• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

In the Name of Gaming Purism

DeletedUser26965

tl;dr - there isn't one because any gaming purist would read the whole thing and ponder it for some time before responding with good deep thoughts of his own.

I've had some rather long discussions here and there over the years of what exactly defines and encoumpses gaming purism. It's certainly not a well defined concept and can mean quite a many different things to different people. I suppose one could make it a simple concept of any change is a bad change though I don't think that goes deep and broad enough. Certainly humans are initially apprehensive to change, that's quite natural and can often be attributed to any resistance for a proposal for change though it of course is never explicitly expressed as that being the reason why, typically some other thought up reason will do to satisfy the angst.

So one thing I have fought to change is the aborting of recurring quests one doesn't do. I have no desire to repeat that discussion here so much. My endeavor here is to get one thinking of what gaming purism is and how it may or may not apply to FoE in its current state, prior states, futures states and when considering proposals, suggestions and the like to potential changes in the game. I think when one considers what makes one thing an offense then one ought to consider if they're applying the gaming purist position and if so are they doing so consistently.

So to start off I've created a list;

Buying Diamonds
Aid Button
Tavern Avatar Button
Auto Battle
Collect All
Flashing incidents
Great Building Avatar Button
Hotkey's for Setting Productions/Goods/Units
Mobile Notifications
Cancel Production Confirmation

The list is by no means exhaustive but I would argue they are a violation of sorts to the gaming purist position. They speak to the so called "easy button" aspect of gaming. This is another fuzzy concept not so well defined you see. What constitutes an "easy button"? I would say something in the game that you would have to do in order to achieve the goal is now done for you automatically. So that is the defining characteristic of an easy button, if it's doing the goal you should be doing.

So in the case of the Tavern Avatar Button instead of going to that person's city, then to their Tavern, then opening their tavern, then clicking on an open seat to sit, those few steps to achieve the goal of sitting in a tavern are now done automatically for you, hence easier. This in the gaming world could also in a sense be construed as what's known as scripting. Scripting is a program that does the games actions for you and has been used in many games for "farming" stuff and the like but the essence is the same. Scripting will often get you permabanned from games so I don't suggest doing such.

So gaming purism also seems to entail a player doing the work so to speak. If it's done for them then they are no purist you see.

Of course games change and it's never fully known the consequences of any given change, this would be referred to as unforeseen consequences. One of those I think is the PvP tech lock change. Whereas before one was able to attack anyone now if they have not unlocked the tech for PvP that person can not be attacked. A consequence of this change is that now when you click on the attack button you get a message that says you can't attack them which you then have to exit out of and try the next person. This can be rather tedious in early age PvP especially if one is doing Daily Challenges that often have tasks that entail attacking.

A reasonable suggestion I made was to, like the Tavern Avatar Button, have the attack button indicate that person can not be attacked. Some of course might think of this as some sort of violation to gaming purism but I don't think it is because the change to PvP changed the dynamic and it's the change that made it more tedious now and all this would do is make up for that change. It also isn't doing something that I am trying to do to achieve the goal. My goal is to attack, auto battle is what achieves in part that goal automatically for you not an indicator they can't be attacked. Putting an arbitrary block to achieving a goal does not a purist make. So keeping it the way it is in the name of purism makes no sense unless it can be justified as such somehow.

That "arbitrary blocking" of things speaks to the detail of the purist position. One could of course think of a never ending variety of ways to putting up roadblocks to a goal. I am not as I've stated for putting up blocks that make no sense to the goal. One such block that makes sense is travel time when exploring a new sector, it makes logical sense that exploring should take time and so a timer is added. Another that makes sense is not knowing beforehand the defending units of a city, not only can this add a bit of excitement it also is a block of sorts that is in line with the goal one is doing and trying to achieve. Whereas, as I've mentioned about aborting recurring quests, throwing in a bunch of arbitrary blocks of aborting other quests has nothing to do with the goal of the tasks set in the quests you are doing.

In the end though I'm all for change and accept it openly and typically with ease. It is "just a game" after all as many say so even if the game looks nothing like some former version of itself I'm sure not going to get hung up about it, in that sense I am no gaming purist though I can appreciate the position. It think game makers should go into a game with two goals; make the game and keep it that way then make the same game but one that changes over time. That way the purists can stay in their own little world and everyone else can go to the other place. However if you're going to apply a purist position at least first recognize if it's applicable in the first place and why it is if you find it to be so, then for god's sake at least apply it consistently, if you're against one "easy button" you damn well better be against them all if you're any purist worth their weight in purity.

Peace and Be Well my fellow gamers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser32973

The primary reason I play this game is the long term strategy. Personally, I don't really care all that much about the day to day business. In the grand scheme of things when we're talking about months and years in FoE the "easy buttons" mean nothing to me. I know a lot of people don't take this view of course. The only thing I'm against, at least individually, is buying diamonds. Note, I'm not saying this isn't a valid method of play for other people, or that it makes them "less of a player." It's just on a personal level purchasing in game currency or items with real money ruins it for me. The last mobile game I played that had internal transactions I quit after spending money. I'm not really sure why tbh. I just lost all passion for the game after spending.

I will say I'd like the "day to day business" to take less of my time. Monotonous madness like aiding and the abort quests gets taxing. Those things aren't fun at any level.
 

DeletedUser26965

By this definition, the only pure game is a board game. Any computer game does at the very least part of the work for you. With that in mind, I see this as just another attempt by you to bring more people on board to being able to only see the RQs that you want to fulfill. I notice that eliminating the RQs that you want to abort through was conveniently left off your list of "easy buttons". :rolleyes:
Of course the contrarian will speak to the contrary, what else could be expected. But of course it's not on the list because, well maybe read and you'll figure it out but you're so busy always looking for cracks why bother really.
 

DeletedUser32973

By this definition, the only pure game is a board game. Any computer game does at the very least part of the work for you. With that in mind, I see this as just another attempt by you to bring more people on board to being able to only see the RQs that you want to fulfill. I notice that eliminating the RQs that you want to abort through was conveniently left off your list of "easy buttons". :rolleyes:

While I don't deny part of sloppy's post is to further the crusade against the abort cycle, I don't think that's the entirety of its purpose. His agenda with abort quests is no secret, so I see no reason why he'd need to hide it in this post.
 

Agent327

Well-Known Member
Of course the contrarian will speak to the contrary, what else could be expected. But of course it's not on the list because, well maybe read and you'll figure it out but you're so busy always looking for cracks why bother really.

See.

You start your own discussion and are desperate to get the spotlight. Whatever Longshanks reply will be, you will always go against it and try to put him down.

Rather pathetic.
 

DeletedUser32973

See.

You start your own discussion and are desperate to get the spotlight. Whatever Longshanks reply will be, you will always go against it and try to put him down.

Rather pathetic.

Seriously? You say this when your first post in the thread is,"I dozed off just before I reached the list." Both of you, Stephen to a lesser extent, came into this thread to start something. I know that's what you guys enjoy, but come on man.

When you start off with an antagonistic response what in the world are you going to expect other than more of the same?
 

DeletedUser26965

While I don't deny part of sloppy's post is to further the crusade against the abort cycle, I don't think that's the entirety of its purpose. His agenda with abort quests is no secret, so I see no reason why he'd need to hide it in this post.
Thanks Crollito, it's refreshing to see someone get stuff. Of course I don't hide it, hell, I even mention it in the post lol. And sure that's related but so are other things like the recent long back and forth I had with that one fella on the DC proposal but this isn't about that directly either. It's a shame some simply can't get in the spirit of things but that's the internet. I know Stephen can though, I've yet to see anything of value from the Agent guy though.
 

Agent327

Well-Known Member
Seriously? You say this when your first post in the thread is,"I dozed off just before I reached the list." Both of you, Stephen to a lesser extent, came into this thread to start something. I know that's what you guys enjoy, but come on man.

When you start off with an antagonistic response what in the world are you going to expect other than more of the same?

Where my statement might have been antagonistic Stephen's wasn't and even if it was it would not have mattered. It is the standard reaction you get when you do not agree with his longwinded monologues.
 

DeletedUser26965

By my standards of snark
Love that, one day I'll have to contemplate my standard of snark as well, which of course is elevated upon use of the internets. I think the point is though, you didn't really offer anything to the main spirit of the thread and chose instead to take the low road of what could be an interesting discussion, as it is nearly every comment now is without such spirit, bleak times my friend, bleak times. And as far as my "propaganda" goes, it's upfront and in your face with my Avatar and Signature, obsession though? let us not exaggerate, I had one good long back and forth about it and sometimes work it into a comment that's related, I wouldn't call that an obsession.

As far as "starting something" please don't attribute nefariousness and hidden agendas to me, the post here is clearly stated as to what was to be "started";
My endeavor here is to get one thinking of what gaming purism is and how it may or may not apply to FoE in its current state, prior states, futures states and when considering proposals, suggestions and the like to potential changes in the game. I think when one considers what makes one thing an offense then one ought to consider if they're applying the gaming purist position and if so are they doing so consistently.
 

DeletedUser32973

With all due respect, Crollito, you have no idea why I came into this thread. And both you and @sloppyjoeslayer freely admit that his obsession with the abort function of RQs is not hidden here, so logically the original post "started something", not my response to it. I know you've seen many of my posts here on the Forum. Does my first post on this thread fit the mold of posts where I'm aiming at "starting something"? No, it doesn't. By my standards of snark, it is mild to the point of harmlessness.

Incidentally, I'm not saying the whole purpose of the original post was to further the RQ abort cycle agenda, but you can't deny that there is at the very least an element of propaganda for that agenda contained within it.

Well I have some ideas, but as to whether or not they're right that's all you. It was more aimed at agent, but ya, you're right, it was pretty mild for the shanks :p.
 

DeletedUser31882

It's just on a personal level purchasing in game currency or items with real money ruins it for me. The last mobile game I played that had internal transactions I quit after spending money. I'm not really sure why tbh. I just lost all passion for the game after spending.

I did something similar with the last mobile game I was super into (Dungeon Keeper). I ended up justifying buying a cheap currency bundle due to the sale bonus and then stopped playing less than a month later (Maybe even a week! Foggy memory). I think another form of 'purism' can be how the player views the Free to play versus Pay to win aspect of a game. Mentally, I dislike the meta-business model of Pay to Win, so some games I end up never investing time in because I view the gap between paying and free play too large. I think that is why I ended up leaving Dungeon Keeper; I really liked the pvp aspect, but it seemed too P2W, so I got frustrated and moved onto other games. FoE has a different balance where the PvP rewards are more grind based and I don't view the P2W aspect as a huge barrier, but something to use if I want to advance more quickly. I'm only reminded that the game is P2W when I miss out on a 'maxed out' Event prize that favors RNG (and thus wallets) over player time investment. Anywho, I guess sometimes 'working hard' for the premium currency increases it's relative value to F2P while once you use the wallet, the value can change depending on the gain of said purchase.

When you start off with an antagonistic response what in the world are you going to expect other than more of the same?

They know exactly what they are doing. To derail and antagonize is the goal of a troll. The real question is if we can catch the two trolling each other and how often... Snark can be fun, but we shouldn't dismiss that it is non-benevolent action. It is inadvertent maliciousness at best. Smart trolls know how to wield it in just the right way to garner sympathy.

By this definition, the only pure game is a board game. Any computer game does at the very least part of the work for you. With that in mind, I see this as just another attempt by you to bring more people on board to being able to only see the RQs that you want to fulfill. I notice that eliminating the RQs that you want to abort through was conveniently left off your list of "easy buttons". :rolleyes:

Not so fast! The board game gives you a board and figures and other goodies to visualize the game space! The only 'Really True Pure' game is paper and pencil! ;) But seriously, SJS only listed features that are implemented in the game. So your argument is either set on an incorrect premise or purposeful mis-characterization.

On-topic: I agree that purism is usually rooted in a conservative or 'status quo' preserving ideology. Thankfully, humans have a lot of individuality (snowflakes, as it were) that can twist the 'purist' into many unique forms. F2P versus P2W as I mentioned above, power-creep (Special/No special), hardcore versus softcore runs in Diablo, Using 'cheat' codes to spawn a tank in GTA, PC versus Console, Fair trade versus fair trade calculators, plundering, Causal games versus non-casual games(Hence the derision for mobile) and how one defines a challenge; to name a few. Humans also love to create labels and separate into tribes, so there's that I suppose.

I guess the real question is how many people willingly don the label of 'purist' (gaming or not) and what exactly that means to them. It's why I prefer drilling down(or up?) into arguments, rather than getting involved in an opinion fight that may be rooted in differing definitions in an opinion's premise. Then again, I've had this conversation over the years with a childhood buddy over the Elder Scrolls franchise. Daggerfall being the epitome of "All the skills, freedoms and big world", to Morrowind (Great, but lost some skills...), to Oblivion (Oh noes! Less skills and casual-lization!), to Skyrim (Well, at least we can dual wield now) and then there is an MMo? *shrugs* So to understand a purist (or anyone for that matter), one must find and examine the foundation they argue from. Sadly, that's never as easy as sticking a thermometer in someone's mouth and getting a data reading.

Anywho. I guess what I'm trying to say is: Humans are complicated and tend to be hypocritical by nature. I don't think any of us can be found to be perfect, or never hypocritical, once we are placed under careful analysis. It makes sense that we all will be biased to our selfish wants. The status quo just has the advantage of home turf and inertia to defend itself. It's easier to say "No thanks, it's good where it is at" than meeting someone halfway. Why compromise when you don't have to?
 

DeletedUser10720

When it comes to the concept of gaming purism, in essence I don't think it exists in a game like forge, so many things have changed and evolved over the time this game has been out it's something completely different now. GE, DC, incidents, taverns, arcs, kracken, event fatigue.... none of these existed when I came in. They have all created a strong shift in dynamic, how guilds act, what early players can do and earn, the actual value of special buildings. Personally I love all of it because it is new and challenging to adapt to when something like that comes in. I want to see more new things that force me to adapt my city and try to accomplish everything I can.

My definition of purism would be more comparable to the way individual players utilize these features. I am one that sees those skyrocketing their arcs and chateaux, age camping endlessly, and running RQ into the ground and buying their way to the top, as somewhat lazy. That is where The 'easy button' sits for me. Because that takes a significant amount of challenge out of the equation.

Things like the aid button, tavern at the avatar and GB menus that let you drop all your packs rapidly are more along matters of convenience. The amount of load time and power required to visit every city and do that is excessive to say the least and prior to these being included they became problematic for players like myself with less than amazing computers, forcing several browser reloads to complete. Quest cycling on the other hand has stayed relatively as simplistic and has never forced me to completely refresh my page.

I am a bit of a completionist. I think that the 'purest' way to play is to try and utilize all the features as much as possible, push to complete every event, every expedition, every DC, camp for only as long as absolutely necessary, and arguably the most important aspect ... sometimes lose, either by not accomplishing something you wanted to or by pushing into an age or completing a quest that will out yourself ino a challenging position. Progress and advancement in tech especially are key to keeping things from growing stagnant. Having the challenge of adjusting new and old. Finding a new strategy, changing your patterns and not always being able to have everything. These are some of the core aspects that will never change in this game and I feel that neglecting them or intentionally finding routes to subvert using them is what destroys the spirit of the game.
 

DeletedUser26965

I wanted to add I think the biggest issue I take with many players when it comes to proposals is they often tend to vote in the negative, typically from a purist position though not always expressed directly, no matter what, which makes them inconsistent, dare I say hypocrites.

I was reminded of Spoilage today, which is why I came back to this thread. I wasn't around when spoilage was a "real" thing, it still exists just not in the form it once did, now most people I'm sure don't even know it does.

So in my point here is I often think, when seeing responses to proposals today, that the person who would respond "no" to a proposal to having spoilage today, assuming he doesn't know it exists now or in its previous state, that very same person would have also voted "no" had he played during the time of spoilage in its original state if someone made a proposal to get rid of it.

See the issue? Watch for such a thing on proposals, you might find the same.

RJDWWxS.jpg
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
I think THEKyle hit on the head here....when game devs add content, they need to balance that content by lessening the burden of 'work' in some ways...if this means streamlining RQs in the future, so bew it. The 'aid all' button, however, will probably remain a dream. Aid is far too important to just let the lazy ones and diamond farmers skate by. INNO wants your time and aid is a major part of it. So is management of your friends list. Game purity will only exist on console in my opinion, simply because MMO's MUST evolve with time or die a death of stagnation...
 
Top