GoogleFrog that is partially right, partially not.
it seems i am just unable to formulate my points in an understandable way. me being a broken record is a result of never getting my points down, wich is probably the result of my temper as well. (+writing and writing and getting misunderstood all the time is frustrating for me as well, so i tried to just stay away from this stuff for some time)
So, I will try again! I BEG YOU to read this carefully and take my comments literal, I spend 2 hours on this comment and hope that this represents my opinion in an understandable way:
right:
patches tend to invalidate my practise. am i important? no. i don`t have the money and time to make zk my life over years anyway.
wrong:
the game needs to be completely static. that is not my real opinion. and it never has been. i have been accused of this so many times that it began to hurt me personally because i feel people are not listening to me and just write my concerns off by using this simple statement "oh you simply don`t like change". have i ever said this anywhere?
what i think is that there should be an idea what the game should be aiming for in the long term.
there were many things i really liked, aka artillery-movement-nerfs, bertha nerf. racketeers were a pain to get right, but i think they are at a really good spot atm. Superfluid changed fundamental aspects of the game like mex-cost and retreat-advantage for SOME raiders, if i am correct.
This had two problems:
first, it was really hard to exactly evaluate things because it is hard to judge what exact changes were having what effect.
second: at this time, it seemed to me that there were many other things (like pork-arty in teams, spider-fac being quite useless, factory-rps in general) that seemed way more urgent than changes to raiders and mexes. plus i do not think that health- and dps-changes for raiders really did what they were supposed to be. i think raising there LoS was actually what gave you more reaction-time and aquired the desired effect of making the game less punishing.
a more general thing:
your way of making thigs op first to get feedback, than tone them down has a good logic in it and i understand that the community is too small to get good expierience otherwise. the downside of this is that i feel like we are playing wilfully unbalanced game-versions FOR 4 YEARS now, wich at some point became annoying to me. (Bolas-introduction being the example that jumps into my mind first.) so, after those patches, everyone plays the new op-thing, wich is as boring as playing the exact same thing for years and doesn`t feel satisfying in any way.
right:
i would prefer longer times between stables and tournaments. counterplay might take a while to be discovered. running tournaments so close to patches to get feedback might result in wrong feedback.
wrong:
i am completely against making tourneys close to patches. but if i recall, the last few tourneys ALL were direcly after patches? or is my memory tricking me?
also, but this is an absolutely minor point: you and
Aquanim are basically the two people that do the majority of work for zk, right? So it shouldn`t be too hard for you two to coordinate your actions.
Aquanimjust to clarify what i meant with my last two posts above:
I think i know you well enough to say that i am 100% sure that this is neither your intention nor your character, but the comment towards
rincewind sounded pretty belittling, given that what he asked for was nothing that would require real efford.
i admit that i am not involved in the interpersonal realtions between the dev-team, but from outside it looks there is something going wrong. details are not for this thread, but i am actually concerned that you run out of devs over time and hurt your project via this.
So, what i said about individuals counting more here is really not about me, but about the general interpersonal climate of this community. we need everyone (that isn`t a total dickhead).
