DevTracker

[Ronyn]

Like it or not. The original argument was that a damper on power-creep and a functional economy was not "possible", better yet, unlickely. The original argument was that you all supported horizontal progression yet all you cared about was MOAR POWA.

I'd rather just let this go. However, if we are to continue and you insist that my original argument is what you state above, please quote the part where I said that.

 

[Ronyn]

WTF does that have to do with anything? Am I the only one who read Ronyn say he thought it was a solid idea way back on page 3? Did he ever say you're idea wouldn't work?

Someone help me out here. This is going from funny to sad.

Just let it be please.

Thank, you. But cognitive dissonance is something that pisses me off.

I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this discussion. Catch you later.

 

[Ronyn]

Maybe I have not been speaking plainly enough. @Sn0wfIak3

Yes, your idea about temporary power enhancement from consumables could be good for the economy and be part of the solution to power creep for a game. It is a good idea.

 

[Ronyn]

That they Don't work as a damper for powercreep if implemented right.

All evidence to the contrary.

Yes. There are way's to design a system in which consumables are good for the economy as well as playing a part in staving off power creep. Your idea is one such system. I never disagreed with that. That's why I said it has merit from the very beginning.

 

[Ronyn]

I still think i'm right though. Cause: people love feeling overpowered. Effect: people buy more consumables and fuel the economy.

IMO, you're wrong Ronyn. Consumer and producer.

Wait. How can that mean I'm wrong when I never argued otherwise? Seriously, what is it you think we were debating about?