea of what it would be like to drive a van.
The forum would be nothing but links to the WIKI and "We don't know yet" without opinions.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
You just like to ignore and dismiss links that don't support your opinion as "everything can change".
Did I miss a link? What are you talking about?
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
But, then in the "What tools are given to Roleplayers?" thread you write:
"It is clear to me that Role Playing is not a focus in Ashes."
Despite there being dev quotes like:
"A MMO lives and breathes on its community and we don't really want to give short shrift to any one of those types. All of them are important: the RPers are important, the people who just want to hang out in the Inn and talk are important, they all add to the game and so we want to make sure that we take care of all of them... You can run a business based on RPing."
---Jeffrey Bard
The idea behind the tavern games is to create another social interface. This is where players that are loving the RP aspect of MMORPGS- they want to walk into a tavern and meet new people and play games.
---Steven Sharif
And I'm saying, in response to your assertion:
"The forum would be nothing but links to the WIKI and 'We don't know yet' without opinions."
that you have no problem sharing links that support your opinions, but in response to features you don't like you dismiss dev quotes as if they are non-existent - as in it should not be possible for you to have the opinion that Ashes does not have a focus on roleplaying because there are plenty of dev quotes that demonstrate the devs do have a focus on roleplaying.
And, when you truly wish to be dismissive of dev quotes you don't like, you just say. "Everything can change."
There is nothing concrete in that statement other than then saying sure, we want RP'ers to pay a subscription as well.
I am not moved by these old dev quotes. Not because it doesn't support my opinion, but because anyone would say the same thing when running a company and trying to appeal to a larger audience.
Also, these quotes are just the devs giving their opinions on how they would like things to be. The WOW devs said all of this same stuff before WOWs launch too. The DDO Devs said the same stuff. I have seen this line of dialogue so much that I know it is just boilerplate "Come try our MMO please" talk.
I will believe it when I see it. Even games like Darkfall and Mortal Online tried to appeal to RPers.
"Appeal to RP" Should be a logical fallacy at this point.
I dismiss dev quotes that are just these simple dev opinions. Ion Hazzikostas says that every expansion and no new RP features make it into WOW year after year. It is not that I think devs are liars. It is that they don't know how things will turn out after the process of game development is completed.
Steven says: "It would be cool if...", often on the live streams. He comes up with these one off features that are very obvious to be jokes or not in development. It is because he is a gamer. I do that too.
I can say everything can change so easily because Steven says that literally before he shows us anything. He has said a million times the combat system is getting revamped. Even he is not sure how it will be in the end.
So yes, everything is subject to change. That is just the reality of game development. Some things sound better on paper and don't work in practice. It is not until these features are developed and tested that the devs will know what is staying in the game.
When I share links, it is not "This is fact", It is "This is what we know right now". There is a difference. I sometimes even say that with the links I use.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/index.php?search=subject+to+change&title=Special:Search&go=Go
135 results for just the term "Subject to change" on the wiki.
Or you can just pick a live stream at random and wait for Steven to discuss a system or feature.
Up to you.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
For one thing... most of those are duplicates. It's, like, 13 or so repeated instances.
For another, I didn't ask you for a link that states that some things are subject to change.
I asked you for a dev quote that states everything is subject to change.
Since you want it to be explicit.
Or
You can pick a live stream at random and wait for Steven to show anything about the game. He will say nearly the same thing every time.
I would bet we both believe with all of our hearts that Steven and Intrepid have a clear "Vision" for the game they want to make. The reality of game design is that you don't always make that exact vision in the process. Sometimes to make a better game because things need to change. We might just end up with a better game than the one Steven imagined. That is what team work and dedication can do in a large group project.
As supporters, we should not be lying to ourselves thinking everything is set in stone. We need to roll with the punches, just as the devs are doing.
I am sure when the devs started the "Know your nodes" series years ago, they had every intent on doing a video for every node. Things change, game development hard. I am sure something more important came up to change the plan to make that series. This is fine.
I am happy with changes as long as they keep clawing and crawling their way to a better game. Which looks to be the case.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
In terms of vision of a product an that products end result - they are almost never the same. In my previous career as a chef, no dish or menu I designed was ever even close to how I originally envisioned it. In my current career (with products that are exponentially more complex), individual product visions often end up turning in to multiple products, or even in to minor features on existing products.
The only thing that is a constant is that the product never ends up as originally envisioned.
Context is always important.
Thanks for the link, though.
You can't be helped.
Let's try this again. From the kickstarter:
Or as always...
Just pick a random live stream and wait for Steven to introduce a video showing off something new.
Edit:
Heres the link:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1791529601/ashes-of-creation-new-mmorpg-by-intrepid-studios/
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
No one knows in what degree.
Exactly.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
And we also know some of the things will not not be changed significantly.
This is true, but we don't know which things wont be changed, and as such everything is subject to change.
If you are adamant that not everything is subject to change, name one thing that will be in the game exactly as we all currently expect it to be - if you cant name one thing, you have to admit that everything is subject to change.
At this point, you are trolling or you are just not interested in having an honest conversation.
I have proved to you many times in many ways that anything can change, and you still try to play word games.
I thought better of you before this conversation.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I thought better of you before this conversation.
I've said it many times, he is more interested in semantics than discussion.