| 1 |
[q]If it surprised a decent proportion of users and made them unhappy then it's a bug.[/q]
|
1 |
[q]If it surprised a decent proportion of users and made them unhappy then it's a bug.[/q]
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
It
is
not
regardless
of
how
many
people
are
unhappy.
If
the
entire
point
of
a
system
is
to
gain
gameplay
advantages
(
See
my
point
about
Terraform)
and
a
targeting
issue
arises
from
it
(
See
for
instance
stardust
behind
a
wall)
,
it
is
working
as
intended
(
not
a
bug)
.
What
you're
wanting
to
say
is
that
the
gameplay
that
[u]emerges
from
the
system
is
degenerative[/u].
|
3 |
It
is
not
regardless
of
how
many
people
are
unhappy.
If
the
entire
point
of
a
system
is
to
gain
gameplay
advantages
via
terrain
manipulation
and
a
targeting
issue
arises
from
it,
it
is
working
as
intended
(
not
a
bug)
.
What
you're
wanting
to
say
is
that
the
gameplay
that
[u]emerges
from
the
system
is
degenerative[/u].
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Calling design you disagree with "bugs" is just disrespectful to the designer. Consider the communication being made: "this thing you took time and effort to design isn't working correctly according to [b]my[/b] design. Change it." That's pretty disrespectful to the person/people who put time and effort into making the design. We can call a design "unfun" or "degenerative", and that's fine but to go as far as calling it a bug when its working as intended by the developer has very unhealthy undertones that should not be ignored.
|
5 |
Calling design you disagree with "bugs" is just disrespectful to the designer. Consider the communication being made: "this thing you took time and effort to design isn't working correctly according to [b]my[/b] design. Change it." That's pretty disrespectful to the person/people who put time and effort into making the design. We can call a design "unfun" or "degenerative", and that's fine but to go as far as calling it a bug when its working as intended by the developer has very unhealthy undertones that should not be ignored.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
The uncomfortable truth is that by placing so many players in a game, they have enough time/attention to perform such actions like jack cannon. As a result, you get things like this happening in response to the new "funny strategy" of the month. The problem is only exacerbated by the large cap on the playercount causing people to funnel into one game which not only prevents social stigmatization but makes transmission of the strategy ridiculously fast. There's just going to be yet another "degenerative strategy" constantly that will need more interventionism until we're left with a bland game.
|
7 |
The uncomfortable truth is that by placing so many players in a game, they have enough time/attention to perform such actions like jack cannon. As a result, you get things like this happening in response to the new "funny strategy" of the month. The problem is only exacerbated by the large cap on the playercount causing people to funnel into one game which not only prevents social stigmatization but makes transmission of the strategy ridiculously fast. There's just going to be yet another "degenerative strategy" constantly that will need more interventionism until we're left with a bland game.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
Nuances like crab not being able to fire at nearby raiders is what makes the game interesting and prevents units from being a bunch of near-carbon copies of each other.
|
9 |
Nuances like crab not being able to fire at nearby raiders is what makes the game interesting and prevents units from being a bunch of near-carbon copies of each other.
|
B1420209 29 on DeltaSiegeDry Deluxe V3 (Multiplayer)