by jsnell
Dhrun wrote:
And as I mentioned before I'd rather see something else realized to keep game and tour fresh, e.g. changing faction exclusions or auctioning (don't make me explain how to me this feels better than fixed offsets).
Auctions aren't really on the table. I don't like the official auction variant at all, but also don't want house-rules that diverge too much from the official ones. Also, adding any auction more complicated than a simultaneous blind bid would be tough from a time management perspective.
And still at the end of the day I am not going to implement anything myself, so I would thankfully respect any reasonable approach - including carefully testing VP shifts I guess (only right now I am undecided about my spare time and TM in general).
So here's the thing: a reasonable (or at least not-unreasonable) approach exists, and has been very vocally rejected with no testing. There are of course all kinds of reasons to dislike that solution. Disagreements about specific values, a belief about VP adjustments somehow being unsatisfying, annoyance that the numbers were just thrown over the wall rather with no community input, or whatever.
I certainly won't tell anyone how they should play. But it feels crazy to have these "man, I can't believe the developers can't fix this game" and "I think we should start an 18 month project to rebalance all the factions" discussions without first getting some proof that the existing fix isn't good enough.