5 x 23
12/9/2012 2:12:02 AM
Count to 2001 for a ScrollsFans Record! From 1800 onwards, post a historical event that corresponds with the year!posted a message onPosted in: Forum games
12/6/2012 6:06:38 PM
Posted in: Discussion
you can scrap it if you want, but i'd be willing to call vapid a forfeit just to continue.
12/5/2012 7:18:55 PM
Posted in: Suggestions
your assumption is correct. i can see what you're getting at with your reasoning. it wasn't so much that i was suggesting that you remove grinding entirely, but taking a look at grinding and comparing it to the day to day activities of people in real life. i'm asking if you think about how play effects behavioral patterns and sense of reward, and ask: is mindless repetition really something that should be encouraged? i can see where benefits and detriments could be argued, but i can't help but draw certain parallels.
bear in mind i agree with your points. i have absolutely no doubts that there's an intelligent bunch behind this project. i'm just musing about bigger ideas. what a game studio ultimately does is deliver experience. it's a high art form. does art imitate life? or does life imitate art?
12/4/2012 9:23:05 PM
Posted in: Suggestions
ah. and our loop comes to a close. you're pretty good at the mirror game :P
one last thing to say: the in game market and the game are not one in the same. the actual play value would remain the same regardless of weather or not scrolls had to be accumulated. the assigned value of any given scroll has absolutely no bearing on the enjoyability of the game.
but then again; i'm of the sort who assigns no value to currency.
you've got a good grasp on it.
magic is a word sometimes used to describe what is, as of yet, unexplainable. not a thing, but rather a word used in the absence of a developed concept. i've made no claims that science couldn't explain 'magic'. why would i have said "it's physics. pure science. it's been conclusively proven." if that was the case? science as been getting into some really great subjects in more recent years, but for Joe Average, he is likely still viewing the world under the filter of Newtonian physics.
the claim of a wizard, to me anyway, is something a bit more playful. to those who haven't delved in very deep: it evokes imagery of pointy hats and magic missiles. it sets up doubt and pre-loads ridicule. to those who already know: it's a way of declaring what you study as a scientist. which is, effectively, applied philosophy. in short: it's a way to gauge the perspective of who you are speaking to.
as to why i would want someone to ridicule and doubt me before i have even said a word: the turn about. a very funny thing happens when you've stocked up doubt and then proceed to start making sense. i'm sure you know how this works.
our perspectives differ in regard to how information is processed, but it would seem that on the fundamentals we agree. potential to kinetic.
you probably have some tools of your own, but these are a few which have proven invaluable:
what are you looking at?
how are you looking at it?
what are you looking for?
not sure if you want to take this to PM or not. i kinda like making a public display, but that's just me. i'd like to keep going, but i have somethings to do.
12/4/2012 5:53:38 PM
Posted in: Suggestions
as i'd said. there is ai which can imitate learning. seeing a larger percentage of votes go towards the ai in a turing test isn't exactly surprising to me. the majority of people turn out to be poor examples of humanity. but that's something that i think has more to do with nurture than nature.
you're using a debate tactic that i used to use when i was younger. it can be summed up as "no you" or "no, your point is my point". i honestly don't care one way or another. the bottom line is that you used fear of an assumption, that in so far as last known information is concerned, has no relevant bearing on the game. there is a bot selling scrolls anyway. the only facet of the game that would be in any jeopardy is the duration of grinding required and market values. the real question is: does the dev team want to split focus between market and game? i can guarantee that an over-abundant market won't do any damage to the play experience, but it could potentially hamper future fiscal plans for the company. we can rework the question into: how does mojang want to turn profit from scrolls?
and as an aside: from developer to developer: progression, yes. but grinding does not contribute to a fun or rewarding experience. a game is something people partake in to escape from the daily grind. in my opinion games should not reinforce repetitive behavior by dangling a carrot in front of the participant. but this is stepping into a new subject; games as nurture. or to extend a concept over: art as nurture. i'll let you plumb the depths of this on your own should you choose to.
if anyone wants to avoid looking through a window to crazy land: you can skip the rest of this.
a magician eh? archetypes be known: sleight of hand and iron will.
wands, ritual, and all components are irrelevant. they serve merely as a mnemonic device for will power, or to phrase another way, as the desired focal point for attention: of practitioner: imbued through meaning to aid pin point focus, and of spectator: to catch the attention.
it's not that magic is anything magical at all. from either your perspective or mine.
to a magician: he performs a trick to misdirect and confuse in attempt to showcase something unexplainable. as the word magic draws it's power from lack of explanation or mystery.
to a wizard: magic and science are synonymous. that a greater understanding of the mechanical systems within what we perceive as reality yields a greater interactivity. what appears as inexplicable magic to one is simply the utilization of additional information to another.
i'ts a matter of philosophy: where do you draw the line on what is or isn't possible? do you take the picture of the world the history books painted for you? or do you prefer to verify through experience?
it's about the malleability of perspective.
we don't live in a solid and affixed world. that part of the collective psyche is it's self an illusion. matter does not exist. everything is energy.
before you scoff; humor me for a second and try the perspective on for a second. ask yourself by which dynamics does a universe of energy the responds to perspective behave? lo and behold: true "magic" is intent, willpower, emotion, and attention interacting within the existing construct of the universe. it's physics. pure science. it's been conclusively proven.
it lends unfounded wisdom to "seek and you shall find."
12/4/2012 4:28:26 AM
Posted in: Suggestions
bots and subsequently computers do make human errors. a human programs the machine: ergo the bot is only as capable as it's programmer. and only out to the accounted for contingencies. you're not going to convince me that a bot is a superior player. especially where randoms are concerned.
as of yet our grasp of ai has not produced anything which is truly capable of teaching it's self. we've imitated learning, but not programmed true learning.
the only thing a bot can do perfect is exactly what it was programed to do. it's not like you can just script in [if ($playingTheGame = "yes") then ($command = "win the game")] and leave it at that. to write them well, bots are a lot of work.
i'd like to clarify: i do know well what the patriot act was. that's exactly why i used it. i used it in explicit regard to how it was packaged and presented to the public. fear was leveraged in order to pass something through which was generally regarded as a bad idea. by removing restrictions on enforcement it incidentally put further restrictions on civilians. c wut i did thar?
i'ts a matter of principle. to let fear take reign over the decision making process is to damn the cause. i make it a point to combat this manner of thinking within the psyche of man. burn the entire argument to its skeleton and it is a reaction to exaggerated fears of what could happen. i've thought it out to a million different ends: i'm telling you there's nothing to worry about.
i feel it's fair to tell you: you're debating with a wizard. that's like trying to burn fire or get water wet. i like your dauntless persistence, but at this point you must see that you're not standing on very much. i can sit down and debate someone's world inside-out and take the ground out from under their feet before giving everything solid form again. you brought a stick to a gun fight.
the bottom line is: the dev team is going to do what they're going to do. if some means of countermeasure makes sense: they'll implement it, but if there's ultimately no need for it: why would they waste their time developing one?
12/3/2012 1:57:48 AM
Posted in: Suggestions
first off; i never made any claims that it would kill the game. stop putting words in my mouth.
secondly: the claim i did make is that what you had proposed wouldn't pan out to the rainbows and unicorns picture you had painted. you're not being realistic. you're distorting and reaching.
you still rely on the ideology that more rares = more wins. go on; make a deck out of all rares and see how good it is. it's the commons that make a deck. any tcg player knows this.
if you lived here you probably would have voted in favor of the patriot act. you're letting the fear of what a few people may or may not do to minimal overall effect lead you to think it's a good idea to throw restrictions into place. if you open yourself to the broader philosophical connotation of this conversation: you'll see why it is that i would be in opposition. it's a poor path to walk. to let one's fears dictate what another may or may not do.
fixing bugs to prevent glitching is one thing. but imposing restrictions because, what you are ultimately afraid of, is that people who play the game too much will ruin the game: is just asinine. you can split hairs all day, but if the hypothetical bot isn't cheating to obtain it's wins: you can still look at it as a form of playing the game. if someone plays 24/7 or bots 24/7 to obtain the scrolls they use makes very little difference so long as neither is cheating for it's wins. though the player who played 24/7 for his scrolls will be considerably more skilled than the player who ran a bot. is it an unsavory thing to do? yeah. though, is it damaging? no, not really.
also: i'd like you to stop using modding to refer to hacking. a mod uses intended code hooks where as a hack overrides.
12/2/2012 7:37:37 PM
Posted in: Suggestions
you are constantly comparing apples to oranges thinking that it supports your point. look around. there's a whole thread full of people telling you that you have a baseless and moot argument. read the words i've written; not the words you want to hear.
you keep talking about how this is going to damage the community in some way. i asked you to explain how. if you're so sure that your fears will come to pass, then explain to me why instead of reiterating the same claims.
all you say is that "noobs = punching bags 4 life" and that somehow a gold limit is going to prevent this from happening and make it so that everyone trades with each other all of the time. you're failing to explain HOW having a theoretically unlimited number of scrolls and gold is going to hamper things. you cling to irrational fears and present them as fact.
12/2/2012 3:37:36 AM
Posted in: Suggestions
you must not have spent much time playing TCGs. if you had you'd understand where i was coming from. player skill is more important than the deck. yeah, a good player with a terrible deck won't be doing much, but a good player with a mediocre deck will beat a bad player with the best deck you can build.
you make it sound as though anyone who gathers scrolls through botting is going to run the train on anyone they play against, and that's simply not the case. to defend your stance: you're leveraging the fear of what could happen based on unrealistic assumptions derived from bad experiences in another game which shares no mechanistic components with scrolls.
explain to me how someone running a bot and netting themselves 30million scrolls is going to ruin the game. or for that matter, how someone with 30 million gold is going to ruin the game. it's just not going to happen.
this isn't the first time i've seen someone suggest poorly conceived changes under the banner of "fairness" and protecting assumed interests of "beginners". if someone sucks at a game at first, they learn to play better. overcoming challenge is a reward. learning to overcome challenge is a valuable skill. it teaches one to teach themselves; which is arguably the most important thing anyone can do for themselves.
some words of wisdom: "the only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent."
pitting beginners against purely beginners ultimately retards the learning process. when i started playing mtg my first opponent was a tournament judge. why should losing games from time to time be looked at as something infuriating and game wrecking? i'd rather get my ass kicked a hundred times by someone way above my level and learn from every match than net an easy hundred wins that teach me nothing.
to go back to vendoring:
because it's faster than hunting for a trade partner. in the time it takes you to find a trade: you'll have been able play a match or two and get more gold than that trade would net you. of course, unless you are trading rares.
when i trade with someone; it's not because i'm looking for something specific from them. shops are for that. it will be after an enjoyable match with someone. we'll exchange some words while we take a look at what the other has. if i have something they're planning on using: i'll exchange it for something that looks handy. in short: trading cards/scrolls is a social thing more than it is a means to an end.
12/1/2012 5:53:15 PM
Posted in: Suggestions
you're overlooking the already easy access to the scroll base in favor of trying to defend your position.
just because someone has every scroll doesn't mean they're a good player.
and as far as macroing goes: the use of them infers a more fundamental problem with a game. that the bulk of the game isn't as much about playing as it is about grinding. when i look at something like mcmmo or almost every other mmo (darkfall comes to mind) i see that playing through scripts is advantageous because most of what the player is required to do to advance simply isn't fun. on my forum's MC server i actually shot down the MCMMO mod because of this. it doesn't add anything but grinding to the game. this is not so much the case with scrolls.
realistically: if you had a gold limit you'd seem more people vendoring most of the scrolls they don't want to use. either to A) boost their gold to buy from the bot, or B) to boost their gold to buy more randoms per day.
beau is right. placing restrictions on everyone invariably gives more power to those that can get around them than they'd ever have had without the restrictions.
besides: for people with completed decks, it doesn't matter how many scrolls your opponent has to work with. it doesn't change your deck, and it ultimately doesn't change theirs: the deck they build would still be the deck they wanted to build. and at that point if there's some severe disadvantage: it falls back on the balance of the scrolls themselves; not how they were obtained.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.