On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, James Schuldes wrote:

>
> If Brad comes along 6 months later and someone at a design review meeting
> whines about so-and-so KS'd some neat item and they decide the item is "too
> neat" and implement a nerf - well that is gonna make everyone who got the
> item before the so called powers that be changed the rules - MAD.

I agree. The counterpoint I'm bringing up is that it's
possible that not making the change could potentiall make even
more people madder.

> They should concentrate on making the game MORE FUN - not more like some way
> they think it should be. Instead of taking away cool items - they should
> add more cool items. So they implement alchemy. Good! Now shamans have

"Fun" is also a nebulous term. I'm sure duping was fun for
the folks who did it.

I discussed this type of stuff at length with a bunch of
friends. We saw four types of "fixes":

Absolute positive, relative positive - do it! It helps
everyone, and hurts no one.

Absolute positive, relative negative - iffy. It's needed for
a better game, but would be perceived negatively by part or
all of the playerbase. These are really tough to decide.
Most nerfs fall into this category (at least in the opinion of
those doing the nerfing).

Absolute negative, relative positive - generally a bad
idea. It makes (some of) the players feel good, but costs the
overall game.

Absolute negative, relative negative - dunno why you'd want to
do this, unless you want to make the game harder.

The problem with adding/removing things purely on the basis of
"fun" is that for the most part, it looks at only the relative
side of things (will the players be happier after the change
than before?). Unfortunately, the prisoner's dilemma and
tragedy of the commons are very real, and thus create
situations where stuff that makes the players unhappy can be
better for the game.

--
John H. Kim
kim@...