Woah, I slack on the forums during Christmas, and topkilla jumps aboard the crazy train. Lets go over this last post carefully, because topkilla I know you hate it when I dont look at every word and quote it in my post.
topkilla wrote:In this day and age, people take offense to virtually everything.
Everything you say can and will be used against you. And the majority of the time the thing that people haven taken offense to is completely ridiculous and petty. But because they were offended, they feel as if they have some sort of right to be compensated in some way or fashion.
What compensation am I asking for? I must have forgotten. All I can remember asking for is for a taint on my profile NOT be visible if I dont want it there. That would be an odd view on the word "compensation" if this is what you're talking about.
topkilla wrote:The easiest way to do that, is by demanding changes be made to what they felt has wronged them. If their demands are not met, then they usually have some ultimatum they openly express.
In this case:
Kevlar is the offended party.
To be clear, the toxic medal I have doesn't bother me personally very much. Its been a minor inconvenience at most. My opposition to the negative medals is based on principle and looking at the big picture of what it can do to the community as a whole.
topkilla wrote:Negative medals are the cause.
This forum is where he's expressing his reparation.
Yes, obviously.
topkilla wrote:Refusal to spend anymore money on the game until he deems the game "fixed" is his ultimatum.
To clarify, thats my ultimatum if the price of negative medals is raised. Raising the cost of negative medals does not fix the problem, it makes it worse. It means that negative medals have even more weight by their rarity, and the "mutually assured destruction" dynamic that exists when they medals are cheap is perverted in the worst way by jacking up the price. With higher price, if someone gives you a negative medal, the only way to fire back and ensure both are hurt equally is to put $20 in the hands of the devs. Again, this is the ugliest business model ever accidentally stumbled upon, and I will not contribute to it.
topkilla wrote:Unfortunately, it's typically a good business idea to give the people what it is they demand.
I'm not sure what is unfortunate about a business that looks to remove something from its product that actively upsets it's consumer.
topkilla wrote:And because of that, we are essentially giving up our right to free speech to social media.
*Choo*Choo* -- the crazy train has left the station. I have no clue where to even start with this.
topkilla wrote:My personal thoughts regarding the medals is as follows:
It's all; strange... Making people pay $1 to give each other what basically equates to a trophy/ribbon/achievement doesn't make sense to me. Mainly because I'm used to games giving out similar rewards for free, as part of the game.
But if you think about it, you'll likely only get three kinds of people. People who dislike each other and pay to give negative medals out of spite. People who are friends/allies and give each other positive medals out of friendship. And people who don't buy any medals. - Which leads to the meaningfulness of the medals being completely useless.
Yeah, you may occasionally get people who will look at your profile and use a negative medal as leverage to eliminate you, but those people would find or create some kind of leverage to eliminate you regardless. - So it's not a valid argument against negative medals.
Diplomacy is a result of your actions and relations. Not by the medals in your profile.
Negative medals will be used against you more than occasionally, especially if they are in multiples (and theres no limit on the number of medals you can give someone. one person could give you 50 toxic/backstabber medals if they felt like it). Reputation matters in this game- this is why good players go out of their way to preserve it in non-anonymous games. I personally might be able to build my reputation strongly enough that my medals dont matter, because I play in a much smaller pool of players in the top 50 or so. Lower on the ladder where people might not all recognize each other by name, or worse- with new players, a negative medal might very well be the only reputation they carry game to game.
But lets say for the sake of argument that I'm wrong in my above paragraph, and it actually doesn't have much of a negative effect on people's games. That still doesnt matter. People still have the perception (as this thread has shown) that it is in fact hurting their reputation, and perception is what matters. If people believe their account has been damaged, then it hurts their experience with the game in largely the same way as if the effect was real.
topkilla wrote:Which leaves the real question regarding negative medals down to this:
Is having negative medals, that are virtually meaningless, in the game to help support the devs (who at last count, paid $45,000 to create this game) and potentially expand Subterfuge's lifespan worth annoying a few sensitive players who are easily offended?
...proceed to following quote.
topkilla wrote:kevlargolem wrote:topkilla wrote:Excellent. The Dev's just made $4 for free.
Long Live Subterfuge.
Yeah, unless the person quits. Then the devs lose the money they might have lost on purchase of L2, plus money spent on positive medals, plus any other paid future content. Plus reduced player base means increased chance of others quitting because they can't find a game.
Then that person isn't cool enough to play Subterfuge.
So it's clear, your argument only leans on the idea that negative medals make the devs money until confronted with the possibility that they might not actually make them money. Then you shift to a coy/elitist/troll argument just long enough. Then wait just long enough to hope that people forgot your argument changed, then return to it when it suits you.
