ZPP

[shileka]

the ZPP (zanzarino protection program) is for the people like me who are thankfull that zanz made this awesome game and made it free to play and are happy when he decides to add new cards with the goal of making elements bigger and better, i made this partialy because i got anoyed with all the people complaining about the new cards he introduced IMO its his right to do so, it's his game, and he makes the rules, when someone uses your laptop you also don't want them to download porn right? pretty much the same principle to me, basicaly, all i ask is: don't complain about how zanz changes HIS game, play it and be happy he invests so much of his free time in something that we all enjoy

[rob77dp]

Spoiler for Hidden:

the ZPP (zanzarino protection program) is for the people like me who are thankfull that zanz made this awesome game and made it free to play and are happy when he decides to add new cards with the goal of making elements bigger and better, i made this partialy because i got anoyed with all the people complaining about the new cards he introduced IMO its his right to do so, it's his game, and he makes the rules, when someone uses your laptop you also don't want them to download porn right? pretty much the same principle to me, basicaly, all i ask is: don't complain about how zanz changes HIS game, play it and be happy he invests so much of his free time in something that we all enjoy

I concur, but would add a caveat that if an aspect of it has legitimate gripe/imbalance, requesting or stating this is fine - just avoid the "I quit and may never play again because zanz went the opposite direction than players wanted" (or similar generic non-helpful jabber!).  :-)

Thanks, zanzarino.  Keep up the good work - or at least work.

[Absol]

Being critical against a change is one thing. Being overprotective/abrasive isn't.
If we can't criticize a game (even if free and such. It's not a justification. You say you'll do it, you do it well.), can we still say "we love this game"?

In short: i'm not in. If you're only ranting about the haters, then remember this:

Spoiler for Hidden:

[OldTrees]

Sorry, but you should not be opposed to constructive criticism. Constructive criticism enables Zanz to identify what the players do and do not like about the additions. This allow him to grow as a game developer.

[shileka]

Spoiler for Hidden:

the ZPP (zanzarino protection program) is for the people like me who are thankfull that zanz made this awesome game and made it free to play and are happy when he decides to add new cards with the goal of making elements bigger and better, i made this partialy because i got anoyed with all the people complaining about the new cards he introduced IMO its his right to do so, it's his game, and he makes the rules, when someone uses your laptop you also don't want them to download porn right? pretty much the same principle to me, basicaly, all i ask is: don't complain about how zanz changes HIS game, play it and be happy he invests so much of his free time in something that we all enjoy

I concur, but would add a caveat that if an aspect of it has legitimate gripe/imbalance, requesting or stating this is fine - just avoid the "I quit and may never play again because zanz went the opposite direction than players wanted" (or similar generic non-helpful jabber!).  :-)

Thanks, zanzarino.  Keep up the good work - or at least work.

sorry, but what does concur mean?

Being critical against a change is one thing. Being overprotective/abrasive isn't.
If we can't criticize a game (even if free and such. It's not a justification. You say you'll do it, you do it well.), can we still say "we love this game"?

In short: i'm not in. If you're only ranting about the haters, then remember this:

Spoiler for Hidden:

Sorry, but you should not be opposed to constructive criticism. Constructive criticism enables Zanz to identify what the players do and do not like about the additions. This allow him to grow as a game developer.

i'm not ranting against haters, i just hate the people who start complaining about the new cards before they are even propery introduced in the game, i got no problem with constructive criticism but i believe people should hold it until they see how the changes affect the game, i understand how my previous post looks to you guys though, it indeed looks like i'm just hating the haters

[willng3]

If zanz holds off on introducing a new card for several days then it seems to me like he's looking for feedback on the idea, regardless of it being positive or negative.  I'm sure that several people who find the negative feedback annoying are also annoying to several of the people providing the negative feedback.

I'd consider both sides equally important.  Flaming can go lie down in a ditch somewhere on the other hand.

[deidmann]

Concur means "I agree".
Giving feedback to the new cards is like testing for bugs in a game's beta stage. It's done to keep the game balanced.
Now, zanz is too busy to play his game, but he comes once in a while to fix bugs, overpowered cards and other problems.
What we can do is keep testing for feedback.

[shileka]

If zanz holds off on introducing a new card for several days then it seems to me like he's looking for feedback on the idea, regardless of it being positive or negative.  I'm sure that several people who find the negative feedback annoying are also annoying to several of the people providing the negative feedback.

I'd consider both sides equally important.  Flaming can go lie down in a ditch somewhere on the other hand.

you have a good point there but i dont think feedback without the cards ever being introduced in the game is very accurate, the cards may seem to be game-breaking or whatever but until they actually entered the game you can't really be sure, and my apoligies if i seem like i'm flaming, didn't have the intention to

[rob77dp]

Spoiler for I suppose you may not mean my post?:

Sorry, but you should not be opposed to constructive criticism. Constructive criticism enables Zanz to identify what the players do and do not like about the additions. This allow him to grow as a game developer.

I am in favor of constructive criticism...

I was mostly aiming (and believe shileka was doing the same) at posts similar to these:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,45197.msg1024188.html#msg1024188
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,45197.msg1024297.html#msg1024297
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,45197.msg1025498.html#msg1025498
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,45197.msg1025531.html#msg1025531
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,45197.msg1027075.html#msg1027075

Some are simply lame, some just whining, and some make no sense in relation to being constructive criticism.

[Onizuka]

If criticism shouldn't be done before it is entered into the game, you've just invalidated most of the card ideas forum. You can criticize on the idea and the current stats of the card. At this point in the game it is easy enough to see a card's possible potential. If a life card was introduced that scrambled quanta, it is easy enough to say that it has possible synergy with black hole. Any repeated healing card, and you can think fire stall.

As soon as we know stats and a rough outline of an ability, we can possibly even give an idea to zanz on how to actually implement that idea. I see no good reason to say we should stop being able to do that.


And while posts that do not really offer insight are not liked, they do allow us to look at the picture of how people are reacting to this change, better.

[shileka]

If criticism shouldn't be done before it is entered into the game, you've just invalidated most of the card ideas forum. You can criticize on the idea and the current stats of the card. At this point in the game it is easy enough to see a card's possible potential. If a life card was introduced that scrambled quanta, it is easy enough to say that it has possible synergy with black hole. Any repeated healing card, and you can think fire stall.

As soon as we know stats and a rough outline of an ability, we can possibly even give an idea to zanz on how to actually implement that idea. I see no good reason to say we should stop being able to do that.


And while posts that do not really offer insight are not liked, they do allow us to look at the picture of how people are reacting to this change, better.

you're absolutely right, but i think you'll agree that while you can see a cards potential you cannot be sure about it's impact in the game without putting it into the game.

i'm now going to stop further discussing this before we end up having a heated discussion and someone starts being impolite, i know myself good enough to know that i will probably end up being the impolite side in the discussion

[OldTrees]

Sorry, but you should not be opposed to constructive criticism. Constructive criticism enables Zanz to identify what the players do and do not like about the additions. This allow him to grow as a game developer.

i'm not ranting against haters, i just hate the people who start complaining about the new cards before they are even propery introduced in the game, i got no problem with constructive criticism but i believe people should hold it until they see how the changes affect the game, i understand how my previous post looks to you guys though, it indeed looks like i'm just hating the haters

Players that are also experienced at game balance usually make good predictions about what would happen. Playtesting the cards in the trainer gives valid data to base a prediction off.
In my opinion both experience and playtesting a valid ways to see how the changes would affect the game before the changes are finalized for another couple months.
PS: Something you might not be aware of, we in the Card Idea and Art section can playtest cards before they are added to the trainer. (Few people actually do it but the option exists.)


@rob77dp
I was replying to the OP. However the 2nd and 3rd examples have redeeming qualities.
The 2nd is very informative and reduces the cases of the 1st example.
The 3rd hits on an important topic despite doing so in a disrespectful manner.