General Proclaimation: Ban/Errata/Proxy This!

Ladies & gentlemen,

In the same vein (heh, Vampire pun) as being asked to not 'needlessly spam' the same opinion over & over, some of the more 'vocal' members feel that for some reason, the need to Ban/Proxy/Errata things needs to be stated, again & again ad nauseum.

To quote:
The sky is not falling.

Fine, you want it changed. Sorry, but there's also a large number of people who don't, too. In fact, they think game is just fine, barring perhaps minor tweaks* at best, and certainly nothing along the lines of doing anything to x, y or indeed z. Your axe has been ground, your points have been made, your ships, they are le sunk.

It's truly astounding how fast since CCP has managed a successful withdrawal (heh, again.) it's already degenerated to this, was the game really so bad under LSJ? Was this really so awful to play before?

* And even as I type this, I'm quite aware this is my own opinion infecting my post, thank you.

Shockwave wrote:

Ladies & gentlemen,

In the same vein (heh, Vampire pun) as being asked to not 'needlessly spam' the same opinion over & over, some of the more 'vocal' members feel that for some reason, the need to Ban/Proxy/Errata things needs to be stated, again & again ad nauseum.

I wonder who those people might be? For the most part, all I've seen are people making and responding to arguments.

I'm going to disagree *slightly*.

Having those discussions is fine. There needs to be a bar set, however.
If you're calling for a *particular* card/rule change, then you need something resembling a reason for people to take the time to consider the idea.

Bear in mind that the game is now out of production. New cards WILL NOT be issued. New rulebooks WILL NOT be printed. If you're calling for change, you better be *extremely* certain that what you're calling for benefits the game, because now it's going to need a lot more co-ordination. Text CANNOT be updated on physical media. Any changes made will be harder to message out and enforce.

Provide a cogent coherent well-reasoned argument, and people will listen. Run around screaming "the sky is falling!" and you'll rapidly exhaust your welcome.

So ask yourself before you post - WWLSJD?

And, in a feat of Temporis by me...

<Shockwave> You know what depresses me the most?
<Shockwave> Because I've already replied several times to suoli
<Shockwave> I know full well this is going to be taken as aimed directly at him as the one target.
<Shockwave> And the reply is going to be exactly that.
<Shockwave> In fact, someone save this snippet of chat log to post in afterwards, with timestamps.
<Shockwave> And it's not, it's just the same 3-5 people posting the same thing over, and over, and over.

Shockwave wrote:

And, in a feat of Temporis by me...

<Shockwave> You know what depresses me the most?
<Shockwave> Because I've already replied several times to suoli
<Shockwave> I know full well this is going to be taken as aimed directly at him as the one target.
<Shockwave> And the reply is going to be exactly that.
<Shockwave> In fact, someone save this snippet of chat log to post in afterwards, with timestamps.
<Shockwave> And it's not, it's just the same 3-5 people posting the same thing over, and over, and over.

I don't agree that my reply was exactly that. I said that I haven't seen too much needless repetition.

BeAst wrote:

Having those discussions is fine. There needs to be a bar set, however.
If you're calling for a *particular* card/rule change, then you need something resembling a reason for people to take the time to consider the idea.

If you're calling for change, you better be *extremely* certain that what you're calling for benefits the game, because now it's going to need a lot more co-ordination.

So ask yourself before you post - WWLSJD?

While I agree that any changes should be based on a good reason I feel that LSJ would not look for ironclad proof or extreme certainty before making a decision. The matter of game balance is too subjective. There's just always going to be some room for doubt. The question is do we accept that there will never be absolute certainty or do we never change anything at all, even if it would intuitively seem like a clear case.