Iron, Noobs, and Raiders.

[burgingham]

Because he is making assumptions and sells those as truth or basic psychology without giving proof or a solid foundation. The one repeating the same useless "arguments" over and over again is him.

[Elirian]

If one person is rewarded more greatly for an activity than another person, the second person will lose their desire to engage in that activity.

That's reality. Your iron mine is not.

[Potjeh]

Except you've been proven wrong by history. Anyway, I give up, I'll go argue evolution with a YEC since I figure I have a better shot there.

[Elirian]

Because he is making assumptions and sells those as truth or basic psychology without giving proof or a solid foundation. The one repeating the same useless "arguments" over and over again is him.

You realise your implication is that people will go out of their way to spend their free time doing something that they get less reward for than another person? Care to back it up?

Except you've been proven wrong by history. Anyway, I give up, I'll go argue evolution with a YEC since I figure I have a better shot there.

As is yours o.0

You guys want to back those statements up?

If you want to disagree with my contention, it might be a good idea to say why. Burg you've offered nothing, Potjeh you mentioned something about history proving me wrong? If you're talking about previous maps trading patterns, we can get into that.

[Potjeh]

We have history to back us up. As for your arguments, [citation needed]. Because you're basically saying that I should quit my job because doctors and lawyers make more per hour than I do.

[burgingham]

If one person is rewarded more greatly for an activity than another person, the second person will lose their desire to engage in that activity.

That's reality. Your iron mine is not.

That is not reality, but an assumption. Period.
Also you are talking about player A getting more from activity A than player B gets from activity B. You cannot just come to the conclusion player B will stop to bother with activity B since the 2 are not comparable that easily.
Lemme make an assumption: Because player B gets rewarded less than player A he will try even harder and invest more to get to player As level, because envy is what drives humans to action. Is that reality?

[Elirian]

We have history to back us up. As for your arguments, [citation needed]. Because you're basically saying that I should quit my job because doctors and lawyers make more per hour than I do.

I'm saying that people who earn more tend to be more engaged with their careers. Someone who makes a million dollars tends to be more ambitious than someone who makes eighty k. The eighty k guy isn't going to 'quit his job' because he doesn't have an alternative, but he won't have the same desire to do well at it, because he isn't seeing the same reward from the effort he invests.

That's besides the point though. The analogy doesn't fit because you don't have an alternative. Such is not the case with games.

I'd also hazard that you do not in fact have history to back you up, though you may perceive it that way. The devs have the numbers available, and I'd bet good money that you see MUCH higher rates of player retention among those who control mines than those who do not.

[Elirian]

If one person is rewarded more greatly for an activity than another person, the second person will lose their desire to engage in that activity.

That's reality. Your iron mine is not.

That is not reality, but an assumption. Period.
Also you are talking about player A getting more from activity A than player B gets from activity B. You cannot just come to the conclusion player B will stop to bother with activity B since the 2 are not comparable that easily.
Lemme make an assumption: Because player B gets rewarded less than player A he will try even harder and invest more to get to player As level, because envy is what drives humans to action. Is that reality?

Yes you've already said that you don't agree with my contention. By the way, 'activity' refers to 'playing h&h' in this case, since we don't care if people participate in mining or not, we care if they want to play the game at all.

[burgingham]

You guys want to back those statements up?

You mean like: This is truth? That is a real good back up, I can add that to any of my sentences if you like.

Potjeh already stated that ingame history proves you wrong (maybe even rl history, but this might go too far to discuss it here), so does the current developement of world 3. Just because some whiners say there is not enough metal in game or you say you need to invest 8x the effort to get metal than a mine owner (random numbers...) does not make it true. I am heavily involved in many trades and in keeping an eye on the biggest trading hub in the game right now (Constantinople), so I know it is possible to get metal with not that much effort for various items.
Also (and this renders this whole discussion obsolete) the uneven distribution of goods is what keeps trade running, in fact we need far more rare goods. The solution is not to make metal more common, but to make other stuff more rare, introduce regional goods etc. etc. But this has been discussed over and over again by players with far more game experience than you have.

[Elirian]

You guys want to back those statements up?

You mean like: This is truth? That is a real good back up, I can add that to any of my sentences if you like.

Potjeh already stated that ingame history proves you wrong (maybe even rl history, but this might go too far to discuss it here), so does the current developement of world 3. Just because some whiners say there is not enough metal in game or you say you need to invest 8x the effort to get metal than a mine owner (random numbers...) does not make it true. I am heavily involved in many trades and in keeping an eye on the biggest trading hub in the game right now (Constantinople), so I know it is possible to get metal with not that much effort for various items.
Also (and this renders this whole discussion obsolete) the uneven distribution of goods is what keeps trade running, in fact we need far more rare goods. The solution is not to make metal more common, but to make other stuff more rare, introduce regional goods etc. etc. But this has been discussed over and over again by players with far more game experience than you have.

OK there's a few things here. Firstly, you say 'players with far more game experience than you have' as though that makes their opinions more worthwhile. That's a common fallacy among gamers. Such is the case if you are more interested in maintaining your playerbase than growing it, but if you are interested in attracting new players, then the new player experience is the most relevant one. That's a pretty common mistake among heavily invested players though, so no biggie.

More importantly you say it as though it has any relevance to the statement 'person a more rewards...etc'. But anyway, away from the logical fallacies and on to the positives.

I agree with you about more rare goods, or even making some current goods more rare. If you'd read all my comments in the thread you'd know that.

And lastly, I'm glad for this discussion, since you guys have brought up 'history' it occured to me that the devs can check their retention numbers among players with mines and those without, in order to determine if there is a problem.