My poor bearer. Why funcom….just why?

7k+ hp drop on my t4 mule. So sad :disappointed:

One thing I cannot deny, Funcom, at least in Conan Exiles, is the best company for modders. They really leave the field wide open for us to mod things and dont even compete with us. They actively avoid stepping over modders by not making wise game feature decisions, so we can do them.

1 Like

Consoles unfortunately cannot enjoy the excellent modded wonders of pc

1 Like

Janos isn’t half the man he used to be, so not just bearers.

In a sense, I do understand what they are doing in a pure “they do that for this reason” style. Not that I think it is correct, or that it is needed, but I have the notion of what is done.

Gonna note the troubling points in there.

For a sandbox game, devs have little control over what a player might do, as part of it. When more than one player shares the same level, a complex interaction of “pushes and pulls” is all that a developer has to control the balance of the game.

The main and biggest problem in the game is that it is not a too “sandboxy” game since always, and have been losing the sandbox aspect each update it has.

The concept of sandbox game is: Here is the box, in which to play, here is the sand, with which to play. Have fun. While moderating the “sandbox” the fun of one do not become the misery of the other, devs should have HANDS OFF approach to sandbox games. Clearly Funcom is changing their minds on it, and not 0% of it is due to player “whining”. The problem is that players often do not understand that given the sandbox remaining nature of the game, devs cant solve specific conflict problems, and instead have to find a solution for it in a design choice of basal features.

In game theory, you have those fun boxes in which you design outcomes from the options given, such as the basic game theory example, the prisioner’s dillema:

The question is that in a game, there are not 4 boxes, but dozens of boxes for each aspect of the game.
In economics, we deal with it specially in the “Public Choice Economics”.

One basic textbook example is:
A community is divided into group A of a certain class, and group B of a certain class, A being the vast majority, B being then the minority. A representative elected from Group B propose the bill that makes everyone pay 2 money and the full value is divided and paid to members of the group B. A “ridiculous idea”, according to group A, but here is the catch, you pay 3 money to vote for or against the bill. That means, if the bill pass, everyone pays 2 to vote, everyone pays 3, but only group B gets rewarded. That also means, each member of group A to vote must pay 3 money to vote, or simply not vote and pay only 2. As a group, A is better suited voting against, but individually, group A is better off simply leaving it be and paying only 2 and get on with their lives.

A dense example to illustrate what sometimes happen without the simple knowledge the example shows: Sometimes the requests of a majority for something comes with problems they cant foresee, but they were better off not complaining about it to not incurr in a worse situation.

That is often what players do, they complain about something that isnt that bad, which solutions are worse than the problem. Mostly, balance in a sandbox game.

OF COURSE, ALWAYS, FOR LOGICAL and OBVIOUS REASONS, in all games, someone who plays more, player better, take it serious and think of what they are doing, have better results. Trying to make it hard to them is ALWAYS making it hard to everyone. Like situations in REAL LIFE, that goes the same way, trying to tweak the outcomes by changing their direct factors always incur is problems with the implications. For example, price fixing does not solve the problem of inflation, instead, it just hides the index, and cause the other inflation problems like supply chain interruptions and lack of investment and cheap lending. That is exactly what happens when you try to solve balance problems by “power fixing”. IT wont change the someone who plays more, player better, take it serious and think of what they are doing, but it will crap in the experience of everyone.

And if you on top of all that, go develop game “economics” without knowing half of that, you might even make it worse yet.

So I know why they change thrall power, it is just not wise to do so.
They should simply leave the sandbox to sand its sharp edges by use.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.