Quick summary of my problems with the EDG world system.

[EDG]

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".

 

[captainjack23]

<snip more attempts to define what he wants>
cise 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".

And congratulations. You have sucessfully shouted me down. If you don't think your system can stand my misguided criticism, who am I to argue ?

I'll send any further comments directly to you, as I obviously don't understand what you think is appropriate feedback. My apologies. If you can refrain from further posts on what I am obliged to provide you, and how I must do it, I'd appreciate it.

<edit> although, I would appreciate seeing your discussion on why your social changes are inherently more realistic than other models, using somthing other your own good opinion of your internal logic as a reference. You know. Science.

 

[EDG]

And congratulations. You have sucessfully shouted me down. If you don't think your system can stand my misguided criticism, who am I to argue ?

Do us a favour and stop making out that you're being persecuted and wrongly ignored when that's really not what's going on. I was pretty clear about the sort of comments that I was looking for, and you aren't providing it. We've been through this before and you clearly want something totally different out of the worldgen than what I was aiming for, so your comments really aren't helpful in refining it further - that's all that's going on here.

I'll send any further comments directly to you, as I obviously don't understand what you think is appropriate feedback. My apologies. If you can refrain from further posts on what I am obliged to provide you, and how I must do it, I'd appreciate it.

If you want to waste your time writing more posts on the matter then that's up to you. But stop deluding people into thinking that you're constructively criticising my system when all you're really doing is just replacing it with your own.

<edit> although, I would appreciate seeing your discussion on why your social changes are inherently more realistic than other models, using somthing other your own good opinion of your internal logic as a reference. You know. Science.

I've said from the start that the social science stuff is subjective, in an evidently futile attempt to avoid this sort of argument. Those are the assumptions I've used in my version of the worldgen - I think they're a lot more logical than the ones that MWM used. What he's saying is that there's a fixed chance of a given population digit (and starport) appearing on any world - regardless of the environment, or starport (if population), or population (if starport), or anything else. So whether it's a garden world or a hellhole, it's still got the same chance of having a given pop digit. And whether it's a high pop world or a low pop world, it's still got the same change of being a given starport. That clearly makes no sense whatsoever, in any scenario.

I've tried to add some kind of logic to the system - which you clearly disagree with - in order to get a result that does actually tie population to habitability, or starport to population, and yet somehow adding that kind of correlation is "completely unfounded" or "amateur" or "just my opinion and no more valid than anything else"? I think it's actually a DAMN sight more valid than what we've been presented with so far. Sure, it may not be perfect, and sure, people will disagree with the assumptions, but they're presented as is and with all the assumptions there for people to see. If they don't like it, then they're entitled to disagree and post their own threads about how they'd do it instead - but what you see here is what you get.

If you want to present criticisms of the EDG system as a general opinion of yours then that's fine. Go right ahead. But don't claim that "I asked for this" and then whine about how I'm not listening to your "valid criticism", because I asked for pretty much the complete opposite of what you've provided so far. Your comments have not helped me refine the EDG system one bit - instead you've just gone on about how you want to tear it down and replace it with something else with entirely different foundations, and that simply ain't going to happen with my system because I'm the one that holds the reins on it and decide what goes in and what stays out. If you don't like that then that's up to you, but that's your problem, not mine. But if you want to tell us how you think you'd do the worldgen then have the decency to start your own thread presenting your own system and stop crapping on this one.

 

[captainjack23]

And congratulations. You have sucessfully shouted me down. If you don't think your system can stand my misguided criticism, who am I to argue ?

<blah>own system and stop crapping on this one.

Well, actually, I don't wind people up like this just for fun.

I thought that if you were putting it up for consideration for inclusion in MGT, some discussion of its overall desirability or needfulness was appropriate, and might be appreciated. Obviously, from your veiwpoint, and reaction, this is not the case.

My comments obviously are seeming more critical and irrelevant than I would imagine is possible, but, it's your baby, and its important to you. However, this is far more effort and emotional energy than I expected some well intentioned feedback would result in. I thought I was giving you what you wanted, but obviously I was in error. If you need to continue to rail at me to feel better about that, I can't stop you, but I'll try not to exacerbate it; I suspect we look foolish enough as is.
So, that's that, good luck, and, hopefully goodbye to EDGworldgen.