Suggestion about golems

shoop/chakra haven't provided any reason for keeping the golem. they're assuming the default position is that they stay in the map, but as anything else, golems too need a reason. so what would a good reason for keeping golems be?

we know that we should reduce the 2-20 problem (shoop is smoking weed again, claiming that he doesn't think we should minimize the chance of 2-20, but thats what he bases all his other ideas on). we also know that golems reduces risk-taking like runtag. again, shoop smoked some sick weed bringing a ''we've solved the problem'' argument. but i explained that in my previous posts.

chakra doesn't agree jumping-iron-golems increase a 2-20 problem, but it seems like he agrees the current golems increase the 2-20 problem? anyway, he probably agrees the jump-golem reduces runtag and risktaking. but we'll let him speak for himself.



so far we have NO reason to keep the golem, and 2 reasons to remove them (they counter runtag/lead to safemassing where ppl dont take risks around wolves, and they increase the 2-20 problem). until we hear arguments to keep the golem, i suppose beer can give us a 'trial version'?

remember, the default position is NO golems. even in chakras WILDEST DREAMS where all the arguments against the golems are somehow invalid, you would still have to put up a case for the golem if you don't want it removed.

Well I dont really care if we keep golem or not, I just explained why I dont want it removed like with invis. It seems like a lot of kids want to keep golem though.

But I think there is an incorrect assumption to talk about a "default position". What is a default position in sheep tag in your opinion amir? No items and just farms? How many hits to kill a farm? How many hits to save a wisp? Imo its meaningless to talk about a default position, we should just talk about what we want for the map to be more fun.

the default position is nothing. all additions have to be justified (how does this increase the value of the game?) in order to be implemented. everything should enchant the gameplay value in some way.

if you can't explain what the golem adds to the game, its just a wasted spot that reduces gameplay value by making noise/unrewarded complexity (similar to ''LOL" comments on forums that dont directly reduce the summed value of the good content, but still has a negative impact). you might as well add 50 golems with different models/colours, and ask ''why not?''.

if you think the golem adds fun, explain why. but obviously it doesn't matter what the majority thinks if you believe removing the stack was a good idea, and attest to it being removed while the majority wanted it.




this is one of the reasons i dont like shoop/drews ST ideas. they aren't based on any fundamental principles/concepts. its all random guesses about what makes st better. reducing safemassing and increasing runtag is great! but wait, now its suddently irrelevant. we've increased RT 'enough' to satisfy shoop. increasing it further isn't good for st. but we don't have to justify why this amount of rt is ideal!

I think I'm done. Amir clearly has lost his argument because he refuses to refute anything.

chakra, not only have i refuted it, i've also explained how you lose the golem-debate by default EVEN IF i haven't. its not my job to prove why a suggestion is bad, its the person who wants something in the map who bears the burden of justifying it.


i think the 2-20 argument stands. obviously the ''increase runtag'' argument stands. and you have not made a case for keeping the golem(or the iron-golem, jumping or non-jumping). so it doesn't really matter if you don't understand the 2-20 argument, everything else suggests that we remove the golems, even if we completely ignore the 2-20 issue(or assume you refuted it sucessfully).

you have this retarded idea of ''last post wins''. when i stop posting = it means that i dont have anything else to add that hasn't been said already. it doesn't mean i refuse to refute it. whether my counter-argument is valid or not is a different story.

You haven't refuted shit. You completely dropped the 2-20 problem (while in the other topic you refused to leave it), and are now arguing about other things which we never reached, yet still claim you won the 2-20 argument, which you clearly haven't, because you are now arguing about runtag.

Let me say this now: You do not need a significant reason to keep something. You need a reason to remove or add it.
You, clearly, claim otherwise, declaring fluff and complexity is inherently bad for the game. Yet while you claim this, you argue the opposite, instead looking for reasons to remove golems (runtag, safe massing).

So while you hold two completely contradicting arguments, I suppose I'll argue against both.

As Shoop was saying, the "default position" of the game is not nothing. Such a concept is completely and absolutely absurd. The "default position" is what we have currently. That is, everything that current is, is the default position. Why? Because we define, "Sheep Tag" to be the map. A default state is a state at which you can achieve with no work. To remove golems requires work, and thus is not default. You agree to this:

Amir wrote:

all additions have to be justified in order to be implemented

Keeping golems isn't an addition. It does not need to be implemented. Removing golems does need to be implemented.

We are not required to continuously argue for everything as is. It is only when someone proposes a change that arguments must be made. You make an argument for why golems should be removed, and we must either refute, concede, or acquiesce said argument. Conceding and acquiescing, the rarer of the stances, are the only times in which we must declare why golems are good. So far, not a single of your points have been conceded or acquiesced towards, but rather refuted.

I've always acquiesced the bulk of your first argument, that of jumping golems leading to safemassing/static game play.
I, however, disagree with your method of curing the problem. If golems were replaced with iron golems, the price to jump a golem significantly increases. That is, sheep will be more willing to runtag and not safe mass because the chance of being jumped is relatively low, especially in the beginning. While of course they would still have some effect, the effect would be small enough to be negligible.

I'm not sure if you were convinced, but would you willing to drop your argument of "remove golems" to "replace golems with non-jumping permanent golems"?

chakra calm down ok? you think i havent refuted shit, i think i have. do you want me to repeat myself for 5 pages? wtf do you want me to do when i got nothing more to add to my case? holy shit lol...

im still satisfied with my answer to why you need to justify the golem. the fact that it's in the map doesn't matter. as long as you agree that implementing something to the map needs justification and positive effects on gameplay(lack of counter-arguments isn't enough), then you have to justify the golem. if you DON'T think that new additions need to be justified, then i want to suggest we add 50 more golems, all with a different name. i mean, whats your counter-arguments to this?

quite insane that you suggest that the concept of justifying an addition doesn't apply to the golem BECAUSE ITS ALREADY IN THE MAP. really, REALLY insane.




1) remove golems because there is no reason to keep it(assuming all counter-arguments are invalid).
2) add 50 more golems with different names/models.

you can't argue against both of these. lack of counter-arguments is NOT a good basis for implementing/keeping stuff. there has to be a positive effect as well. and no, i still that we're increasing the chance of 2-20 scenario with jumping-iron-golems.

Quote :

quite insane that you suggest that the concept of justifying an addition doesn't apply to the golem BECAUSE ITS ALREADY IN THE MAP. really, REALLY insane.

I'm not entirely convinced you know what words are. You see, you only justify an addition when doing an addition. You do not justify an addition when you do a negation--you justify a negation when you do a negation. You see?

And I quite clearly explained that if arguments are made against the golem ("justify a change"), then such arguments must be considered and either refuted (the argument is invalid), conceded (the argument is valid, but of no importance), or acquiesced (the argument is valid).

In issue of the 2-20 problem, it has been properly refuted. Your second argument has been acquiesced. Your route of change has been refuted.

Quote :

1) remove golems because there is no reason to keep it(assuming all counter-arguments are invalid).
2) add 50 more golems with different names/models.

you can't argue against both of these

Yes I can.
If we hold that there is no argument for 1) or 2):
1) Removing golems requires work, thus requires argument for change. // Keeping golems doesn't require work, thus doesn't require argument to keep.
2) Adding colored golems requires work, thus requires argument for change. // Not adding colored golems doesn't require work, thus doesn't require argument to not add.

Quote :

lack of counter-arguments is NOT a good basis for implementing/keeping stuff

I agree with the first (implementing), not with the second (keeping).

Quote :

there has to be a positive effect as well

Why?
And I'd argue that if something produces zero negatives, then it must be producing a positive by increasing diversity in which shepherds can build.


Here's your trial map without golems: http://www.epicwar.com/maps/217808/