Change month? (in General)
Or has Jon just gotten bored of CB?
the last couple of change months have been very quiet.
March 11 2006 11:12 PM EST
Shhh.. Your posting too loud.
March 11 2006 11:13 PM EST
i've been saying this for awhile now gaza
A Bathing Ape
March 11 2006 11:14 PM EST
something was changed?
March 11 2006 11:16 PM EST
And why is change good?
Change just for the sake of change is bad.
How about change for the sake of bug fixes?
I know there are a few random errant bugs, maybe Jon is still working on those...
March 12 2006 12:14 AM EST
I beg to differ, change just for the sake of change *IS* good. If you leave it completely the same for too long, it gets dull. Changes cause you to actually have to think and re-think things, take new things into account...
March 12 2006 1:00 AM EST
Well Ranger that is indeed an interesting proposition. Is change in-of-itself bad? I would dearly like to see your line of reasoning for this. I would also like to know if you mean this on a moral imperative level. Do you mean to say that it is morally bad to makes changes for the sake of changes?
I'm sure you may be attacking this issue from another perspective. I gather that what you mean to say is that change, for the sake of change, is actually bad because performing such changes consumes resources. Yet, who's resources are we talking about? I think the only resource that would be affected would be Jon's own personal time and energy. If this is the matter then I ask, "Is this really within the realm of what we consider to be good or bad if we ourselves are not Jon, the person who's resources would be consumed?" If Jon himself considers change, that would consume his time and energy, for the sake of change to be good, then your argument, if this be your argument, would fail.
Instead, let's try to approach your argument from another perspective. Now, I have often thought that game balance was of very high importance to the general community and I. It was once believed that it would be better for CB, and all it's members, if each strategy could be consistently countered by another form of strategy, given that both strategies were handed equal resources, such as xp and NW. Now let's convince ourselves that we have achieved this perfection. It is reasonable enough to assume that such a state has been achieved. It is also reasonable to assume, and maybe even with more likelihood, that Jon himself has come to the conclusion that CB is now 'balanced'. Supporting evidence of this may be the apparent lack of complaints. Complaints about particular strategies being 'overpowered' or unfairly hard to counter. If our assumptions be true then it is in your favor that change be a bad thing since it is more likely, at this point, that a modification of CB would bring about a greater imbalance rather then a balance.
However, if you will note, we only came to the conclusion that balance was better then change in producing 'good' because we assumed that was what the community and I wanted. Now I can't say much from the perspective of the community, but I can attempt to speak for myself. I have found that change, just simple change, brings about an air of renewal. It also stimulates the community, be it in a negative way or not. I m in favor of change because a changing game is better at holding my interest then a game that simply 'is'. I am attracted to those things that 'become' much more then those things that just 'be'.
There are also other possible interpretations of your argument. That is, even though you can not speak for Jon, you can speak for yourself that change now would be bad. Now why would you think this? Maybe because Jon's loss of resources is not an isolated loss exclusive to just Jon. Maybe by Jon's attempt to bring about change you would have to bring about change yourself in your own character in order to compensate. This, for you, would be a loss of your own resources, namely xp. Before we come to this conclusion I would like to make one last observation.
My observation is that, throughout all of this, we have been unable to divorce change itself from what type of change we are talking about. Change taken out of all contexts could be said to mean nothing. Therefore, change for the sake of change could be seen as neither good nor bad. I don't think it could be logically proved that change in-of-itself could be labeled in such a way. All we can do is have a feeling or a sentiment I suppose, or add in a context. Your sentiment is clear, you urge for no change, while I do. That and nothing else.
March 12 2006 8:22 AM EST
lol copy and paste FTW - either that or boredom..
March 12 2006 9:56 AM EST
Let me put it another way;
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Right now, aside from some bugs, what really is broke in cb2land?
Yes, the cooldown seems to be a pain in the arse. And I personally hate the NUB/NCB but realize that will never go away. But really, what is broken right now?
Right now we have 2 mage teams that give the top 2 tank teams fits. We have a ROS team that seems to be very well adapted to the game. Where is the unbalance that needs to be fixed?
Instead of saying lets change to shake things up, let me know what you want to change and why. I have given you the reasons I do not think we need much in the way of changes now.
Growth, excitement, challenge. The reason I stopped playing CB1 was that is became static, dull and boring.
New changes might need ballancing, but again they might not.
What they would bring is interest.
I'm with Ranger on this one....yeah changes may seem exciting, but if Jon just keeps changing things to make people happy, the changes will make those that take hits unhappy. It's a no-win situation.
Besides, what on earth do you want from him? He works hard enough on this site as it is and he has been for years. I'm sure he's thought this through much better than any of us. Let the master work. Consider changes as a bonus, not an expectation.
March 12 2006 12:10 PM EST
As a newcomer, I appreciate a couple of months without much change, so I can get to grips with the game.
So, I'm with Ranger.
OTOH, as someone who is reasonably confident in what they're doing, change does keep things fresh, as it gives those of us not so experienced a brief glimmer of hope that we can outpace the vets.
So, I'm with GL
IAW my psychological makeup, I'm with Vestax.
So, 2-1 for change :-)
March 12 2006 12:12 PM EST
Yada yada, reply to own post, blah blah ;-)
One change I would welcome after my last post is some form of 'add to dictionary' function on the spellchecker.
Vicious Cat, there are always newcomers. So in your situation, the game would never change.
I think a nice change would be a new supporter item. Maybe Jon's working on April Fool's?
one statistic i would like to have is average length of activity; to see the ratio between people quitting and people staying.
The main reason of change is so that the game doesn't become stale, and fade away
How many new discussion topics are appearing? We're talking (when big discussions do appear) about the same things over and over again, as there is nothing new to talk about. Nothing new to debate, to assess.
GL, maybe we like talking about changes we want to see, for the sake of talking and making conversation.
What's today, the 12th? That means there are 19 more days left in March. Who's to say, maybe on the 27th, for example, there won't be a changelog that makes your heads spin! With the thread title "Be careful what you wish for". :P
Hey! Let's do a change month pool - what time on what day will a change actually happen? ;)
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001jys">Change month?</a>