Petition to Jorb for Stat Caps

[Bauta]

i think instead of being unable to solo a torll or mammoth that they should just make it so only end game players can solo them and then add newer and stronger beasts that require multiple end game players to defeat

The concept of an End Game is toxic and has no place in wilderness survival game design.

these seem like rather stupid claims 2 make how is it toxic and y does it have no place in survival game design

Draw the line (or more) at which a player's character enters the "endgame".

[xdragonlord18]

The concept of an End Game is toxic and has no place in wilderness survival game design.

these seem like rather stupid claims 2 make how is it toxic and y does it have no place in survival game design

Draw the line (or more) at which a player's character enters the "endgame".

their should b no explicit line

[MightySheep]

The problem with stat caps from my limited understanding is that people dont realize there is a heavy diminishing returns because its not really reflected in the number. You might have a titan with 40k stats but his "effective" value is hidden in the code. So it's very misleading and he seems invincible but in reality theres not much difference from 10k stats. Maybe the fix should be to make it less misleading so people whine about it less. Ps. I'm just going by what people have told me.

[MagicManICT]

that feeling when western extreme leftism and the special butterfly generation is so influential that nobody even dared to assume I might be sarcastic

That feeling when some jackass has a need to come into a "serious discussion" and be a sarcastic prick. /facepalm

Maybe save the drama llamas for the battlefield.

[Griffone]

I don't think infinite "stat" growth is the inherent problem.

Implementing stat cap creates a well-defined goal, which some players, indeed, will take as the win condition for the game. Well, some won't, some might find the end-game in killing as many other players as possible and grinding that infinite stat (read statistic) instead. If your original gripe was that infinite stats allow players who play more/longer/more intensely/etc instantly kill you in 1v1 in PvP, well you will just be killed in 4v1 (look into For Honor dominion for example). People that abuse their superior stats in combat won't suddenly stop abusing their superiority if you limit their stats, they will just abuse a different one, finally ending in their superiority in lack of ethics and resorting to actual cheating if you cap everything.

Replacing stat grind with a different meaningful* end-game doesn't make a difference, as instead of a player with larger stats, you will be destroyed by a player with more relics. Removing meaning* from end-game will change the fundamental nature of the game into a different game with a win condition (get to your defined end-game). That is not for better or worse, it's just different. First video-games did not have a win condition (ex. Asteroids, Tetris) and older games were session-based (football, chess, etc). One can argue that playing a single game of chess/football/MobA isn't really playing the game, the "true" game is in grinding skill for that game.

The argument that stat caps somehow make the game "fair" or "balanced" assumes everything else is already "fair" and "balanced", as one can not balance a perfect scale on an unbalanced platform and expect the resulting contraption to be stable.

The end-game is just a "number grind". Yes, if you don't like it - don't partake in it. If you love HnH but don't like grinding character stats - come up with your own end-game, pwn 100 newbs, obtain 20 hats without crafting any, help out the fellow noobs, so you don't look like the hypocrite ("they don't play with us - what can this spruce-cap offer me?"). Don't enforce your idea that every game needs a win condition to be fun on a dysfunctional community for which it works.

The argument that unbalanced stats promote X and stat caps promote Y and X is better than Y is a question of morals/ethics and you need only look at religions in the world to see how global and self-consistent they are. I would like to believe most people "argumenting" this way are trolling, but knowing there are no limits to human stupidity, if anyone is serious consider the following. Being able to play online video game is already a huge privilege, the majority of people simply don't any opportunity to do it (http://www.internetlivestats.com/ says about half population has "access" to the internet, it is not a far fetch not everyone has a solid enough "access" to play online games) and by some morality is unfair, so let's do our best to accelerate heat death, where the entropy is so uniform everything is exactly fair, because no place is different from another. Saying "it promotes unemployment in players", they are already unemployed, but you'd rather take away the one advantage they have over you in the name of fairness.

I think the implicit accusation of OP's friends deaths on uncapped stats is misguided, it more has to do with hardcore vs softcore audience and/or online toxicity (assuming the killer did it purely the sake of their amusement). I think the OPs problem is closer to the permadeath thread, than stat-caps.

Also I don't see how introducing stat caps alleviates the negative impacts of uncapped stats on the community. Yes, people on the "other side of end-game" might treat you better, but how is that going to promote trade differently from now? The only goods of any value will be capped ones and if you didn't manage to get it first - why would those that have capped items trade with you? Why would anyone trust you to join them if you have a reasonable chance of killing them in a perma-death game?

All this said, I agree with OPs problems. I don't spend 10 hr/day every day on the game, I simply can't. I also enjoy friendly interactions. I was also killed with my base destroyed by someone simply being bored in W9 and had a hard time starting over again. I would love more noob-friendly trading and social interactions, but with stat-caps "noob" will just be anyone below the caps. I am not interested in HnH PvP or numbers grind, but I don't petition for devs to implement an arbitrary stat-cap, just so I have an easier time defining a win condition for me.

* meaningful as in provides tangible in-game benefits

[Lunarius_Haberdash]

these seem like rather stupid claims 2 make how is it toxic and y does it have no place in survival game design

The concept of an End Game applies for games that HAVE an end. Haven does not have an end, it just has a constantly changing state of affairs. An End Game implies that there is a point at which you're "Done, and should stop playing." and it creates theme park rides and occasional events like those present in WoW and other MMO's that do nothing but repeat the whole damned process over again with higher numbers.

This kind of design has no place in a civilization simulator/social experiment. The concept should not be 'End Game' but 'How do we make continuing to play our game interesting in the long term. How can we ensure there are always new challenges to meet and things that need doing to continue maintaining whatever society you've managed to build with your friends? How do we keep people engaged?'

Dungeons are not End Game Content, they're just content. Trading is not End Game content, it's just content. We need to stop thinking about "What do we do to keep playing the game when we're done playing the game" and start thinking about it in terms of "How do we keep things interesting and engaging for players at all levels of advancement."

That's why it has no place in a wilderness survival game. There *IS* no "End of Game" no victory condition except that which we set for ourselves, no point at which the game is over until Jorbtar hit the reset button.

Thinking about it in those terms only guarantees they'll forever have to keep hitting the reset button.

[Ysh]

The concept of an End Game applies for games that HAVE an end. Haven does not have an end, it just has a constantly changing state of affairs. An End Game implies that there is a point at which you're "Done, and should stop playing." and it creates theme park rides and occasional events like those present in WoW and other MMO's that do nothing but repeat the whole damned process over again with higher numbers.

Every thing has an ''end.'' For game this is when you have seen and experience all of the content in this game.

This kind of design has no place in a civilization simulator/social experiment. The concept should not be 'End Game' but 'How do we make continuing to play our game interesting in the long term. How can we ensure there are always new challenges to meet and things that need doing to continue maintaining whatever society you've managed to build with your friends? How do we keep people engaged?'

The question of end game is precisely to solve this. What is dynamic content we can include that is still fun after they have seen all of the content we have programmed into this game?

Dungeons are not End Game Content, they're just content. Trading is not End Game content, it's just content. We need to stop thinking about "What do we do to keep playing the game when we're done playing the game" and start thinking about it in terms of "How do we keep things interesting and engaging for players at all levels of advancement."

''End game content'' is just word for content that is relevant for player at ''end game'' i.e. has seen all content already. Saying PvP is ''end game content'' do not mean it is only relevant for end game player, but rather that it is still relevant for end game player. Because this content is dynamic enough to be interesting even after player have seen it before.

That's why it has no place in a wilderness survival game. There *IS* no "End of Game" no victory condition except that which we set for ourselves, no point at which the game is over until Jorbtar hit the reset button.

Thinking about it in those terms only guarantees they'll forever have to keep hitting the reset button.

Victory condition which player set for himself is end game content for wilderness survival game. You can use whatever word you will like for this, but I think this is what the other men refer to when they refer to ''end game content.'' It seem to me you are just arguing semantics here. Discussion of what to do for end game in Haven is discussion of what tools and mechanisms developer must put in the game so that players can come up with fun goals for himself to complete for a long time.

[Lunarius_Haberdash]

T' It seem to me you are just arguing semantics here.

As Jorb himself pointed out in a different thread, Semantics are vitally important to public perception and guiding gaming design. (The Rested vs Tired XP mechanic of WoW was the topic at hand). Words have power, and they shape the thoughts that come after. If you use the words "End Game Content" to describe a built mechanic, it puts your mind in a certain state that in my opinion should be avoided.

Seeing all the content the game has to offer isn't "End Game", that's a stupid and counterproductive way to talk about it. Do I have a phrase in mind as an alternative? I do not. I simply continue to think of it in terms of "Content", with no thoughts towards any non-existent "End Game"

[Ysh]

T' It seem to me you are just arguing semantics here.

As Jorb himself pointed out in a different thread, Semantics are vitally important to public perception and guiding gaming design. (The Rested vs Tired XP mechanic of WoW was the topic at hand). Words have power, and they shape the thoughts that come after. If you use the words "End Game Content" to describe a built mechanic, it puts your mind in a certain state that in my opinion should be avoided.

Seeing all the content the game has to offer isn't "End Game", that's a stupid and counterproductive way to talk about it. Do I have a phrase in mind as an alternative? I do not. I simply continue to think of it in terms of "Content", with no thoughts towards any non-existent "End Game"

I think I personally do not consider these ''end game content'' to be dirty words. Either way, I think my true point is that this discussing is not so fruitful now. What we should instead spend efforts on is deciding what kind of ''dynamic repeatable content'' (I hope this is more agreeable to your sensibilities!) we can add or what tools/mechanisms we must give to player that will allow him to make it himself.

[xdragonlord18]

these seem like rather stupid claims 2 make how is it toxic and y does it have no place in survival game design

The concept of an End Game applies for games that HAVE an end. Haven does not have an end, it just has a constantly changing state of affairs. An End Game implies that there is a point at which you're "Done, and should stop playing." and it creates theme park rides and occasional events like those present in WoW and other MMO's that do nothing but repeat the whole damned process over again with higher numbers.

This kind of design has no place in a civilization simulator/social experiment. The concept should not be 'End Game' but 'How do we make continuing to play our game interesting in the long term. How can we ensure there are always new challenges to meet and things that need doing to continue maintaining whatever society you've managed to build with your friends? How do we keep people engaged?'

Dungeons are not End Game Content, they're just content. Trading is not End Game content, it's just content. We need to stop thinking about "What do we do to keep playing the game when we're done playing the game" and start thinking about it in terms of "How do we keep things interesting and engaging for players at all levels of advancement."

That's why it has no place in a wilderness survival game. There *IS* no "End of Game" no victory condition except that which we set for ourselves, no point at which the game is over until Jorbtar hit the reset button.

Thinking about it in those terms only guarantees they'll forever have to keep hitting the reset button.

end game is not only for games with a definitive end and i said end game not end of the game every persistent game has an end game including haven a player enters the end game in haven when the games own systems offer very few challenges and the only thing left is interacting with other players every game should b concerned with how 2 make there game fun in the long run which involves improving the end game dungeons can b end game content if they r hard enough 2 require players 2 b in the end game 2 complete them trading can b end game if they players participating r in the end game u never said y end game is toxic