Remote Biomes

[Vhale]

/hugs Amut

 

One of the thread updates I'm plotting is to adjust the title to Advanced Access Biomes. Has have them BSA, Migratory or Quest related really doesn't fit "Veteran". I think Vet has become more of a type than a general label. But basically, catch the major types and poll those first. The purpose of this thread, for me, was/is to expand on the idea of Vet biomes themselves, not vote them up or down. That's TJs job.

 

The Suggestions forums to me, is like presenting a sketch. Having people try to kill it right off is similar to someone seeing it and saying, I'm sorry I don't like that because it has wings. Someone else pipes in, I don't collect dragons with horns. Next person, sorry, I only collect reds.

[Rally Vincent]

A fair point, but at the end of the day, it is only my opinion, and yours.  You're free to ignore the Veteran's Biome and shun everything that comes out of it, but overall, is it good for the game to do that?  But there you are, framing my prior post as denigrating others opinions about this suggestion.

 

Exactly. They are both opinions. But what I asked is why you think it is okay to exclude my opinion? Because if you don't accept my "no" as a valid answer, why are you asking me if it is "good for the game"? How am I supposed to elaborate if you willonly have yes in variant A or B?

 

As to the exclusion of "No". You can't argue with a "No". You can't discuss a "No." A "No" has no recourse, a "No" is a corner you've just backed into.  A "No" does not bend, does not consider, does not do anything except deny any new imput or a perspective.  So yes, removing "No" from a poll in a gray issue is a good thing, unless what you WANT is a Binary/Black White situation, which is basically what this situation is now. 

People, including me, have included their arguments for a no. I don't see what is hindering you to deal with the arguments. Try to convince people (and I mean other people who are still trying to build an opinion, as we all know that once an opiniuon has been built, it rarely changes in discussion). But please don't try to favor your stance by excluding one side of the coin (at least, that is how I perceive it).

 

This is a forum for Suggestions. There's plenty of reasons to say why this is a good idea or bad idea, without resorting to a childish "No!" We're mostly intelligent people here (I would say adults, but I know we have younger members and many are well-spoken.) we should be able to discuss without attacking character, disposition, or being so egotistical that we can't at least try to consider where the other party is coming from. We're better than that.

Amut, I like you, but I son't like to hear something like "Argue intelligently instead of a childish no". Why is a dislike of a vet's biome "childish"? I'd like to point out (again!) that I and others provided reasons why we think this suggestion is elitist. Calling that childish is attacking the opinion, not argueing with the reasons given.

 

For those who don't know, I work with a lot of university-level students. And a whole heaping pile of them are 26-40 year olds who think they know everything already, their opinions are extremely set, and it's common knowledge for instructors that they hate giving up their opinions; because it feels like they're giving up a part of themselves to change any long-held beliefs.  I have to break up these kinds of fights all the time when they're working on scenarios or assignments designed to make them work towards a goal or end point.  One person will dig their heels in and say No, and then the whole discussion comes to a screeching halt while some else's beliefs/opinions get ruffled the "No" and the "You're Being Difficult Person" start fighting, and the person who just wanted to get the assignment done thinks they can help by staying quiet or trying to play the odds by siding with someone.

I have to deal with lawers day in, day out. Believe me when I say I know what a bunch of people who "know it all" argue. But even within this group, there are those who try to argue you down and those who are just trying to attack your opinion without having arguments of their own. But, the way to have a discussion is to simply ignore those who do not give reasons. By attacking them, the discussion will be derailed. Say someone just says no - ask them why, and if they do not deliver, ignore them. Deal with the real arguments, but don't throw all of them in the same pot and label them as childish. That's not the way.

 

In lieu of arguments, you still haven't pointed out anything in my prior post that you find a hole in in regards to this topic being cleaned and reset.  Except for that bit about wanting to yell "No".  But I think I explained above why I think removing the No option at least stops a lot of the knee-jerk fighting over tiny details why the main issue gets lost.

That is because I did not adress the specific point of having a new poll. I was addressing your argument that calling the suggestion "elitist" has "no place for trying to improve the game".

 

But since you asked: I also disagree your preposition that this thread has changed into "how should we do it" instead of "should we do it". What you state the "main subject" is is what we obviously disagree on. The main subject for me is the "if" - not "how, if".

 

As long as it has not been decided if this should happen, I don't think that we should change the function of this thread. You are correct - it is a suggestion thread, and suggestion includes the "if". The "how is the next step and surely influences the "if", but excluding the "if" from a suggestion thread will prohibit those you are against it from stating their opinion - because this thread is the place for it. Otherwise, please tell me where I should post my discontent with the idea as a whole withouth breaking forum rules.

[Amur_Rama]

Exactly. They are both opinions. But what I asked is why you think it is okay to exclude my opinion? Because if you don't accept my "no" as a valid answer, why are you asking me if it is "good for the game"? How am I supposed to elaborate if you willonly have yes in variant A or B?

 

People, including me, have included their arguments for a no. I don't see what is hindering you to deal with the arguments. Try to convince people (and I mean other people who are still trying to build an opinion, as we all know that once an opiniuon has been built, it rarely changes in discussion). But please don't try to favor your stance by excluding one side of the coin (at least, that is how I perceive it).

 

Ah, spotted the problem. Pumpkin, you're misunderstanding me, I think. That's fine, that's what discussion is all about. No one's opinion is excluded, and I'm sorry you thought that's what I was saying.

 

But can we agree that there is a difference between a "NO" in it's various iterations "I don't like this idea." (Note the period, I'm not generalizing, the period ends the "opinion" which boils down to a "No" with no other compromise or rationale.) and a "No, I don't like this idea, since it seems like it'd be too much work." It's still a no, but it gives one something else to consider. It's constructive disagreement. You've been giving the latter, and thank you for that. But I'm trying to hinder the former, which can't be taken further than what it is, a flat no impedes, a constructive no helps build a persuasive argument in detailing the pros and cons of any suggestion here.

 

 

I have to deal with lawers day in, day out. Believe me when I say I know what a bunch of people who "know it all" argue. But even within this group, there are those who try to argue you down and those who are just trying to attack your opinion without having arguments of their own. But, the way to have a discussion is to simply ignore those who do not give reasons. By attacking them, the discussion will be derailed. Say someone just says no - ask them why, and if they do not deliver, ignore them.

 

*nods* Those are the students that frustrate me the most. And I agree that your reasoning is sound, however, how often does the "ignore the bad behavior and it goes away" work for you? Perhaps it does, I do know we're from different cultural backgrounds and that does play a considerable factor in some things. But if you've found some key way to phrase it, please, tell me over PM, that's facinating to me. However, from what I've seen here and the Internet in general is if you try to discuss around any vehement opinion, they either repeat themselves until they are responded to, or start commenting on others, which leads them to respond thus feeding the argument. It's very hard to do this, as people generally have trouble letting things that bother them stand unchallenged. I'd agree that if we could ignore things that didn't fit in what we wanted things could be better, but then we'd get blamed for "ignoring things we didn't want to hear", which is probably what you'd hear if you didn't respond eventually, at least once.

 

 

That is because I did not adress the specific point of having a new poll. I was addressing your argument that calling the suggestion "elitist" has "no place for trying to improve the game".

 

The word "elitist" here was being used to invalidate the suggestion. It wasn't being used appropriately and more like a blunt club to bash anyone who said they'd like something for being here for so long. (It came with a veiled, "how dare you want something better, you think you're better than me/us, don't you?" current) Who's going to come into this thread, in it's current climate and boast that they'd want to be elitist? Using the word as it is here is a "Shut up" tactic. And not much progress can bemade in the discussion with it around.

 

 

But since you asked: I also disagree your preposition that this thread has changed into "how should we do it" instead of "should we do it". What you state the "main subject" is is what we obviously disagree on. The main subject for me is the "if" - not "how, if".

 

As long as it has not been decided if this should happen, I don't think that we should change the function of this thread. You are correct - it is a suggestion thread, and suggestion includes the "if". The "how is the next step and surely influences the "if", but excluding the "if" from a suggestion thread will prohibit those you are against it from stating their opinion - because this thread is the place for it. Otherwise, please tell me where I should post my discontent with the idea as a whole withouth breaking forum rules.

 

That I can't disagree with, because you're right. This is an IF topic, but from the pages I've been reading, seemed to have changed itself. But again, that is all in the eye of the beholder, to me it's moved to the "how" stage for you, it's in the "if" stage. I can certainly see why you'd see it's still in the if category. But as it is, it's still not going much further. Hence my suggestion of a cleaning and renaming it into a HOW suggestion and leaving the IF to TJ. We can IF all day, but it helps him decide if we can offer a How as well. But he says NO. End of Topic. As it's always been.

 

A "NO" is absolute.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Amut un Rama

[Fuzzbucket]

But since you asked: I also disagree your preposition that this thread has changed into "how should we do it" instead of "should we do it". What you state the "main subject" is is what we obviously disagree on. The main subject for me is the "if" - not "how, if".

 

As long as it has not been decided if this should happen, I don't think that we should change the function of this thread. You are correct - it is a suggestion thread, and suggestion includes the "if". The "how is the next step and surely influences the "if", but excluding the "if" from a suggestion thread will prohibit those you are against it from stating their opinion - because this thread is the place for it. Otherwise, please tell me where I should post my discontent with the idea as a whole without breaking forum rules.

This. Exactly this. What is the point of discussing HOW until we have anything remotely approaching a consensus on whether.

 

So far there has been not one suggestion that has got past the elitism issue. I admit that this isn't a suggestion I think will actually help the game at all - but that aside, there needs to be a GENUINELY FAIR way of accessing these biomes IF they are to happen. No-one has yet come up with one - but there has been a suggestion of a SEPARATE poll about it.

 

The suggested options seem fair:

 

A. Length of Time in Cave (State your preferred range in a post)

B. Number of Dragons (state your ideal number in a post)

C. Some Combination of A & B (State your ratio in a post)

D. Some Other Unlocking Combination (State your Idea in detail in a post)

 

Why not run with that poll, in another thread ?

 

This thread started out asking if it was a good idea. MANY of us think not - for a number of reasons which have been stated repeatedly and in many cases disregarded by those in favour. Mine are added complexity, as I don't really WANT to have to deal with more biomes, and fairness, both.

 

But I HATE the name "Advanced Access Biomes", I have to say. (Don't like Veterans, either - it suggests the armed forces )

 

How about Adventure Biomes - or something equally non-elite as a name ? But there HAS to be a better way to allow access than those suggested so far.

[shikaru]

The word "elitist" here was being used to invalidate the suggestion. It wasn't being used appropriately and more like a blunt club to bash anyone who said they'd like something for being here for so long. (It came with a veiled, "how dare you want something better, you think you're better than me/us, don't you?" current) Who's going to come into this thread, in it's current climate and boast that they'd want to be elitist? Using the word as it is here is a "Shut up" tactic. And not much progress can bemade in the discussion with it around.

To this point, not everyone who used the term "elitist" was throwing it out there as a "shut up tactic". Yes, no one is going to some in and say "I want to be elitist", but that doesn't stop the suggestion from feeling like it has that tone to it. I keep getting the feel of 'We've been here longer we deserve to get it and the new players don't because they haven't done anything', even if it isn't spoken it still hangs in the air around this thread. Especially when the words "to keep from intimidating newer players" keeps coming up. Why is it being assumed that a newer player would be intimidated by the addition of more dragons and biomes? There's a good deal more dragons than when I joined, and we didn't have biomes then either, yet I don't see newer players being any more confused or intimidated now than they were then.

 

A final note, as someone who has used the term elitist in my posts, I'm not making any "you think you're better than me" claims. I'm looking at the perspective of how I would feel if I were a newer player and veteran's biomes existed; even if no one claims to be an 'elite', the fact that I'm excluded from something just by virtue of being new would make me feel bad. I feel like people are forgetting to actually think about what newer players would feel, rather than throw off that concern with a claim of not wanting to intimidate them. Personally, if I was new and there were more dragons and biomes, I would just think "There's a lot for me to pick and choose from! Awesome!", not "Oh god there's so many what do I do?"

[Fuzzbucket]

To this point, not everyone who used the term "elitist" was throwing it out there as a "shut up tactic". Yes, no one is going to some in and say "I want to be elitist", but that doesn't stop the suggestion from feeling like it has that tone to it. I keep getting the feel of 'We've been here longer we deserve to get it and the new players don't because they haven't done anything', even if it isn't spoken it still hangs in the air around this thread. Especially when the words "to keep from intimidating newer players" keeps coming up. Why is it being assumed that a newer player would be intimidated by the addition of more dragons and biomes? There's a good deal more dragons than when I joined, and we didn't have biomes then either, yet I don't see newer players being any more confused or intimidated now than they were then.

 

A final note, as someone who has used the term elitist in my posts, I'm not making any "you think you're better than me" claims. I'm looking at the perspective of how I would feel if I were a newer player and veteran's biomes existed; even if no one claims to be an 'elite', the fact that I'm excluded from something just by virtue of being new would make me feel bad. I feel like people are forgetting to actually think about what newer players would feel, rather than throw off that concern with a claim of not wanting to intimidate them. Personally, if I was new and there were more dragons and biomes, I would just think "There's a lot for me to pick and choose from! Awesome!", not "Oh god there's so many what do I do?"

YES ! Me too. Lord knows I would qualify on most of the grounds suggested so far - but I still don't like it and I would feel I was being put into an "elite" group - and I don't LIKE that idea.

 

On line definition:

Elite: A group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp. because of their power, talent, or wealth.

 

Or:

a. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: "In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them" (Times Literary Supplement).

b. The best or most skilled members of a group:

 

That is exactly the sense in which I have been using the word, and I stand by every time I have used it. I don't think an elite group of any kind has any place here.

 

Edited for spelink.

Edited May 2, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[Vhale]

Adventure to me, would bias people towards the RP option. So while I do rather like that option a lot, I'll use a dry word like Advanced for a broad poll. If a few people have specific biases towards words, I'm going to let that be. Especially having seen people get stuck re-writing one sentence in the Holiday Limit thread for, 20 pages? That's just too much for me.

[Slaskia]

My personal stance is still largely 'do not want', mostly because of the difficulty of ensuring access requirements are 'fair' and do not disrupt individual playstyles. However, in light of the 'completed list backlog' and the resulting 'artist pulling work to release to another site' issues that are popping up, I've softened my stance, slightly.

 

My 'preference' for access would be total dragons collected (maybe bronze trophy at min, or silver), with some 'active time' needed (maybe...at least two consecutive months?).

 

I don't agree with making everyone 'start on the same level' for access. As I said before, it makes no sense at all to announce a new hunting area, but no one has any access to it for X amount of time: some people need to have 'instant access'.

 

Unless! The access requirements are a complete mystery from the get go. A 'you hear rumors of a secret place with never-before-seen dragons, but no one knows how to get to it' type thing. Maybe this could be a site-wide, community event with the result being a new biome for everyone to access?

Edited May 2, 2013 by Slaskia

[shikaru]

Unless!  The access requirements are a complete mystery from the get go. A 'you hear rumors of a secret place with never-before-seen dragons, but no one knows how to get to it' type thing.  Maybe this could be a site-wide, community event with the result being a new biome for everyone to access?

I think that would be awesome! c: Don't know how it would be set up for what the requirements would be, but the idea of an event for everyone to participate in and figure out would be fun. I got the impression that this community likes a mystery (though I could be wrong), and it doesn't punish those who aren't good at puzzling things out.

 

As for requirements I don't like the idea of requiring things to access, especially not time, the one I was okay with was the suggested idea of having the new biomes be deeper into the current ones and collecting around ten or so from a single biome would unlock the deeper area. It's interesting and allows people a little more interaction and choice in which they unlock and such. Also doesn't punish someone for just being new.

Edited May 2, 2013 by shikaru

[skauble]

Ah, spotted the problem.  Pumpkin, you're misunderstanding me, I think. That's fine, that's what discussion is all about.  No one's opinion is excluded, and I'm sorry you thought that's what I was saying.

No one's opinion is excluded...except for all the people whose opinion is "no".

 

Here's the problem I have, and it's not a reflection on the OP's suggestion:

 

The poll is where we've been told that people can respond who, for whatever reason, don't want to give longer feedback. It's been specifically said that we aren't supposed to just post "I like this" or "I don't like this" because we can have a poll for that. So not letting people put that in the poll completely cuts out people who may not want to/feel comfortable with providing lengthier feedback.

 

People may think that "no" is a non-helpful, irrational position, but players are still allowed to have it. More than that, it's actually important information to have, because even if someone who feels that way is being unquestionably unreasonable, if they're against it then TJ still may want to take that into consideration. Unreasonable customers are still customers.

 

But mostly my problem is that we were told to use polls for simple "yes" and "no" opinions, so not providing one of them takes away an official way to communicate opinions from people because you don't feel they are being productive.

[Fiona]

I did suggest a different term for these biomes. I called them Remote Biomes, and suggested a way to get to them through collecting from the existing biomes. That fairly simple suggestion was well received, though others in the thread tried to take the simple idea and add many complications because they didn't care for the idea that it would make the remote biomes easy for new players to gain access to.

[shikaru]

I did suggest a different term for these biomes. I called them Remote Biomes, and suggested a way to get to them through collecting from the existing biomes. That fairly simple suggestion was well received, though others in the thread tried to take the simple idea and add many complications because they didn't care for the idea that it would make the remote biomes easy for new players to gain access to.

I liked the idea, it was a nice middle ground. It gives new biomes for people who wanted more biomes that had requirements to access while not making it difficult. It didn't exclude out newer players, and it gave some nice lore and fleshed out the world of DC a bit more. <3

[Rally Vincent]

Ah, spotted the problem.  Pumpkin, you're misunderstanding me, I think. That's fine, that's what discussion is all about.  No one's opinion is excluded, and I'm sorry you thought that's what I was saying.

Oh... my. If I misunderstood you, then sorry. But at least we cleared it up, then.

 

But can we agree that there is a difference between a "NO" in it's various iterations "I don't like this idea." (Note the period, I'm not generalizing, the period ends the "opinion" which boils down to a "No" with no other compromise or rationale.) and a "No, I don't like this idea, since it seems like it'd be too much work." It's still a no, but it gives one something else to consider.  It's constructive disagreement.  You've been giving the latter, and thank you for that.  But I'm trying to hinder the former, which can't be taken further than what it is, a flat no impedes, a constructive no helps build a persuasive argument in detailing the pros and cons of any suggestion here.

 

 

Yes, to that I agree. A no without reasons is (mostly) worthless because we don't know if it goes against the idea as a whole or a part of it. That's why I usually disregard it

 

*nods* Those are the students that frustrate me the most.  And I agree that your reasoning is sound, however, how often does the "ignore the bad behavior and it goes away" work for you?

Well, there is a difference between "work" and private life. I work, I am forced to point out that reasons aren't given and thus the "no" has to be disregarded for that. In private life, which includes internet message boards, in my opinion it's more helpful to not call people out on it, but to simply pretend they didn't post if they don't elaborate.

 

If the whole group would simply deal with the arguments instead of pointing out when someone doesn't give them, we'd all have better discussions in my opinion. I believe we are getting sidetracked when we start to focus on who didn't give reasons instead of the actual reasons others have given. The flipside of the coin of course is that instead of calling people names and throwing accusation, the "your no is wrong" should deal solely with the arguments, not the sentiments.

 

I admit that I may have not lived up to the standard myself once in a while. I try to, but I am human, and when I have the impression that simple "nos" are used to silence "no because..."s, too, I become vocal.

Hence my suggestion of a cleaning and renaming it into a HOW suggestion and leaving the IF to TJ. We can IF all day, but it helps him decide if we can offer a How as well.  But he says NO. End of Topic.  As it's always been.

 

A "NO" is absolute.

I think this is where we start to disagree. Posting the suggestion is a "yes", and unless TJ has a reason in his own right (the aforementioned reasons he has himself to change the game vs. what-would-users-like), he should be presented with both sides. Even TJ as creator of the game cannot think of every possible impact on the game. Nobody can. That's why every input is valuable, also for others (regardless if they support or not), because they get confronted with things they never would have considered. It may change their mind from "no" to "yes"... or vice versa. That is why I deem a cut back from the "if" to "how, if"-only not appropriate.

The word "elitist" here was being used to invalidate the suggestion.  It wasn't being used appropriately and more like a blunt club to bash anyone who said they'd like something for being here for so long.  (It came with a veiled, "how dare you want something better, you think you're better than me/us, don't you?" current) Who's going to come into this thread, in it's current climate and boast that they'd want to be elitist?  Using the word as it is here is a "Shut up" tactic.  And not much progress can bemade in the discussion with it around.

 

Oh, another disagreement here between us. As I understand it, elitist is used to point out that some are excluded from the new biome because of treating them differently (since it was not suggested that access would be available for all on the same conditions starting from "now"). That's a valid point in my eyes. So, elitism in the sense that instant access (via trophy level or number of dragons from the past) was suggested

Edited May 2, 2013 by Rally Vincent

[Spelunker]

Amut, I read your post, and I think you're absolutely correct.

[Pokemonfan13]

But since you asked: I also disagree your preposition that this thread has changed into "how should we do it" instead of "should we do it". What you state the "main subject" is is what we obviously disagree on. The main subject for me is the "if" - not "how, if".

I have watched a lot of suggestions threads, and nearly all of them that are not shot down as a horrible idea early on do this exact evolution. The first stage of the thread is to gauge public opinion. Is this idea at all popular? If the answer is yes, a decent percentage of the people posting like it, then it's deemed a viable idea and it evolves into the second stage. The second stage is simple, deciding how best to do it. At this point I can understand the frustration of people who don't like the idea at all, since the time for them to talk is really passed, apart from bringing up concerns for people to try to fix [and they are VERY valuable in this aspect]. [in this case "elitism", we counter with the fact that everyone will be able to get in eventually, and ways to make sure that people with play styles that don't let them raise lots of dragons can get in, mainly the dual unlocking, dragon numbers OR time] But once the thread has evolved it's reached the point where it's TJ's choice, and people posting "no" [or "no" with explanation we've heard and addressed 1,000 times] gets really really frustrating for those of us trying to hash out how best to do it, if nothing else because it derails the conversation completely because everyone jumps to address the "no".

[Vhale]

<3 Remote though now I want a flying remote control dragon.

Also shows how much I need to reread too. If anyone gets this wiped before I can do that ima sick a radio controlled dragon on you.

[shikaru]

I have watched a lot of suggestions threads, and nearly all of them that are not shot down as a horrible idea early on do this exact evolution. The first stage of the thread is to gauge public opinion. Is this idea at all popular? If the answer is yes, a decent percentage of the people posting like it, then it's deemed a viable idea and it evolves into the second stage. The second stage is simple, deciding how best to do it. At this point I can understand the frustration of people who don't like the idea at all, since the time for them to talk is really passed, apart from bringing up concerns for people to try to fix [and they are VERY valuable in this aspect]. [in this case "elitism", we counter with the fact that everyone will be able to get in eventually, and ways to make sure that people with play styles that don't let them raise lots of dragons can get in, mainly the dual unlocking, dragon numbers OR time] But once the thread has evolved it's reached the point where it's TJ's choice, and people posting "no" [or "no" with explanation we've heard and addressed 1,000 times] gets really really frustrating for those of us trying to hash out how best to do it, if nothing else because it derails the conversation completely because everyone jumps to address the "no".

Why is it okay for some people to get there immediately while others have to wait for eventually?

 

Also, everyone has a right to disgree with things. If the thread is still moving and they feel like their opinion is being ignored because everything else is moving, they most certainly should continue posting that opinion. It's also really, really, frustrating to watch a thread continue and your opinion be entirely ignored or brushed off with some response that doesn't even address your concerns but instead basically says 'no you're wrong and this will be make things better' (which I have seen quite a bit of in here). If everyone who disagreed suddenly stopped posting, that gives the false impression that everyone suddenly agrees.

[Spelunker]

Remote as in far away, Vhale.

[Rally Vincent]

But once the thread has evolved it's reached the point where it's TJ's choice, and people posting "no" [or "no" with explanation we've heard and addressed 1,000 times] gets really really frustrating for those of us trying to hash out how best to do it, if nothing else because it derails the conversation completely because everyone jumps to address the "no".

Again I am of another opinion. In my opinion, the derailment is the consequence of telling people they should not post no. If there no are new arguments, it would suffice to point out that this has been adressed and let people deal with that. If than nothing new comes up, there is no need to deal further with that post.

 

But, if some (not all, I will not say this) start to tell people off simply because they disagree, they force those people to defend themselves and their right to post in this thread just as much as any other. Let me give an example: If people would start to tell others they should not express their support for this suggestion unless they have something to say that hasn't been covered in previous posts, would you say that another "I like it, I want more breeds" would derail the thread? Or would it be those who jump on that poster and say "Yeah, we heard that ten times already?"

 

It is no less frustrating to get told to not post because someone else said something similar. But in my eyes, DCF is in danger of that happening. As much as someone who doesn't like the idea has to deal with the fact that others like it too, supporters will have to face that more than just two people will not like it. And since we are a message board and don't have speakers, I hardly deem it fair to only prevent opposers to voice their opinion.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Rally Vincent

[Pokemonfan13]

Also, for those saying it's unfair to grant instant access. I say it is just as unfair, if not more so, to us who have FINISHED collecting except for new releases and prize dragons to force us to collect 200 or whatever number dragons to get into this thing. Let us use the dragons we've already gotten. Like I've said before, there has been an incredible sentiment of "don't force people to change their play style to get in", and we've been doing all we can to cater to that. So why does that suddenly vanish when it comes to letting people use what they've already collected rather than forcing them do duplicate what they've already done and get dragons they don't want?

[Fuzzbucket]

I have watched a lot of suggestions threads, and nearly all of them that are not shot down as a horrible idea early on do this exact evolution.  The first stage of the thread is to gauge public opinion.  Is this idea at all popular?  If the answer is yes, a decent percentage of the people posting like it, then it's deemed a viable idea and it evolves into the second stage.  The second stage is simple, deciding how best to do it.  At this point I can understand the frustration of people who don't like the idea at all, since the time for them to talk is really passed, apart from bringing up concerns for people to try to fix [and they are VERY valuable in this aspect].  [in this case "elitism", we counter with the fact that everyone will be able to get in eventually, and ways to make sure that people with play styles that don't let them raise lots of dragons can get in, mainly the dual unlocking, dragon numbers OR time]  But once the thread has evolved it's reached the point where it's TJ's choice, and people posting "no" [or "no" with explanation we've heard and addressed 1,000 times] gets really really frustrating for those of us trying to hash out how best to do it, if nothing else because it derails the conversation completely because everyone jumps to address the "no".

But they may not. For instance - if it were tied to trophies - MANY older players have chosen NOT to collect loads of dragons, but to be selective - and I believe one or two have chosen not even to hit silver. But they may like to access these extra biomes - and on the basis of play style - NOT of "seniority" or dragon numbers - they cannot without totally changing their play style.

 

If people who have been playing for ages and have a gold trophy have to wait - that is going to put a lot of people off - and what do you have to wait FOR ? More dragons ? AS I said earlier - I never get rid and my scroll is huge. I don't necessarily want to have to collect more dragons I don't want to get to new biomes. One of the reasons that was given for this idea in the first place was to keep older players interested - but making them start over at something isn't the best way to do that, I think.

 

I am still a no, and I DO think we need a separate poll thread.

 

That said - what about "Distant Biomes" ?

 

Also, everyone has a right to disgree with things. If the thread is still moving and they feel like their opinion is being ignored because everything else is moving, they most certainly should continue posting that opinion. It's also really, really, frustrating to watch a thread continue and your opinion be entirely ignored or brushed off with some response that doesn't even address your concerns but instead basically says 'no you're wrong and this will be make things better' (which I have seen quite a bit of in here). If everyone who disagreed suddenly stopped posting, that gives the false impression that everyone suddenly agrees.

 

Cross posted - but I agree with this, too. Just because a thread may move into "how should we do this" doesn't mean that those of us who really hate the whole idea should be forced to shut up - it DOES skew the feel of the thread and makes it look as if we've been convinced of the wonderfulness of the idea. Which I for one have NOT. I think 6 biomes is plenty - and with the new two a month releases, maybe MORE than heaps.

Edited May 2, 2013 by fuzzbucket

[Pokemonfan13]

But they may not. For instance - if it were tied to trophies - MANY older players have chosen NOT to collect loads of dragons, but to be selective - and I believe one or two have chosen not even to hit silver. But they may like to access these extra biomes - and on the basis of play style - NOT of "seniority" or dragon numbers - they cannot without totally changing their play style.

 

If people who have been playing for ages and have a gold trophy have to wait - that is going to put a lot of people off - and what do you have to wait FOR ? More dragons ? AS I said earlier - I never get rid and my scroll is huge. I don't necessarily want to have to collect more dragons I don't want to get to new biomes. One of the reasons that was given for this idea in the first place was to keep older players interested - but making them start over at something isn't the best way to do that, I think.

 

I am still a no, and I DO think we need a separate poll thread.

 

That said - what about "Distant Biomes" ?

I don't understand your post at all. #1, how does it respond to what you quoted? #2, I am one of the biggest proponents of NOT having to start over *pokes my previous post*

 

 

 

Again I am of another opinion. In my opinion, the derailment is the consequence of telling people they should not post no. If there no are new arguments, it would suffice to point out that this has been adressed and let people deal with that. If than nothing new comes up, there is no need to deal further with that post.

 

But, if some (not all, I will not say this) start to tell people off simply because they disagree, they force those people to defend themselves and their right to post in this thread just as much as any other. Let me give an example: If people would start to tell others they should not express their support for this suggestion unless they have something to say that hasn't been covered in previous posts, would you say that another "I like it, I want more breeds" would derail the thread? Or would it be those who jump on that poster and say "Yeah, we heard that ten times already?"

 

It is no less frustrating to get told to not post because someone else said something similar. But in my eyes, DCF is in danger of that happening. As much as someone who doesn't like the idea has to deal with the fact that others like it too, supporters will have to face that more than just two people will not like it. And since we are a message board and don't have speakers, I hardly deem it fair to only prevent opposers to voice their opinion.

I agree that if the random "no"s were handled properly it wouldn't be a problem, but the internet isn't organized. You can't just have a policy of saying "it's already been addressed" and moving on, even if that's the best thing to do. There will be people who don't know that policy, there will be people who won't take that for an answer. About the only thing you CAN do is have a gigantic first post addressing every concern that has come up, but then nobody will read it. x3

Edited May 2, 2013 by Pokemonfan13

[Vhale]

Remote as in far away, Vhale.

Don't kill my mini steampunk dragon buzz

 

/pats I know she meant that :3

[shikaru]

Also, for those saying it's unfair to grant instant access. I say it is just as unfair, if not more so, to us who have FINISHED collecting except for new releases and prize dragons to force us to collect 200 or whatever number dragons to get into this thing. Let us use the dragons we've already gotten. Like I've said before, there has been an incredible sentiment of "don't force people to change their play style to get in", and we've been doing all we can to cater to that. So why does that suddenly vanish when it comes to letting people use what they've already collected rather than forcing them do duplicate what they've already done and get dragons they don't want?

Which is why I think it should be available to all at the same time. This way it isn't biased for or against any group of players and isn't punishing anyone for choice of playstyle, being new, or being old.

[Pokemonfan13]

So... What are you advocating, Shikaru? Just plain more biomes? That's the only way I see "advanced biomes with everyone gaining access at the same time" working. Wouldn't mind that, I guess, as long as TJ does a giant dump release to stock them. One of the biggest reasons I'm supporting this now is to empty out Completed.