Live and let live - ( or how do I personally benefit? )

[Aamer Khan]

We keep hearing on the boards that leave things alone, live and let live, if "they" want to do "that" so what as long as it does not hurt me I'm ok with "it".

Should we live and let live?

Let me ask this question...
If in the long run, we never adjust things to improve them, how many of your friends will still be here playing with you? By allowing things to go unchanged they won't get better. And in the end we all lose.

Challenge, purpose, and meaning all play a part of why we play any game. Making mobs harder certainly give us all challenges. When the game was released we had purpose, but now lack it since all major events like the mines, machines, recalling the dryads, have been completed. The only meaning we have left is reaching unfinished goals, or helping new players learn the ropes.

Things MUST change, else we are left with bored players looking for a new place to chase the elusive purpose. Change brings pain to those unwilling to embrace the new, but joy to those that can appreciate the taste of freshness. It's been said that those that resist change are selfish. Really can't it be viewed as self-destructive? Refreshing, new purpose and challenge can renew our spirits, but letting it remain un-improved will kill us all.

So, let's keep exploring what adjustments can help refresh us, and put away wondering how this might affect us only. Look to how it affects ALL players. Keep it respectful of the needs of others, realize that "letting live" may very well harm more than help. But also realize that too much of anything is bad, and it's the little things that often make the most difference.

[Khoal]

This thread doesn't really belong in the General Forum, but rather the Discussion Forum.

The purpose for the Discussion Forum is:

If you have a topic about Horizons including game mechanics, community, and news and announcements post your discussions here. If you have an editorial or post you are wanting to debate certain topics with your fellow community members, it goes here.

[refuse]

Ok, I will bite. ;)

If in the long run, we never adjust things to improve them, how many of your friends will still be here playing with you? By allowing things to go unchanged they won't get better. And in the end we all lose.

No, evolution is good.
But undirected evolution, i.e. not addressing root causes, or taking the easy route (removing instead of adding) ins't good. In the end, removal as a form of change is usually a bad idea.

Removing broken quests, doesn't fix the quest, it just fixes the "error".
Removing comps from techs doesn't fix the comps, it just fixes the "error".

So in that light, change has to evaluated based on the root cause. Or, is the change fixing the problem or removing the problem?

Challenge, purpose, and meaning all play a part of why we play any game. Making mobs harder certainly give us all challenges. When the game was released we had purpose, but now lack it since all major events like the mines, machines, recalling the dryads, have been completed. The only meaning we have left is reaching unfinished goals, or helping new players learn the ropes.

Then we are lost.

A new player can look forward to? Helping other new players and setting goals?

Again, the changes needed come from both sides.

Things MUST change, else we are left with bored players looking for a new place to chase the elusive purpose. Change brings pain to those unwilling to embrace the new, but joy to those that can appreciate the taste of freshness. It's been said that those that resist change are selfish. Really can't it be viewed as self-destructive? Refreshing, new purpose and challenge can renew our spirits, but letting it remain un-improved will kill us all.

There is pain in growing, and pain in having things removed. The pain of growing can learn to be enjoyed, the pain of removal leaves only longing.

It has been said that those who seek change, are unsettled, unbalanced or jealous of others. And that in and of itself can be veiwed as general destructiveness.

Refreshing, new purposes through the addition of choices, options or decisions can renew the spirit of the game. The removal, deletion, avoidance of current issues can stiffle change.

So, let's keep exploring what adjustments can help refresh us, and put away wondering how this might affect us only. Look to how it affects ALL players. Keep it respectful of the needs of others, realize that "letting live" may very well harm more than help. But also realize that too much of anything is bad, and it's the little things that often make the most difference.

Denying we are human is denying what we are.
Placing blame on "selfishness" avoids the harsh reality of the cause of the change.
"The good of the community at the cost of the individual" is something wars have been fought over for years.
Each individual is important, their opinions valid, their desires are justified.
"Letting live" is countered with "pettyness", "selfishness", "self-destructiveness". Isn't the act of labelling an act of dismissive intent. By calling them "selfish", "petty" you have dismissed any counter argument they may make. "How petty of them to go against the "greater good"". "Look how selfish they are not to embrace the ideas."

Is it not better to take their opinions, their views and their discussion to heart. To look if there is a root cause, a deeper problem then the "fix" is trying to solve? No there can't be because they are selfish and petty, what validity could they have?

So the discussion breaks down into polar opposites. The "petty", and the "pure". Those who seek "self-destruction" and those that seek "community". Why would their opinions matter? They are on the other side.


Perhaps realize that "change" may lead to evolutionary dead ends.
And keep respectful of all the other player's needs. Even the "petty selfish" ones.
Because you don't perceive the "problem" as they do, doesn't make it any less valid.

Perhaps looking for the deeper cause, the one at the base of both of the arguments is a better place to look for change.

As you said

Challenge, purpose, and meaning all play a part of why we play any game.

Your challenge may not be their challenge.
Your purpose may not be their purpose.
Your meaning may not be their meaning.

Remember, victory is sweet to the winner. But to the loser it is bitter.
But victory

Really can't it be viewed as self-destructive?

Yes, to win the battle may cost you the war.

There can be no winning side, for with winning, you create losers. Those losers who pay the same amount as the winners.

Drawing lines, putting "selfish", "self-destructive" people on one side, draws the boundry of those who will enjoy the change, and those who won't. They are not selfish, but they are customers in this case.

So look deeper when you call someone selfish, look to your choices. Are you being selfish for simplicty?

As peter gabriel said
"It is only water in a stranger's tear.
Looks are deceptive, but distinction is clear".

When you can look at the other side, and see only water, you have lost.

When you look at the other side of an argument and see "petty" "selfish" people, you have distanced yourself from them, and you have lost. It isn't a discussion anymore.

[Aamer Khan]

This thread is not a request for posts or discussion. Its a request for us to all continue thinking about what will help us all in the future.

And if all you say is indeed true digit, why should we bother at all?

We will ultimatly piss off someone no matter what is done. You want changes that you approve of and yet point at my comments as being narrow minded. What exactly DO you want? This game tailored to your liking? Or just leave it alone and rock on and see it die? Or are you interested in seeing it improve? You may not like it but you can't eat the cake and let others eat it too when there are limited pieces to be had.

I don't agree with removing what we already have as a solution, and never have. I want to see additions made that help define roles. Only TG can decide what those additions are. I believe that if we clearly tell TG what we find fun and refreshing, they WILL hear us and respond.

Here you are spinning it to fit what ever your agenda is... again. I said that resisting change is self-destructive, and you tell me I'm labeling to draw a line and be dismissive, all the while, your dismissing the context of my comments to further your points. ( I never used the word petty... you did )

I actually am respectful of the individuals view, but don't respect views that ultimately harm the playerbase anymore than you do. I'm not a seer, I cannot fortell the future, thus I called for continued exploration by ALL players on what could be refreshing to us ALL.

Bottom line: Suggestions should and do come from us the players. Change comes from TG and the Developers. Clearly and respectfully stating our fears and needs seems to be working. Understanding where we are,how we got here and what can improve the game for every player, helps us all much more that trying to shape it into our own personal vision.

Agree or disagree, maintain status quo or fight for change, cooperate or rail, the choices are there for us all. I shall continue down my path as I'm sure you will too.[;)]

[Kulamata]

Change istoo broad a way to think of this. Changes that took things away seemed to cost us players at worst, lost morale at best. The recent spate of positive changes have certainly raised morale, and perhaps helped retain players. By arguing that change is good without qualification is to equally embrace the helpful and the harmful.

As for personal feelings, those, and those of our friends are our only compass. If a change increases grind to slow down the game, with nopositive aspect at all, it irritates me, and usually my friends. From that, I assume that it will irritate others as well, probably cost us players, and certainly not add players, and I will judge that change as "wrong".

If I see class deficiencies addressed, (Elars and Dragons seem to come to mind) I consider that "good". My Elar hunting partner left because of those deficiencies; and the dragons I know are looking forward to the armor changes and all the other additions.

This game is a business. If it fails, we will all have lost. So I do my best to evaluate my feelings, and my friends' feelings, in the context of whether players will be attracted, retained, or repelled by any given change. In a time of crisis, I don't think any other criteria are important.

[Aamer Khan]

Thank you for correcting my comments Kulamata. What I stated so poorly, you help make clear.

Evaluating how any change affects the retention or repelling of players is more in line of what I mean.

I'm willing to adjust to any positive change that attracts new players or helps retain current players regardless of how it affects me personally. Upping mob strengths certainly made things more difficult for me personally, but helped give those who only adventure further challenges. Whether any view it as good or bad, folks did benefit from it.

I am just wanting us to keep exploring what can done with a view to retaining and NOT repelling players.I fully believe that most agree some adjustments need to be made, it's just what adjustments are made is the issue. Having a view of the whole picture, means looking past self and towards the good of all. When some change affects our friendsin a negative way, and we react to change it, are we not doing just that?

[refuse]

This thread is not a request for posts or discussion. Its a request for us to all continue thinking about what will help us all in the future.

And if all you say is indeed true digit, why should we bother at all?

We will ultimatly piss off someone no matter what is done. You want changes that you approve of and yet point at my comments as being narrow minded. What exactly DO you want? This game tailored to your liking? Or just leave it alone and rock on and see it die? Or are you interested in seeing it improve? You may not like it but you can't eat the cake and let others eat it too when there are limited pieces to be had.

Actually I said evolution is good. Unfocused evolution is bad. Changing a thing does not make it a good change. It has to be evaluated at its root.

Did removing quests change the game, yes. Good or bad? Bad.

But the point is we have to make sure the root (underlying) problem is addressed.

The point about pissing people off is justified. If the decision is made to make a change, then the line is drawn. People on the other side are just that.

I didn't say I want changes I approve of. I was commenting to your point of "Selfish" people. It is easy to dismiss dragons as selfish, or bipeds as selfish. It is much harder to say, we need to find a balance, something that balances the whole equation.

I am pretty sure, I only said what you said, back to you.

I never call people on the other side of the argument selfish. I try to use their logic back to them, to indicate their tone.

I pay for a subscription. Am I selfish to want to enjoy my self?
What about other people that pay? Are they selfish?

What about Dragons that want the developers to work on dragons?
Or confectioners, or monks, or. . .

Are we selfish?

No.

If I enjoy the game now (I am paying) am I selfish to want to to stay where I enjoy it? If you don't are you selfish to want to change it? If it changes and I don't enjoy it, am I selfish to want it back where it was? If it stays where it is, are you selfish to want it to change?

I don't agree with removing what we already have as a solution, and never have. I want to see additions made that help define roles. Only TG can decide what those additions are. I believe that if we clearly tell TG what we find fun and refreshing, they WILL hear us and respond.

Yep, and I have made additive posts on what I think would be good, and helpful, and add to what people have.

Here you are spinning it to fit what ever your agenda is... again. I said that resisting change is self-destructive, and you tell me I'm labeling to draw a line and be dismissive, all the while, your dismissing the context of my comments to further your points. ( I never used the word petty... you did )

:)
I used your same argument against you.
You dismiss people's points as selfish. I added petty against yours.
Sorry if it seemed an attack, I was more being constructive.

Is change good?
Is change bad?

Depends on which side you are on.

I actually am respectful of the individuals view, but don't respect views that ultimately harm the playerbase anymore than you do. I'm not a seer, I cannot fortell the future, thus I called for continued exploration by ALL players on what could be refreshing to us ALL.

Absolutely.
As I told you yesterday, I respect what you do.

But you said:

It's been said that those that resist change are selfish. Really can't it be viewed as self-destructive?

I took your words and rewrote the sentence from the other side:

It has been said that those who seek change, are unsettled, unbalanced or jealous of others. And that in and of itself can be veiwed as general destructiveness.

Are you right? Am I right?

I wasn't trying to be right. I was turning the table around to have you look at the other side.

Am I self-destructive? Am I selfish? If I don't "embrace" change according to your sentence I am.

So I wrote a sentence that said just the opposite.

Did it bother you? Maybe your sentence would bother others.

Root cause.

Bottom line: Suggestions should and do come from us the players. Change comes from TG and the Developers. Clearly and respectfully stating our fears and needs seems to be working. Understanding where we are,how we got here and what can improve the game for every player, helps us all much more that trying to shape it into our own personal vision.

http://community.istaria.com/Web/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=56936

Time and time again, you will see me say, root cause.

"this is bad" but are we fixing the problem or the symptom?

If I say it, it is asking you to look deeper. I don't accuse you of being selfish, you have every right to your opinion. My post above was opposite yours. To make a point. You are right in your opinion, others in theirs.

You took it a bit more personally then I wrote it. I meant it as a "don't give up on the other side, don't draw lines, don't count out any opinion" style. Seems I didn't get that accross.

Agree or disagree, maintain status quo or fight for change, cooperate or rail, the choices are there for us all. I shall continue down my path as I'm sure you will too.[img]/Web//emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]

Absolutely change.
There are things we all agree need to be fixed.

some cases:
Remove the Veilo
-My point find out why they are negative and fix that before removing them

Limit Multi-classing
-Uncap levels to let single classers find the same power

I think there is a root cause (should I say Six Sigma training at work?) to problems.

Why is multi-classing a problem?
Is it multi-classing, end game, content? But spend time to identify this.

Why are people upset?
Is it content? Communications? Treatment?

Why are people still playing (Tulga gets my money every month)
Is it content? Multi-classing? Hope for something good tomorrow? Masochistic natures?

Why are people leaving?
Is it content? communications? Broken promises?



And there is no one answer to any of these. Every customer has a unique opinion. Each paying customer has a vote (some with multiple accounts, multiple votes).

I don't disagree, I don't agree. I am not in a position to make decisions so I get the freedom of making suggestions.

But please, don't label people who like what they have as "selfish". Perhaps they are happy.

Just as people who desire a change are not "unsettled" (my point in using that sentence), perhaps they are unhappy.

The fine line Tulga has to walk is to keep as many people as happy as possible. Thus I usually try to suggest things that add onto what is there now, with options to use/not use it.

Do I think things need to change. Yes.
Do I think some things need to happen to determine what needs to change. Yes.

When we look at changes now, we need to look at the state of the game. If the problems were fixed, would the things we see as problems now still be there?

Back to examples.

If the economy was well structured and working would the Vielo need to be removed.
My opinion, no. They would provide a service for those that wanted it.

If there was no cap, and you had many ways to get a 150, 200, 300 rating would multiclassing be a problem?
No, people could single class to 300 rating.
People could multiclass to 300.
300 rating would be about 300 rating, and people would be equal.
The inequality comes from people limited to 100, and others not. Those that don't have a choice see the others as a problem. When in my opinion, the problem is deeper, their lack of choice.

Why are people upset
Something they want is missing.

Why are people leaving
Their needs are not being met.

Why are people staying
Their needs are being met.

I actually meant my post to be a counter to your post only in the "labelling" of people. If you label them, you yourself get labels. "fanboi", "company man". And by my post, I have probably got a label from you (swear filter would probably catch it though!) ;)

So, when looking at a problem, and finding a solution, you have to go back and judge (as well as you can), is this the real problem? Is this my subjective take on the problem? Are other's complaints about other problems actually part of this problem? Is there a root cause that I can fix, to remove this and other problems?


If there was content, something to do every day, would people see the problems they see today?

some will say yes, some will say no.

If all the "bugs"/unfinished classes/level cap/ARop/content were in game, would the problems we see today still be there?

Some will say yes, some will say no.

If you can see the deeper issue, then perhaps less changes are needed, because they would fix more.


[b]my opinion[/]b
1)I rather have no upper cap. Multi-classers can pay their XP penalty, dragons/single classers can rise as high as they want.

This would mitigate alot of problems with people (my opinion again) ignoring the "rating" differences when seeing problems.

2)I rather have class definition through abilities (probably should have been done from the start) then limitations on what they can do.

This (my opinion) would encourage single classing, and multi-classers know what they are giving up to maintain multiple classes.

3) I rather have racial differences between the bipeds, then just being grouped as "bipeds".

4) I rather see content added to the game, through class and racial quests to the best of the developers ability, before "rebalancing" the classes. See if they can forward balance the new abilities (see my post).

5) I rather see developers post here in the forums, then have to monitor IRC allday long. And get information second hand. I use to leave a comptuer on monitoring the IRC chat, but gave up.

[Aamer Khan]

I think I finally understand why comments from me and others cause lengthy analysis from you.

It's because we both base our reactions upon differing assumptions.

It's not "bad" to say a thing is by nature selfish. We all are selfish. The very act of beathing is a self serving act. This in of itself is not bad at all. It's just a biological fact.

By calling into question the actions of someone as being self-serving is totally valid IF those actions harm others in any way. Back in the Death to the Vielo thread I made this statement:

"I believe the reliance upon the vielo has watered down the feel the game had at the start. Increasing the drop rate, and adding the currently not in game comps to the loot tables would help that." And as that thread continued I learned to adapt my view to what others felt were important. Today what do we see? Drop rates to be increased, and some of the comp requirements changed to something that actually drops in game. Did this happen because of me? Not bloody likely. It was a response to all the others included that voiced their views and help drive the bus we all ride in.

If my view is so off base that it needs to be corrected, then so be it. I will learn and continue to grow in my understanding of the problem and it's possible solution. Untill then, I will keep on making poorly worded attempts at contributing to the betterment of all.

However, on this subject I think it's time for me to say ado. I've made my points and no longer desire to debate.

[BKBanzai]

Sadly, it seems that each attempt to make improvements only hoses this game up more (or such has been the case)...eventually the situation "resets" itself, but in the meantime, players get frustrated and leave.

Look at how many we lost due to the horrendous server merger, where vaults would take 739804732097420374 minutes to load, it would take upwards of 45 minutes to log in, database stopped all weekend long and then server crash after server crash...

Now, I can honestly say that after the mob "positioning" improvement patch, I have invisible mobs, vanishing group members, mobs running "out of range" only to find they are actually beating on me the whole time. If I am lucky enough to have cast a repeater ,they eventually die, but otherwise, I have to leave the vicinity.

I'm still seeing corpses sliding off into the distance...they don't slide as far as they used to (over the horizon), but they are still unlootable.

I will say...after the server merge, it is only just recently with the announced fix to trade crashing, that I finally saw this resolved....so, this was how many months to fix?

Bottom line, a good number of remaining players would rather HOLD OFF ON CHANGES until the existing bugs are all fixed and the game stabilizes. Lag gets worse and worse it seems with each change. It actually HAD gotten better, until early this year, after some patch, now memory leaks are worse than ever and New Rach, Dalimond, Parsinia, many other player towns are worse lagmonsters than Tazoon EVER was.

Combat lag was greatly improved pre-merge...some patch well after the server merge, and then combat lag reared it's head again.

Health bar not updating...this is STILL a problem. I have run out of heals numerous times healing party members because I can't tell when they're healed up enough for the time being.

So, not a matter of personally benefitting, just for god's sake, please fix what's wrong before you introduce more things that will only hose up what little isn't broken...not to mention that what you will introduce, will, most likely, be broken to some degree anyway.

Slow down, fix what's wrong and you'll keep players that are on the verge of leaving due to sheer frustration.

COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE.

I don't know HOW many posts I've seen complaining about the "priviledged" few that get insight via IRC...not to mention, those that live and breathe IRC seem to get their wishes pushed through, with no input from the non-IRC PAYING customers.

I see grave imbalance.

[Phillip]

Aamer,

i personally think it's pretty cool to actually have the stuff we were suppose to have since the past, so we can get to the what can we do to improve the future bit.

[Goriax]

Yes the game needs to evolve. When I compare this game as it is now to where it was the month after release it's FAR better (fewer people but better game). Even if compared to where it was last summer.

I play a dragon and have seen MANY changes, of which most were greeted with less then total enthusiasm by the community or even myself. Even things such as the introduction of the Rite of Passage had many people upset (mainly because it wasn't what they expected)and some quit over it. I personally was VERY skeptical about the introduction of the hoard skills (gold rage, gold shield, silver strike, mainly because they replaced two other non-hoard skills which became unavailable);however, since then I've realized how nice it is to know that if you really really need to do something, you can dig deep and do it. In fact if that concept could be adapted to bipeds I think it would improve the game for them too.

For the most part, players do not like change. People find things which work and they get into a rut. Change means people have to find other things which work.They assume that if a change keeps what they've been doing from working, that it doesn't allow anything else which works any better. In other words it's a nerf with no redeeming features. Some fraction of people who feel they've been nerfed will quit.

When first introduced, it doesn't matter ifa change which nerfed the old way of doing things in fact allows another and even better way of doing things. People don't see that. They just see the nerf. Once the change is introduced and people have a chance to work with it, those who hold out and keep an open mind and are willing to search for new ways of doing things will prosper while those who are not will not. In that since, change introduces a survival of the fittest -- players who can adapt will survive and prosper in the game while those who can not or will not fall by the wayside. Unfortunately a lot of players refuse to adapt.

On top of all this is the fact that no change is perfect. Anytime that software is changed there is a chance of introducing bugs. In fact it's almost impossible to NOT introduce bugs. Also, a new game mechanic may not work quite the way intended or it may introduce unintended side effects. In a game as complex as HZ it's very hard to anticipate all the ways players will use the changed rules. So the introduction of bugs and other unintended side effects will also increase the dissatisfaction. Of course, the bugs can be fixed and (hopefully) the unintended side effects can be minimized with further tweaks, but it does introduce disruption which players won't like.

However, if the change at it's fundamental level was well thought out, and if players are patient, they'll usually see a better game in the end. I think that's very evident with dragons but not just dragons. Perhaps what's needed is to add some sort of sugar coating whenever a big change is put into the game. Perhaps a limited time during which experience, or drops or SOMETHING is higher then normal. Something to coax players into sticking it out. Hopefully, by the time the sugar coating is over people will have adapted and found new ways to play which are hopefully more fun then the old ways (if they aren't more fun it might indicate the change was less then successful).

However, sugar coating a change with a temporary boon of some sorthas it's own dangers.When the sugar coating period ends players will see THAT as a nerf. During the merge the vault space was made virtually infinite. It was widely announced that was a temporary measure and would be put back after a couple months, but many players still felt nerfed when the sugar coating period ended and the vault space was put back to where it was. Maybe it was because that period lasted several months and people got used to it. Therefore, sugar coating is added to a change, that period must be kept so short that players don't get used to it as the normal way to play.

[Vahrokh]

The game now is vastly better than before.
And having a low population even eases the effects of the still present problems (I bet that if we get 2000 players on a shard again, database etc will lag and die again like once).

Yet now that the mechanics of the base gameplay are getting sorted the old farts ended up the contents and so complain. Driving away new people that see the constant "problems" and will think they won't join such a mess.

While instead it's just that the vets are bored...