Blueprints on the steam store? A bad idea or the Baddest idea? - Rust

[QUOTE=billy79;46309770] The use of those unique prints in the marketplace are designed to be used in the game. Yet, you do not have to play the game to get them. Its quite simply really, you create and design a game for people to enjoy and earn money (as you put it) yet you designed a game where you don't play to [I]acquire[/I] a unique print? I know, I know, you will say you have to play to [I]use[/I] it but this does not counter that fact you had to not play to [I]acquire[/I] something. The fact that you have to play has no relevance to the fact [I][U]you've bypassed playing the game to acquire something[/U][/I] of use in game. Going to the steam market place is not "playing the game".[/QUOTE] As I've stated, I think that buying/selling items on the Steam Market is a part of the game experience, and it is indeed "playing the game." [QUOTE]You obviously weren't satisfied with only the cheese cake and wanted more.[/QUOTE] No, I was not "obviously" dissatisfied. I already addressed this objection, but I'll flesh it out. It is possible that I was totally satisfied with the cheesecake, but then I still wanted some chocolate cake. How? Ever heard of greed? or overeating? I could have eaten the piece of cheesecake and sat back and felt completely satisfied and full, but then someone puts the chocolate cake down in front of me, and now I want that too. I'll repeat, that says nothing about the cheesecake's ability to satisfy me. To bring this back to Rust, going outside of the game to the market does not denote dissatisfaction with the game; it is something that one might do for some other sort of satisfaction, or simply to get even more of it. [QUOTE]Problem is, my perception of the games direction has nothing to do with my assertion of the market place being bad design. Do you even fucking read?[/QUOTE] Yes, I do read. I was no longer commenting on your "objectively bad design" theory, but was rather tackling a separate issue. [QUOTE]If a game needed a market place to make it more appealing play, there is something wrong with the design of the game. It means you did not do enough in the game to keep them inspired. You really think a well designed game should need a marketplace to keep them playing? (hint: this goes into game theory and design)[/QUOTE] Once again, who said anything about [I]needing[/I] a market? Just because a market does in fact make a game more appealing does not imply that it needed it in order to do so. As you've said yourself, there are potentially in-game ways to achieve the same result. I don't see any reason to believe that these alternatives would be preferable to the Steam Market though.

Its obvious neither of you are going to give an inch. Why not agree to disagree?

[QUOTE]As I've stated, I think that buying/selling items on the Steam Market is a part of the game experience, and it is indeed "playing the game." [/QUOTE] I do not think a cash transaction constitutes "playing a game". We disagree. [QUOTE]No, I was not "obviously" dissatisfied. I already addressed this objection, but I'll flesh it out. It is possible that I was totally satisfied with the cheesecake, but then I still wanted some chocolate cake. How? Ever heard of greed? or overeating? I could have eaten the piece of cheesecake and sat back and felt completely satisfied and full, but then someone puts the chocolate cake down in front of me, and now I want that too. I'll repeat, that says nothing about the cheesecake's ability to satisfy me. To bring this back to Rust, going outside of the game to the market does not denote dissatisfaction with the game; it is something that one might do for some other sort of satisfaction, or simply to get even more of it.[/QUOTE] No amount of subjective judgments you make about the cheese cake will change the fact that you were not satisfied with only the cheese cake. The fact the cheese cake was perfect is irrelevant as to it satsifying your need/hungar/desire for more cake. You seem to not understand this fundemental part of the discussion as you continue to equivocate. [QUOTE]Yes, I do read. I was no longer commenting on your "objectively bad design" theory, but was rather tackling a separate issue.[/QUOTE] Read what your wrote: [QUOTE]Even if that is totally inconsistent with your perception of the game's direction, that has [B]nothing to do with bad game design[/B]. [/QUOTE] You equivocated my perception of game design with my perception of the games direction. There is no other context it can be put in. [QUOTE]Once again, who said anything about needing a market?[/QUOTE] This is fair but it kind of misses the point I was making in response to your "more appealing/inspiring to play" comment. Look, I love mods, especially for games like Elder Scrolls. I love elder scrolls but the simple reality of is I use mods becasue I was not satisfied with the way the game was made/played in vanilla form. I would be less concerned if the cash trasaction aspect of this idea was scrapped. Lastly, Elder scrolls is a single player game and mods do not impact others expereince the way the global prints can in Rust.

[QUOTE=billy79;46313691]No amount of subjective judgments you make about the cheese cake will change the fact that you were not satisfied with only the cheese cake. The fact the cheese cake was perfect is irrelevant as to it satsifying your need/hungar/desire for more cake. You seem to not understand this fundemental part of the discussion as you continue to equivocate.[/QUOTE] Our disagreement here may have to do with definitions again, but here we go anyway. I absolutely could have been satisfied with the cheesecake, because satisfaction itself is a subjective idea. It is possible that in the moment after eating the cheesecake, I had no further desire for anything else in the world. That's how satisfying it could have been. And yet, upon presentation of the chocolate cake, I wanted to eat it. The introduction of something new to the situation is what led to my desire for the chocolate cake. One need not retroactively indict the cheesecake for that reason. I'll go into a bit more detail. Let's say one never knew chocolate cake even existed. For years a person ate only cheesecake and was satisfied completely, but then upon seeing chocolate cake, he decided to have some. That does NOT mean that the cheesecake was unsatisfying. A person can want something that satisfies them [I]in addition to[/I] something that already satisfies them.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46313831] Let's say one never knew chocolate cake even existed.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)"]Cherry picking[/URL] [QUOTE]The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit is in such good condition. [/QUOTE] I know this is annoying but if you are going to have a reasonable disucssion and call people wrong, you must to stay away from conclusions based upon fallacies.

[QUOTE=billy79;46313921][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)"]Cherry picking[/URL] I know this is annoying but if you are going to have a reasonable disucssion and call people wrong, you must to stay away from conclusions based upon fallacies.[/QUOTE] But you are again wrong about it being a fallacy...Did you read the wikipedia article that you posted? It says that cherry picking is "the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." My example was hypothetical. I didn't point to any individual case or data. My larger point didn't even rely on that hypothetical example anyway, it was simply to make it more clear. Apparently, it did not have the desired effect on you. Now I will give you a concrete, realistic scenario. A similar one to your own, in fact. Say you played a game in its vanilla form for years, and achieved great satisfaction from it. Meanwhile, a mod has existed all that time that you didn't know about. You decide to try the mod and it turns out that you enjoy the game more because of it. That does not mean that you were not satisfied before installing the mod, it simply means that you are now [I]more[/I] satisfied. Satisfaction need not be an all or nothing deal as you have been implying. Keep in mind, this is not cherry picking in any way. All I need is to provide one analogous counter-example to successfully attack your assertion that adding a market would mean that the game itself is somehow unsatisfactory, assuming that the analogy is apt, which I haven't seen you dispute.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46314107]But you are again wrong about it being a fallacy....[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the[B] fallacy of incomplete evidence [/B]is the act of pointing to individual cases or [B]data that seem to confirm a particular position[/B], while [B]ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data[/B] that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[2][/QUOTE] You ignore or supress undiscoverd information (unknown chocalate cake) in your hypothetical (the indivdual case) because it would contridict your statement and you are using this to support or further your argument against me. The anaology they provide with cherry picking, is 100% consistant with the logical structure of your argument. I'm trying to be nice here and do not want this to devovle into teaching you how to discuss something but when you are resistant to understanding and addressing the fundemental flaws in your thought process, I have either two choices, point them out to you or just ignore you but I will not discuss a premise based on a fallacy. Your continued insistance in calling me wrong when I'm not, especially about this fallacy, is terribly annoying. [QUOTE]A similar one to your own, in fact. Say you played a game in its vanilla form for years, and achieved great satisfaction from it.[/QUOTE] A mischaracteriztion. I modded from day one. (removed the two 2GB limiter)

[QUOTE=billy79;46313921]I know this is annoying but if you are going to have a reasonable disucssion and call people wrong, you must to stay away from conclusions based upon fallacies.[/QUOTE] This stopped being a reasonable discussion 3 pages ago. Now you guys are just refusing to stop replying because you're afraid that might be seen as you conceding. Give it up guys, Facepunch has heard your sides of the discussion.

[QUOTE=Zipper Bear;46314324]This stopped being a reasonable discussion 3 pages ago. Now you guys are just refusing to stop replying because you're afraid that might be seen as you conceding. Give it up guys, Facepunch has heard your sides of the discussion.[/QUOTE] I find your post entirely unreasonable. Can you just stop posting? /sarcasm Please do not tell people who are dicussing a topic to stop. Just put me or intrepidenigm on ignore if you do not wish to read our discussion. PM's are disabled and it seems a bit weird to start a new thread to discusss this very topic.

[QUOTE=billy79;46314275]You ignore or supress undiscoverd information (unknown chocalate cake) in your hypothetical (the indivdual case) because it would contridict your statement and you are using this to support or further your argument against me. I'm trying to be nice here and do not want this to devovle into teaching you how to discuss something but when you are resistant to understanding and addressing the fundemental flaws in your thought process, I have either two choices, point them out to you or just ignore you but I will not discuss a premise based on a fallacy. Your continued insistance in calling me wrong when I'm not, especially about this fallacy, is terribly annoying.[/QUOTE] You are wrong about it being a fallacy though. I'm not sure why you think you know anything about reasonable discussions when you routinely have misidentified flaws. Do you understand what a premise of an argument is? The "unknown chocolate cake" is not even an essential part of that particular hypothetical example. It was to elaborate on a point that I had already made. My argument did not rely on it in any way. So, I did not choose to make the chocolate cake "unknown" because the opposite would be contradictory. I'm not sure why you think that's the case. I must admit, I'm getting somewhat annoyed at your inaccurate, silly, and repetitive attempts to derail discussion. [QUOTE]A mischaracteriztion. I modded from day one. (removed the two 2GB limiter)[/QUOTE] I said SIMILAR for a reason!

[QUOTE=billy79;46314363]I find your post entirely unreasonable. Can you just stop posting? /sarcasm Please do not tell people who are dicussing a topic to stop. Just put me or intrepidenigm on ignore if you do not wish to read our discussion. PM's are disabled and it seems a bit weird to start a new thread to discusss this very topic.[/QUOTE] You're so desperate to appear correct you just cannot stop typing, it's sad.

It is not a cherry picking argument. He was forming an analogy for a situation of 2 states of y. One of knowing of x and one not knowing of x. The analogy was to show the knowing of x has no direct effect on the satisfaction of y. You need to get off your high horse and realize you aren't the argument police.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46314364]You are wrong about it being a fallacy though. I'm not sure why you think you know anything about reasonable discussions when you routinely have misidentified flaws. Do you understand what a premise of an argument is? The "unknown chocolate cake" is not even an essential part of that particular hypothetical example. It was to elaborate on a point that I had already made. My argument did not rely on it in any way. So, I did not choose to make the chocolate cake "unknown" because the opposite would be contradictory. I'm not sure why you think that's the case. I must admit, I'm getting somewhat annoyed at your inaccurate, silly, and repetitive attempts to derail discussion.[/QUOTE] Find an ojective and intelligent person and ask him or her if it's is a fallcy because you are obviously not giong to belive me and are incapable of understanding what the fallacy is. If the person you go to is honest and semi-intelligent, they will agree with me.

[QUOTE=billy79;46314374]Find an ojective and intelligent person and ask him or her if it's is a fallcy because you are obviously not giong to belive me and are incapable of understanding what the fallacy is. If the person you go to is honest and semi-intelligent, they will agree with me.[/QUOTE] I guess you don't think utilitron is honest and semi-intelligent. :(

[QUOTE=utilitron;46314369]It is not a cherry picking argument. He was forming an analogy for a situation of 2 states of y. One of knowing of x and one not knowing of x. The analogy was to show the knowing of x has no direct effect on the satisfaction of y. You need to get off your high horse and realize you aren't the argument police.[/QUOTE] The term is based on the perceived process of satisfaction, such as picking sweets. The eater would be expected to only select the best and tastiest sweets. An observer who only sees the selected sweets may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the sweets he sees will be satisfying (i.e. cheesecake). I did not change the logical structure of the fallacy and only interject the elements of his argument. You cant say you were satsified by simply ignoring or hiding the choclate cake which is what his analogy is attempting to accomplish. [editline]23rd October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46314392]I guess you don't think utilitron is honest and semi-intelligent. :([/QUOTE] He's wrong.

So when you go to a restaurant and the waiter asks you "are you satisfied with your meal so far?", do you reply "how the fuck should I know? I havn't eaten everything on the menu yet!"

[QUOTE=utilitron;46314541]So when you go to a restaurant and the waiter asks you "are you satisfied with your meal so far?", do you reply "how the fuck should I know? I havn't eaten everything on the menu yet!"[/QUOTE] Do I desire anything else? If not, I think I'm satisfied. If I have a feeling of needing something more than I'm not satisfied or if new information is presented, I may find out I was wrongly under the impression I was satisfied. [editline]23rd October 2014[/editline] Here is where the confusion is occuring... Because you[I] think[/I] you are satisfied based on incomplete information may or may not mean you are actually satisified. You may [I]think[/I] you are satisfied based on all available information you have and make decisions under that pretense (this is how we operate as human beings in most cases which is not inhereantly bad or good but decisions are inhereantly flawed becasue we do not all the information to give a perfect answer) then disover new information that shows you were missing soemthing and consequently were not as satisfied as you thought you were.

[QUOTE=billy79;46314548]Do I desire anything else? If not, I think I'm satisfied. If I have a feeling of needing something more than I'm not satisfied or if new information is presented, I may find out I was wrongly under the impression I was satisfied. [editline]23rd October 2014[/editline] Here is where the confusion is occuring... Because you[I] think[/I] you are satisfied based on incomplete information may or may not mean you are actually satisified. You may [I]think[/I] you are satisfied based on all available information you have and disover new information that shows you were missing soemthing.[/QUOTE] No. Just because you want something after eating a meal at a restaurant does not mean that you were not fully satisfied. That does not follow. Even if you have a feeling of wanting something more, you could still have been satisfied.

then why do they offer dessert at the end of your meal? Its not that they think you're not satisfied. most people at the end of their meal are, but when the opportunity for dessert presented its self you evaluate on whether or not you want dessert.

Read my edit, I'm incapable of explaining it any further to where you two can understand it.

cherry picking in this sort of a scenario with cake isn't being offered cheesecake and accepting it and then being told "by the way there is also chocolate but you already picked cheesecake" and you're like "why didn't you tell me that before, you cherry picker." No.. It's like being offered award winning cheesecake and what you're not being told is that the award was for worst fucking cheesecake.

[QUOTE=billy79;46314797]Read my edit, I'm incapable of explaining it any further to where you two can understand it.[/QUOTE] Your edit doesn't address either utilitron's or my points about this matter.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46314922]Your edit doesn't address either utilitron's or my points about this matter.[/QUOTE] Because niether of you can distingish between reality and preception. You think your preception of your satisfaction is 100% reality, when its not. Do not worry, it seem most of the people who vote in the US have this same affliction.

[QUOTE=billy79;46314930]Because niether of you can distingish between reality and preception. You think your preception of satisfaction is 100% fact, when its not. Do not worry, it seem most of the people who vote in the US have this same affliction.[/QUOTE] I understand that distinction perfectly, and I'm sure utilitron does too. You have been using the term satisfaction incorrectly. You seem to view it as all or nothing, as in, you are either satisfied or you are not satisfied. In reality, there are many grades of satisfaction. I can in fact (and not due to perception) be satisfied and yet still want more of something. To keep this on topic, one can be satisfied with playing Rust, and yet still want to use the Steam Market to enhance their Rust experience.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46314957]I understand that distinction perfectly, and I'm sure utilitron does too. You have been using the term satisfaction incorrectly. You seem to view it as all or nothing, as in, you are either satisfied or you are not satisfied. In reality, there are many grades of satisfaction. I can in fact (and not due to perception) be satisfied and yet still want more of something.[/QUOTE] Here is a fact, in reality you will never know if you are 100% satisfied. Want to know why? You will never have perfect information to make a statement of fact. You fail to graps that your preception of being satsified with a particular concept or object is always evolving based on new information. Reality vs. perception.

[QUOTE=billy79;46315010]Here is a fact, you will never know if you are 100% satisfied. Want to know why? You will never have perfect information.[/QUOTE] That's likely true, but that doesn't affect what I previously wrote. I'll paraphrase: Even if you somehow could know for certain that you are satisfied (and even if you could never know it for sure, it is still theoretically possible that it could happen, because people are satisfied by some things), that still leaves room to want more of something. Obviously, that implies that if you aren't completely sure if you are satisfied or not, you are capable of wanting more of something. Either way, wanting to use something such as the Steam Market does NOT imply that one is unsatisfied with playing Rust.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46315063]That's likely true, but that doesn't affect what I previously wrote.[/QUOTE] Yes it does. Your perception of your satisfacation of a game is constantly evolving and becomes more accurate with the more information you have. You may have perceived you were satisfied at one point but received new information that either heightened or lowered your satisfaction. You think your perception of a game in two different periods of time means you have two different perceptions, which is inaccurate. In reality, your preception [I]changed[/I], i.e. "it was better/worse than before the new information". EDIT: I'm not once used unsatsified. The value value judgements (good/bad) on satisfication are irrelevant to my point, I'm merely pointing out that satisfaction is an evolving constant that changes based on new information, irrelevant of which direction it goes. If you accept this as true, then when you play the game and discovered an object or feature that can be added, your perception of satisfaction will change and it could make your previous assement of your satisfaction incorrect.

[QUOTE=billy79;46315090]Yes it does. Your perception of your satisfacation of a game is constantly evolving and becomes more accurate with the more information you have. You may have perceived you were satisfied at one point but received new information that either heightened or lowered your satisfaction. You think your perception of a game in two different periods of time means you have two different perceptions, which is inaccurate. In reality, your preception [I]changed[/I], i.e. "it was better/worse than before the new information".[/QUOTE] What you're describing [I]might[/I] be the case, but it needn't be. It is possible that new information did not change my satisfaction level, perceived or otherwise. It is possible that I simply wanted something in addition to what I already had. That fact wouldn't necessarily imply anything about my satisfaction with the original product.

[QUOTE=intrepidenigm;46315167]What you're describing [I]might[/I] be the case, but it needn't be. It is possible that new information did not change my satisfaction level, perceived or otherwise.[/quote] That is entirely possible but acknowledging that you at least reassessed indicates you are contantly evaluating your perception of satisfaction. Which brings us back to cherry picking. You preceive you were satsified with cheese cake due to lack of knowledge pertaining to chocalate cake. In reality though, once you discovered the chcocalte cake, you relized you were not as satsified as you once thought....becasue you obviously desired the chocalate cake...this does not mean the cheese cake was bad or "unsatisfactory" or unworthy, it just means after you ate it, you were not satisfied by it alone, in reality. Unsatisfied is an adjative, satisfied is a noun. I think you operate under the impression that satisfication is an adjative.

[QUOTE=billy79;46315224]You preceive you were satsified with cheese cake due to lack of knowledge pertaining to chocalate cake. In reality though, once you discovered the chcocalte cake, you relized you were not as satsified as you once thought....becasue you obviously desired the chocalate cake...this does not mean the cheese cake was bad or "unsatisfactory" or unwortthy, it just means after you ate it, you were not satisfied by it alone, in reality.[/QUOTE] No! I didn't necessarily realize that I was not as satisfied. I still could have been satisfied by it alone. That is possible according to what satisfaction means. One can continue to want something in order to experience more than mere satisfaction. We seem to be banging against a brick wall pretty hard right now...