captainjack23 said:Okay, so you only want feedback you approve of. Should I run it by you first and let you post what you think is relevent and constructive ? Sorry if I misunderstood what you were asking for. I'm starting to feel that you don't appreciate my efforts .
I'd happily provide some nice feeling comments about what I liked about the system, and have because I do like your work, but, time and effort are short, here, and honestly, I thought you'd have enough confidence in your work to tolerate some disagreement.
I said before you started writing all your posts that the only thing I was interested in seeing was useful, constructive critcism of the EDG system to get it closer to CT. Instead you wrote a bunch of posts that basically say "the problem with EDG's system is that I fundamentally disagree with his entire approach to worldgen, and here's what I think it should be instead". Well, great, but that's not criticism of my system, that's criticism of my entire approach - and I'm really not going to drop it all and say "yeah, you're right", or "you've got a point".
I made my system to address a few specific and major problems in CT - if you don't see those as problems or have a different opinion then great, but go write your own thread to propose an alternative and don't try to tell me that all the work I've done here has "problems" when the real issue is that you just disagree with how I've done things.
The EDG system is presented as it is. I'm very open to constructive criticism to see if we can get closer to CT results without losing the realism and sensibility that is driving the whole approach to the system, but if you want to change that whole framework then I'm really not open to that and you'll just have to live with it. As I said, I'm open to seeing what happens if we modify some of the pop DMs. But I'm not going to toss out atmosphere types or change my assumptions about how the social stuff should work (which I already made clear was subjective, but with a logical basis so that it is at least internally consistent).
I'm not saying this because I only want praise or to hear good things about my system - I'm saying it because I really don't have time or any inclincation whatsoever to make the sort of major changes to my whole approach that you seem to be demanding (largely because it's far too late in the process for it and also because I simply don't agree with your stance on the matter) - I want to focus in on any precise problems there are with my system as it stands, using its own assumptions.
That's what I was asking for - not a load of posts saying "I think it'd be better if we did it a completely different way".