UMEC Forum Index UMEC
United Mining Exploration Commission: A group of friends playing JumpGate-- "a MMORPG that launched smoothly, breaks from fantasy character setting, emphasizes PvP, and is the first persistent world space simulator that nobody talks about." ~Scorch
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Critiques of Llama Economy Essays

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    UMEC Forum Index -> Flame War
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2002 8:25 pm    Post subject: Critiques of Llama Economy Essays Reply with quote

Actual Essay (6th revision)
ND suggestions forum thread
Okaaaaaaaay...holy fuck. he doesn't start small, does he? Well, at least he sticks to a gold standard. literally. (otherwise you'd wonder if he was pimping a stock market and currency exchange...hehe)
    If that was the case: The fat cats could simply sit on station and huck trillions back and forth for the new "Farming" heheh. (hell, it happens *IRL* bleh)

    Oh well, if Nixon hadn't gotten rid of the gold standard to avoid DeGaull's bid to grab some gold, some corp toadie would have blown up Bretton Woods anyways.
*ahem* back on topic: WTF? omg...sorry, but my brain melts when dealing with long words like, "super-responsive liquidity controller" (aieeeeeeee...i'm meeeeeeellltttting)

*sigh* to make a very long story extremely short: The guy has no freakin idea about reality. it's an excellent essay for a system dealing with a game that DOESN'T SUCK DOWN COMMODS LIKE THERE'S NO TOMMORROW!
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2002 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And the guy wonders why certain people don't respond to it... :rolleyes:
Back to top
MajorFreak
Guest





PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2002 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

omg...the guy is a tool.

no wait. that's wrong. he's a tool box; no. wrong again. he's a tool shed.

NO HE'S THE FUCKING HARDWARE SECTION AT WALMART'S MAIN GODDAMNED UBERWAREHOUSE!
Back to top
MajorFreak
Guest





PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2002 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wow...posting private emails &/or paraphrasing them is just the lowest of the lows.
Quote:
holy crap. at least i have the class not to post private emails, let alone MAKE UP half of the conversation. omg. talk about tasteless. Forget about me keeping silent.

I knew you petitioned as many people you thought would be interested in commenting on your suggestion way back when...that would be the smart thing to do, though i stated i wasn't your best bet. Nor, did i state any interest in commenting...Suffice to say that this:
Quote:
Come May 1st, I get a PM from you pointing out a thread you posted on the UMEC forum. I read it and replied saying:
Is a complete lie...it was YOU who responded via PM to a public post i made in this thread (ie. not private messaged)And i explained to you, after your uninvited lecture, about how it wasn't important FOR ME to rip apart the official *IC* reasoning about planetary imports, especially when i didn't ask for your critique privately. (besides, my *OOC* understanding of the situation is that maintaining a force of less than 10,000 in space wouldn't require strip mining the entire planet; perfectly reasonable to expect economics of scale to play a factor here; perfectly reasonable to expect politics to play a factor in adding inefficiencies via planetary exports of commods)

The thing that got me though was your next reply wasn't an apology or a discussion of alternate orbital delivery systems, etc. (like the ones you used to attack me here):
Quote:
Well, who says there are no skyhooks and mass drivers?

http://forums.jossh.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=48330#post48330
It was you basically spamming me with stuff about your suggestion. which i'd already stated my unwillingness...Why? you weren't interested in talking about orbital deliveries, you were simply trying to pimp your suggestion i'd already stated my unwillingness to view, comment on, or whatever.
Quote:
There's a series of replies going back and forth next. The first one clues me in to the fact that you had not yet read the model and asks me to give you a link to it. You then say that all the momentum I have is simply because " most of us are withholding nasty remarks". You say that something needs to be done with the economy as it is now.
Now, since i was being polite and the PM common sense rules of etiquette kinda imply i'm off the hook if i just peek, and perhaps comment "off the record" so to speak, i decided to request a link since you switched subject and claimed your model solved that issue entirely (i had not look at it, and assumed you had some idea of the economics of scale in jumpgate)

The reasoning behind my (and perhaps others of like mind) withholding of comment/debate/critique in this thread was because i didn't really want to look at your suggestion and find things that challenged your base assumption(s)...which would mean i'd have to comment honestly about something i was afraid would reduce this thread to two or more people arguing about the economics of scale. (ie. the issue of what people think will affect the game environment of JG most/least)...i finally gave up commenting about this danger for "momentum" and decided to go and give a critique of your suggestion in this thread, and hope that would be the end of the PM session.

BTW, "clue you in" about me not reading your suggestion?! gee, how does "i didn't read it" clue you in?? wild speculation on your part?? lol

Gods, i really can't believe your posting of PM's (even your own) and paraphrasing my responses...how low can you get? (and i CERTAINLY am not interested in seeing my PMs posted just because i'm debating your take on things; that stuff is supposed to be "off the record")

your aggressive salesmanship tactics aren't impressing me one bit, sir...Everything you said in that last reply was aimed at plucking lurker heartstrings.
Back to top
MajorFreak
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2002 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My god! here we go again with TexMurphy
================================
i think comparing our system with another MMOG is ludicruous, especially when it's used with little regard for the substance of the suggestion.

That's beside the point. A little more digging on this subject and it turns out Tex wants to eliminate all but a token input from miners. my GOD! we have a sucky proportion to usefulness already!
Quote:
My station will not matter that much. Sure it will help my squad, maybe an allied squad as well, but thats it.
~TexMurphy
This isn't just a bad idea, but a poorly constructed one too. Are you all completely focused on "your" clique and "your" community and forget most n00bs are gonna take one look at "your" game and wonder what on earth are they doing playing such an elitist game? well, are you? Apparently so, though i'll bet anything you'd deny that fact and just call me a troll. *shrug*

Not only is the near vertical learning curve steep now, but you wanna isolate commod production that will somehow magically "fix" the economy?!
    looks to me like another bald faced attempt at putting more power than reasonable into player hands. players with the most money controlling the economy.
natter on about UO "allusions" all you want. Calling this system of Tex's the same thing is pretty funny. pretty hilarious in fact.
Quote:
So what I sudgest is make stations into markets only. No station production what so ever.
~TexMurphy
buh? You're not going to create a supply/demand economy because you'll simply be switching from one supply model to another supply model. (ND started out with conceiving that "lack of supply = demand"; you're doing the same thing here)
    and if you can't see the massive exploit/loophole awaiting at the end of the "i can set my own prices" line then you're in for a rude surprise. (oh thou who doth spit upon farming pissants)
and what's this BS?
Quote:
...With one exception each station produces 3 different base commodities from mining. Also this will make mining matter...This way mining missions are still very meaningful.
~TexMurphy
buh? "STILL"? what part of nerf of a token system = "meaningful"?!?!? have you any idea how insignificant mining is to the functioning economy we have currently?

=================
you know the really sad thing? this sort of ill-thought up crap gets me a bad name for flaming "any idea that isn't muffy's"...that's just bunk. I call a spade a spade.
Quote:
What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
~William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
and if it's crap, no amount of semantic gymnastics can save it from being crap.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    UMEC Forum Index -> Flame War All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Space Pilot 3K template by Jakob Persson.
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group