Overview of thoughts (sports analogy): Fixing the economy is a down the field 50 yard pass that will likely be a highlight if pulled off successfully; however, it could just as easily end up as an incomplete or interception.
Defence system is 4 yard run that won't be highlighted, but if it is coupled with other 4 yard runs will lead to a win. Less likely to blow up in your face.
In this analogy, the other 4 yard runs might lead to a win but the 50 yard pass also might be what is needed to win? And trying to make a bunch of 4 yard runs could end up resulting in the 50 yard pass still being needed, or even worse mean you have to make an even longer pass because the state of the game has changed in the meantime.
The definition of analogy is a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Of course the explanation will not be one for one and expecting it to be just shows that you aren't actually giving the point a chance.
But also, it's a project management issue, sports analogies don't work.
Since you can just make claims, I will too. This quote is incorrect. See previous definition of analogy. My analogy makes the point that the defense system should be easy and short. The economy changes will be long, and we don't even know any specifics or if it will actually fix the economy or make it worse like previous adjustments. I could further the analogy, but that defeats the point. You seem like you don't want to see any point of view other than your own.
I would point out that the analogy is an oversimplification likely because such reduces the argument to the point in favour of defenses. Where the points in favour of the economy seem to be the ones you are skipping over? It's a more complex situation, we've seen the negative impacts of just focusing on the quicker fixes, the economy fix is now a far more involved piece because it has been delayed due to this reasoning.
Regarding the claims, you've just kinda highlighted why your analogy doesn't work. Length and ease of a project are only two factors in risk assessment/project management, the others relate to how important it is to actually do, the impact it's going to have, etc. Smaller and quicker things can make sense to handle first, however the other factors can also mean you need to prioritise longer and harder projects first.
And again, it kinda ignores the reality of Lusternia. The economy has been pushed back and hit with quick fixes for years now, there's always new projects, there's always going to be something that will be easier to handle, we could likely easily fill the admins task list with 10 years worth of smaller and easier projects. But it also means that the economy issue is just going to be there still and as we've seen, likely only going to get worse, becoming a bigger and bigger issue over time. It's why prioritising just on length and ease doesn't always work and why the other factors are important to consider.
Overview of thoughts (sports analogy): Fixing the economy is a down the field 50 yard pass that will likely be a highlight if pulled off successfully; however, it could just as easily end up as an incomplete or interception.
Just to clarify @Saran , if the admin does an amazing job and the play is caught then it could win the game. The point is about risk/reward/investment.
Sure, but part of risk is also the risk of doing something later vs now which is my point. Later resources might change and an easier project could still be done where a hard one could become implausible, for example. For some newbies they jump in and start asking what trades make money and people still warn them trades aren't for money which has been happening for like... 10-15 rl years, not a super inspiring start for people that might have like to play traders.
I'm not say that defenses aren't faster/easier/etc, I get that point, I'm just saying the other factors to me really tip the balance in favour of the economy despite that.
edit2: I guess also, the sports analogy kinda presents them as two different options for achieving one goal, I see them as two things that need to be done and it's just a factor of which order you do them in.
Overview of thoughts (sports analogy): Fixing the economy is a down the field 50 yard pass that will likely be a highlight if pulled off successfully; however, it could just as easily end up as an incomplete or interception.
Just to clarify @Saran , if the admin does an amazing job and the play is caught then it could win the game. The point is about risk/reward/investment.
Sure, but part of risk is also the risk of doing something later vs now which is my point. Later resources might change and an easier project could still be done where a hard one could become implausible, for example. For some newbies they jump in and start asking what trades make money and people still warn them trades aren't for money which has been happening for like... 10-15 rl years, not a super inspiring start for people that might have like to play traders.
Even 10 years ago when classflexing was a thing and alchemy/enchantment was locked more, trades never really made large sums money unless you were herbs (and even then, you could argue the time it took, you basically were 'breaking' even on value.).
You aren't going to fix the whole the lack of trader-rp as long as skillflex exists, it is just easier for someone to flex to the trade they need than to fine someone online at the same time as them.
The defense overhaul was promised probably back in 2012 (whenever one of the aff overhaul started). It looks like the first real 'push' to start it was in 2015 with converting a few defenses like enchantments before it got pushed out for other projects.
Overview of thoughts (sports analogy): Fixing the economy is a down the field 50 yard pass that will likely be a highlight if pulled off successfully; however, it could just as easily end up as an incomplete or interception.
Just to clarify @Saran , if the admin does an amazing job and the play is caught then it could win the game. The point is about risk/reward/investment.
Sure, but part of risk is also the risk of doing something later vs now which is my point. Later resources might change and an easier project could still be done where a hard one could become implausible, for example. For some newbies they jump in and start asking what trades make money and people still warn them trades aren't for money which has been happening for like... 10-15 rl years, not a super inspiring start for people that might have like to play traders.
Even 10 years ago when classflexing was a thing and alchemy/enchantment was locked more, trades never really made large sums money unless you were herbs (and even then, you could argue the time it took, you basically were 'breaking' even on value.).
You aren't going to fix the whole the lack of trader-rp as long as skillflex exists, it is just easier for someone to flex to the trade they need than to fine someone online at the same time as them.
The defense overhaul was promised probably back in 2012 (whenever one of the aff overhaul started). It looks like the first real 'push' to start it was in 2015 with converting a few defenses like enchantments before it got pushed out for other projects.
Yeah, the two sentences here are basically arguments for addressing it. I'd also point that it's not really "trader-rp" as much as gameplay endeavours, downtime activities, etc.
Trading as an activity, particularly where you're selling to other players comes with the expectation that it's one of the best ways to make large sums of money, if not well and truly the best. That's why new people to the game seem to so often look at trades and expect them to make money and then older players tell them they're mistaken. It being easier to craft everything for yourself is a symptom of the broken system.
I think part of the issue in this thread is also just... the specifics of the economy fix are actually unknown afaik? Could be a bunch of neat shiny new stuff
The combat overhaul started in 2013 which included an aff overhaul? 2015 was when the buff changes started up which would make sense for enchants to be converted as part of that?
Also, that time frame includes several large scale projects which have dedicated resources to focus on large aspects of the game such as PvP, Guilds, Demesnes, Autocuring, etc. Endgame has been done at least twice while economy has been waiting for the "later" when it'll get the same focus.
I think it's better if the finer points of the economy and defenses can be discussed on their own threads, while this one is reserved solely for which to prioritize between economy and defenses.
We appreciate this input but just wanted to say a few things. Devoting entirely to a defense overhaul just isn't something we're willing to do at this point. There are numerous factors that go into the decision on what we choose to do.
As was mentioned - focusing entirely on the defense overhaul would be rather time-consuming for the only real change being that defenses are now giving gmcp messages. It does make coding easier, sure, and it would enable things like SSC to work easier with defenses (which, if there are any major defenses that really need to be put into SSC, let me know, I thought all the big ones were already in there).
This is already something we're slowly moving through (as things come up, not with a concerted priority), and it's something that we will continue to work on.
A defense overhaul would be strictly a coding thing. It would be limited to only the admin that is able to code and primarily myself. The economy overhaul will involve a much wider array of admin (and likely players) both in how we dive deep into how things currently work, and how we plan/design things to work moving forward.
Again, we do understand that quite a few people would really like and enjoy getting the defense overhaul all into one cohesive system. It's something we'll continue to work on. It's just not something that we're going to devote to full-time at this point.
We appreciate this input but just wanted to say a few things. Devoting entirely to a defense overhaul just isn't something we're willing to do at this point. There are numerous factors that go into the decision on what we choose to do.
As was mentioned - focusing entirely on the defense overhaul would be rather time-consuming for the only real change being that defenses are now giving gmcp messages. It does make coding easier, sure, and it would enable things like SSC to work easier with defenses (which, if there are any major defenses that really need to be put into SSC, let me know, I thought all the big ones were already in there).
Big ones? The only 'big ones' are most enchantments and potions and some newer artifacts. (EDIT: I realize how bad this first line probably sounds after reading it... I would consider 'big ones' ones that come from guild skills more so than anything)
I guess I would call anything 'a big one' if it drops after some time (hour for most of things, but some are 24hr) or some non-death action. A small-ish list of what I would consider to call into that:
Other abilities (not including things that directly from a guildskill): tinkering enchantments. Domoths. Dramatics (performances (vagabond, etc) and debating attitudes). Poteen buffs. Firework curios (both individual and collection). vital blessings (from various quests/divine mob influencing, etc).
At the very least, I would consider Kirigami, wetfold, and influence Oils as major. I probably would even throw tinkering enchantments on there for sake of completeness of that skill-type. Maybe Dramatics too depending on your view of how important debating is
I don't think I'd consider most of those 'big ones'
The big ones I mean would be the ones that are constantly needing re-upped (think fire potion, insomnia etc)
The apply once and it lasts an hour or more, I would not consider 'big' for being included in SSC as a priority.
If that's what is considered 'big ones', then you could really consider anything if you see defenses as things to protect against abilities that strip random defs. Aquas Needle rain, Sigil from Runes, Undoing from Dreamweaving, and whatever skills have similiar abilities. But then you basically have everything considered big then and we are back to 'just do the full overhaul.'
You say Insomnia, but that's not part of the def overhaul. Either are Kafe or Metawake ( not sure if this actually drops when hit with sleep...)
I meant that defenses that need to be regularly upkept (like insomnia, firepotion, sixthsense, truehearing etc) that are -not- currently doing so in SSC would have some effort put into making sure they are in SSC so players are not hindered and are able to use them efficiently.
I did not mean that we would overhaul them or do every single defense. We'll get there, but it's not something we're going to prioritize at this time.
FWIW, as a relatively new(ly returned) player, it doesn't really feel like there's a functioning economy at all. I'm fortunate that I bought some credits and sold them to give myself a big piggy bank to start. But without that, I'm not sure how...
My trade skill (Cooking) would actually earn money (or how any trade skill would) without the corresponding artifact
My shop (in Hallifax) would get any customers without being connected to the Aetherplex (which I shoveled out the 2 million gold to do myself)
I could earn enough gold to stay a bit above 'subsistence' level (i.e. have enough supplies to go bashing) without spending all my time bashing
Aethertrading is fun and somewhat accessible - though made a lot more reasonable with the tradeskill artifact. (I just wish the gnomes wouldn't pop in inaccessible places, eg certain rooms in Xion.)
As for defenses: would a game-native defense upkeep system be helpful for my entry into combat? Yes. Would I love it if it existed? Yes. Is it the thing preventing me from learning more combat? No, doesn't feel like it. SSC was probably the #1 biggest thing that unblocks combat for me. Now it's just my laziness in the way
Comments
It's a more complex situation, we've seen the negative impacts of just focusing on the quicker fixes, the economy fix is now a far more involved piece because it has been delayed due to this reasoning.
Regarding the claims, you've just kinda highlighted why your analogy doesn't work.
Length and ease of a project are only two factors in risk assessment/project management, the others relate to how important it is to actually do, the impact it's going to have, etc. Smaller and quicker things can make sense to handle first, however the other factors can also mean you need to prioritise longer and harder projects first.
And again, it kinda ignores the reality of Lusternia. The economy has been pushed back and hit with quick fixes for years now, there's always new projects, there's always going to be something that will be easier to handle, we could likely easily fill the admins task list with 10 years worth of smaller and easier projects. But it also means that the economy issue is just going to be there still and as we've seen, likely only going to get worse, becoming a bigger and bigger issue over time.
It's why prioritising just on length and ease doesn't always work and why the other factors are important to consider.
Sure, but part of risk is also the risk of doing something later vs now which is my point. Later resources might change and an easier project could still be done where a hard one could become implausible, for example. For some newbies they jump in and start asking what trades make money and people still warn them trades aren't for money which has been happening for like... 10-15 rl years, not a super inspiring start for people that might have like to play traders.
I'm not say that defenses aren't faster/easier/etc, I get that point, I'm just saying the other factors to me really tip the balance in favour of the economy despite that.
edit2: I guess also, the sports analogy kinda presents them as two different options for achieving one goal, I see them as two things that need to be done and it's just a factor of which order you do them in.
Trading as an activity, particularly where you're selling to other players comes with the expectation that it's one of the best ways to make large sums of money, if not well and truly the best. That's why new people to the game seem to so often look at trades and expect them to make money and then older players tell them they're mistaken.
It being easier to craft everything for yourself is a symptom of the broken system.
I think part of the issue in this thread is also just... the specifics of the economy fix are actually unknown afaik? Could be a bunch of neat shiny new stuff
The combat overhaul started in 2013 which included an aff overhaul? 2015 was when the buff changes started up which would make sense for enchants to be converted as part of that?
Also, that time frame includes several large scale projects which have dedicated resources to focus on large aspects of the game such as PvP, Guilds, Demesnes, Autocuring, etc. Endgame has been done at least twice while economy has been waiting for the "later" when it'll get the same focus.
Explorer (80%), Achiever (53%), Socializer (53%), Killer (13%)
Bartle Taxonomy
(test yourself)
As was mentioned - focusing entirely on the defense overhaul would be rather time-consuming for the only real change being that defenses are now giving gmcp messages. It does make coding easier, sure, and it would enable things like SSC to work easier with defenses (which, if there are any major defenses that really need to be put into SSC, let me know, I thought all the big ones were already in there).
This is already something we're slowly moving through (as things come up, not with a concerted priority), and it's something that we will continue to work on.
A defense overhaul would be strictly a coding thing. It would be limited to only the admin that is able to code and primarily myself. The economy overhaul will involve a much wider array of admin (and likely players) both in how we dive deep into how things currently work, and how we plan/design things to work moving forward.
Again, we do understand that quite a few people would really like and enjoy getting the defense overhaul all into one cohesive system. It's something we'll continue to work on. It's just not something that we're going to devote to full-time at this point.
Explorer (80%), Achiever (53%), Socializer (53%), Killer (13%)
Bartle Taxonomy
(test yourself)
tinkering enchantments. Domoths. Dramatics (performances (vagabond, etc) and debating attitudes). Poteen buffs. Firework curios (both individual and collection). vital blessings (from various quests/divine mob influencing, etc).
The big ones I mean would be the ones that are constantly needing re-upped (think fire potion, insomnia etc)
The apply once and it lasts an hour or more, I would not consider 'big' for being included in SSC as a priority.
I meant that defenses that need to be regularly upkept (like insomnia, firepotion, sixthsense, truehearing etc) that are -not- currently doing so in SSC would have some effort put into making sure they are in SSC so players are not hindered and are able to use them efficiently.
I did not mean that we would overhaul them or do every single defense. We'll get there, but it's not something we're going to prioritize at this time.
- My trade skill (Cooking) would actually earn money (or how any trade skill would) without the corresponding artifact
- My shop (in Hallifax) would get any customers without being connected to the Aetherplex (which I shoveled out the 2 million gold to do myself)
- I could earn enough gold to stay a bit above 'subsistence' level (i.e. have enough supplies to go bashing) without spending all my time bashing
Aethertrading is fun and somewhat accessible - though made a lot more reasonable with the tradeskill artifact. (I just wish the gnomes wouldn't pop in inaccessible places, eg certain rooms in Xion.)As for defenses: would a game-native defense upkeep system be helpful for my entry into combat? Yes. Would I love it if it existed? Yes. Is it the thing preventing me from learning more combat? No, doesn't feel like it. SSC was probably the #1 biggest thing that unblocks combat for me. Now it's just my laziness in the way