"Mis-Land Management" - Solutions to preventing Extinction level events

We have not received permission from Goalid to share the quoted post.

Thank you.

Data recorded.

We have not received permission from Goalid to share the quoted post.

While I find your answer extremely frustrating and conversation-ending, it is not a personal thing.

You have now given data that clarifies how you view the immersive options for this system, and what you think of it related to that way.

Any Intrepid Dev who receives this information, either now or because it is in my archives, can make decisions based on your feedback and responses with more certainty. They don't have to go 'well maybe they don't understand, they'll see when it's implemented' with the perspective that it would 'be okay with you for that sort of rotation to happen' if they did it.

For your reference, on the code side of a system SIMILAR to this that I have built, it IS adaptive. Easily. Nothing more than a configuration file. So yes, I would expect the system would change the rules by biome, like everything else.

I will point out to anyone who thinks this is complex that MineCraft modders can do this. I expect at least as much from Intrepid as from 'MineCraft modder working more or less solo', so any points I make are from that. If counterarguments rely on 'it being too complicated', I can't speak to them, because I am 'arguing from faith'.

We have not received permission from Goalid to share the quoted post.

There are multiple assumptions in this post, but I feel like it will be unproductive to actually try to address or discuss them between us. I will instead try to verify that we disagree on all points so that we can leave it there.

"It is an assumption on my part." - Yes. Whenever a system is offered, if I want to discuss it, I make an assumption, as you are doing, yours is just based on the absence of evidence and mine is faith-based.

"I'm expecting gatherers to be able to keep track of this in order to min-max their gameplay." - I expect some to do this, some to not, and some inbetween, and I would expect that to be okay, I would enjoy this design type.

"It's too much to keep track of.' - Just a basic disagreement by capability here, mostly.

"If you think it's reasonable for there to be no good method for a node to try and defeat the Tragedy of the Commons" - Disagree that it's a tragedy, disagree that the method available is unreasonable.

"This isn't something I see feasible for a mayor'" - This is just politics? I don't see how this is infeasible. Perhaps I play too many games where it is much easier and I'm just assuming again.

That should cover it, I think.

We have not received permission from Goalid to share the quoted post.

Very well then. As noted, I just wanted to make sure that we were as clear as possible.

If you perceive that other economic actors have no loyalty to Nodes, then in MY mind you are questioning 'Why is there a Node system at all?' And that's valid. Perhaps 'just dynamism'.

Perhaps you're not the sort of person for whom potential story takes precedence over maximum profit. And so on. I wouldn't expect Intrepid to build the game to try to appeal to nor control the sort of player who cannot be swayed by these things.

And therefore, it is entirely possible that as you imply, the whole thing will fail because no one will actually care about that sort of thing anyway. So it goes.

I really don't know why Noaani keeps trying. It's obvious that Dark is less willing to discuss this issue than even Mag was about discussing dps meters At least with Mag there was some circular movement of the discussion, while here it's just Noaani bashing his head against a wall of "yeah, and?"