On the possibilities of an expansion pack:

[Moradivh]

I didn't read every word on this thread, so if I say something redundant feel free to ignore my entire post (like you wouldn't without my permission )

 

To start, I'd like to say that ArtifeX's mod is the best thing that could've happened to this community, short of world peace and the ultimate Chewbacca skin.

 

But Arti, let's be fair to Raven here: their vanilla JK2 is probably the most sophisticated online swordfighting game on the internet today. Doesn't say much, but considering that multiplay wasn't even the main focus of JK2's design, I think Raven did pretty good.

 

Now, ProMod is picking up where Raven left off, turning JK2 into a deep, long-living competative Star Wars extravaganza. I've been wanting to play something like that for years, so I'm very happy. And I pray for the day that I find a ProMod server that's perpetually full. Hopefully all the new features coming in version 3 will help.

 

But Promod was made by people with a lot of free time. JK2 wasn't sold as an online-only game like Quake 3 Arena, and it wasn't intended to be the next Counter-Strike. JK2 was a great sequel with a decent singleplayer story and some sweet Jedi moves, as well as a strong multiplayer component (see above: best swordfighting online), which is more than can be said for most games.

 

It's not productive to point fingers at Raven or Lucasarts. I'm clueless as to why they didn't provide the animation code, but no matter how many rumors we hear about the company's internal workings, we don't really know what's going on. And most of us can't speculate, since we don't have much experience working at a game company.

 

Making games ain't easy. To quote a developer: "Everyone always thinks they can do it better. It is very important to remember that your predeccessor made a decision and that decision most likely resulted in a shipped product. Do not discount the power of a decision that actually solved a problem. Just because it is not optimal doesn't make the decision a bad one." -(Mark Dochtermann, fall 2002 Game Career Guide magazine)

 

But I agree with your most recent stance, Artifex: the best thing that can come out of this thread now is a very large plea for the animation code, as well as increased support for modders in the event of patches/expansion patcks. But I heartily suggest you discard your bitter feelings towards the developers. It just makes you appear unreasonable.

 

Oh, and Spider AL, to my memory all of Peter Molyneaux's most recent games had even crappier multiplayer than Jedi Knight 2, so if you ever figure out the secret to "ultimate game balance in 5 minutes," let Pete know.

 

 

- Blind Moradin, always lurking...

[Rad Blackrose]

If anyone believes for a moment that we as consumers have the power to engender a negative impact on LEC's market, think again. I foresee it'll be at least a few years and several duff games from now before Lucasfans stop buying their products en masse.

 

...or another bad movie.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by zerowingzero:

Preferably, i would want someone who tested every aspect of the game making and informed decision, not the person who can score the most in ffa's or whatever.

 

Well that's fine, but there's no way to separate the people who would make an informed decision based on all the facts, from the rest of the leets. How could one do that? It would end up being a nazi thing, with a group of beta testers picked because they agree with the general concensus, or the company line, or perhaps on grounds of age or professional success. There is no "right" decision, only an opinion that other groups of people happen to agree with at the time.

 

The more I think about this, the more it seems to me that patching a game's gameplay after its release is like trying to genetically engineer the perfect farm-animal after it's been born. Any attempt to manipulate its DNA post-gestation would just end up in horrible mutations.

 

Game developers IMO, should do all their manipulation before a game is born, and let it develop naturally after birth.

 

Originally posted by Rad Blackrose:

...or another bad movie.

 

Precisely.

 

In fact, the only way the next film could possibly make up for the sins of Lucas and his progeny, would be if it was entitled:

 

Star Wars: Episode III - The Mutilation of Ambassador Binks.

[WillyWonka]

Originally posted by Spider AL

I don't think that the level at which people play a game affects their knowledge of what they enjoy about it, nor does it affect their right to continue to enjoy the aspects of the game they already enjoy. As for poor players' right to make changes,.. It depends on your perspective. What does one consider "poor?" Anyone worse than oneself? That sort of definition is unacceptable and jingoistic.

 

I am sorry but when did I write that being good would allow you to create worthwhile game changes? I agreed with you point but added that not knowing the game well would make quality game changes impossible. Thus your diatribe on definitions and how good you are meaningless.

 

If you for example are a poor player you would have thought "Heal" and "Drain" were almost insurmountable in the games original version. However a quality player knew that was an incorrect analysis.

 

My point is that in order to judge if something is a bug one must be able to play "well." Otherwise what you may end up attempting to fix is not a flaw in the code, but a flaw in your ability as a player.

 

 

 

In fact, this borders on the naive. We, a small group of JO players, mean almost nothing to LEC. They have a sizeable and untouchable market out there, the Star Wars fans. No other company can release SW games, and even if we knew before we bought JO what we know now, I have little doubt that most of us would buy the game anyway, just for the SP and the poor, ephemeral MP experience.

 

 

Do not forget that this community that you believe means so little, did in fact shape the changes of the JKII MP game. It appears that this small community has gotten more attention then you may think.

 

Precisely.

 

In fact, the only way the next film could possibly make up for the sins of Lucas and his progeny, would be if it was entitled:

 

Star Wars: Episode III - The Mutilation of Ambassador Binks.

 

heh. Its sad but the kids out there think of these new movies as equals to the original. Poor youth of today.

[ArtifeX]

Originally posted by Spider AL

...HL is not a big success as a game because of its mods. CS fanatics don't play vanilla HL, and while the popularity of CS may cause sales of the HL CD to go up and further line valve's pockets, CS hasn't caused the numbers of people playing vanilla HL to go up proportionately. I love JO itself, and so mods are all irrelevant to me. What care I- a player- for the fact that the engine is malleable?

I have to 100% disagree here. Halflife would have long since faded into obscurity if not for Counterstrike, Day of Defeat, TF Classic, and Firearms. The fact that you can buy Halflife and be able to play all of those for free is a massive bonus for shelling out the cash. You can only play through SP Halflife so many times, and the MP, as you said, is totally uninspiring.

So the point of all this is: We all want something different from an expansion, right? You're a modder, and so you're interested in the expansion's effect on modders....It may change the gameplay for the worse leaving me high and dry, it may stuff up the mod-making attempts of yourself and others, but it will add players to the community. I consider the risk to be worth the possible gain...

Awesome mods will also add many players to the pool. Making such mods is dependent on LA/Raven's willingness to release all of the tools. If they release an expansion pack with great features that cannot be duplicated in the existing mods, then those mods will die a quick death. Doing things to deliberately hamper mods will only damage the player base.

I'm sorry, but that seems to me to be an oversimplification. Being experienced at the game does not give one an innate understanding of "balance." Far from it, if the advanced JO players of the world were allowed to mould the game into what they desire, god knows what hellish game they'd come up with... Rage-afficionados would beef up the dark side, Absorbers would beef up the light side... People become experts because they're willing to adapt to the game. Newcomers just want something that appeals to them from the word go. Experts want challenges, newbies want fun. And every person, EVERY person seems to have a different opinion of what would "improve gameplay."

While being highly skilled at a game may not necessarily give you the ability to know what "balanced" is, not being skilled absolutely precludes it. You must know the game from every angle, and must be as familiar with all the major strategies if you intend to balance the game. If you are only familiar with 50% of the tactics in a game, and make an attempt to balance what you are familiar with, then you are doing so at the risk of unbalancing that other 50%.

 

This is exactly what happened with 1.03. Raven was totally ignorant of the effectiveness of the backstabs/sweeps in combination with Push/Pull, and attempted to balance the game by nerfing normal saber damage, and other things. That part that they had no familiarity with was totally ignored. Had they had more experience playing the game at a high skill level online, they would have recognized that flaw very quickly.

...

And finally, there's the perrennial concern, that of pleasing most of the people most of the time...

"Most" of the people aren't experts at the game. If you attempt to balance the game according to "most" people's feedback, then you will get conflicting suggestions and complaints, with an occasional consensus on very obvious flaws. Whenever you are new to a multiplayer game, many things will seem out of balance, because you aren't familiar with their counters yet. As you do become experienced, the game, if designed properly, should seem to become more and more balanced.

 

Remember that only very few people send in feedback. The majority of players never say a word.

...

Improve is a subjective term, Arti. If a mod existed that was... potent enough to draw players to the game, a "CS of JO" so to speak, I doubt that it would bear much resemblance to JO Vanilla. Seven different types of Half-Life Deathmatch mods would have done little to keep the game popular. Only through complete departures like TFC or CS were HL CD sales boosted, and as I have said previously, CS and TFC did not save HL as an online game, they merely used its engine. For those that enjoyed HL itself, there was a very short, rather bleak future.

The mods that you're speaking of would be impossible to create with the current tools released by LA/Raven. Without them, there will be no, "CS of JO".

Therefore, short-term or not, I consider an influx of players into the JO vanilla community to be a positive thing, because there will always be a certain proportion of those new players that grow to love the game, and stick around long after everyone else has left. That means that I, and people of my ilk, will be able to find games and play games much longer than we could otherwise. Hence my assertion that the risk is worth the payoff.

You're assuming that an expansion would be a positive influence on the multiplayer scene. I have no doubt that a SP expansion would be a great draw, but based on past experience I have little faith in their ability to alter the MP in a positive way.

 

Also, as you say, you're a fan of the vanilla version, and you want an expansion to the MP that you're comfortable with. Creating such an expansion without releasing the full toolset used to make it would leave all the people who like playing mods rather than the vanilla version out in the cold. People who gnash their teeth at all of the glaring flaws of the vanilla version have to rely on mods to make the game fun for them. If all the new players are just playing some expansion pack that has some neat new features, but fixes none of the problems, then the player base for the mods will suffer, and collapse.

 

So, LA/Raven has a choice before them:

 

1. Release an expansion that tries to be all things to all people (which you said yourself is extremely difficult and time consuming, and which they have an extremely poor record for), and not release the tools.

 

2. Release an expansion pack that increases the visibility of the game by adding new features, and also releasing the tools so that modders can adopt, and continue to expand on, these features.

 

I can't believe that anyone given the choice would opt for #1.

[ArtifeX]

Originally posted by Spider AL

 

I don't think that the level at which people play a game affects their knowledge of what they enjoy about it, nor does it affect their right to continue to enjoy the aspects of the game they already enjoy. As for poor players' right to make changes,.. It depends on your perspective. What does one consider "poor?" Anyone worse than oneself? That sort of definition is unacceptable and jingoistic.

 

For example, if I were to say to myself "I've been playing this game since the day before its release, I have a 97.4% victory ratio in total, two out of three duel tournaments under my belt and a maximum FFA kills-per-minute rate of 20... I am therefore qualified to decide what changes need to be made to make this a better game," I'd be a completely megalomaniacal fool. The fact that a person has played a game religiously for a period of months simply does not qualify them to decide what sort of game the rest of the community will be playing for the foreseeable future.

 

You may ask: "Who is qualified then, if not the experts?" Well in my considered opinion, nobody is. I think a lot of the problems in the gaming world over the past few years have owed something to the fact that game companies relentlessly tweak their products with gameplay-altering patches. I believe that a game should be made, and then left alone to find its natural position in the gaming world.

What is important here is that the "experts" are more qualified than those who are not experts. Someone who has invested the time to learn the game, and learn it well, is imminently more qualified than someone who has played it only casually. To think otherwise is folly.

[ArtifeX]

Originally posted by Spider AL

...

Likewise it could be surmised that if one is good at the game, one kills a lot of people, or is an excellent duellist, or can cap a flag like nobody's business,.. one is good at those things. Nothing more.

...

 

I wouldn't consider someone whose skills are so overbalanced towards a single focus a good candidate as a game balance advisor, except in their own area of expertise.

 

If they were an expert duellist, then they might be able to expose some balance flaw such as, "I can use this one saber swing to break through defenses and hit twice every time from X range." A casual gamer would never notice anything like it. An observervation like that only comes through great experience. The casual gamer that you are so worried about would never notice the difference if that was fixed, but experts certainly would.

 

In general, minor changes are not a big deal to beginners, but they are a big deal to experts. Likewise, most of the flaws in jk2 aren't readily apparent to a casual player, but are glaringly obvious to an expert. Altering these problems to achieve game balance for the experts will not affect the experience at all for a casual player! They most likely won't even realize there has been a change!

 

Granted, ProMod goes much farther than small changes. That's because jk2 has some very bad flaws that are apparent after even a short MP session. The uselessness of the saber in CTF comes to mind. This is why I'm pushing so hard to have ProMod replace the vanilla version: newbies are coming into MP with expections (such as the usefulness of the saber) and are being badly disappointed. The further you get into the gameplay, the more disappointed with it you get. Most new saber enthusiasts are resigning themselves to being banished to duel and saber-only servers to enjoy themselves.

 

This is not how it should be! This is not how it was intended to be! LucasArts will not fix it. Raven will not fix it. That leaves modders. Me. I am going to fix it. If LA/Raven isn't going to help, then give me the rest of the tools, get the fu** out of the way, and keep your half-ass patches to yourself.

 

I'm going to go have something very alcoholic now.

[Lazarous]

This is not how it should be! This is not how it was intended to be! LucasArts will not fix it. Raven will not fix it. That leaves modders. Me. I am going to fix it. If LA/Raven isn't going to help, then give me the rest of the tools, get the fu** out of the way, and keep your half-ass patches to yourself.

 

*hands art something very alcoholic and then gets out of his way*

[FatalStrike]

Hello I am back from my 24 hour ban!

 

I see arti is going insane with this odd topic but I agree with him.

 

The 1.04 saber v guns is just silly. 1.02 sabers had a disadvantage to guns, but 1.04 made the gap too wide.

 

The spirit of the game at the beginning was that you could use sabers against guns to limited success. SP even seemed to be designed around this concept.

 

Then came the whining. This is too strong that is too strong blah blah. Now we have a train wreck and the folks that drove it off its tracks refuse to fix, and worse yet, they refuse to give our moders the tools to fix it.

 

Then again I play 1.02 and laugh at you fools that followed the whiners path to "balance" Muhahahahah

 

laters!

[FatalStrike]

Originally posted by Lazarous

 

*hands art something very alcoholic and then gets out of his way*

 

*notices lazarous distracted and swings saber at his back*

 

*still loses in the end*

 

*joins arti for a drink*

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by WillyWonka:

I am sorry but when did I write that being good would allow you to create worthwhile game changes? I agreed with you point but added that not knowing the game well would make quality game changes impossible. Thus your diatribe on definitions and how good you are meaningless.

 

Ahem. Firstly, my "diatribe" was a response to your statement that:

 

Originally posted by WillyWonka:

not knowing how to play makes achieving "balance" impossible. A poor player that made changes to the game would drop the learning curve and reduce a games replay value.

 

And my response boiled down to the idea that while people who have been playing for a longer time than others may consider their point of view to be more valid than the point of view of others who have not, it's really just arrogant presumption to do so. What is a game for? To engender that most insubstantial, indefinable quality of "fun" in the player.

 

So what must a game be, to be successful? It must be fun. In other words, its gameplay must be fun and well-balanced. When people suggest changes to the game, they are looking only at, and caring only for, their own sense of fun. This is not a flaw in their characters, because we can ONLY judge by our own experiences. But it does mean that any changes made to the game will displease another group of players somewhere.

 

My argument is this: That no group of players (whether they be a majority or a skilled minority) has the right to make decisions that could irrevocably alter the gameplay, taking the fun away from another group.

 

THAT, is what mods are for. The game should have been completely left alone after release. No gameplay-changing patches... AT ALL.

 

Originally posted by WillyWonka:

If you for example are a poor player you would have thought "Heal" and "Drain" were almost insurmountable in the games original version. However a quality player knew that was an incorrect analysis.

 

Ah, so you believe the opinion that most of the skilled and experienced players held about Heal and Drain before the release of 1.03 was "correct" and the opinion that other players held was "incorrect." Well, from your perspective, possibly, and from mine, definitely.

 

But some people found the game more fun after the unjustified nerfing of Heal and Drain.

 

So was the nerfing bad, or good?

 

Here's the answer: It was both bad and good. It was bad for us and all the others who felt it spoiled the game, and it was GOOD for those who felt that Heal and Drain spoiled the game.

 

You can call them what you will, newbies, fools, short-sighted buffoons... but that doesn't alter the fact that they had an opinion, and their opinion was as important to them as ours is to us, and hence it was valid.

 

The concept I'm trying to convey is that fun is subjective. One cannot say "this is fun, and that is not." You can only say "I find this fun, and I find that not-fun."

 

So the best thing for the game would have been if it was left completely alone after release, with no gameplay changes, so that it could find its natural place in the gaming world.

 

Originally posted by WillyWonka:

My point is that in order to judge if something is a bug one must be able to play "well." Otherwise what you may end up attempting to fix is not a flaw in the code, but a flaw in your ability as a player.

 

There is nowhere to draw the line. Many experienced players felt, and still feel that the light lunge hovering bug was in fact, not a bug or a flaw. I and other experienced players feel that it was obviously a bug and a flaw. In my opinion, it was absolutely undeniably silly to be able to slow a fall to a crawl simply by poking one's sabre about.

 

So who is to say which opinion is "correct?" That is my point. Nobody can say, and nobody has the right to change the game to conform to their opinions, even if they are in a majority. Thus games should never have gameplay-altering patches.

 

I hope I'm making my ideas clear, it's difficult with a relative, subjective principle like this...

 

Originally posted by WillyWonka:

Do not forget that this community that you believe means so little,

 

My friend, you must either read my posts with a touch more care, or form your own posts with more care, to avoid typing misleading statements like this.

 

I stated that I believe this community means little to Lucasarts. That line makes it sound as if the community means little to me, which is unacceptable; the community is important to me.

 

As for the amount of impact this community has had on the game, that is more Raven's doing than the community's. Raven took notice of the posts of a vocal majority when they made 1.03. They took notice of the posts of the disgruntled remainder, when they released 1.04. In both cases it was Raven's decision to listen. Therefore they had the power. We cannot TELL Raven what to do, we can ask, and they may see fit to grant us our requests. We do not have the power.

 

But LEC has even more power than Raven. They can tell RAVEN what to do when it comes to JO, and they certainly don't care about what we think of them, nor do they care what we say about them.

 

Now do you see what I was saying? This community is not high on LEC's list of "things to listen to whether it suits us or not." I hope this clarifies my statement.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

Halflife would have long since faded into obscurity if not for Counterstrike, Day of Defeat, TF Classic, and Firearms. The fact that you can buy Halflife and be able to play all of those for free is a massive bonus for shelling out the cash. You can only play through SP Halflife so many times, and the MP, as you said, is totally uninspiring.

 

I'm afraid you missed my point. Half-Life HAS faded into obscurity, in that- as you say- very few people want to play HL vanilla multiplayer. I am a JO vanilla player. So as I said before, what do mods matter to me, or those like me? What would it matter if the JO CD was in every household... if nobody played vanilla anymore.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

Awesome mods will also add many players to the pool

 

No, they will add many players to the modded servers. They will not assist the life-support of JO vanilla, which as I stated before, is my primary concern.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

While being highly skilled at a game may not necessarily give you the ability to know what "balanced" is, not being skilled absolutely precludes it.

 

As I said above in reply to Willy, even if that statement was true, who is to decide what "skilled" means? Who will pick which "skilled" players have the intelligence to make informed balance-choices? You?

 

Well that's fine when you're working on your own mod, your mod belongs to you... I don't think anyone has the right to decide how to alter JO itself post-release though. 1.02 should have been left in peace...

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

Also, as you say, you're a fan of the vanilla version, and you want an expansion to the MP that you're comfortable with. Creating such an expansion without releasing the full toolset used to make it would leave all the people who like playing mods rather than the vanilla version out in the cold.

 

Which may happen, sadly. Or it could happen that vanilla fans are the ones disadvantaged by a patch. Both possibilities are unpleasant.

 

Which is why I still say the best expansion would be a separate entity from JO, as MOTS was separate from JK. That is the third possibility you didn't mention in your post.

 

However much we try though, by signing petitions, or mailing LEC or Raven... we must face the possibility that an expansion could be released which would shatter my group, your group, a different group, or ALL groups at once. Thus faced with a choice, I say that an expansion would still be worth the risk, because since the numbers of people playing JO is already declining, and as you say you and other modders are currently unable to produce really world-changing mods, what exactly do we have to lose, other than maybe a few months playing time?

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

In general, minor changes are not a big deal to beginners, but they are a big deal to experts. Likewise, most of the flaws in jk2 aren't readily apparent to a casual player, but are glaringly obvious to an expert. Altering these problems to achieve game balance for the experts will not affect the experience at all for a casual player! They most likely won't even realize there has been a change!

 

Well, who can say what effect a minor change may have? That's the idea I tried to convey to Detritic when he suggested that one should be able to hit someone in the foot with the tenloss even when they're facing you, sabre drawn. Initially, such a change WOULD be minor. But give it a month, and we experts would be hitting people in the foot nine times out of ten. There would no longer be any defence against the tenloss, and it would be the dominant weapon because of its long range. Beginners would probably hate such a situation.

 

Now, I agree that some changes would be minor enough for the beginners not to feel the effect... but one cannot know what effect a change will have unless it is implemented. So suppose you sit and think for months about what minor changes to make to JO vanilla, and at the end of this time, you make the changes, and release them as 1.05.

 

You wouldn't know the effects of those changes until maybe a month, two months later. What then? Make another patch? 1.06? What effect will 1.06 changes have? One can release many such tweaked versions of a mod, but one cannot do so for the main game. Some people found it hard to keep up with HL patches, for example, and they weren't overly common.

 

It's a slippery slope.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

jk2 has some very bad flaws that are apparent after even a short MP session. The uselessness of the saber in CTF comes to mind.

 

Oho. Well, you may consider them to be flaws my friend, but don't be too quick to demand their removal. Even the removal of a hideous flaw like the 'blue lunge hover' p**ses some people off. One man's strafe-jump is another man's bunnyhop. Do those who dislike guns have the right to remove all guns everywhere so that they can play on every JO server in the world without meeting a gunner?

 

Nope.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

The further you get into the gameplay, the more disappointed with it you get.

 

Hm, this may be true for you and many others Arti, but it is not true for everyone.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

This is not how it should be! This is not how it was intended to be! LucasArts will not fix it. Raven will not fix it. That leaves modders. Me. I am going to fix it.

 

Eep. Hide the silver, Matron.

 

Now, I feel it's important that you acknowledge the fact that, while JO may not be what you thought it was intended it to be, this does not mean that JO vanilla should be altered to accomodate your expectations. That's what mods are for, and that's what you're doing a great job of in promod. Replace JO vanilla though? Hmm, sounds a little authoritarian to me.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

What is important here is that the "experts" are more qualified than those who are not experts. Someone who has invested the time to learn the game, and learn it well, is imminently more qualified than someone who has played it only casually.

 

I've explained above my reasons for saying that this is not so, but they're worth a recap:

 

Firstly, who will define who is an expert? Secondly, who will decide which "experts" possess the intelligence to make an informed and logical choice? Finally, since not all suggestions made by these "experts" will work together in harmony, who will be appointed to choose which of the suggestions will be implemented?

 

Me? You? Gonkh8er? Detritic_IQ?

 

Frankly I don't think anyone has the right to claim kingship of the realm of JO vanilla gameplay. Sure, I'd like changes made. And yes, I've been playing longer than most, and I've won more than most. But I know deep down that any attempt to force my opinions onto others would be arrogant and fascist.

 

You are currently doing your good work in the creation of Promod, which is your idea (and many people's idea) of improvement on vanilla JO. And good luck to you, and may Promod achieve success. But it's your mod, and so you get to make the decisions. But can any of us claim that JO vanilla is ours alone? No... Not even Raven can claim that, because from the second it hit store shelves, it belonged to the people who bought it as well.

 

Thus nobody has a right to decide what should be changed about JO's gameplay.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

To think otherwise is folly.

 

Mm. You're entitled to think that.

[Lathain Valtiel]

*Chuckles at Fatal, knowing tht it's true, gotta give Laz creds for being a damn good player. Tosses a bottle at Artife's drunken head... Said bottle happens to be pure, 100% ethyl alcohol, but what you don't know can't hurt you... (It can only kill you)*

[ArtifeX]

Originally posted by Spider AL

My argument is this: That no group of players (whether they be a majority or a skilled minority) has the right to make decisions that could irrevocably alter the gameplay, taking the fun away from another group.

 

THAT, is what mods are for. The game should have been completely left alone after release. No gameplay-changing patches... AT ALL.

Actually, the dev team has this right. It's their work, their vision. If they don't like it, they can change it, and community be damned. I don't think its wise to deliberately piss off your customers, but that is their right.

...

So the best thing for the game would have been if it was left completely alone after release, with no gameplay changes, so that it could find its natural place in the gaming world.

Gameplay imbalances are bad. They make people quit the game. Developers don't want people quitting their game. They sell less copies when that happens because the quitters tell their friends bad things about that game. To avoid this, they patch the game. Hopefully, the game is better afterwards. Your assertion that no game should ever have its play altered after release is an extremely bad game development decision.

So who is to say which opinion is "correct?" That is my point. Nobody can say, and nobody has the right to change the game to conform to their opinions, even if they are in a majority. Thus games should never have gameplay-altering patches.

Ideally, the developers should have played their game enough to know what needs fixing long before it is published. After it has been released, they should keep playing it to reveal any minor gameplay changes that need to be made for optimum balance.

 

I'm sure you will argue that no one knows what "optimum balance" is. Please go here: http://www.oculis.org/asc and read my two strategy guides. That is the kind of depth that I am talking about is required to know when something is balanced or not. With the amount of research there, I can with 99% certainty say things like, "Tactic w beats tactic x. Tactic x beats tactic y. Tactic y beats tactic w. Tactic z has no counter, therefore tactic z is overpowered."

 

Every tactic should have a counter. If there is no counter, then the game is imbalanced and needs to be adjusted. This is not subjective. This is not an opinion. This is researched and backed up by quantitative data.

 

If one tactic has no counter, then all other tactics are inferior, and will not be used except by those who are unaware of their inferiority. I won two tournaments in 1.02 using tactics with no counter.

 

...

I'm afraid you missed my point. Half-Life HAS faded into obscurity, in that- as you say- very few people want to play HL vanilla multiplayer. I am a JO vanilla player. So as I said before, what do mods matter to me, or those like me? What would it matter if the JO CD was in every household... if nobody played vanilla anymore.

Vanilla Halflife is inferior to its mods, therefore it is not played as much as its mods. Jk2 vanilla will be inferior to its mods eventually. It will be played less than its mods. Mods continue to grow; the vanilla game does not. An expansion will alter this if it increments the version number to 1.05. If the tools used to make the expansion are not released, then mods will be seen as inferior to the expanded vanilla game. The mods will be played less; the vanilla game played more. If gameplay flaws still remain in the expanded version, then we will get a further split of the community, with less people playing mods and less people playing any vanilla version.

 

I think there will be flaws, and lots of them. The patches stand as a testament to this. How will you enjoy your vanilla version when the community is so fragmented that its hard to find a server running the version you like that is actually populated?

No, they will add many players to the modded servers. They will not assist the life-support of JO vanilla, which as I stated before, is my primary concern.

Again, you are assuming that the expansion will have a positive influence ("life-support").

As I said above in reply to Willy, even if that statement was true, who is to decide what "skilled" means? Who will pick which "skilled" players have the intelligence to make informed balance-choices? You?

The developers will. They are the ones ultimately responsible for the state of the game. They are the ones who must decide which feedback to listen to, whether it be from someone "skilled" or "experienced" or completely new to the game.

 

They've botched it thus far. 1.03 and 1.04 are evidence of that. Yes, I know you like 1.04 just fine, but there are bugs and gameplay flaws in 1.04. You cannot deny them. They are not subjective. They are fact. You can swing a saber at someone from directly behind and have their saber magically block your strike while your saber cleaves directly through your back. This is not an opinion. This is reproduceable; verifiable. Anyone, regardless of experience, can be shown that this is a problem.

 

By your philosophy, this should be regarded as part of the game and never changed. Folly.

Well that's fine when you're working on your own mod, your mod belongs to you... I don't think anyone has the right to decide how to alter JO itself post-release though. 1.02 should have been left in peace...

Same response as above.

Which may happen, sadly. Or it could happen that vanilla fans are the ones disadvantaged by a patch. Both possibilities are unpleasant.

 

Which is why I still say the best expansion would be a separate entity from JO, as MOTS was separate from JK. That is the third possibility you didn't mention in your post.

Such a release, if it had expanded multiplayer features, would still cause mods to be seen as feature-poor if they could not duplicate popular new functionality.

...

You wouldn't know the effects of those changes until maybe a month, two months later. What then? Make another patch? 1.06? What effect will 1.06 changes have? One can release many such tweaked versions of a mod, but one cannot do so for the main game. Some people found it hard to keep up with HL patches, for example, and they weren't overly common.

I don't think your example is sound. Hitting someone in the foot with a charged tenloss shot consistently while they are on the run, jumping and flipping would be nearly impossible, even for a sharpshooter. But I understand what you are trying to say.

 

You are also assuming that the dev team did a poor job of testing before release. Something this obvious should be picked up before the public ever gets it.

Oho. Well, you may consider them to be flaws my friend, but don't be too quick to demand their removal. Even the removal of a hideous flaw like the 'blue lunge hover' p**ses some people off. One man's strafe-jump is another man's bunnyhop. Do those who dislike guns have the right to remove all guns everywhere so that they can play on every JO server in the world without meeting a gunner?

 

Nope.

The blue lunge hover was an obvious flaw that did need fixing, but I think its impact on gameplay was minimal. Players gained no significant advantage from its use. Your example of removing all guns everywhere is exactly the kind of thing an experienced player would reject.

Hm, this may be true for you and many others Arti, but it is not true for everyone.

You're right. Those not bothered by flaws and game imbalances should remain quite happy. I stand corrected.

Eep. Hide the silver, Matron.

 

Now, I feel it's important that you acknowledge the fact that, while JO may not be what you thought it was intended it to be, this does not mean that JO vanilla should be altered to accomodate your expectations. That's what mods are for, and that's what you're doing a great job of in promod. Replace JO vanilla though? Hmm, sounds a little authoritarian to me.

Actually, I mean to replace the vanilla version in competition play. Those not interested in it are welcome to whatever version they wish. I have neither the desire nor the clout to force anyone to play anything. But I can be damn persuasive.

I've explained above my reasons for saying that this is not so, but they're worth a recap:

 

Firstly, who will define who is an expert?

The developers, who are responsible for the state of the game.

Frankly I don't think anyone has the right to claim kingship of the realm of JO vanilla gameplay. Sure, I'd like changes made. And yes, I've been playing longer than most, and I've won more than most. But I know deep down that any attempt to force my opinions onto others would be arrogant and fascist.

I'm not planning to package up ProMod and send it off to Raven demanding that they send it out as an official patch. I'm just trying to produce a better game than the official version. If I accomplish that, then people will switch of their own accord.

You are currently doing your good work in the creation of Promod, which is your idea (and many people's idea) of improvement on vanilla JO. And good luck to you, and may Promod achieve success. But it's your mod, and so you get to make the decisions. But can any of us claim that JO vanilla is ours alone? No... Not even Raven can claim that, because from the second it hit store shelves, it belonged to the people who bought it as well.

 

Thus nobody has a right to decide what should be changed about JO's gameplay.

 

I would say that the dev team has a definite responsibility to the people who bought the game to make it the best product they possibly can. Failing that, find someone else who can improve upon it, and allow them to do so. Either way, the interest of the customer is served.

 

The idea that the game becomes untouchable as soon as someone buys it is false. You buy the right to play the game, not the game itself.

 

(stretch, crack) Man, i'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome from this thread...

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Artifex:

Actually, the dev team has this right. It's their work, their vision. If they don't like it, they can change it, and community be damned.

 

If you feel that way, it's your prerogative. I however believe that once a game hits the streets, gameplay-altering patches are likely only to do harm. JO is not the only game to have suffered a malady of this type.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

Gameplay imbalances are bad. They make people quit the game.

 

Opinions of what constitute gameplay imbalances are subjective. If a game does not appeal to certain people, then those people should not play the game, or they should create a mod that plays the way they want the game to. However these days, game developers try to appeal to EVERYONE by releasing gameplay-changing patches that go far beyond bug-fixes. I view this as desperate and ultimately self-defeating, as each gameplay-changing patch alienates a section of the playing public.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

Ideally, the developers should have played their game enough to know what needs fixing long before it is published.

 

As we have all been shown over the past six months, opinions of "what needs fixing" vary greatly from person to person. While you may consider your viewpoint to be "correct," others feel differently, and their opinions are just as valid.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

I'm sure you will argue that no one knows what "optimum balance" is. Please go here: http://www.oculis.org/asc and read my two strategy guides. That is the kind of depth that I am talking about is required to know when something is balanced or not.

 

I've already read your documents my friend, and while I understand that you must feel pride in the depth of your research, nowhere on your site is there an there an exact formula for producing "fun." There are lucid, well-constructed musings about the nature of the game, and what YOU want from the game, but considering your viewpoint to be the right one is a different matter altogether.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

If one tactic has no counter, then all other tactics are inferior, and will not be used except by those who are unaware of their inferiority. I won two tournaments in 1.02 using tactics with no counter.

 

Yes, I won two tournaments using tactics with no counter as well... However, my opponents were attempting to use those tactics too. The reason I won, was that I used the techniques more effectively than the other combatants. And indeed, I had a lot of fun doing it. In fact, during those tournaments I didn't change out of red once... I didn't have a problem with this. The fact that 90% of sabre strikes in JO vanilla are inferior to the other 10% does not take my fun away.

 

I'll give you an example: Instagib. One shot kills. It's extremely popular in both the UT and UT2k3 communities, and yet once one is shot, one is dead, and the opponent has a point. One respawns and goes at it again.

 

Does the fact that it's a one-hit-kill mean the game is less fun? Not really... For some people possibly. Many people find it tedious and one-dimensional. Still, many people find it fun.

 

Many people find vanilla JO fun too. Are they wrong? Is anyone who doesn't hold a certain viewpoint about what makes a game fun "wrong?"

 

Are you "right?"

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

Vanilla Halflife is inferior to its mods,

 

An awful lot of Half-Life players, myself included, agree with that statement...

 

But there were some who didn't. Not many, but some. Were they intellectually inferior because they enjoyed vanilla HL?

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

An expansion will alter this if it increments the version number to 1.05. If the tools used to make the expansion are not released, then mods will be seen as inferior to the expanded vanilla game. The mods will be played less; the vanilla game played more.

 

This could be an ideal situation for me, I have to admit. I have no interest in mods, and so my fate would depend on whether I enjoyed the hypothetical 1.05 or not. I realise this would be a bad situation for you, and so I think the best compromise would be an expansion that is a separate entity, as MOTS was to JK.

 

But as I've said throughout the thread, nobody can tell what effect the patch will have, or what they'll release with the patch.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

If gameplay flaws still remain in the expanded version, then we will get a further split of the community, with less people playing mods and less people playing any vanilla version.

 

If 1.05 was not fun for many people, that would be the nightmare scenario, the scenario in which nobody would win. It is however only one possibility in amongst many. And since our community is going slowly downhill already, I consider the release of an expansion to be worth the risk.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

Again, you are assuming that the expansion will have a positive influence

 

No I'm not, my friend... maybe I wasn't clear enough.

 

I hope that if an expansion is released, it is a separate entity from JO.

 

If it is NOT a separate entity, then I hope it has very few gameplay changes.

 

If it HAS gameplay changes, I hope that many people find them good.

 

Those are, successively, the things I hope for from an expansion. But assume? No. As I've said many many times now, nobody can predict the content or effect of an expansion until they know what's in it.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

I think there will be flaws, and lots of them. The patches stand as a testament to this. How will you enjoy your vanilla version when the community is so fragmented that its hard to find a server running the version you like that is actually populated?

 

Well you're free to hypothesise... However, since 1.04 was an improvement over 1.03 in terms of its Guns FFA and CTF dynamic, I don't think the past effects of both the patches totally support an all-doom-and-gloom prediction. I know you have certain issues with Raven, but perhaps they may learn from 1.03's mistake. We just can't say.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

there are bugs and gameplay flaws in 1.04. You cannot deny them. They are not subjective. They are fact.

 

Heh-heh, oh my friend, having posted here for as long as you have, can you doubt that EVERYTHING is subjective? I gave the example earlier of the 'blue-lunge-hover.' Some people still bemoan the fact that it was removed... it seems blindingly obvious to me that it was a bug AND a gameplay flaw... some people still dispute that it was a bug. Regardless of how I felt about it, others felt differently. I could sit here and argue my case to them for a year and a day, and it would have no effect on their point of view, because they simply did not see anything wrong in being able to hover by prodding their sabre about. They found it fun.

 

What am I to say to such people? What about: "No you didn't find it fun!" Should I put them in a box marked "stupid fewls, do not open till hell freezes over?"

 

When all's said and done they have a right to think whatever they wish, and they will find fun, what they find fun. I cannot alter that.

 

Don't misunderstand me, I hold strong opinions about the bugs and gameplay flaws in JO. But after deep reflection I have come to the conclusion that the "cure" for percieved problems can have a worse effect on player numbers and player satisfaction, than the disease.

 

"Okay, you can walk now!"

 

"Great Doc!"

 

"Oh, but you'll die in about five minutes time."

 

 

Hence, not worth the risk.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

You can swing a saber at someone from directly behind and have their saber magically block your strike while your saber cleaves directly through your back. This is not an opinion. This is reproduceable; verifiable. Anyone, regardless of experience, can be shown that this is a problem. By your philosophy, this should be regarded as part of the game and never changed. Folly.

 

You have the right to think it folly if you wish, Arti... But in my previous paragraph, I waxed lyrical about how not all people share the same view of what constitutes a problem.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

I don't think your example is sound. Hitting someone in the foot with a charged tenloss shot consistently while they are on the run, jumping and flipping would be nearly impossible, even for a sharpshooter.

 

Heh-heh. Impossible? Ever faced a really good UT sniper? Ick, horrible. Some folks can hit a dime at 2,000 yards by tarnation.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

You are also assuming that the dev team did a poor job of testing before release. Something this obvious should be picked up before the public ever gets it.

 

Ahh I'm very glad you reminded me, I have utterly forgotten one important point to my argument throughout this thread:

 

If companies were not gameplay-patching constantly throughout a game's life, they would have to make more of an effort to bugfix and balance the game prior to its release.

 

In fact, this is one of the major things the gaming community is pleading for at the moment, a a game that's actually finished when it's sold.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

The blue lunge hover was an obvious flaw that did need fixing, but I think its impact on gameplay was minimal.

 

Well, it had a certain impact in that experienced players no longer worried about falling damage, and indeed on maps with long falls and gantries such as Nar streets FFA, the 'blue hover' saved many a player from falling to their doom when they misjudged a jump or were pushed off their perch.

 

But I use it as an example more because both you and I considered it to be a flaw... but others did not. You may wish to label them as inexperienced or stupid, but frankly the longer I wade around on servers, the more I realise the importance of leaving players alone to have fun in whatever manner they wish. I too believe 1.02 had serious flaws, and yet if I had the power, I would forbid and erase any and all JO patches, because of the damage that they may have done to the player demographic.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

I'm not planning to package up ProMod and send it off to Raven demanding that they send it out as an official patch. I'm just trying to produce a better game than the official version. If I accomplish that, then people will switch of their own accord.

 

Good, and good luck. Nobody would be happier than me if you truly succeeded in creating a "better" game with promod.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

The idea that the game becomes untouchable as soon as someone buys it is false. You buy the right to play the game, not the game itself.

 

The idea that the game should become untouchable as soon as someone buys it is good, precisely because one also buys the right to play the game:

 

With 1.03, something was taken away from a lot of players. Their fun was taken away. In my view, this infringes upon their rights as players. I know I felt a certain sense of betrayal. Let's be honest, if 1.03 was the version the game was released at, and if I knew what I was buying, I wouldn't. I simply wouldn't buy it. I hated 1.03 that much.

 

Since it is not possible nor ethical to attempt to choose a group of players that automatically "know best" to assist a dev team, the only possible course of action is not to attempt gameplay-changing patches post-release at all.

 

Then no player who enjoys the game would ever have to feel betrayed, and nobody would ever lose anything they'd come to enjoy.

[Moradivh]

Wow Spider, you're quite the philosopher (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame17.html), but I think this thread is passing the point of usefulness. You and ArtifeX really don't disagree on all that much, and this suffocating duel of words is giving the majority of forumers here a headache.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Moradivh:

You and ArtifeX really don't disagree on all that much, and this suffocating duel of words is giving the majority of forumers here a headache.

 

Is it? Personally I'm delighted to finally have a civilised discussion with someone on here without it degenerating into a slanging match...

 

As for what we disagree on, we seem to disagree on some fundamental points, but that should be apparent. I certainly hope nobody is given cranial pain by my posts.

 

PS. I'm clearly a Kung-Fu Master anyway.

[Moradivh]

PS. I'm clearly a Kung-Fu Master anyway.

 

Ha, everyone thinks they're the master, but ArtifeX would be dead by now if you were. Lazarous is definitely one in ProMod.

 

But seriously, I de-lurked because I want Arti to stop debating cheap game philosophy with you and get back to finishing his mod. There, I said it. Now I'll go mind my own business.

 

**re-lurks and disappears**

[Lazarous]

*screams in agony and vainly tries to stop the flow of blood from his eyes*

 

 

too....many....words.....

 

 

 

Laz

[Darth Kaan]

Saying only the top ladder players truely understand the mechanics of the game is just an Elitest attitude revolving around self-importance. Most likely why LEC and Raven care less about your self appointed expert opinions. LOL! I am not aiming that statement at anyone specifically, but if the shoe fits...

 

You DO NOT, have to be a top level player to realize or understand that from the time of JKO's release, many players that prefer the saber, mused over the fact that Merc's could even use force powers. This fact, by itself, gives cappers a HUGE advantage over saberists in all Full force all weapons games.

 

From 1.02 to 1.04, saberists have had to spend force points to have a saber but Merc's have not for guns. Thus giving Merc's more points to apply to force powers that they should not have in the first place. Any weapon wielded with skill, should be viable. However, this was not the case in 1.02, nor is it in 1.04.

 

This advantage was expounded upon with the 1.04 patch nerfing saber damage values for the worse, removing every aspect of 1.03 that made it a more effective weapon. Thus, leaving Force powers as the only viable weapon for a saberist by making it 99% useless vs force wielding cappers. The imbalance is just staggering and has effectively removed one of the two unique aspects of the game...the lightsaber.

 

This has further split the remaining Multi-player community, (just as much as the patches did causing many to leave the game entirely), into Saber only or guns only factions. This is not a problem for those that are happy playing SO Duel or FFA mode. But, many people bought JKO to enjoy it's unique aspects of sabering against other force/Saber wielding Jedi/Sith and Merc's with guns, in multi-player. Alas, thanks to the patches of nerf, it is not happening.

 

The number of CTF players in JKO has dwindled rapidly and the small remaining CTF community has accepted the guns rule type of play. No wonder so many have left for UT2K3.

 

While Promod may be attempting to fix the imbalance issues, the current CTF elite will never accept it, because they DON'T want the saber being viable, because they don't want to relearn skills they have refined and have now. They fear those skills may not transfer into Promod. They realize the Saber will be made viable, returning its unique aspect into FF all weapons games.

 

However, these are soley a multi-player thing and only a part of the game as a whole. It's a known fact that while Multi-player is why many buy the game, just as many if not more buy games for SP and don't even care about Multi-player. Also most likely why 1.04 did not affect the SP portion of the game like it did MP.

 

Bottom line, is an expansion pack means money for LEC and Raven, or whoever makes it. That is what gaming companies are in the buisness for, to make money. They are going to do what makes sense to them to continue making money. They obviousely don't care about the self appointed elitest's opinions. They know SP is why most people buy their product. That is why they release the source code and tools for multi-player mods, but ultimately keep the single player source code under lock and key. Even If they do release it, it's because they are moving on to making another game to make more money after milking the current one dry.

 

These are my opinions and no one elses. I do not agree with the thought process that brought the community the patches of nerf, or that gave us the imbalanced gameplay in the first place. It is just the reality of the way things are as I see it.

 

I will keep playing JKO everday and enjoying it, despite its flaws, until another game comes along that has the saber and force powers and is better. Just like a lot of other people that they know will buy their next game when it comes out.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Moradivh:

Ha, everyone thinks they're the master, but ArtifeX would be dead by now if you were.

 

My son, if this were a battle someone may indeed have lain dead by now. Refreshingly, it is not.

 

Originally posted by Moradivh:

I want Arti to stop debating cheap game philosophy with you

 

Tut tut, if you believe this discussion to be purely philosophical in nature you're deluding yourself... There's a serious practical issue being debated.

 

And Darth Kaan, an excellent post, succinct and to the point. I agree with most of what you say.

[FatalStrike]

This display of who can master an old and dead style of writing is boring.

 

Spider you made very good points and so did Artifex, congrats guys you both kick ass. I agree more with WW then I do with either of you. If the game dies then we all lose, but I think Willy has fallen off his rocker if he thinks we can do anything to get LEC's attention.

 

Spider play ProMod sometime, Arti Go play shoot around with Spidey sometime. Maybe it will help you guys see eye to eye.

 

Laters

[ArtifeX]

Originally posted by Spider AL

...

 

Then no player who enjoys the game would ever have to feel betrayed, and nobody would ever lose anything they'd come to enjoy.

 

I started to write another long response to this, but decided against it. You're adamant in your opinion, and so am I. I'll leave it with this:

 

You:

1. Only care about the vanilla version of the game. Mods be damned. Quote: "I have no interest in mods..."

2. You think that gameplay balance is subjective, and therefore no one is qualified to ever adjust it. Quote: "Opinions of what constitute gameplay imbalances are subjective."

3. You think that all gameplay patches are bad. Quote: "I however believe that once a game hits the streets, gameplay-altering patches are likely only to do harm...I view this as desperate and ultimately self-defeating..."

 

Me:

1. I care about expanding the player base for mods and the regular version. They are both compatible. I don't want one to kill the other. Releasing an expansion pack with better functionality than the tools released allow would kill mods. This is unacceptable.

2. I believe that some aspects of gameplay are subjective. Other aspects are not. If I made all guns to 1 point of damage, and the saber a 1-hit kill, then I have just created a non-subjective gameplay imbalance. Examples that are not so extreme must be judged by those best able to do so. Somebody must ultimately make a decision. This person must have a thorough knowledge of the game to make decisions on balance issues which affect the entire game. Someone who does not have a thorough knowledge of the game is not qualified to make judgements about changes that will affect the entire game. The idea that everyone's opinion is valid in this context is illogical and socialistic.

3. Not all gameplay patches are bad. If they correct objective imbalances in the game, they cannot be bad--if you accept the principle that gameplay imbalances are bad. They are. No, really. They are. If you think there are no objective game imbalances, please refer to #2 above.

[Spider AL]

Fatalstrike's become a mediator?

 

 

It's a shock, but I like the new you, Fate.

 

One or two final points I'd like to clear up before we adjourn for tea and biscuits:

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

You: 1. Only care about the vanilla version of the game

 

Let us say that... vanilla is the only kind of server that I currently enjoy the flavour of. It's merely my personal preference, and I have nothing against mods or mod-makers. Thus, the state of the vanilla game is my primary concern, just as the state of promod is yours.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

I believe that some aspects of gameplay are subjective. Other aspects are not. If I made all guns to 1 point of damage, and the saber a 1-hit kill, then I have just created a non-subjective gameplay imbalance.

 

In my opinion that would indeed be a game imbalance, and beyond debate... but I've met and played with people to whom such a change would be an improvement. While most people wouldn't agree with them, it remains a fact that not all people find what we would consider a perfectly balanced game... fun. Thus, judgements on the improvement of gameplay are relative and subjective.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

Releasing an expansion pack with better functionality than the tools released allow would kill mods. This is unacceptable.

 

As I stated earlier, I recognise that this would be a bad situation for you and other mod-makers, and I absolutely empathise, and I absolutely hope that it doesn't come to pass. I do say, however, that if the vanilla game ends up being improved (that is, made more universally fun) through an expansion, it would spell good things for the scope of our community.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

3. You think that all gameplay patches are bad.

 

Not quite, it would be more accurate to say that I consider gameplay-altering patches to be more likely to do harm, than not, as I said above: "I however believe that once a game hits the streets, gameplay-altering patches are likely only to do harm." I consider the more probable risk of alienating huge portions of game-players to outweigh any possible benefit to the community.

 

And I agree that we seem to have reached an impasse Artifex, though I think we have at least accomplished this: That we have conveyed our ideas lucidly and clearly enough for everyone to understand them, and hopefully everyone will take these points of view into account in future. That's the possible, positive product of civilised debate, as opposed to rampant flame war. Take heed, everyone.

[ArtifeX]

Originally posted by Spider AL

...

Let us say that... vanilla is the only kind of server that I currently enjoy the flavour of. It's merely my personal preference, and I have nothing against mods or mod-makers. Thus, the state of the vanilla game is my primary concern, just as the state of promod is yours.

ProMod is my primary concern, but not my only concern. Your only concern is with the official version. You would regard damage to the mod community as unfortunate, but wouldn't care one way or the other. I want both improved.

In my opinion that would indeed be a game imbalance, and beyond debate... but I've met and played with people to whom such a change would be an improvement. While most people wouldn't agree with them, it remains a fact that not all people find what we would consider a perfectly balanced game... fun. Thus, judgements on the improvement of gameplay are relative and subjective.

I challenge you to produce any player that will honestly state that they think all guns doing one point of damage and sabers being a one hit kill would be an improvement on gameplay. Someone with that opinion would be in an infinitesimal minority, and should be discounted.

As I stated earlier, I recognise that this would be a bad situation for you and other mod-makers, and I absolutely empathise, and I absolutely hope that it doesn't come to pass. I do say, however, that if the vanilla game ends up being improved (that is, made more universally fun) through an expansion, it would spell good things for the scope of our community.

If it was an improvement, and if they released the tools necessary to update the mods, then it would be good for the scope of the community. Without the tools, mods die. You seem to keep forgetting this when you restate your points about how much you want an expansion pack. One more time for the rear seats:

Jk2 + Expansion - Tools = Good for Spider/Bad for all mods.

Jk2 + Tools = Bad for Spider/Good for all mods.

Jk2 + Expansion + Tools = Good for everyone.

Why would anyone argue for anything but #3?

[Spider AL]

I thought we'd finished here... Ah well, once more unto the breach.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

I challenge you to produce any player that will honestly state that they think all guns doing one point of damage and sabers being a one hit kill would be an improvement on gameplay. Someone with that opinion would be in an infinitesimal minority, and should be discounted.

 

Oh gosh, there have been so many people who have stated to me categorically that they think the presence of all guns is lame and feeble... On guns servers. As for producing one right now,.. It might take some time. I've tried very hard not to socialise with such people.

 

As for your assertion that someone who holds that kind of view would be in a minority, possibly so.

 

Yet, you say they should be discounted because they're in a minority? Very authoritarian. You're deciding whose opinions of what constitutes a fun game are valid now?

 

Experts are in a minority, and yet you say their opinions of what constitutes fun are in some way MORE valid than the opinions of a majority cross-section?

 

Strange... I don't quite understand your reasoning on that front.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

ProMod is my primary concern, but not my only concern. Your only concern is with the official version. You would regard damage to the mod community as unfortunate, but wouldn't care one way or the other. I want both improved.

 

Well good for you, and may you have success. I, on the other hand, don't play the mods that are available right now, they don't really set my teeth alight, so to speak. So I fear sympathy would be the only reaction on my part if the mod community was damaged, it's true. If I enjoyed a mod, I might fear to lose it, however since the community's running out of steam anyway, I don't think that ANY of us have that much to lose from an expansion. You may predict doom and gloom from it, but I'll reserve judgement until it's released, if indeed it is.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

If it was an improvement, and if they released the tools necessary to update the mods, then it would be good for the scope of the community. Without the tools, mods die. You seem to keep forgetting this when you restate your points about how much you want an expansion pack.

 

Why, I'm not forgetting anything, I don't think... If the vanilla game was improved by an expansion, there might be hope for an influx of players. As things stand, there is no influx. Certainly, it's possible that an expansion could ruin everything for us all, but it could also save us all.

 

Originally posted by Artifex:

One more time for the rear seats:

 

Jk2 + Expansion - Tools = Good for Spider/Bad for all mods.

Jk2 + Tools = Bad for Spider/Good for all mods.

Jk2 + Expansion + Tools = Good for everyone.

 

Why would anyone argue for anything but #3?

 

Why indeed? I certainly don't. In fact, nowhere in the above thread have I argued for any one of those three options... I've stated that no.3 would be ideal, but I've also stated my fears that it will not come to pass.

 

What you may have confused with such a sentiment is my statement that the possible positive effects of an expansion may be worth the risk of damaging either your camp, or mine. I say this due to the slow decay of the community. In my view, none of us have that much to lose, and we have everything to gain.