Cjfred68 wrote:
Tarquinthedark if you think anything I said was in reference to yourself then you are mistaken.
Personally,
Thank you for clarifying that. Of the four least experienced owners that have seen participating in this thread, my join date was closest to December. I'm glad I was mistaken, but don't worry about offending me, it's unlikely.
Collectively,
I respect all the "old idiots"; I aspire to be one someday. My interactions with all the named parties (including Lamba) have been enjoyable and mostly positive. I believe we all have 90-95% the same goals, we differ in priorities . . . what we see as the best pathway to achieve them. I believe part of that is based length of participation, so we should ALL make the effort to engage in civil debate, ESPECIALLY between experienced and new owners.
At the moment, with this version, it seems to me that a convergence of "good ideas" are having a dysergetic (opposite of synergetic) effect on gameplay and are limiting gameplanning options rather than expanding them. They are creating a "right" way to play, other ways are wrong (ineffective, frustrating, etc.). I'm not thrilled about that. I'd encourage all owners, new and experienced, to explore and analyze the mechanics from that perspective with a view towards voicing considered opinions on how to improve the interaction.
I am disturbed by experienced owners leaving, which I also see as mainly caused by version changes that were too rapid. The rapid rate of change, by itself, causes frustration for established owners.
We all understand that MFN is evolving, 4.5 is not the final version, this is a work in progress. IMO JDB is a genius, and also certainly not infallible. Therefore, change that is too rapid causes a cascading effect. Unforeseen consequences require urgent fixing which causes further unforeseen consequences. When does it become LESS urgent to fix the fixes? Will the next version NOT have more unforeseen consequences?
So, analysis GOOD, debate GOOD, urgency of version change based on gameplay issues NOT SO MUCH.
Also, . . .
(this is where I believe priority divergence is influenced by length of ownership)
I am far more disturbed by an issue that increases the turnover among new owners. I believe focusing on that issue will more rapidly create a better environment for ALL owners, AND aid in retention of ALL owners.
It has nothing to do with 4.5 as opposed to other recent versions.
The trade value system is broken. It creates a toxic environment. It encourages predatory behavior, collusion, outright cheating, and accusations of cheating.
Rather than focusing on how best to fix it, debate has mainly focused on the best ways of limiting access to owners who understand exactly how broken it is. IMO limiting access just steepens the learning curve. New owners (definitely including myself) come out from under the limit and gain access with virtually no understanding of how broken trade values are.
The system and its incentives tend to exacerbate the divide between new and established owners. Established owners are more likely to accept this system in its current condition, because in general they receive an advantage on unequal trades. It's simple human nature.
And . . .
All of us that spend our free time and/or money here are invested in this game. We all want the game to thrive and improve, both as a system and community. Some are more vested than others, but we all care. That's why we are here talking about it. So, let's engage in civil, positive debate. Avoid toxicity. Avoid getting personal. That doesn't mean it needs to be all unicorns farting rainbows. It means EVERYONE please consider YOUR personal investment in this community and it's growth before posting.
Last edited at 3/24/2019 3:50 am