Next big change?

This topic contains 44 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by  Tempus 6 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 45 total)
  • Author
  • #14889


    @Silaero: Congrats on your second comprehension failure in a row. Would you like to try for a third?

    1. I have never filled a map to restrict people from joining. Ever. I have only ONCE ever been on a map with nothing but friends from outside the game. I ran DuraDura with my crew and there happen to be four of us, so after everyone got in, there were no slots left (I suppose one of us could have sat out that round to foster social inclusiveness, but that’s idiotic). More typically, we’re on maps with more than four slots and we play with whoever joins. If you go back and reread my post, you can see that I said I WANT to have players on my skill level, but you won’t see anything saying that I’ve gone so far as to fill in extra slots. I WANT to play with skilled partners, but that doesn’t mean I’ve taken steps to force the issue. I suffer through terrible teammates (eg. under 500 income at game end) in order to to be inclusive. Maybe now, you can finally admit that you have no friggin’ clue how I feel about coop games or even how I behave in them.

    2. Regarding your claim that I’m disproving myself… Your logic also fails here. If someone says they support charitable donation, they can own a car without being a hypocrite for not selling it and just taking the bus everywhere. Like I said, I am perfectly happy mentoring people. Not wanting to do it on every single map doesn’t make it untrue.

    3. As Garmichael already pointed out earlier, people who want to play with strangers are not being harmed. If a game is full, a new one opens up. Map availability is not a zero sum game. You are effectively asking them to diminish their enjoyment of the game for no substantial benefit to other players. Your claim of diminishing the playerbase is also without merit. I have completed Jones solo (admittedly before the latest build, where Flamingoes got even harder). Pretty much any map can be completed by a single player with minimal support (gem trades) from other players. It starts taking a very long time to build enough cash to make headway, but it’s certainly not “blocking” anyone from doing so.

    4. Finally, I’ll elaborate on a point I made at the end of my first response to your drivel. I accept that you have your preferred way of playing the game. I accept that Garm & Tempus have theirs. I accept that neither of these lines up with mine (although the Garm/Tempus approach is clearly a closer match). The whole reason I’m getting on your case is because you are trying to force YOUR method on other people, and that self-righteous preaching is something I find particularly offensive.



    Part of my confusion came from Garm’s post where he said “we took turns logging into the four accounts.” I thought that meant you were each logging into four separate accounts which would obviously fill the map. So I guess you can consider what I said only partially right (or continue to disagree, I obviously don’t care that your opinion differs as it’s just an opinion) since you’re only blocking out two people from joining the map.

    If there are only 8 people playing this game. And two players take up four of those spots. Then 2 people are left, when it was the design that all 8 be playing one game. Now 2 are not, 6 people are playing a full game as intended and 2 are doing what they can in a much longer fashion.

    It’s obviously not my method. It’s the dev’s method. Otherwise there wouldn’t be 8 castles intended for 8 players.

    Both of your are losing ground here with your negativity. You’re making it less of a debate and more of way to insult me, try to keep it focused to the debate.



    There is no debate. Our method of play has absolutely no affect on you. No one is getting locked out of anything. No one is losing anything. No one’s game is being altered in any way possible. That is, unless you’re one of those players who’s just a leach, joining games with experienced players so you get the loot without doing anything to contribute.



    qonen – Our experience with Jones/Darke Lorde was not as nice as yours.

    Pre golden chest update, we’d beaten both maps. Post-golden chest, we tried the maps again. Our first attempt at MrJones was going pretty well… until we realized it was mathematically impossible. With all available food, there was 248 food available, and you need 300 for a level 0 Flamingo. Never mind wastage or difficulty picking up. We did not try Mr Jones again.

    We tried Darke Lorde twice. The first time we were equally naive. We did however determine there were enough resources to win. We later tried again with Delha and gang – we all had trains, and some had nice houses, but no one had fast trains or catapults. We eventually determined that there simply wasn’t enough space for all the factories, there was too much wastage of space, and things were not quick enough. We had filled up the entire map with trains and factories, and were still missing the Shadow Amulet, a porcelain bust, and the Shadow Sceptre. We had to give it up. With at least a few members saving space with catapults, it could be doable.

    Of course, not anymore. The new recipe paradigm has around tripled the amount of things necessary for the flamingo, and significantly increased the amount required for the Black Heart. Seduction Writ also took a major, major hit. It’s as bad as Black Heart now, or nearly so. No one is going to be getting any fast trains or catapult items for quite some time.



    As Garm said, there’s really no debate.

    There’s just one person trying to tell people they are wrong for playing the game the way they want, and that is you.

    I am respecting your choice to play the game in a way that I wouldn’t. I am respecting Garmichael and Tempus’ choice to play the game their way. Nobody is telling calling you foolish for waiting on other players to complete a map when you already have enough to beat it on your own. I don’t place the warm fuzzy above all else, but I’m perfectly okay with you doing so.

    Let me repeat this one more time: You are the problem here. You are the one trying to dictate how others must play the game. The devs have added X number of slots, yes. But they have never stated that playing with fewer players is somehow going against their intentions. I suspect that on most maps (DuraDura being a notable exception), that the player cap is deliberately padded a bit, so an 8 player map is expected to have say 6-8 players or somesuch. That said, I’m not so pretentious as to claim I somehow psychically know the developers’ intentions.



    The debate here, as far as I can tell, is over whether it is harmful to the community in some way to join a game with your alts.

    It is clearly not intended by dev, as you cannot join the same game with a prince and princess on the same account.
    Garm even acknowledges, way back in the earlier post, that doing this is in some way wrong- by saying he shouldn’t admit that he did it.

    Map joining is not as clear cut as has been asserted; certain maps do not show up as often.
    By example, I have, in all my time playing, seen an open LaDuradura all of once.
    It is not just “fill a map, a new map of the same game opens.” You are consuming more than one person’s share of an, in some way, limited resource.

    I have nothing against joining a game with friends and playing it; that is how I have had the most fun at Leap Day.
    If you want to 5-star a map, meet people, team up, work together.

    But there is a big difference (note: not no difference, Garm) between collaborating with a friend or stranger, and colluding with yourself.
    You can’t claim two palaces with the same account or prince, as much as you would wish otherwise. If you must spend your time simulating a forbidden action, at the very least stop ragging on someone for having an opinion in line with the rules.

    Going back to Silaero’s original post, I am guessing they felt deliberately excluded instead of simply not included, demographically. This is understandable, since the tone of that portion of the post was slightly degrading to less experienced players. Feeling insulted by that is not telling people they are wrong as much as they are insensitive. We can hold a debate without resorting to Ad Homonym attacks.



    Interestingly, the shitty players are arguing that the good players should be forced to play with them, while the good players are arguing that they shouldn’t be forced to play with the shitty ones. Gee, I wonder what the motive here is.

    And to be clear, it’s not always that I bring in my alt. We saw a very difficult map with 4 open slots and we took them. You’re both bitching and moaning because you weren’t allowed to try with us, and we literally don’t care. We did not want inexperienced players making the map harder than it already was. What’s so bad about admitting that inexperienced players are a liability? On easier maps, I don’t care. But on a map in which you have to plan, plan, and plan, you noobs are just another hindrance, especially when all four players are REQUIRED to be skillful in order to complete it.

    Why would I want to play with you? Why would I want to have 50% of the slots filled up by players who won’t participate, grab land they don’t use, block bosses, and so on? WHY WOULD I WANT THAT?? I can see why YOU would want that. You would want it so you can sit there leaching off the good players, reaping the reward at the end while fumbling around like a tool. So yes, I am <i>deliberately excluding</i> shitty players on hard maps because I have nothing to gain by allowing you in, but I stand to lose time, energy, loot, and patience by letting you in. What advantage is there for me to add extra hurdles to my game? NONE. If you want me to want to play with you, prove yourself. There are plenty of players I don’t mind playing with, and that’s because when I’ve played with them, it wasn’t a hassle to get them to pull their weight.

    Again, THERE. IS. NO. DEBATE.

    All there is is whiny parasite punks begging to play with the skilled players so they actually see a map completed.

    I take offense to being condemned for not accepting my role as someone to be taken advantage of.



    @clinton: Your logic is again, flawed. Maps by definition, are not finite (aka “a limited resource”). If if one fills up, another of the same difficulty respawns, and the hypothetical exclusionary player has no impact on that. Let’s say Garm/Tempus join a fresh expert map and fill out all the other spots with alt accounts. At this point, you start a new land, and get provided with a new expert map. Assuming the generation is perfectly random (or at least as close as computer generated random generally is), there is absolutely no difference between the odds of getting a particular map by joining their game or by joining a new one.

    To provide a more detailed example:
    –Let’s say you want DuraDura, and that there’s a 25% chance on map spawn of it coming up DuraDura. Garm/Tempus join a map before you and max it out, then you join the next.
    –Scenario 1 (25% likelihood): The first map is DuraDura. Your odds of getting DuraDura went from 100% (if they let you in) to 25%.
    –Scenario 2 (75% likelihood): The first map is not DuraDura. Your odds of getting DuraDura went up from 0% (if they let you in) to 25%.
    –In either case, the end result is that you have 25% chance of getting DuraDura, no matter which way this played out.

    Regarding Silaero’s comments: Go back and reread the first reply to Garm. The key part I took objection to is that his three suggested courses of action were all unreasonable. The first is literally impossible, and the second says to quit the game temporarily (or possibly permanently), and the third says to quit forever. That goes beyond just saying “I’m offended”, and moves into exactly what I’ve taken issue with this entire time: dictating how others should play. As I’ve said repeatedly now, it’s your prerogative to play how you like, and mine to play how I like. Nobody but SpryFox has the right to tell us otherwise.

    Oh yeah, and as a side note… “Ad Homonym” is not what you think it is, and this is not a case of Ad Hominem anyway. We are contesting his position. Within the context of this game at least, Silaero believes strongly in noblesse oblige, I do to a lesser extent, and Garmichael presumably believes in it less than I do (or possibly not at all).

    To use another analogy… Silaero is effectively saying that there should be no tryouts for sports teams. If you want to play, you should be allowed to join, regardless of how much of a burden you may be. Garmichael and I are saying that a competitive team trying to win a league/etc has no obligation to do so. I’d go so far as to argue that the team’s management has an obligation to the players already on the team dictating that they do what they can to improve the odds of victory. If that means excluding less skilled players, so be it. I feel the onus should on players to raise themselves to a level where the other skilled players no longer have to carry them. When that happens, they will naturally be included without issue.



    Delha, if that’s accurate then it is helpful to know how maps spawn. Thanks! All I have to go on are my observations.

    While you have taken a more respectful tone, garmaichel has been fake-yelling, cussing, and name-calling in repeated posts. To look for ad homonym, you need not scroll far up the page- his direct reply to my post dismisses the issue by calling us things like “shitty players” and “Whiny parasite punks”, as tools to dismiss the issue. While these happen after my previous post, they are the best examples I could ask for.

    Attempting to dismiss my opinions or Silaero’s by dismissing our skill or character is an attack on the people and not the ideas. He is implying that I am experiencing bias and naivety based on his assumptions of my skill level, instead of debating the actual statements. Clear ad homonym.

    I’m still pretty new, I’ll freely admit, but that single La DuraDura game I saw? We got the maximum stars (3) for a first attempt, without relevant lv.5 buildings. I was making over half the boss loots- I don’t know everything but I am definitely willing to pull my weight to the best of my ability.

    I have never suggested people should be forced to play with new or inexperienced players, only that it goes against both the implementation and, in my opinion, spirit of the game to play with yourself. I have yet to hear a counter to that.



    I should take some time to apologize.

    I am sorry if I offended, and for losing my cool, and being a jerk.

    I am not saying anyone should stop playing the game, or be saddled with people who can’t pull their weight.
    If playing a match with your alt is what gives you kicks, and it isn’t hurting someone else (like playing with and Alt and blitzing past new players in a Sad Uncle), I’m fine with that; though ideologically it isn’t what I want to do. Apparently, it will mean I’m more likely to play a game with someone who also wants to play a game with other humans, and I’m happy with that.

    I shouldn’t argue on the internet, and I shouldn’t have resorted to a comment against a person like that.

    I’m going to stop talking now- maybe we’ll play a game together someday.




    An interesting problem. I would love players of different abilities to play together and help one another out. The current expert maps instead implicitly emphasizes elite group performance over friendliness to more casual players. Open to ideas.



    Suppose an experienced player could make lower-tier recipes more difficult (like three-berry bread), and in exchange simplify higher-tier recipes (like four-Pottery porcelain busts). Then if a mixed group wanted to make boss loot, their best move would be to have the less experienced players build the components, while the more experienced players assemble them for the boss.



    @delha: that sports team analogy was perfect.

    @clinton: Don’t whine about feeling insulted when this thing mostly started by you calling me selfish for not wanting to let unskilled players hinder my experience. You just admitted you’re new, so quite possibly, you don’t know what you’re talking about here, and have no experience having your game screwed up by other people. I’ve been playing for about eight months, and believe me, I have plenty of experience with this. And for the record, it’s not you I was attacking. It was your misconceptions and ideas that were flawed, just as Delha and I said over and over and over.

    Expert Map implies a need for expert players. I’d much rather not take my chances on playing an expert map without expert players. It’s as simple as that.

    I would like this dynamic to continue to exist. I like having an option for elite players to play in an elite style with only other elite players, instead of everything being dumbed down for newbies. I like a challenge, and when I deal with those challenges, the last thing I want to deal with is the artificial challenge of dealing with inexperience players mucking everything up. I have no desire of ‘being friendly’ to new or unskilled players who are playing a map specifically intended for seasoned and skilled players.

    I don’t see much room for players of different skill levels to co-operate very well. Skilled players can take over a map and finish it before unskilled players even wrap their head around things. Skilled players don’t want to wait for unskilled players to take 3 or 4 days to get to a point where they can help out on a boss when they could finish the boss in 18 hours. Because of this, I think it’s a bit of a mistake to aim for a goal which combines skilled and unskilled players in the same map.

    Unskilled players end up feeling like they didn’t get to do anything.
    Skilled players end up feeling like they had to do everything while being artificially hindered.

    I think it’s much more appropriate to get players of similar skill levels joined up as much as possible with as little variation in skill level among players as can be done.

    I have a few ideas how this could be done:

    – A friends list of some sort and be able to see and join their games.. possibly even a chat system outside of games so we can coordinate. This way, unskilled players can play with other players of their skill level frequently and learn together, and skilled players can coordinate an attack on a specific map.

    – The ability to start a map and set a minimum XP level for players to join.

    – Filter available games in such a way that you can only see a map listed if the average XP level of the players in it are within 10 levels of your own.

    – Have a checkbox style option somewhere that would mark you as an ‘pro only’ player of some sort, where maps you see in the list are ones that are primarily being played by other players with the same option set.

    Some of these ideas would allow moderate players to play with weak players and teach them some tricks and techniques to become moderate players themselves. Moderate players would also be able to play with expert players, giving the expert players a chance to teach the moderate players new tricks and techniques. But still, when it comes down to it: Expert players on Expert maps only please. Like I’ve said a few times and Delha has said: There is simply no room or desire for anyone that isn’t an expert player to play with us on these expert maps. There are no highschoolers in the Major Leagues for a reason.



    @clinton (reply 1):
    Garm’s last post certainly isn’t diplomatic, but I really can’t blame him. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, he’s been under fire for the vast majority of this thread. While it’s technically true that you’ve never stated that people should be forced to play with new or inexperienced players, your first post in this thread agreed with Silaero, who clearly does hold the belief in question. And as you admit, the example you reference occurs only after your provocation, in a post where it’s painfully obvious that he has lost all patience with this debate.

    I’ll point out again that you are using a nonexistent term. Please Google “homonym” and see what comes up. I used the correct version in my last response.

    Another note: The stars you see available on a given map run is not necessarily the true maximum. To my understanding, maps doing reveal additional potential starts until you complete it at the current maximum. In other words, you need to complete a map at 3 stars before seeing the 4th star at all.

    @clinton (reply 2):
    Thanks for the apology. One last thing I should clear up though: You and Silaero keep implying or claiming outright that Garmichael and I don’t want to play with other people, and as we’ve been saying for days now, this is emphatically untrue. We just wish there was a way to more carefully filter players by skill on top end maps. Skilled players are not a problem, we just dislike when a weaker player either makes a map more difficult or delays it’s completion. To the best of my knowledge, we also ALWAYS play with other people. Even on the DuraDura example that set this off, Garm and Tempus are still playing with other humans: each other.

    @daniel/Eskay: I really like that sort of idea. Rather than simply having a set of roughly symmetric starting positions, perhaps a map could be designed that explicitly restricts certain areas to players who have achieved certain milestones.

    On a somewhat tangential note, I think it would be nice to have those milestones be dependent on difficulty threshold rather than something accumulated (ie. level or experience). For example, a player might need a to have a “best star” record of 4+ on at least say, 3 different hard/expert maps. Ideally, I’d like the number of maps required to increase and for duplication to be allowed (eg. 10 hard/expert map completions at 4+ stars, taking the form of say, Cougarina x5, Twins x2, and DuraDura x1), but I realize that may well require information not currently being tracked, whereas you obviously already have records of the “best stars” a player has achieved on a given map. If based off just player level or experience points, it presumably becomes more difficult to recognize the difference between someone who plays a moderate amount on difficult maps vs another who plays a lot but typically only on low level maps. I realize my proposed version can still be gamed, but I suspect it would generally serve as a more accurate gauge of how much experience a player has with the high end content.



    A star-based filter would only tell you who likes to participate in the rush. While that surely requires skill, there’s enough strong players that don’t care the least little bit about the rush and that probably don’t want it institutionalized. Not finishing as fast as humanly possible does not equal being unskilled.
    Going the other way would be getting rid of time-based star goals entirely, so that the blitz loses the little bit of meaning it does have now.

    Clinton, who despite his newishness is a quite talented player perfectly capable of pulling his own weight, nice to talk to and easy to work with, was not the one who needed to apologize here, either. That level of rage and insults is pretty disheartening to see, in here anyway.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 45 total)

The forum ‘LD – General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.