This is, in fact, actually unfortunate. But his inability not to be excessively caustic and abrasive unfortunately makes it impossible for me to assimilate his "feedback". I am doing what I can to segregate my self-worth and ego from this thread, but I am not a robot.Whatever you think about Frank Trollman personally, I'm surprised that you've asked him not to participate in your thread. He's the one person that has been providing you honest and comprehensive feedback.
I would happily "let" Frank back into the thread, or invite him back, if he would agree to be (reasonably) nice, but I am not so naive as to be unaware of this simple fact: Frank Trollman's online persona is less capable of being nice than the average swine is of independent levitational locomotion, or at least certainly less interested in being nice than the average highland cow is in the field of astrophysics. I hope no one considers that to be flaming Frank when he's been asked out of the thread, I'd think we could all agree that whatever else he is, Frank is not very nice.
That said, it is sad that no one else on the Den appears to have as much free time or as much to say as Frank. I would love to get some other comprehensive opinions on what I have written. It is possible, and you should consider this, that there are people out there that may in fact agree with me, and not Frank, about some of these things.
Let me rebut this as briefly as possible:As far as my suggestion to you, you shouldn't change which thing you change your game to depending on what looks worse. If you do something better than SR5 but worse than SR4, don't compare it to SR5 as a defense. If your game does something better than SR4 but worse than SR5, don't compare it to SR5 as a defense. Ultimately, you won't end up with a better game than either one - you'll come up with a game that's roughly better and worse than each game in different ways. The only way to avoid that is to have clear design goals and when something is 'worse', it needs to achieve a design goal.
For instance, if you're concerned that direct damage in SR4 is too high and Frank points out that based on the action economy, your new damage is too low that isn't necessarily a problem. If you're trying to make direct damage magic non-viable, mission accomplished! But if SR5 is too low, and while yours is higher it is STILL too low, saying yours is higher than SR5 isn't a defense. It's like saying 'this glass of water has only half as much shit as that one, drink up'. It'd be preferable to be offered a glass with no shit at all.
SR4: Direct combat spells much too powerful.
SR5: Direct combat spells much too weak.
SRPC: Direct combat spells just about right.
Frank Trollman has a different level of "just right" than I do. And is angry about it. That's all. It is actually insulting to suggest I was trying to make direct damage combat spells non-viable. There is a huge, enormous gray area between "the only action truly worth taking in combat" and "non-viable" and I firmly believe that I landed somewhere in that gray area.
Yes, but the problem is that we also simply have different abstract ideas of game balance, which makes it very difficult for me to benefit from his advice, especially when it has been thoroughly laced with vicious insults. Hence the "Frank Keep Out" that remains in the thread title. I would really like to stop discussing him now as I have already been (fairly) warned about doing so once.Ultimately, the changes that you're considering are going to need some mathematical analysis. You've admitted that math analysis is not a strong suit for you. It very clearly is a strength for Frank Trollman.
I think that both before and after the period during which Frank was being excessively offensive, I was being very receptive to people's suggestions. And that includes right now. (Of course I will admit that during that period where Frank was actively telling me that my work was a worthless piece of shit, I got extremely defensive, but that should surprise no one. The important thing is that before then and since I have been very receptive to opinions and suggestions.)It's normal that you'd fall in love with your proposals. If you want to improve it, set your ego aside, listen to what people say. You don't have to agree with everything, but don't bother to get defensive. Let them throw out their full suggestions and ask clarifying questions if you think they've missed something. Once you've understood, ask them what suggestions they have to address their perceived issue. Try to evaluate what NEW ISSUES that could create. Compare the relative benefit of the solution to the changes it would require.
The only unfortunate thing is that much of the discussion has been highly abstract, rather than focused on the text I've provided, but as the text I've provided is dauntingly substantial (i.e. TLDR effect), I'm not surprised by that.
In general, I agree with Cyberzombie's post. I apologize for the time during which I lost my temper and started flaming (back).Cyberzombie wrote:Insulting the person you're trying to convince is a terrible argument style. It's one thing to call the idea stupid and explain why, but it's quite another to launch personal attacks. Doing the latter almost entirely guarantees that the person will not agree with you and is a terrible method of communication. People have learned to be civil because it's a better way of communicating and you actually have a shot of getting the other guy to see things your way. Just ask yourself how many people have actually been convinced by being insulted.
And the internet tough guy persona is so overdone here. Some grown man trying to pretend he's tough and cool because he can insult someone on the internet... come on. It's just lame. Maybe that shit was cool in the 90s but the charm has worn off.
There's a difference between giving honest criticism and just being an asshole, and I feel a lot of otherwise good discussion topics are ruined by pathetic attempts at playing internet tough guy. Any fool can hurl 4th grade insults, and all it does is make me less inclined to listen to what they've got to say.
I agree. Now that the shitfight/flamestorm is over, I hopefully look forward to meaningful discussion resuming.Taking things personally at the Gaming Den is one of the biggest mistakes you can do, if you want to continue meaningful discussion.
