statement of unease

General Stuff about Armagetron, That doesn't belong anywhere else...
Post Reply
User avatar
2020
Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
Location: the present, finally

Re: statement of unease

Post by 2020 »

Paladin wrote:After checking out FLTron, posted by sine, I found it interesting that between matches there was a dedicated 15 seconds of advertising. Also, I won a match. Just sayin'.
Interesting indeed. But I'd rather we didn't go down the advertising route. It will no doubt happen, but I think there are variations of this which are more conducive for people watching.
Paladin wrote:Has it been considered for 2020 to just send a synopsis of his presentation, rough notes even, to the people he is intending to attract to a face to face meeting? From all appearances, he isn't getting closer to attracting the, as he put it, "triumvate's" attention, but might be actually losing it at this point.
I lost it a long time ago. I did what you are suggesting in 2009, with the idea back then. It didn't work. It's not a content-problem. It is deeper than that. And the new idea -- less an idea and more a process I shall kick start -- can get bogged down in intellectual banter, something I'd like to avoid if at all possible. I'd rather we just try it, like the ladle, and if it works, we work out how it works, people argue, etc, as long as it actually works. That's quite different than looking for intellectual approval before we test it.

Thanks for intention. I shall present stuff to the players when the opportunity arises, end of April. I just wanted to pass it by the "triumvirate" (a term playfully adopted when lucifer got involved in the project I think...) because things might have a chance of going smoother. It may not look like it based on this thread. But perhaps something has happened in the hearts and minds of those who can be bothered or are genuinely interested in reading this. One does one's best.
hold the line
User avatar
Tank Program
Forum & Project Admin, PhD
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:03 pm

Re: statement of unease

Post by Tank Program »

First thing: 2020, I really did like the blog post and thought that was awesome.

Otherwise I have to admit to being a bit confused. I'm realising more and more my limitations as a person and as one of them I'm finding out that I'm somewhat shit at debate. So um, crap.

The community has changed a bit while I've been gone, but for the most part I wasn't there so I'm going to leave changes in community be. Reading it in retrospect along with 250 other topics just doesn't let it have the same impact. I've been waiting to actively participate in order to make the most of my April Fool's, as well as get a feel for what's going on again. While lurking I've followed along with this thread and like I'm said I'm a bit confused.

There seem to be maybe two or three issues floating around. The only one I feel clear on is "community change" - which all in all is something we probably can't avoid. Everything else is very vague and I can't work out if it's symptomatic of the way the communities changed or what. There's this interactive session thing 2020's talking about which for now seems to be the heart of things. As I understand it this is something 2020 is requesting to discuss the future of Armagetron in a social context, that is community, tournaments, teching, etc.

It's an idea which seems OK at first glance but I'm still having trouble with it. I think that's because, ignoring all the issues about recording, etc., I don't really think there's anything productive that can come out of it. That's not to say that nothing interesting could be discussed, but that realistically I don't think there's very much that can be done to reach whatever goals are brought up.

I can't really speak about epsy, Z-man, and Lucifer, but for me at least I'm probably just not the right person to be talking to. I think of my role in the community as technical. Through code improvements, managing the forums software, or trying to provide technical support and direction to new developers and players. So everything I do is filtered through that. Whatever community orientated goals I had when I started the forums have long since been exceeded. To me everything that's happened since is gravy.

I'm also relaxed. It takes a lot to really bother me into action. I like live and let live. I like agree to disagree. Maybe I'm just lazy, I don't know. I'm appreciating more now how this makes moderation somewhat difficult, because I can't always really tell when it's time to step in. People get offended at stuff that I simply can't understand. Good thing we have other moderators.

I have no real agenda posting here, but thought I should toss my 2 cents in after everything that's been directed at the triumvirate.
Image
User avatar
2020
Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
Location: the present, finally

Re: statement of unease

Post by 2020 »

Thanks, Tank. I appreciate your frankness. And your tactful re-emersion in the community. And your appreciation of the previous post about Joe and his experience of arma.

To help clarify the request that has emerged from this thread:
Tank Program wrote:As I understand it this is something 2020 is requesting to discuss the future of Armagetron in a social context, that is community, tournaments, teching, etc.
Given that I have not been active for a few years, I can only speak about the last "big push" which was conducted in 2009 and 2010, before the Tron Legacy Film. There was an attempt to publicise the game, the most visible being trailer video. There was a lot of talk between a lot of players, too many to name. All good stuff. But, as we know, it isn't that easy to muster the necessary effort to take the game further. It's not as "easy" as writing code.

My request to have a video chat is to present a simple enough proposal, and it is directly related to finance. Rather than posting it on the forums first, which only invites a lambasting by various parties or tarring with the same judgmental brush, I thought it might be better to air it "live". Then there is a higher chance than when presented to the player community, we can all take it in a more considered and serious way. That is all.

I have found money to be a tricky issue, no more so than in this community because it is open source and nearly all the participants are doing this out of love of the game. It is very reasonable to be antagonistic towards anything to do with money. As a teacher, I have had little interest in it as a motivation in my life, that's for sure. Money is part of the real world, out there. Nevertheless, given this situation, it would be spineless of me not to present what has occurred to me, and to forge the most appropriate conditions for the proposal to be heard.
hold the line
User avatar
Tank Program
Forum & Project Admin, PhD
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:03 pm

Re: statement of unease

Post by Tank Program »

Hmm, OK. That clarifies things somewhat. I'll give it a think.
Image
User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11587
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: statement of unease

Post by Z-Man »

Let's do some stats, shall we? The data set is limited, but we'll have to work with it.

Ideas 2020 discussed openly:
Tronic: We can argue day and night how much the Ladle matches the original idea and how his contribution mattered, but let's rate it a success.
ArmaSchool: Not successful. But it did manage to recruit me for help.

Ideas kept under wraps:
The 2009 business plan: didn't go anywhere.
New bracket filling (yeah, I had forgotten about it, too): didn't go anywhere.

Looks like if you want success, you go open. You rate TRONIC as a success, why not try and repeat it? What does it matter what everyone else says?

You want too much up-front faith and commitment. I can't muster that.
Tank Program wrote:I can't really speak about epsy, Z-man, and Lucifer, but for me at least I'm probably just not the right person to be talking to. I think of my role in the community as technical. Through code improvements, managing the forums software, or trying to provide technical support and direction to new developers and players.
Same here. I like to design and code. Everything else I do, I do because I have to.
User avatar
2020
Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
Location: the present, finally

Re: statement of unease

Post by 2020 »

Z-Man wrote: Tronic: We can argue day and night how much the Ladle matches the original idea and how his contribution mattered, but let's rate it a success.
ArmaSchool: Not successful. But it did manage to recruit me for help.
Thanks for your help with the armaschool. I couldn't get enough happening with teachers. I think it is still doable.
Z-Man wrote: The 2009 business plan: didn't go anywhere.
It got somewhere, just not far enough.
As the post says, "a variation on the original" which harks back to 2006. Ultimately, the only way it can work is if we work on honour, a variation of trust.
Z-Man wrote:Looks like if you want success, you go open. You rate TRONIC as a success, why not try and repeat it? What does it matter what everyone else says?
Because I am not coding. But anyway, it is open. If I could manage it, I'd broadcast our engagement live. It is an invitation. It depends very much on what people think, feel, and most importantly do. And because of the linear structure and the tendency for people to flame or spamjack, there is an inherent tendency for ideas to crash and burn, rather than simply tried and tested. As it happens, my proposal is simply to be tried and tested. I am simply trying to avoid some agro in the future, by absorbing and deflecting it all now.
Z-Man wrote:
Tank Program wrote:I can't really speak about epsy, Z-man, and Lucifer, but for me at least I'm probably just not the right person to be talking to. I think of my role in the community as technical. Through code improvements, managing the forums software, or trying to provide technical support and direction to new developers and players.
Same here. I like to design and code. Everything else I do, I do because I have to.
I like to play. However, in the real world, I end up having to do things for money. I don't think the balance is right, economically, and with my time. I don't think we should be working our asses off just to get by. And considering the state of affairs of the planet, I am not wanting to contribute one penny or 10 seconds in perpetuating this disaster. I say, bank on things that work. Lightcycle physics works. Fortress works. Armagetronad works. Tronic Ladle works. Open Source works. Money works, but not very well. I may have an alternative solution, and I'd like to propose it here, and use the lightcycle-fortress-arma-ladle-open-source as the vehicle. A big or deep proposal, requires enough space for it to be heard. And I don't think the right way to do it is blaring, mass-media, one-to-many kind of way. I think a better way deserves personal, respectful, and considered engagement. That is all.
hold the line
User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11587
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: statement of unease

Post by Z-Man »

And you think your proposal can generate enough income to pay for, say, one or two of us full-time? Sustainable for a period of at least two years? Because anything that doesn't, anything that won't allow at least one of us to not worry about a real day job, isn't going to make us work any harder and make things better. And all that without changing the game itself in corrupting ways (You know. What games with microtransactions typically do. At the most benign, give players an RPG progress bar and allow them to pay for it to fill quicker)? And without assuming a >10x growth of the player base to just materialise?
User avatar
2020
Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
Location: the present, finally

Re: statement of unease

Post by 2020 »

[double post
and i need to make this post extend beyond 21 characters...]
Last edited by 2020 on Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hold the line
User avatar
2020
Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
Location: the present, finally

Re: statement of unease

Post by 2020 »

Z-Man wrote:And you think your proposal can generate enough income to pay for, say, one or two of us full-time?
With all my thinking, it is scalable. If it scales, then yes, more than two. Depends on various factors, technical as well as social.
Z-Man wrote:Sustainable for a period of at least two years? Because anything that doesn't, anything that won't allow at least one of us to not worry about a real day job, isn't going to make us work any harder and make things better.
Again, the amount of effort put in must be scalable. I certainly wouldn't put more effort in as developers until the players prove their worth. They have, as players, by committing to the game. However, the players haven't "raised the ante" by taking the game to the next level. And I include myself in that group. It's a tough job, scalable self-organisation. We've tried, in various ways. But the "gravity" of the game just pulls players to play more. The idea of doing anything off the grid is seen as unnecessary interruption to their game play. And rightly so. However, I think the community of players have matured enough by now, and they are still at it, which further proves the value of the game -- given the billions poured into commercial games.
Z-Man wrote:And all that without changing the game itself in corrupting ways
I don't know. It's a tough call. Power corrupts, and money is a mean meme. However, if we exhibit honour, trust, teamwork, and keep it bound tightly to what happens on the grid, then we might be able to make it.
Z-Man wrote: (You know. What games with microtransactions typically do. At the most benign, give players an RPG progress bar and allow them to pay for it to fill quicker)?
Not sure I follow what this means. I don't like the sound of it, though. Like in Infinity Blade, where you can buy with real money a bag of coins and thus buy incredible weapons and powerups within the game? We don't want anything like that, do we? All money will do will enable players to deck themselves out with better equipment. We are all at the mercy of ping, which is the greatest technical factor of our play, something beyond any amount of thousands we may make. I can't see how more money will influence the actual game play. I'd like to think about it more like Go or Chess. Money just allows a better quality board, but it can't buy the skill or strategy.
Z-Man wrote:And without assuming a >10x growth of the player base to just materialise?
Well, it does depend on scalability, that's for sure. The trick has been, what are the means by which it can scale? There are a few massive learning curves, things I have outlined over the years. I don't see that they have been lessened, or indeed put to proper use. It's a demanding game to experience initially. There are a few thresholds to... exploit... But what has been missing as a pure and simple economic system. I seem to have stumbled upon something which might suffice. And I am willing to put money into it to see if it works.

Wrap a super-simple economic protocol around an absolute gem of an open-source game, and we may have ourselves a winner.
hold the line
User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11587
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: statement of unease

Post by Z-Man »

2020 wrote:Like in Infinity Blade, where you can buy with real money a bag of coins and thus buy incredible weapons and powerups within the game?
Well, that's a single player game, but yeah, kind of like that. 'Free to Play' microtransaction financed games typically put you into an environment with faraway goals ('get to XP level 60!') that you have to grind towards, and then allow you to pay for two things: convenience (a bigger inventory) or less wasted time (double or triple XP gained for a limited time). Bad ones also let you pay with real world money for advantages in player vs player combat. I don't mind this in principle for games where it makes sense. However, I think experience system with ingame rewards giving you an upper hand are completely out of place in multiplayer action games. You already get better automatically with experience.
I could see a rewardless experience system, though. We already have the very basic, intentionally insecure once on the client, tracking your playtime; I would not making that better (base it on score and team wins instead of play time) and tracked centrally based on your GID. I would not mind locking players out of certain game modes based on their collected experience. Non-game relevant rewards could be tied to it, too: let players register a clan officially when they have accumulated 10.000 XP (complete with tag protection, of course), let them join one at 100 XP. Let them invest XP into cosmetic upgrades. The Open Source nature of the game makes this a bit difficult, but it should be possible to keep cheaters inconvenienced enough that most won't bother. Well, and then one could sell the usual stuff for real money: XP boosts and cosmetic upgrades. That would be an in-game monetising scheme I could support. The only difference between a new and poor player and anyone else on their server is that the others may look better, the only difference between him and a rich player would be that the rich player gets to see everything quicker and maybe he'll get some exclusive sweet rims. Experiments show that if you do it right, you can have different people pay vastly different amounts for essentially the same thing.
User avatar
2020
Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
Location: the present, finally

Re: statement of unease

Post by 2020 »

That's an approach, Z-man. I personally never liked the idea of incentives in my classes, because they seemed to me to be too much like bribes. You are not suggesting exactly that, of course, more an incremental bonus system.

My proposal is simpler to implement, as far as I can tell. It comes down to the simplicity of my mind and an inability to juggle too many dependencies. Although the internet connection here drops all the time, and so a recording is not going to work all that well, I am happy to share. With appropriate community involvement, I hope we can put together a working solution.
hold the line
User avatar
Phytotron
Formerly Oscilloscope
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
Contact:

Re: statement of unease

Post by Phytotron »

2020 wrote:The fact that we are still playing ladles is evidence of my thinking and faith in people. It is proof.
No, it's proof people want to play tournaments—something not the least bit unique to Armagetron. No grand social engineering philosophy required.
Lucifer wrote:Of course, the reason I bring that up is because 2020's idea spawned numerous events, and besides me, led to a significant upsurge in tournaments in general. Don't forget the sumo tournaments, and all the others. There's been a lot, and it all goes back to the Spoon. 2020 can't take credit for all of that, but we also can't ignore his role in making it all happen.
Sure, his nagging persistence in continually bringing it up every chance he got, bashing people over the head with it, kept active the idea of having some sort of a tournament. This, as opposed to what had to that point mainly been occasional posts along the lines of "I think we should have a tourney sometime ... yeah man that would be cool," and then that'd be all you heard of it.

But I think there are other factors that are as much or more responsible for its establishment and continuance. First, the introduction of Fortress itself—an inherently team-oriented game mode. In a single-player free-for-all format (the predominant default to that point), you are by definition matching yourself against multiple, varying players on a daily basis. But to assemble a defined team (as opposed to spontaneously gathered at the time of the event) and match it up against multiple other defined teams, especially when only two teams at a time can play, requires a more drawn-out, organized structure, and an architecture upon which to place it. (A lattice, if you will.) No one has gone so far as to put together a "league," really, but skipping right to a tournament format accomplishes basically the same thing. Tournaments are not a new concept. It's a natural consequence of games. And human beings by nature enjoy games and competition. Honestly, can anyone think of a game, any kind, that doesn't have a tournament of some sort somewhere? Or any culture in human history that didn't have games? Nope. And the bigger it gets, the more structured organization it needs to be successful.

In addition, the introduction of Fortress and the other "special game modes" increased the size of the player base by drawing in players who don't care about the classic/core game for one reason or another, sufficiently such that there was a large enough pool of players from which to draw. Prior to that, the "community" really just wasn't big enough—especially in terms of people who knew each other—to support something the size of an actual team-based tournament. A typical Ladle has, what, about 8 players per team? Yeah, we might've been able to get two or three teams together prior to 0.2.8.x.

Second, infrastructure in the form of the servers provided—this later facilitated by rented commercial servers. Remember, prior to this point in time almost every server was home-hosted, and this was all happening at a time when commercial servers were becoming more available and affordable.

Third, Tank's creation of the "Armagetron Multi-Player" section on the forum—with the Competitions and Teams subforums—providing an easy, familiar, and centralized medium for organizing.

Last but not least, clans. Indeed, they may be the single most important factor to the success of the Ladle, etc. I've said it before, I don't think the Ladle or any of these other tourneys would have persisted were it not for the existence of clans, and vice-versa; it's a symbiotic relationship. First, clans retain players in the game. Second, clans are built-in teams. Both of these characteristics reduce or skip the need to scramble for players to create or maintain a team, per Ladle and over time. Third, most clans have a hierarchy, including a leader(s)—and if I'm not mistaken, those leaders will often organize and even assign teams. (The clans themselves are hardly "self-organized." They have a leader(s), go out "recruiting," have "trainees," only accept certain players, and so on. And again, there's usually some sort of hierarchy, and probably even committees.) Fourth, they have built-in motivation for competition—the "clan war" thing, gotta prove you're better than the other clans. Fifth, with the addition of all these other "special game modes," clans began to divide themselves into so-called "divisions." This, too, feeds back: clans support the game modes and tournaments, the game modes and tournaments support the clans. All of which is also to reiterate that the proliferation and fecundity of clans that began around 2006 is tied to and buoyed by these competitions, and vice-versa.

What's totally irrelevant? 2020's "tronic progression" and "self-organization" philosophies—this notion that through Armagetron he'll somehow completely reorder all of human society. The only person that motivates is 2020. The overwhelming majority of players haven't even heard of it, or even know or care about the origin of the word "Ladle." They play it because it's a gaming tournament, period. And there's absolutely nothing unique about that in gaming or sports.

They—"they" being mostly teenagers with time (wasted) on their hands—started playing the game, maybe joined a clan, someone mentioned the Ladle, they said, "what's that?", were told it's a Fortress tournament, and said, "oh cool, you guys have tournaments in this game (like seemingly every other even marginally popular video game these days)? How do I sign up?" They did not say, "gee, what is the philosophy behind such an endeavor? Does it have socio-economic consequences? Will this save the world?" They're kids wanting to play a game—a GAME—for fun and, in some cases, to show each other up. That's it. And guys like sinewav make it happen. There is an informal committee that runs the Ladle, including all sorts of rules.

You, 2020, kep claiming all this credit for the Ladle (such self-aggrandizement for someone who professes to be so humble; the lord doth protest too much, methinks), but have you actually looked at how it's organized? How it's run? It doesn't arise spontaneously and collectively. Even as an outsider I see all this. I see that seemingly every month there are people confused and arguing about how to proceed, with a few people like sinewav pointing to established rules and whipping everything into shape.
User avatar
2020
Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
Location: the present, finally

Re: statement of unease

Post by 2020 »

It's amusing that what seemed so alien to people when I started suggesting it, seems so obvious now.

I am not claiming I invented tournaments. Or clans. Or Fortress settings.

Neither have I claimed that players should understand anything about philosophy, or grand purposes, etc, etc.

What I contributed was the bizarre, ludicrous, unheard of suggestion that we could trust players. That's all. And if you simply trust people, people turn up because they want to play. And a system based on trust is quite different from what we are mostly used to. And combine that with the biggest issue being timing, and release yourself from the traditional method of arranging tournaments (based on moving bodies around mostly), and the design for the tronic progression becomes very simple indeed. But of course, it does require people to admin, to set stuff up, co-ordinate, keep people informed, and so on. And they should be remunerated too, retrospectively.

Do you know where I get this confidence from? Because it is directly related to the scale that I envisioned 6 years ago, something that still eludes most people. But there have been a few players who have seen the potential. Glimpsed it. And it depends precisely on one thing: trust. Which leads to alignment. Which constitutes self-organisation, which happens to be contained fractally, well-packaged, in each and every round of fortress arma. And you need some kind of self-organising system that allows this, and allows it to scale. We tend to build systems that are fool-proof, or ungameable, defining as many rules to cover ever eventuality. But if you conducted a balanced research, it would show that I have always spoken against such a direction. I have always suggested for more flexibility at the risk that it could be destroyed, exploited, derailed -- in order to encourage a personal responsibility by all players. Such is a culture that may derive those enigmatic but oh so important human qualities like honour, like sportsmanship, or respect. This is the bonding of brotherhood. No grand philosophising, no intellectual debates. Simply a brotherhood of players.

Which is why this thread has been named "Statement of Unease", for it seemed to me that the culture of the community, at least on the forums, did not exhibit these qualities. And perhaps you are right, Phyto, and it is just a matter of teenagers playing games, and it is all just a happen-chance of technical advancement, and perhaps sad older men hiding from the world and exercising their pathetic domination in a small corner of the virtual world.

So, feel free, Phyto, to juxtapose every possible reason why the ladle works the way it does. I'd like to see how you will justify when it scales up. And just because it hasn't yet, doesn't mean it can't. Even though I personally gave up on it back in early 2011, I still believe we are capable of it. The players of this game are capable of living up to something greater, that a game as fast and as deep, open-sourced and free, can be a touch-stone for social change, the effect of which may actually influence the real world. But whatever I believe doesn't matter. What matters is whether we can do it. And given the right conditions, the basic essence of which is trust, I'd like to give it a go.

If you don't, that's cool with me. Just don't get in the way.
hold the line
User avatar
Phytotron
Formerly Oscilloscope
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
Contact:

Re: statement of unease

Post by Phytotron »

2020 wrote:and perhaps sad older men hiding from the world and exercising their pathetic domination in a small corner of the virtual world.
More insults. Note that I didn't make one antagonistic or insulting remark in my last two posts here. I did this to prove a point: That, contrary to your laboriously overwrought whining that I'm simply bullying and antagonizing you for no real reason (which seems to be the way you feel about anyone who disagrees with you), my analysis and critique is substantive. But you just respond with more insults and more of your own "you don't get it" dismissiveness, despite your whining/scolding others for being dismissive. See, this among many other examples leads me to believe you are not an honest, trustworthy person, despite all your posturing. Nor have you exhibited an ability to engage in honest, serious conversation, again, despite the posturing and proclamations. ("I will only converse on my terms, and if you agree to my premises" does not qualify as an honest, open conversation.) Maybe you're just oblivious to it, but that isn't a much better alternative. But go ahead and make another snide remark. See how far that gets you in your grand mission.

Besides that, you still haven't made a case for there being anything remarkable or revolutionary here. Not about trust, not about organization, not about "honor" or "brotherhood," nothing. Just declaring it so, and trying to wrap it up in flowery (or poorly-worded?) language, doesn't make it so. All you're doing is comparable to ascribing supernatural phenomena and explanation to ordinary occurrences. Like your little "meme" thing; it's only interesting if you don't know the first thing about developmental linguistics or early childhood reading education. Add to that the way you come off as though you live in some mythological world of yore. In still other ways, overall really, you're like someone talking about "flower power" as a realistic, practical way to change the world. Just silly. And yes, what you believe does matter; it's the entire basis for your mission. You've been saying so all the way, until now. But now, what, "it matters not what the peons know or believe; leave them in the dark so long as they carry forth my mission!"?
2020 wrote:Even though I personally gave up on it back in early 2011
Yeah, I wish you had just remained there rather than being a nuisance with all this again. And if you're still wondering, that's why I made the kind of initial (first four) comments I did in your "meme" thread (which I actually thought were relatively restrained and light-hearted): because you've been at this for years, cluster bombing any thread with it, no matter how unrelated—like you did with Cody's goodbye thread just now (it's not about you! Vanity!). It doesn't really deserve any more than that kind of response anymore. People have given you more than your fair share of chances, plenty of fair hearings, with this stuff. If you find it's failing to get through or realized, maybe you need to reexamine yourself, your ideas, and your presentation (e.g., stop speaking/typing in such a cryptic manner) instead of putting all the blame on others' supposed failings. Or maybe just accept no one is into it and move on.

You obviously have a strong sense of mission in you. (Valor, bravery, honor, chivalry, brotherhood! Champion! Are you related to the Groosalugg?) I encourage you to find something worthwhile and actual to devote all this time and energy and earnestness to. I promise you that seeing real results will fill you with a great deal more satisfaction than this folly. Does Scotland have an equivalent of the Peace Corps or something? Or maybe Renaissance fairs, jousting reenactments or something?


By the way, how can you call this game "deep," when you deliberately isolate yourself to a singular, very specific game mode that is so very regimented in its gameplay? Or, what, are people who play other modes somehow unenlightened, crude, cretinous?
Last edited by Phytotron on Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Concord
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1661
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:24 pm

Re: statement of unease

Post by Concord »

@Z-Man and 2020 re: the reward talk

I think people play games mostly as a social experience. You play to win, but even more so to earn the recognition of your peers. I don't see how money can buy people that recognition without undermining it, and then making it meaningless, which is to say, I don't see how money can buy people that.
Post Reply