Am I saying that too few care to matter? Probably, to a degree. It's silly to think that majority of players use an inverted mouse for mouse purposes.
I would never suggest that a majority of players use inverted mouse, I would assume most people learn whatever is the default in the first mouse-navigated first-person environment they learn and then stick with that. I can only say with certainty that people who prefer invert-y do in fact exist (e.g. @zupahfly, my son, and me until last year) and that based on my personal experience I know it to be very difficult to quickly switch to non-inverted-y when you are not accustomed to it. Think of it in terms of accessibility (though I of course understand that needing invert-y is not a serious or permanent disability).
If Eco were just another game for entertainment, then it's purely a marketing & economics decision whether or not to cater to various minorities of users, and I wouldn't have taken the trouble to jump into this conversation. But the reason I'm so interested in Eco is that I know it can be so much more. I really believe in games becoming powerful educational tools in the near future. When mature, Eco will have the opportunity to teach--in an entertaining hands-on way--about politics, conservation, the benefits of cooperation and competition, and other concepts critical to healthy societies. Even if it doesn't, it will help blaze a trail to future games that may. So I am here for the social good aspect. And I think if developers want to maximize a game's potential for social good, they should try to make it as easily accessible to as many users as is reasonably possible.
So, for me, even if as few as 5% of users want it, an invert-y option is worth defending as part of a broader issue about maximizing the accessibility of educational games to make them more competitive with pure entertainment games and to reduce issues in situations where students may be required to play as part of a curriculum.
Go to every computer in a computer store - all the computers there are going to mouse up when you push forward, and mouse down when you pull back. Look at any non-flight game out there. By default, you're going to look up when you push forward, and down when you pull back. Consider that the term 'inverted mouse' contains the word 'inverted' which means 'backwards vertical axis'.
Considering the camera movement in a first person, give the plane that the mouse is on the shortest rotation possible to become the same plane that the monitor is on. Pushing the mouse down at this point brings vision down. Pushing it up brings vision up. This perfectly logical.
Your reasoning here is logical and interesting, particularly the part about the shortest plane rotation which I hadn't though of in those terms. However, the role of logic in this matter is very limited. Despite my spending far too much time on computers, there has never been a strong subconscious connection for me between how to control my cursor in a 2D environment and how to control my view in a 3D environment. In my mind (the only mind I am sufficiently acquainted with to comment on), they are fundamentally separate environments with different rules of control, any connection is for me purely conscious and superficial. I am not arguing that you should see it the same way, I don't know how you think. Regarding the term 'inverted' (mouse or y-axis) in game options: it is only inverted the context of that particular game and its chosen default. No game can choose the "one true orientation" any more than you or I can (though they can in a sense vote for one in their choice of default I suppose). Different people will see things differently based on their past experience. In a first-person environment, you consiously map mouse-forward as mouse-up/view-up, while I consciously map mouse-forward as mouse-down/view-down. Meanwhile, what is actually most important is whatever we have trained our subconscious to understand in that context.
OK, with that, I think I am tapped out on this topic. Thank you all for the discussion, and thanks again to @SLG_K for the generous early accommodation, it is highly appreciated!
Thanks for the feedback, and you're right we're charging a lot for what's there, but that's because we're not just selling the game but a chance to be part of its development. We intentionally want to keep the playerbase small and the barrier to entry high, so that its a group of dedicated players who want to help us develop the game with bug reports, feedback, and contributions. The game is not even half done, it's not ready for a wide release yet, so while we could make a lot more money in the short term by lowering our prices, we would hamstring our actual release down the line, when the game is really ready (you only get one launch, as they say). That's the same reason we're not on Steam Early Access yet.
So it's pretty likely we'll lower our prices, in a year or more after the game is a lot closer to release. I've seen a number of games do this (Planetary Annihilation, Crowfall) and I think its a good way to approach early-release.
So a huge thanks to those supporting us in this initial phase and being part of development!
Yes, we actually have this already, and the laws page uses it! You can dig into that code to see the queries, and we'll be building better documentation soon. All kinds of awesome things players will be able to make with this.
@Konrad - I think I understand. If you mean, a general comparison that doesn't highlight any server in particular but just compiles data in overall statistics from different servers to analyse what kind of laws had what effects over different servers - then yes, I certainly agree that would be interesting statistical data.. provided, the developers kept the laws open as they are now (otherwise, again you'd find that sweeping generalistic, oh we can see this works so now every server seems to have this law proposed first). Certainly, I'll admit the data would prove intriguing to find out what works and what doesn't - however, such data should be taken in small samples and not frequently to avoid trends raising among servers in what is successful.
@Airis-Damon - I think this has been fed back before, I'm sure I saw somewhere it was in development. I don't know whether it was a feedback or something a Dev actually said though so I dunno but I could imagine that corpses add additional data to servers that is a bit of a waste of memory.. so I could imagine it's something that will be fixed soon.
For the record, issues 1 and 3 have already been reported as recognized bugs. I think for 8, that it might be an intentional part of the game design that workshops, even workshops you created, can get clogged up with other people's orders if you leave them publicly accessible, especially if you don't charge any usage fee.