jorb wrote:Extended Treatise on That Which Really Should Be Bloody Obvious to Anyone Above A Grade School Level of Mental Development
Is this the dev telling trying to insult people disagreeing with him?
jorb wrote: The H&H game world attempts -- to no small an extent -- to simulate events and processes of the real world in a digitalized form. In so doing, it would be an object of abject failure if, along with the beauties and wonders of real life, not also some of the difficulties associated with it were to be emulated.
Really? Fine. Give me a mom and dad who will teach me to at least walk before throwing me in the wild. And I know technically speaking there are two people in the cave with you and they would fit as parents (and then there is that drunk uncle in the corner). But they don't do shit. I'm not asking for an 18 year old commitment out of these two but you'd think they could give me 5 minutes of their time. Parents aren't just about giving physical body, a name and throwing you into a forest. Well, most parents aren't. I don't know for yours.
jorb wrote:The land which I have claimed, you cannot claim. The basket that I am carrying, you can not carry. The apple that I have eaten, you can not eat. [...] When one adopts and understands this perspective, it becomes clear as sparkling morning dew on a well mowed lawn that there does not exist a clear divide between offensive and peaceful actions.
Are you saying you are incapable of seeing a difference between eating an apple and killing an unprepared and unequipped newbie? That... explains a lot about the game actually.
jorb wrote: As a child I often enjoyed and participated in a fun little game called "The Air is Free". [...] The game -- which is more an act of playful fucktardieness than an actual game -- consists of doing every annoying thing in your power without actually touching the other child.
Also explains a lot.
jorb wrote: I now ask you to conjure up the vilest demons of your most cruel, childish imaginations. If the air was, indeed, free. What is the worst you could do?
Why do you want that from the players playing your game?
jorb wrote:New players, I would also like to add, should be, and are, particularly easy to target.
Absolutely fucking not. What the hell is wrong with you? New players shouldn't be targets! Those are the building stones that might one day make this game fun and it's community interesting. Why do you want to make them targets? Is it because you are too lazy to come up with a survival game where the world is your enemy? By making unprepared players target and douchebags boss fights?
jorb wrote:Imagine, if you will, what you could do if new players were untouchable for the first 12 hours of game time. Jeez-louise, that would not be a pretty sight.
And in return I'm asking you to imagine a world where new players would be afforded the chance to understand the basic mechanics of your game before being thrown into the wild. A world where a newbie would be at least warned of the dangers he's about to face and the tools and skills he will most likely need to survive. Imagine a world where douchebags wouldn't have unprepared newbies to kill or at least the newbies would have the basic knowledge and equipment to defend themselves. You are right, that wouldn't be a pretty sight.
jorb wrote:Enjoy
I can't. Douchebag destroyed my stuff and stole my shit. Killed the chicks I had in a crate and left the bloody mess in there. And took the time to not only leave me a message that my shit was bad but also took the time to put into my crate a feather duster... probably to help with the cleaning up I'll have to do. Because... well... at least it was kinda funny I guess. Still makes him an asshole... just a funny asshole.
And even if I'm ready to agree that you want to make a game for douchebags because of your childhood or because you think it's a much better game if you can't decide if you want to live in the PVP world or the coop world (I know... a world where douchebags would only have to face people who WANT to face them... that is scary) your opinion on how the game HAS to work is exclusive and not inclusive. No effort are made to try to bring new players to a level where the game can be fun and rewarding. You rely solely on wikis. That's lazy and bad. I shouldn't have to close the game and google information as simple as what are those colored bars? What are beliefs and why do I care? Why can't I cut that tree with my axe since lumberjacking says it would only help me cut them faster?
But that wasn't the point, your point was: everybody should be killable and newbies in particular should be an easy target. How about two separate worlds then? The normal one and the tutorial one? One where you'd give a new player an X by Y plot of land to learn to farm, cut trees and other basic stuff without being harassed? Make this world limited, the originally claimed (given by the tutorial) land being completely safe in a limited world without too much resources and once someone has done all the basic stuff a popup goes off and says"now you are ready for the real world". Or does it not go with what you want for your game?
Preemptive answers because it's predictable
- That was a metaphor for a tutorial which, if you thought about it for a second, you could have understood by yourself.
- I couldn't care less what your opinion is of me
- If I could fuck myself, I'd never leave the house
- Yes it was funny, doesn't make it right or fun to experience in your 4th hour of game or so
- No, the fun of a game isn't to read a wiki. Yes, the job of a game is to prepare the players for the challenges ahead.
- There is a difference between hand-holding and a basic tutorial. It wouldn't kill those two assholes in the cave to tell me this game is about getting LPs from discovering new stuff, that I should be aware of my starving meter and to be ready to defend myself. And even that wouldn't really be enough to give newbies a chance against douchebags but it would at least be a fucking start.