Unintended Consequences

claiming rare herb or minerals is one use of them.  Not going to cover the extra 100 sov one can claim, but still.....

In a recent post on “Unintended Consquences,” after a long discussion of my claim that one could use prestige, and thus unlimited gold, to make Illyriad into a “pay-to-win.” The scenario I presented was pretty clear, but, after quite a lengthy discussion, was wrong. Just plain incorrect.

I looking back I’ve pinpointed the process by which I wasn’t getting the message that it wouldn’t work and my interlocutors were frustrated (if I interpret the tone of their posts correctly), that I just didn’t believe them.

Here is a bit of analysis and some quotes by which you might see better how easily, in this case, things fell apart.

In my initial post I laid out the following scenario by which a person could pay-to-win:

“A player or alliance decides they wish to win at any cost, both in game and out.

Said player or alliance purchases large amounts of prestige with real world currency.

Having purchased the prestige they then sell the prestige in the form of prestige scraps etc...

Now, having large amounts of gold with which to sustain huge armies city sizes are irrelevant.

So they build huge armies with which to dominate their opponents who, had they had the same real world financial abilities, might do the same.”

Nothing in this says the armies would be dependent on sov, but of course, that is rightfully implied.

So one of my locutionors responded with:

“You clearly don't understand how sov works.

You can only build 20 structures. The basic resource consumption for 1-5 doubles at every level: 150, 300, 600, 1200, 2400. Even at 0 taxes, you can only produce a certain maximum amount of basic resources for production sovereign structures. So no, even with infinite gold, your production rate cannot be unlimited. You are limited by the practical aspect that if any of your basic resources run out while you are negative in that basic, all your sov structures will instantly fall apart. Above a certain consumption, it would be exhausting trying to ship in sufficient resources, although I know a few people who did it one month per year for tournaments, long before prestige sales were possible.

If you don't understand how sov works, I fail to see why anyone should take the rest of your P2W argument seriously. There is a practical amount you can boost even given limitless gold, which many accounts already had due to permasats. “

And he was fully correct.

But....

Notice that the needed information that I missed, “You can only build 20 structures” is sandwiched between an initial claim that I “don’t understand sov” and a whole paragraph stating that nobody should take my arguments seriously. The twin sweeping claims overshadowed the needed information because they were, I think, not really attempts to clarify but to clarify AND undermine the speaker – myself. And the second was the message I got. A much exaggerated example might be “Your’re an idiot for thinking that cars don’t need fuel and I don’t pay any attention to stupid people like you,” which might result in an argument about the intelligence of the person in which the person misses entirely the point that cars need fuel.

That, I think, is the first mistake. But of course, the real mistake at that point was on my part as I pretty much ignored the very next sentence, “You can only build 20 structures.” If I would have read that carefully, I would have re-worked my argument and not spent the next few days building an argument on an incorrect premise.

The was reinforced by twin uses of “sov.”  One was literal, the other metonymic, used to represent the building of buildings on sov squares, a related process. In other words, literally understanding sov is understanding the in’s and out’s of claiming sov and of putting buildings on some of the sov squares. The building of structures is a part of the whole sov process, but not a necessary part. So a literal “you don’t understand sov” would mean the claiming of sov with it’s costs, and not necessarily a claim about also not understanding structures on sov squares. That I took “you don’t understand sov” to mean I don’t understand how to make sov claims and the costs of those claims, is obvious. That the poster meant “you don’t understand sov and the use of buildings on that sov” is obvious. He used “sov” as a metonymy (a part to represent the whole) and I more literally. And from that my mistakes in my scenario piled up.

I could have done it better. I could have read more closely. And, if I may be bold enough to suggest that the poster may have himself improved his communication by simply not starting out with a broad and all-encompassing statement that would put any player on the defensive. He may, of course, disagree. All of which shows how difficult it is, once you take an adversarial stance against another person, to hear them.

In the end it was when another poster repeated the key fact that you can’t have more than 20 buildings, that I retracted my statement about the scenario. The second post, the beginning of which reads:

“It really doesn't matter whether your math for the sov costs for 120 squares is correct or not.  You're confusing being able to claim sov claims and being able to make use of those claims through the construction of structures on your sov.  You're only allowed a maximum of 20 structures, period.  It's why most do not claim more than 20 sov squares as you can not make use sov squares above 20 to boost production ….“

This was instantly heard because it made a claim I could verify when it said, “Your’re confusing being ble to claim sov claims and being able to make use of those claims...” and wasn’t preceded by a sweeping statement about my lack of ability. It enabled me to go back and re-interpret “you don’t understand sov” as a metonymy and then to actually get the correct statement “you can only build 20 structures.”

In summary I believe the lions share of the blame is my own. I should have been calmer and received the correction with a more generous spirit and I certainly should have read more carefully since what was needed was always there.

AJ

You have routinely flamed others for not reading your posts carefully, even though they are a dozen large paragraphs in length. I gave you a single, concise paragraph explaining how sovereignty functions, and why that prevented your pay-to-win scenario, and you didn't even read it carefully.

I put you on the defensive? Really. My statement was correct: you didn't understand how sovereignty works. My experience with you has been that you blow off any and all valid points that might contradict your opinions, without considering their merit. I see nothing new here, except the added twist of blaming me for not making my point more palatable for you (amusing, given your own stance on preaching at us).

If I reacted negatively, perhaps it is because I am weary of you lecturing us about changing game mechanics that you haven't actually taken the time to understand. You did that with crafted items, then trade hubs, and now with selling prestige. I would respect a process that started by asking questions, rather than one that short circuits a thorough examination in favor of skipping straight to preaching your desired solution. If you preach, you automatically presume a stance of authority relative to everyone else, and if your facts are wrong or your understanding is deeply flawed, then you should expect to get called on it immediately, and none too politely.

Hyrdmoth wrote: AJ, given the ... detail in your own posts I would think it only polite for you to read carefully the replies that you receive. Obviously in this case I just had to find an excuse to reply because I'm gutted not to have my replies to you in that thread analysed.

LOL.  I could go back and do so if you like.  NOT!

But you are right.  I should be better disciplined and try not to react emotionally to things said, especially in a sweeping manner.  But of course we've all made mistakes, have we not?  The only thing a person can do when they make a mistake is to apologize and try to do better.   Anything else is probably beyond mere mortals like me.

AJ

All this reads like Mr Logic from Viz...