Cross-posted to netrek-dev from paradise-workers, when you respond
take care where you want it to go (might need to subscribe before).
=- John R. Dennison wrote on Tue 12.Jun'07 at 17:33:15 -0500 -=
> > {...} but even in Bronco only the planets' positions are
> > (roughly, not identically?) the same, their facilities change
> > (random).
>
> Planets are always in the same position. Resources change at every
> galaxy reset.
You mean as in _exactly_ the same x-y coord in the universe, or
just roughly relatively to other planets?
Are the relative coords the same for each race? Otherwise this can
mean an advantage, too, where does balance end?
BTW, balance of what against what?
Total balance (fairness, if you mean that with it) requires
_identical_ conditions for both sides of a comparison.
What do you compare, and how can you compare complex things as
different ship types, planet positions and equipment, and individual
skill differences?
At best you can provide identical startup resources and positions
like in chess, but that's not everyone's favourite game for fun.
> > > { why paranoid Bronco players detest Paradise }
> >
> > Bronco is just the preference of the most unflexible yet most
> > vocal perfectionists, fanatically keeping out every disturbance
> > from _their_ perfect world.
> > Their vocality(?) however is not reflecting their relative numbers.
>
> And you /still/ don't get it do you, Rado?
> The issue was, and still remains, the fact that after 15+ years
> bronco is balanced. It has nothing to do with anything other then
> balance.
Then you don't get it: what Bronco (or trek in general with all its
variants) needs is not more _balance_, but more players getting
hooked up as starters in a shorter time than they used to before.
Balance is tied to a goal/ ideal state you want to reach.
It might be for example a preferred game-/ strategy style or skills
set, but this need not be everyone's preference (goal).
Veteran players need much balance because details change the outcome.
Beginners don't need perfect balance, as long as it isn't utterly
broken.
They need something to hook up with. Paradise offers there more
than Bronco.
Balance alone doesn't make a game more fun to play.
If I had the choice as _STARTER_ (not the oldies the 2 of us are) to
choose between the best balanced Bronco as we have it now and
Paradise as it was, I'd still play Paradise, despite my similarly
big desire _NOW_ to have a balanced game in the long run when the
simple pickup games with all the newbs get boring (or annoying).
When fun-by-appeal gets boring, advance to next level of balanced
play as seen in Bronco (even pickup, but more the leagues).
To like Bronco is hard when you don't agree with the views (yet).
People want to figure out and discover what suits them best, not
being told with a straight-jacket. In that case you only have the
choice between "I like it" or "I don't" -> lost forever.
With Paradise (in its diversity alone and other trek variants)
people can still stay with the trek-world until they meet Bronco.
Bronco _appears_ more straight jacketed, even if it means the same
fun as (or even more than) Paradise.
BTW, in a constant environment like Bronco a limited set of
skills is required to succeed, and to improve success you
can improve only those. If you fail, fun is limited.
In Paradise's ever changing env the usual Bronco skills
still apply, but others, too, and 1 meta-skill is even more
dominant: adapt to the environment _each_ time you play.
That's what perfectionsts have given up, and that's why they
don't like Paradise: they don't want to give up their
already accumulated skills to _start over_ with other/ more
skills and suck all the time while they believe to deserve
to rule with their existing skills based on static features
they know by heart.
What's the gain to have the best balanced game ever when too few
stick to it to even arrive at discussing balance?!
Bronco's appeal is the simplicity (and therefore easier balance) of
the past, but today "more" is asked for and can be provided than
what Bronco offers for entry.
> > Re bronco-style: it's just an _arbitrary_ preference of the
> > self-righteous stubborn crowd sticking to _their_ "high ideals"
> > of perfect game, ignoring the demands of the entry level
> > players, which is what we need (at least Paradise).
>
> And again, you just don't get it. And, speaking for one of the
> members of that 'self-righteous stubborn crowd' I take particular
> exception to being labled as such.
"exception"?
> I will be forwarding this message on to others in that crowd too
> so they can see exactly how you feel. I expect James, Karth and
> the others will enjoy reading it, also.
No problem with that, it was a public msg, I'm not speaking with
split tongue. But maybe you've mistaken above paragraphs to mean all
Bronco players are such fanatics/ extremists; while I mean that some
have such an attitude due to their limited view that what they like
is the best game and should be the only played (in trek-world),
which can only survive by eliminating its descendants before they
can become bigger than their beloved game to benefit from it, too,
and this game happens to be Bronco.
I was thinking primarily of Gerdesas in #netrek and like minded
folks anywhere else. I haven't seen James with such an extremist/
fanatic and ignorantly short-sighted attitude forcing every other
game flavour into submission hoping that those loving other variants
would begin to love what is left once what they really love is
banned.
Those times have passed, they move on to other things they like.
It would have more potential to let them take their time to learn
about Bronco _afterwards_ than kicking them away forever right from
the start.
> > When you have a small community, splitting it up kills it. So we
> > should learn from the past and focus on a common, but high-fun
> > level.
>
> Bingo! My god! You actually understand that?
I understood that all the time, only the direction where it should
go differs. I don't feel like sticking to utopical dreams of
perfectly suited players to stumble over "high-end" Bronco in masses
to stay, in its current state.
I see more potential for Paradise to be the bait and later pass the
elite on to Bronco.
> Had we a decent sized player base it would be different. But we
> /don't/. Even with the work with marketing and advertising that
> Joe Evango has done over the past 12-18 months our player base is
> small.
That's exactly why something _else_/ _more_ has to change. Get it?
Not only expand the offer of flavours, but also join the time
resources of both camps for common good.
BTW, the "not split up" was related to the Paradise-Community.
If you had understood your own statement, you'd have known that we
need to _cooperate_ among variant-communities to get more total, not
fight each other to assimilate into the own camp from the other
(which doesn't work well anyway generally, but even less so because
Paradise currently doesn't _have_ all that many yet to steal from ;).
> Here's a hint: if bronco dies, so do /all/ other variants.
I see better chances for Paradise to recover and _both_ succeed
because of this than for Bronco to survive on its own.
Remember: Paradise is a _superset_ of Bronco (just another galaxy
generator). If Bronco died, it might see a revival via Paradise
later, too, even without the die hard Bronconians.
> > I want to have fun by playing the game, winning/ losing isn't
> > the #1 factor in it, as long as there is occasional success.
>
> It's a team game, Rado. The original developers designed it as a
> /team/ game. Team games are meant to be won.
So are single player games, you're missing the point.
Games are designed to be fun, for all winners and losers.
Or rather, if they _were_, they'd have more people loving them.
That's what we want, no?
> 'league quality'? If bronco can't support more then 1-2 clue games
> a week, what in the world makes you think paradise will have
> /anything/ similar to league quality?
a) I didn't mean exclusively Paradise league. Paradise is just the
hook-up for the advanced games, be they P or even "only" Bronco league.
b) I'm patient to consider this _long_ term goals. Given the wide
perspective on the past, it isn't worse than sticking around with
stagnation in trek-world for such a long time so far.
> Note that I am not making reference to paradise players
> specifically, but to the game as a whole.
I see both leagues happen again, if we worked together.
> > You definitely should have been on netrek-dev when I ticked off
> > the crowd there with that very issue. :)
> > (can still be seen in the archives)
>
> I told you the response you would get.
Yes, but what you promised didn't turn out.
(sadly neither what I hoped for, but we'll see)
> You made threats in that message;
Threat what to happen?
Taking away control from those not using their power to execute it?
A power-vacuum is worse than bad power.
If it's bad, you know what to do; but when you don't know, you waste
time waiting for single effects to make their way through the fog of
war and to change everything on their own.
Possible, but (very?) unlikely, as we've seen so far.
> you expect people to react any other way?
James already did fine, the others might once their questions are
cleared up.
> Who are /you/ to state that resources will be replaced if they
> don't fit your guidelines or requirements?
I'm one of many asking for progress.
Progress requiring (re-)organisation (view shared by others, too).
> As far as that goes, what have you ever contributed back to the
> community as a whole? Anything? Anything at all?
Why has that any relevance to the validity of my words?
1+1==2, no history needed for that.
> While my contributions may be minor at least I /do/ contribute and
> give something back. I am one of 4-5 people actively trying to
> /save/ netrek as a whole.
See "short-sighted" and "ignorant" above.
You wouldn't recognize allies even if they'd bite you in the ass.
> You expect that /not/ to piss people off and not to alienate them?
Of course I _do_, but that's more because of the complexity of the
matter and lack of time to deal with it appropriately (which _is_
the actual matter) rather than anything else.
> If this message offends any of the developers that have put time
> and effort into bringing paradise back I would like to apologize
> to you. This message, like others of Rado's, have irritated me at
> a very low level for a long time.
No worries, that's your problem with my views differing a lot from
yours, nothing else, people can distinguish that (or better yet
speak for themselves).
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.