Colbear wrote:I think this game needs a server reset, to be honest. Which is kind of sad for something that's not even been available for three months, but I think enough major changes have happened to warrant it. First off, I don't like how all the older characters have multiple claims while I can't put multiple claims down -- and how that's NOT intended anymore, but they just weren't removed when the changes happened. Frankly, it's unfair and it makes me sad and it happens often enough that I see it regularly while I'm exploring and junk. Additionally, combat's broken and needs to be fixed -- it's broken that one levelled-up player can kill 50 newbies who join up and want to play together, and it's not very fun. It needs a real overhaul.
Also, since there was a problem with players macroing, and because newer players are starting out with a disadvantage in LP gain now, I think instead of trying to balance it so that the guy who macros for three weeks is not broken against 20 newbies who've been playing for three days, it might be better to wipe it all out and start afresh.
Obviously, this would happen in the future -- possibly months from now, but I think it's needed.
Delamore wrote:There is no point in resetting the map without a character reset.
Unless something is added that needs to be seeded into the map, all the problems of this map will come back in the next.
Not resetting characters will bring about the exact same point we're at on this map, just faster.
If the reset is due to people getting bored of the current map or towns then you're just going to end up in a loop of constant resets.
Do we not see the thread drift here? The OP was talking about a reset to remove advantages early players have over later players due to changes in the code. This somehow got twisted into a version of "having any advantage whatsoever is unfair". The OP highlighted specific problems and proposed a solution to those specific problems. Later posters demanded a reset to even the field for the sake of having an even field. The OP said a reset should happen, "possibly months from now". Later posters want the reset as soon as possible lest a "super player" spontaneously go into a rampage and kill everyone. *These are two different arguments*.
Addressing the former:
While I'll agree that there's a legitimate sense of unfairness in giving some players an advantage over others due to changes in the code which are beyond player control, there are more benefits to having a diversity of players for whatever reason at this stage of the game than there are costs *from the perspective of the developers*. I emphasize this point. While in development, the needs of the developers outweigh the needs of the players. This is not a commercial project and the developers are producing this primarily for themselves. To cave to consumer demands threatens whatever vision they have for the future. Once they decide to no longer significantly develop the game and instead focus primarily on retaining players, then the argument will shift, but for now we should consider their needs above our own. This isn't to say that we can't try to have fun in the mean time, but that our fun shouldn't be a top priority right now.
Addressing the latter:
Sarcasm aside, reseting everyone to maintain equality is futile. Players themselves have different aspirations, talents, etc. that are reflected in their characters, leading them on divergent paths. Given any finite amount of time at any activity, some will always manage to work faster at that activity than others, resulting in inequality. Even if you allow inequality within a certain threshold, how often would you have to reset to make things fair again? Monthly? Weekly? Whatever you choose, there will always be people who have more than others, so you haven't fixed the problem. Meanwhile, you have more people becoming discontent with having to do the same things over and over again because of the resets. You've created a new problem by implementing your non-solution for the first one. The only way to ensure that no one player can ever become significantly superior to the others in any way is to fundamentally change the gameplay itself, leading to the earlier farce in which a few of us envisioned a game in which all potential for character development is removed. Changing the gameplay itself is ridiculous; it'd be like demanding chess be played with the rules for checkers because one doesn't like the rules for chess.
To quote myself in an earlier thread:
While it might be nice to consider the secondary benefits of an implementation to fix the primary problem, if an aspect those secondary benefits touch upon is significant enough to be recognized as another primary problem, it would be better to take a holistic approach towards this new problem rather than pecking at it through a myriad of related problems.
Some of us are trying to emulate a fundamental change in gameplay via secondary effects of a solution to a related problem. Separating the two issues and looking at the matter concerning player inequality on its own, the "problem" is really a disagreement with the way the game is designed, and the "solution" is to change the game at a fundamental level. This is almost never a good idea, moreso when you're messing with someone else's vision.
If I sound hostile it's probably because I mean to; what some are suggesting here is a terrible idea on many levels.
