Forums » Suggestions
last but not least how could/should I have any idea about the content you've got planned in the pipe?.. jeez
I never claimed you should. I just said you shouldn't basically dismiss what I'm saying as "derailing your thread", when I'm actually making a point that's a critical part of what I do.
Onto the subject of soloability; I can cite the case of Eve-Online's incursions that were specifically designed to force players into cooperating large fleets of 20~30 players logistics wing etc...
So, first of all, saying "someone can multi-box 40 accounts, so therefore all weapons should be overpowered enough to solo all mobs with one ship / login" is pretty ridiculous. But.. aside from that..
EVE specifically supports multi-boxing in an overt way, of course that happens. They also have a turn-based game that's considerably easier to automate. In any case, don't worry about it. That's my problem.
My point that "I'm not aiming to make large mobs more-trivial to solo" is pretty reasonable and should be easy to understand.
Another solution thought this one is without a doubt less trivial would be to give a remote detonate command that works on mines and Avalons that way all all the near misses
Versions have been suggested before, but it's still a good idea. Remote detonation has a lot of potential, as long as there are limitations like you describe, to keep it from being a close-quarters nightmare.
reduce the damage of each projectile not quite in line with the increased ammo count to give it a bit more potential oomf and dropping the Avalon's speed down to 5m/s to make it a little easier to keep the stack together.
I think that's a pretty good suggestion aligned to your goals. However, it has challenges in terms of the intentions of Torpedo class weapons, which are still in development (and recently so). That then alters the options to potentially either moving Avalons out of the Torpedo class, or creating some other weapon that sits in that role, which does what you describe. (But, I'm still not sure that either case is really warranted, at present?)
Basically, Avalons are not intended to be an alternative to swarms for stacking. They're intended to be a mostly-unguided, fixed-velocity weapon that can be defended against (defensively destroyed). They've failed to deliver on that, thus far, due to some longstanding technical limitations, which I think we'll finally be able to move past sometime soon (unrelated to this discussion, ongoing development).
I say "fixed velocity", as in not inheriting the velocity of the firing ship, because that explicitly removes stacking, which is why I've written before about them turning into a slow-moving, slightly-guided weapon, like a homing missile that doesn't "home" very much. The difference being that, unlike the Swarms, you would not be able to fire them un-targeted (or if you did, they would still behave the same).
The reason for all of this being: I am currently limited in my ability to make more powerful weapons as things stand right now, which is not what I want. Realistically, as soon as I try, you guys will stack it, and it'll get wildly OP, and people will see their personal capships explode "effectively" in one-hit, and so on.
The only way I can construct a situation in which more weapon power is feasible (and diversely-powerful, more "effect" types, like taking down shields or disabling engines), is if I have a construct where turret-defense provides some means of cover, where there's some "balancing defensive offset" against the relative power increase (which is where we get into turrets being able to target and destroy incoming torpedoes). More knobs that I can turn to adjust things as needed.
Stacked weapons, that inherit the velocity of ships, can simply move too quickly to provide a reasonable time for defensive action, particularly when wielded by an experienced player. It starts to get into the limitations of game latency and other challenges, but this is why high-powered weapons need to have a substantial standoff (a minimum-distance/time "fuze") and a fixed velocity.
There are a lot of things limited by the current situation: The difficulty of mobs, for instance. If I throw out some kind of, say, uber-Queen or uber-Leviathan that slaughters you all (which I could do, in about 5 minutes), that isn't very interesting. Just kind of demoralizing for players. But if there are potentially high-powered standoff weapons available, that makes things more possible. It makes the targeting and disabling of turrets (also a longstanding plan, also with some technical barriers) a more relevant tactical goal. It opens the doors to a lot of things that I've always wanted to do.
I never claimed you should. I just said you shouldn't basically dismiss what I'm saying as "derailing your thread", when I'm actually making a point that's a critical part of what I do.
Onto the subject of soloability; I can cite the case of Eve-Online's incursions that were specifically designed to force players into cooperating large fleets of 20~30 players logistics wing etc...
So, first of all, saying "someone can multi-box 40 accounts, so therefore all weapons should be overpowered enough to solo all mobs with one ship / login" is pretty ridiculous. But.. aside from that..
EVE specifically supports multi-boxing in an overt way, of course that happens. They also have a turn-based game that's considerably easier to automate. In any case, don't worry about it. That's my problem.
My point that "I'm not aiming to make large mobs more-trivial to solo" is pretty reasonable and should be easy to understand.
Another solution thought this one is without a doubt less trivial would be to give a remote detonate command that works on mines and Avalons that way all all the near misses
Versions have been suggested before, but it's still a good idea. Remote detonation has a lot of potential, as long as there are limitations like you describe, to keep it from being a close-quarters nightmare.
reduce the damage of each projectile not quite in line with the increased ammo count to give it a bit more potential oomf and dropping the Avalon's speed down to 5m/s to make it a little easier to keep the stack together.
I think that's a pretty good suggestion aligned to your goals. However, it has challenges in terms of the intentions of Torpedo class weapons, which are still in development (and recently so). That then alters the options to potentially either moving Avalons out of the Torpedo class, or creating some other weapon that sits in that role, which does what you describe. (But, I'm still not sure that either case is really warranted, at present?)
Basically, Avalons are not intended to be an alternative to swarms for stacking. They're intended to be a mostly-unguided, fixed-velocity weapon that can be defended against (defensively destroyed). They've failed to deliver on that, thus far, due to some longstanding technical limitations, which I think we'll finally be able to move past sometime soon (unrelated to this discussion, ongoing development).
I say "fixed velocity", as in not inheriting the velocity of the firing ship, because that explicitly removes stacking, which is why I've written before about them turning into a slow-moving, slightly-guided weapon, like a homing missile that doesn't "home" very much. The difference being that, unlike the Swarms, you would not be able to fire them un-targeted (or if you did, they would still behave the same).
The reason for all of this being: I am currently limited in my ability to make more powerful weapons as things stand right now, which is not what I want. Realistically, as soon as I try, you guys will stack it, and it'll get wildly OP, and people will see their personal capships explode "effectively" in one-hit, and so on.
The only way I can construct a situation in which more weapon power is feasible (and diversely-powerful, more "effect" types, like taking down shields or disabling engines), is if I have a construct where turret-defense provides some means of cover, where there's some "balancing defensive offset" against the relative power increase (which is where we get into turrets being able to target and destroy incoming torpedoes). More knobs that I can turn to adjust things as needed.
Stacked weapons, that inherit the velocity of ships, can simply move too quickly to provide a reasonable time for defensive action, particularly when wielded by an experienced player. It starts to get into the limitations of game latency and other challenges, but this is why high-powered weapons need to have a substantial standoff (a minimum-distance/time "fuze") and a fixed velocity.
There are a lot of things limited by the current situation: The difficulty of mobs, for instance. If I throw out some kind of, say, uber-Queen or uber-Leviathan that slaughters you all (which I could do, in about 5 minutes), that isn't very interesting. Just kind of demoralizing for players. But if there are potentially high-powered standoff weapons available, that makes things more possible. It makes the targeting and disabling of turrets (also a longstanding plan, also with some technical barriers) a more relevant tactical goal. It opens the doors to a lot of things that I've always wanted to do.
Realistically, as soon as I try, you guys will stack it, and it'll get wildly OP, and people will see their personal capships explode "effectively" in one-hit, and so on.
Could this be somewhat mitigated by making weapons detonate (via prox) on anything, including the pilot firing the weapon? I get that variable launch velocities and changing of launch locations would be used to get around this but attempting to get a tight stack would be much harder if a pilot could be blown up by their own ordnance.
Could this be somewhat mitigated by making weapons detonate (via prox) on anything, including the pilot firing the weapon? I get that variable launch velocities and changing of launch locations would be used to get around this but attempting to get a tight stack would be much harder if a pilot could be blown up by their own ordnance.
Could this be somewhat mitigated by making weapons detonate (via prox) on anything, including the pilot firing the weapon?
I don't really follow? If I add a prox-fuze that's triggered by the firing ship, it'll go off every time they fire.
The biggest problem with velocity-inheritance is just that.. ships go pretty fast. So, if you're doing a full-turbo distance run against a target and let-loose an weapon that inherits your velocity, they may not have much time to defend. If say, they only have a second to defend, that might just be a few round-trip packets.
Even for an NPC running off of the server, it gets into the question of whether it'll be able to identify a target (incoming torpedo) and fire it on it quickly enough to be meaningful.
It's kind of like the real-world problem of the Phalanx CIWS automated defense turrets used on aircraft carriers and other big vessels, which were designed in the 70s, but are now potentially coming up against hypersonic anti-ship missiles that may well hit before the defensive system can activate.
In my case, I'd like to be able to put limits on standoff distance and velocity, which at least creates the possibility of defensive options.
I don't really follow? If I add a prox-fuze that's triggered by the firing ship, it'll go off every time they fire.
The biggest problem with velocity-inheritance is just that.. ships go pretty fast. So, if you're doing a full-turbo distance run against a target and let-loose an weapon that inherits your velocity, they may not have much time to defend. If say, they only have a second to defend, that might just be a few round-trip packets.
Even for an NPC running off of the server, it gets into the question of whether it'll be able to identify a target (incoming torpedo) and fire it on it quickly enough to be meaningful.
It's kind of like the real-world problem of the Phalanx CIWS automated defense turrets used on aircraft carriers and other big vessels, which were designed in the 70s, but are now potentially coming up against hypersonic anti-ship missiles that may well hit before the defensive system can activate.
In my case, I'd like to be able to put limits on standoff distance and velocity, which at least creates the possibility of defensive options.
The concern for high velocity dumbfire ordinance stacks only concerns targets that are completely immobile even more so than traditional time-stacking, inertia's a bitch in this context and yeah once you've reached this high speed and your target moves a few meters off to the side that's it the stack's going to miss and you'd be left with re-setting the high speed stack which is something that a shitload of time time.
The way I see it there's only upsides to increasing the Avalon tube damage potential; (like instantly nuking afk player capships in station sectors, seriously why can't we have this why can't my capships get blown up like this more often what gives!)
The suggestion is quick and dirty hence the title; I don't know of any player ingame that doesn't like making stuff go boom; more large explosions is as much a quality of life thing than "balancing" something that's in a relatively awkward place at the moment.
That said they did get that 50% damage buff not too long ago and that went a long... long way!
And yeah eve calling eve turned based isn't entirely fair yes the game runs in 1s server ticks but there's no "turn" taking but yeah I catch your drift; keep in mind that whilst multiboxing eve is inseparable from the game at this point at the end of the day VO isn't much different and doing something like command broadcasting between clients to fly a formation of rags simultaneously isn't out of the realm of possibility here if you build difficult PVE content it'll only be a very short matter of time before someone optimizes the shit out of it turn based or not...
and the biggest issue I have with the game at the moment is the "meta" and it's in large part due how weapons and ships have stagnated and I'm not just talking about the last ten years this has been a concern for the last 17 years...
TL;DR: The changes I suggested would grant Avalons a bit more viability in pvp encounters and to be perfectly honest that's what I'm gunning after it's a damn shame that everyone's concern circles around PVE content solo-ability... oh yeah and don't forget TU mines! ;P
We've gotten to the soon™ part of the discussion so I'm just going to happily let it die; if I could lock the thread here I would; no sense in beating dead horses and bouncing shit back and forth for nothing.
The way I see it there's only upsides to increasing the Avalon tube damage potential; (like instantly nuking afk player capships in station sectors, seriously why can't we have this why can't my capships get blown up like this more often what gives!)
The suggestion is quick and dirty hence the title; I don't know of any player ingame that doesn't like making stuff go boom; more large explosions is as much a quality of life thing than "balancing" something that's in a relatively awkward place at the moment.
That said they did get that 50% damage buff not too long ago and that went a long... long way!
And yeah eve calling eve turned based isn't entirely fair yes the game runs in 1s server ticks but there's no "turn" taking but yeah I catch your drift; keep in mind that whilst multiboxing eve is inseparable from the game at this point at the end of the day VO isn't much different and doing something like command broadcasting between clients to fly a formation of rags simultaneously isn't out of the realm of possibility here if you build difficult PVE content it'll only be a very short matter of time before someone optimizes the shit out of it turn based or not...
and the biggest issue I have with the game at the moment is the "meta" and it's in large part due how weapons and ships have stagnated and I'm not just talking about the last ten years this has been a concern for the last 17 years...
TL;DR: The changes I suggested would grant Avalons a bit more viability in pvp encounters and to be perfectly honest that's what I'm gunning after it's a damn shame that everyone's concern circles around PVE content solo-ability... oh yeah and don't forget TU mines! ;P
We've gotten to the soon™ part of the discussion so I'm just going to happily let it die; if I could lock the thread here I would; no sense in beating dead horses and bouncing shit back and forth for nothing.
The concern for high velocity dumbfire ordinance stacks only concerns targets that are completely immobile
Well, it concerns anything that's sufficiently slow-moving to mean they'll have difficulty avoiding the shot, which includes capships and potentially large NPC mobs (Leviathan type stuff). That's my point.
(like instantly nuking afk player capships in station sectors, seriously why can't we have this why can't my capships get blown up like this more often what gives!)
I can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic, but.. yes, that's exactly what I mean. I don't want these things to instantly be nukable. There should be some reasonable defensive possibility, particularly for a large craft that's inherently supposed to have that kind of capability.
A player on a bombing-run doesn't have to "reveal their intentions" until the very moment they loose their ordinance. That's the problem. The time period between "firing" and "impact" is so short that practically no active defense can occur.
calling eve turned based isn't entirely fair yes the game runs in 1s server ticks but there's no "turn" taking but yeah I catch your drift;
I don't think you do, actually.
EVE Online is a server controlled game. You send "requests" to the server, it determines what takes place, based on a wide variety of factors that are largely outside of player purview.
Vendetta Online is a server arbitrated game. You send your action and a timestamp, which the server then forwards it as quickly as possible to all other players. It is effectively as fast as physics constants allow (speed of light). Server-side sanity checks (cheat mitigation) are done in parallel or deferred, whenever possible, to keep them from being a delaying factor on packet processing.
Your casual statement that EVE's "game runs in 1s server ticks but there's no "turn" taking" demonstrates what you, and probably a lot of other people fundamentally don't understand:
First of all, a second is a tremendously long period of time in game-server land. Having a thousand milliseconds to consider "event order" and process different functionality is a huge benefit in making decisions about what activity is possible.
Secondly, you have no idea what is happening within that second. The server is making fundamental decisions about "reality". The fact that it happens relatively quickly does not mean the game is not turn-based. Turn-based doesn't mean "Player-visible turns", it means there is an artificial mechanic in place that is "stalling time" to make a determination of events (and those events may or may not be driven by actual timing-order). This is one of the biggest advantages of this kind of system, it's fundamentally why people seek that design, so of course that applies to EVE.
To make an analogy, competitive chess is turn-based, but in Blitz and Lightning chess the timing is much faster, sometimes only a few seconds to make a decision. It's no-less turn-based by being "faster". EVE making gameplay-modifying decisions, behind the scenes, within a single-server-second is no different either.
In games like World of Warcraft, this also includes artificial determinations like "virtual dice" that can roll in the background, on the server, to determine whether your "hit" occurred and to what extent (which inherently requires a "turn", however brief in computer-time, to make that decision). I strongly suspect this is also likely on EVE, at least to some extent.
None of this is true of Vendetta Online. All actions are real-time and based on derivation and synchronization of time across the server and all players, and all outcomes are based on fixed game parameters (damage, etc) and their respective virtual-physics interaction which are (also) simulated in real-time.
Time cannot be slowed in Vendetta Online, we have no mechanic to do that because our game fundamentally is either "real-time" or "broken". In EVE, slowing time has benefit, because it allows the server to scale the amount of "reality determination" that they can process within a "virtual second", which has tremendous value for increasing battle-scale. Scale for us has always been a bigger hill to climb.
The fundamental differences between the games are very significant. This Suggestion, in fact, throws one of them into relief: If I had an entire server-second to make automated-defense decisions about incoming Avalon fire (regardless of "velocity"), that would give me a hell of a lot more options. But I don't have that pretend-time, I have to do it in real-time, which means our server-side stuff has to be extremely fast, and I have to induce intentional and real-world delays (like forcing torpedoes to be standoff weapons with time/distance "fuzes") to add enough time to actual reality for weapon-defenses to be possible.
(And, to be clear, in this whole comparison I'm referring to "normal EVE" and not the occasional real-time-battle experiments they've done at different points in time).
keep in mind that whilst multiboxing eve is inseparable from the game at this point at the end of the day VO isn't much different and doing something like command broadcasting between clients to fly a formation of rags simultaneously isn't out of the realm of possibility
Of course it isn't outside the realm of possibility. I've been dealing with people doing this for two decades. But, there are very different challenges involved, and the fact that EVE is: 1) by-nature more predictable in combat outcome (latency is much less of a factor in a server-controlled game) 2) inherently supportive of multi-boxing (so all the varied systems that could mitigate or prevent it are simply absent).
But none of that even matters, and I don't get why you can't seem to understand what I wrote earlier:
saying "someone can multi-box 40 accounts, so therefore all weapons should be overpowered enough to solo all mobs with one ship / login" is pretty ridiculous.
You keep bringing up possibilities like they're certainties, and that somehow the "possibility" of an exploit means that all attempts to avoid that being the standard of gameplay should be abandoned.
Basically, that's like saying "bank robbery is theoretically possible, therefore we should give up on banks, and not bother trying to enforce laws". No.. I'm not going to do that.
In Closing
There's something important to understand about Suggestions: There are essentially two different concepts of "Vendetta Online"..
1) The one that exists.
2) The one that I'm building (at any given time).
You guys are largely only aware of the first game, and I know that, and I try to be sensitive to it. I'm open to making changes to the first game, as long as they don't cause harm to what I'm doing around the second game.
I'm also familiar and cognizant that parts of game #2 may arrive much later than I plan (many years, even), so I try to bias towards changes you guys like that favor game #1, sometimes figuring I can revert other things later if need be.
But, in this case, I'm really disinclined to make life a lot harder for myself with game #2, and there just hasn't been a compelling argument for why I should do that.
"Whee! Explosions! More boom! Yay!" does not offset the complexity it adds to my life, and problems it creates in adding more advanced content (which I think many of you want).
So, the takeaway here is:
- If you want to make Suggestions, bring a convincing argument and not just "ganking sleeping capships would be awesome".
- If I respond, "I'm concerned about X", don't dismiss my concerns with some statement that "X is impossible to avoid".
There's this kind of arrogance that crops up in experienced gamers, that because they've only seen games do X or Y, and they then believe that anything else is "impossible", but that's basically just ignorance on their part. There are lots of reasons why developers make particular choices, and it isn't always that "those are the only possible choices".
I always welcome feedback on here, and to be clear, I don't actually mind being challenged on any given topic. But don't assume that you know more than I do about.. anything we're likely to discuss on this forum. That would be a mistake, and one that just polarizes discussion and makes me less inclined to listen to you, because if you end up spouting off about things you clearly don't understand, it really starts to look like a waste of my time.
We've gotten to the soon™ part of the discussion so I'm just going to happily let it die; if I could lock the thread here I would; no sense in beating dead horses and bouncing shit back and forth for nothing.
Okay, I'll lock the topic now.
Well, it concerns anything that's sufficiently slow-moving to mean they'll have difficulty avoiding the shot, which includes capships and potentially large NPC mobs (Leviathan type stuff). That's my point.
(like instantly nuking afk player capships in station sectors, seriously why can't we have this why can't my capships get blown up like this more often what gives!)
I can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic, but.. yes, that's exactly what I mean. I don't want these things to instantly be nukable. There should be some reasonable defensive possibility, particularly for a large craft that's inherently supposed to have that kind of capability.
A player on a bombing-run doesn't have to "reveal their intentions" until the very moment they loose their ordinance. That's the problem. The time period between "firing" and "impact" is so short that practically no active defense can occur.
calling eve turned based isn't entirely fair yes the game runs in 1s server ticks but there's no "turn" taking but yeah I catch your drift;
I don't think you do, actually.
EVE Online is a server controlled game. You send "requests" to the server, it determines what takes place, based on a wide variety of factors that are largely outside of player purview.
Vendetta Online is a server arbitrated game. You send your action and a timestamp, which the server then forwards it as quickly as possible to all other players. It is effectively as fast as physics constants allow (speed of light). Server-side sanity checks (cheat mitigation) are done in parallel or deferred, whenever possible, to keep them from being a delaying factor on packet processing.
Your casual statement that EVE's "game runs in 1s server ticks but there's no "turn" taking" demonstrates what you, and probably a lot of other people fundamentally don't understand:
First of all, a second is a tremendously long period of time in game-server land. Having a thousand milliseconds to consider "event order" and process different functionality is a huge benefit in making decisions about what activity is possible.
Secondly, you have no idea what is happening within that second. The server is making fundamental decisions about "reality". The fact that it happens relatively quickly does not mean the game is not turn-based. Turn-based doesn't mean "Player-visible turns", it means there is an artificial mechanic in place that is "stalling time" to make a determination of events (and those events may or may not be driven by actual timing-order). This is one of the biggest advantages of this kind of system, it's fundamentally why people seek that design, so of course that applies to EVE.
To make an analogy, competitive chess is turn-based, but in Blitz and Lightning chess the timing is much faster, sometimes only a few seconds to make a decision. It's no-less turn-based by being "faster". EVE making gameplay-modifying decisions, behind the scenes, within a single-server-second is no different either.
In games like World of Warcraft, this also includes artificial determinations like "virtual dice" that can roll in the background, on the server, to determine whether your "hit" occurred and to what extent (which inherently requires a "turn", however brief in computer-time, to make that decision). I strongly suspect this is also likely on EVE, at least to some extent.
None of this is true of Vendetta Online. All actions are real-time and based on derivation and synchronization of time across the server and all players, and all outcomes are based on fixed game parameters (damage, etc) and their respective virtual-physics interaction which are (also) simulated in real-time.
Time cannot be slowed in Vendetta Online, we have no mechanic to do that because our game fundamentally is either "real-time" or "broken". In EVE, slowing time has benefit, because it allows the server to scale the amount of "reality determination" that they can process within a "virtual second", which has tremendous value for increasing battle-scale. Scale for us has always been a bigger hill to climb.
The fundamental differences between the games are very significant. This Suggestion, in fact, throws one of them into relief: If I had an entire server-second to make automated-defense decisions about incoming Avalon fire (regardless of "velocity"), that would give me a hell of a lot more options. But I don't have that pretend-time, I have to do it in real-time, which means our server-side stuff has to be extremely fast, and I have to induce intentional and real-world delays (like forcing torpedoes to be standoff weapons with time/distance "fuzes") to add enough time to actual reality for weapon-defenses to be possible.
(And, to be clear, in this whole comparison I'm referring to "normal EVE" and not the occasional real-time-battle experiments they've done at different points in time).
keep in mind that whilst multiboxing eve is inseparable from the game at this point at the end of the day VO isn't much different and doing something like command broadcasting between clients to fly a formation of rags simultaneously isn't out of the realm of possibility
Of course it isn't outside the realm of possibility. I've been dealing with people doing this for two decades. But, there are very different challenges involved, and the fact that EVE is: 1) by-nature more predictable in combat outcome (latency is much less of a factor in a server-controlled game) 2) inherently supportive of multi-boxing (so all the varied systems that could mitigate or prevent it are simply absent).
But none of that even matters, and I don't get why you can't seem to understand what I wrote earlier:
saying "someone can multi-box 40 accounts, so therefore all weapons should be overpowered enough to solo all mobs with one ship / login" is pretty ridiculous.
You keep bringing up possibilities like they're certainties, and that somehow the "possibility" of an exploit means that all attempts to avoid that being the standard of gameplay should be abandoned.
Basically, that's like saying "bank robbery is theoretically possible, therefore we should give up on banks, and not bother trying to enforce laws". No.. I'm not going to do that.
In Closing
There's something important to understand about Suggestions: There are essentially two different concepts of "Vendetta Online"..
1) The one that exists.
2) The one that I'm building (at any given time).
You guys are largely only aware of the first game, and I know that, and I try to be sensitive to it. I'm open to making changes to the first game, as long as they don't cause harm to what I'm doing around the second game.
I'm also familiar and cognizant that parts of game #2 may arrive much later than I plan (many years, even), so I try to bias towards changes you guys like that favor game #1, sometimes figuring I can revert other things later if need be.
But, in this case, I'm really disinclined to make life a lot harder for myself with game #2, and there just hasn't been a compelling argument for why I should do that.
"Whee! Explosions! More boom! Yay!" does not offset the complexity it adds to my life, and problems it creates in adding more advanced content (which I think many of you want).
So, the takeaway here is:
- If you want to make Suggestions, bring a convincing argument and not just "ganking sleeping capships would be awesome".
- If I respond, "I'm concerned about X", don't dismiss my concerns with some statement that "X is impossible to avoid".
There's this kind of arrogance that crops up in experienced gamers, that because they've only seen games do X or Y, and they then believe that anything else is "impossible", but that's basically just ignorance on their part. There are lots of reasons why developers make particular choices, and it isn't always that "those are the only possible choices".
I always welcome feedback on here, and to be clear, I don't actually mind being challenged on any given topic. But don't assume that you know more than I do about.. anything we're likely to discuss on this forum. That would be a mistake, and one that just polarizes discussion and makes me less inclined to listen to you, because if you end up spouting off about things you clearly don't understand, it really starts to look like a waste of my time.
We've gotten to the soon™ part of the discussion so I'm just going to happily let it die; if I could lock the thread here I would; no sense in beating dead horses and bouncing shit back and forth for nothing.
Okay, I'll lock the topic now.