I think you need to look up the definition of spam … I am entitled to my opinion
You posted 4/5 comments about the same thing. I think it really counts as spam.
Everytime your saying ‘‘I think we are all wasting our time … they will not listen to us’’ and more stuff, isn’t it counting as a spam?
against rollback, for improvements.
+1 on kine and eviltacs posts on the first page.
I do however wonder a bit about the mindsets, since I fear more the skilled individuals from the west, and the teamplay from the east at the moment.
let’s stop here, and we’ll just go with both formulas.
[http://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/topic/20673-devs/](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/20673-devs/)
let’s stop here, and we’ll just go with both formulas.
[http://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/topic/20673-devs/](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/20673-devs/)
I would love this but i doubt it will happen because they seem to have some xxxx pride complex and will not submit to the fact that the direction they are taking may be on that has lowered the overall quality of the game.
Just as they want to dictate to the player base how to play the game what damage types to use and what weapons they want us to use because that makes balancing the game easy for them which from what i understand is infact a major factor behind these decisions. Daddy knows best. Very USSR devs, very USSR.
Just as they want to dictate to the player base how to play the game what damage types to use and what weapons they want us to use because that makes balancing the game easy for them which from what i understand is infact a major factor behind these decisions. Daddy knows best. Very USSR devs, very USSR.
the feel the need to dictate because they believe it will create profit. for example, lengthening the time it takes to rank invididual ship trees, etc… buying synergy… world of tanks.
what they don’t feel the need to do is the opposite of world of tanks. instead of pressuring users to buy items, giving them enough incentive/value in the product for them to actually buy it.
Since this game has followed the WoT model with its lates updates, it will fail if it continues that.
Just mimicking a model of a half-successful game won’t get you anywhere if your game is different.
Could you please give us a grace period to buy ships according to the old system? For exemple, i’m rank 7 fed, i didn’t bother to buy ships (well except up to the swift-m which a rank4 ship…), and now i need to regrind that faction… ALL the previous grind is lost…
I can understand that devs dont control what the marketing (read money-making) department impose on them, but when you make that big of a change, you SHOULD have warned us and gave us a few weeks to buy ships if we felt like it before the system change. Thinking that i lost hours and hours of grind (and i lost grind in other factions too, not just fed, i was, for example, 90/100K to R8 Empire… Now i don’t have a single point of synergy to add to my R7 ships to reflect that before patch-grind, since i was mostly grinding in R6 ships like EVERYBODY did).
Even in your most populated competitor, which is also driven by greed, they are much more liberal when it comes to giving things to players and warning them in advance. When they replace a “ship” you already own for example, they warn you months before that this will happen, and they give you the replacement for free. You also get to keep your old “ship”, even if it was moved two tier higher up the “ship” line. Here in Star Citizen, no warning, and you knowingly let tens of hours of grind go to waste, which is clearly gonna drive away many players including me. I’m not going to regrind all the ships in the federation tree, i already grinded for that and earned them so… Thanks but no thanks.
Dont even get me started on how you are creating a huge gap between older and newer players, since newer players will need many more hours than the others to achieve the same thing (im just talking about the fact that older player took “X” time to unlock their first tier 4 ship on average, while now the average time with the new system may very well be 3X. This exemple is even worse if you replace “one ship” by three, since it still took X time to unlock those under the old system, while now it will be again multiplied by 3).
whatever, i dont care… you don’t want to add the damage types back to T1 to give players their choice back, you lost me as a customer.
if our conversation here is concluded, then i will be taking my leave.
btw, i will restate: T1 premium are utterly worthless now. you might as well remove them from the game if it is exactly as you claim.
Yeah I don’t care either here let me hold the door for you. The dev door’s are pretty OP and I don’t think your butt has enough resists.
Full Rollback = no pls
But if they removed the synergy restriction but kept everything else
I’ll sign on.
Me too, and a nerf to the blue balls would be nice too, if 8/10 fighters use that weapon, it means that something is wrong.
I said no, but I do think that quite a few heavy modifications should be made.
just so mods don’t misinterpret the current results of the poll.
the fact that the votes are about even (and i voted for no) doesn’t mean that the changes are good.
it simply means that some are good, others need major changes or reverted back to the old system.
The poll needs more of a variety. I said no, personally, because I think that the new weapon system is pretty cool, and that PVE can now let you select your own mission, along with a new mission entirely, is sweet. The Hangars, not sure, I’ve only seen the Empire one. BUT, as I said with having a more variety, I think that the new rank leveling system is poor to some degree, seeing that you have to grind through all of that synergy to get to that one ship you were saving up for. (*COUGH COUGH* 2 Sniper frigates to a single Engineering frigate).
So, you should change it to:
Instead of a simple “yes or no” poll.
I’d agree to a few things being good to rollback, but not the whole patch. Some of the things I liked, other things not so much.
The weapons went in a good direction in my opinion. Not as a final version cause of obvious balance issues with certain guns; but as a direction to continue to iterate on in coming patches. Making weapons behave very different from each other rather than having 9 versions of the same gun just with different stats makes the game much more interesting to me.
Missile change seemed horrible at first, but isn’t completely bad after having played with it a bit. Missile amount and cooldown should persist through death though. Having full missiles every time you die is really silly and makes spamming missiles less of a choice than it should be.
Ship progression through synergy instead of reputation is a terrible change. It doesn’t seem like much thought went into this new system other than “let’s copy WoT. They’re popular, let’s do everything like they do”. You know what? One of the great changes between SCon and WoT (other than being in space) was that you could actually fly your favorite ship at all times. Now I’m forced to play my bad unupgraded ships to progress? Why should I even care to buy good modules on my favorite ships if I always have to move on to ships with no upgrades? This change I’d very much like to have a rollback on!
Other changes I have no strong feelings one way or the other.
The poll needs more of a variety. I said no, personally, because I think that the new weapon system is pretty cool, and that PVE can now let you select your own mission, along with a new mission entirely, is sweet. The Hangars, not sure, I’ve only seen the Empire one. BUT, as I said with having a more variety, I think that the new rank leveling system is poor to some degree, seeing that you have to grind through all of that synergy to get to that one ship you were saving up for. (*COUGH COUGH* 2 Sniper frigates to a single Engineering frigate).
So, you should change it to:
- Yes, this update is completely unplayable.
- Yes, this update is hurting my game play.
- Neutral, not sure.
- No, although the game has some issues as is, no massive rollback or patch is needed.
- No, the game is much better now
Instead of a simple “yes or no” poll.
I considered this but i feel that this is a such a major change in how the game is played that its essentially become a new game with the changes they made a dumbed down boring pigeonholed version of what it once was while i have said numerous times that this patch has many merits i think that a rollback is the way forward and once that is done we can as a community give them feedback on what we want reintroduced from the patch.
What they don’t seem to understand is that allowing players to come up with their own way of playing a ship (ie what damage type what weapon type without being restricted to daddy knows best weapon types) is what made this game great to sit down and figure out your own ship loadouts and come up with new styles of combat based on those loadouts and yes giving players more choice means you as developers must work harder to balance the game but that’s what will make the game great the effort the devs make to keep the game complex yet balanced. (For those of you who don’t get it the games complexity went from a 10/10 to 4/10 with the pigeon holing of weapons and their damage types and removal of player choice).
Weather you are a fan of eve-online or not a massive part of its success is the vast complexity of the game and almost entirely sandbox nature of their ship design where a huge portion of pvp is the ever changing player designed loadouts its what keeps the game dynamic and allows for a ever changing battlefield and what people use on those battlefields as new strategies and loadouts are developed in the development and counter development meta of the game which is entirely in the player base’s hands. This layer of meta is what has kept the games pvp so fresh for so many years as a 10 year vet of the game i have seen innumerable fleet loadouts and strategies being used over the years and the overall style and how people pvp change so many times over the years as players develop new strategies and others counter them.
This is not a star conflict should be eve 2.0 its simply an example of what has kept that game going for so long and kept its pvp fresh and exciting by allowing that layer of meta to stay in the hands of the players.If they can continually balance the games many weapons ships and modals while allowing almost unrestricted player control of their loadout i would hope that the devs at stargem can put in the time and effort the balance the few that had pre 0.9.0 and not further reduce that number and make it easier for themselves at the cost of player base.
I also get it they want to add more weapons, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have switch over to a daddy knows best concept, when it comes to damage types and weapon styles which doesn’t work because the three damage type three resist type design the have been working with is incompatible with it, as long as players have control over their ships resists. There is a massive disconnect between the two systems of doing things if they want to go down the path they are the only way for it to work is to go to a single resist single damage type style which would dumb the game down even further. (This is currently something that is game breaking as i have proven in game by creating ships that essentially defensively counter their role counter and now have no ships that hard counter them this is especially effective in interceptors and gunships).
I considered this but i feel that this is a such a major change in how the game is played that its essentially become a new game with the changes they made a dumbed down boring pigeonholed version of what it once was while i have said numerous times that this patch has many merits i think that a rollback is the way forward and once that is done we can as a community give them feedback on what we want reintroduced from the patch.
That’s not a constructive way of doing game development, nor does it allow players and developers to evaluate what changes they like and don’t like in this patch. Things are all good and well on paper, but actually using and interacting with the changes provides a far more valuable experience.
This patch has more positive elements than some people care to admit, as the negative always overshadows the positives. There are also elements that each individual player might not enjoy, but which a majority of the community do. It’s easy to pigeon hole those elements in the patch in the ‘need to go’ category for yourself, but you’d actually be harming the game when other players do like that change.
Yes, there are a number of things in the patch which need balancing, tweaking and possibly even in some cases a small overhaul. It might even be the case that an element needs removing - this is the nature of game development. But only time and people actually using those game features will provide a real answer there, not blanket removal.
Improving this game is a matter of looking forward and how we can improve and balance things, not a matter of constantly looking backwards.
Sure, parts of some patches (especially big ones) might occasionally upset you as they can touch things you fell in love with. But bear in mind that the game has tens of thousands of other players and they have opinions and vision on what the game should be like as well. The developers know this, and all feedback you provide is taken to heart and put in the context of the wider opinion as well as the long-term vision of the game.
Knee-jerk or panic reactions can be detrimental to game development and making progress as some game developers can create fixes which are worse than the original problem. I for one, am happy that the developers have taken a more measured and calm approach to the feedback and are dealing with it in a more rational manner.
I think the only thing everyone seems to agree on is that the change to synergy was a bad idea. Either the developers didn’t understand why people skipped ships so often (which is bad, as it shows they are out of touch with their player base), or they just didn’t care (which is bad, as frankly nobody should support a game whose creators don’t care about their players).
I really don’t see a third explanation for the change…
I think the only thing everyone seems to agree on is that the change to synergy was a bad idea. Either the developers didn’t understand why people skipped ships so often (which is bad, as it shows they are out of touch with their player base), or they just didn’t care (which is bad, as frankly nobody should support a game whose creators don’t care about their players).
I really don’t see a third explanation for the change…
A third explanation is that the change might increase profits. Before it was possible to skip ships by time alone. To skip ships now one will have to invest both time and galactic standards.
A third explanation is that the change might increase profits. Before it was possible to skip ships by time alone. To skip ships now one will have to invest both time and galactic standards.
Nope, that falls under my points. In fact, money-grubbing falls squarely into the “they don’t care” category.
As i said time and time again, they can do whatever they want with their economic model (the change to synergy is about slowing overall progression, frustrating players in subpar ships against already top of their tier ship/purple-blue modded ships, and thus incitating players to skip those ships with real money), people who really like the game can adapt to some extent. But not giving at least a week notice on those changes, so people who solely grinded reputation whitout buying the ships could do so, is really showing a BIG finger to their player base by making A LOT of farming and grinding disapear into the new system.
Also, you SHOULD NOT tie synergy gains to your score in a match, as some classes of ships have it way better than others when it comes to scoring points. Fly a command? Get lots of assists, lots of kills with your OP singularity cannon, get to objectives rather fast, get one of the top three spot EVERY SINGLE TIME. Fly Long Range Frigate? Need to 6-10 hits in a row to kill a frig (except other LRF’s obviously), can’t hit inties more than once every 30 seconds (with a module yup), hard to 2-3 hit in a row a fighter who will just hide behind a rock at the first glance of your laser, impossible to get objective points because you are too slow to get there, and even if you do you are the squishiest class in the entire game… LRF’s ALWAYS end up in the last spots, they get less synergy, they are very frustrating to play progress-wise (and simply utility-wise too most of the time, i guess jericho LRF’s have it better weapon-wise, but not by much with their tank being shield-based and imploding faster to new gun). So make the grind evenly tedious for all the ship classes if you intend to keep that horrible system anyway.
That’s not a constructive way of doing game development, nor does it allow players and developers to evaluate what changes they like and don’t like in this patch. Things are all good and well on paper, but actually using and interacting with the changes provides a far more valuable experience.
This patch has more positive elements than some people care to admit, as the negative always overshadows the positives. There are also elements that each individual player might not enjoy, but which a majority of the community do. It’s easy to pigeon hole those elements in the patch in the ‘need to go’ category for yourself, but you’d actually be harming the game when other players do like that change.
Yes, there are a number of things in the patch which need balancing, tweaking and possibly even in some cases a small overhaul. It might even be the case that an element needs removing - this is the nature of game development. But only time and people actually using those game features will provide a real answer there, not blanket removal.
Improving this game is a matter of looking forward and how we can improve and balance things, not a matter of constantly looking backwards.
Sure, parts of some patches (especially big ones) might occasionally upset you as they can touch things you fell in love with. But bear in mind that the game has tens of thousands of other players and they have opinions and vision on what the game should be like as well. The developers know this, and all feedback you provide is taken to heart and put in the context of the wider opinion as well as the long-term vision of the game.
Knee-jerk or panic reactions can be detrimental to game development and making progress as some game developers can create fixes which are worse than the original problem. I for one, am happy that the developers have taken a more measured and calm approach to the feedback and are dealing with it in a more rational manner.
This is not a knee jerk reaction this is something that has been brewing for several patches now building up to a fundemental change in the games overall meta its comparable to COD taking away the ability of players to choose their weapons modifications perks ect. and replacing it with a small number of preset loadouts something they would never do because it would kill game. I think a very good indication of how the community feels is represented in the poll i placed on the thread the fact that the poll is as close as it with many asking for such a drastic move as a rollback is indicitive of how much damage they are doing to the game with these changes.
This issue is larger than simple synergy or ships costs or infinite missile, while most players do not like certain aspects of the patch i am talking about the overall games complexity and meta i am trying to get across the fact that the game has gone from a diverse open playing field of setups and loadouts to a narrow dev controlled preset model which will kill the overall longevity of the game since it cuts into player generated and controlled content of the game replacing it with dev controlled easy to balance Ace friendly easy mode.
As for a roll back not being a healthy way to develop, I disagree a rollback and re-evaluation of the changes made and discussion with the community on the direction they would like to see the game going would instill trust within the community that they are in fact trying to build the game that their community will enjoy and not just another WOT money grab. As well as showing us that they are willing to admit to making mistakes and wont stick to this easy mode dumbed down WoWesqe version of the game out of pride. The daddy knows best approach they are taking to the game and its development is what is in fact unhealthy and has been the downfall of many many games that have had huge potential. The proof is in the pudding patch notes and changes they want to make need to be released for discussion long before the patch is to hit the main shard, the players are the ones actually playing the game and generally know it better than the devs themselves. As i understand it a good portion of the dev’s barely even play the game and there is a huge difference between shuffling stats around and on paper changes and having many hours of game play.
As an example i will go back to eve because i think their development team is one of the best in the industry several months ago a portion of player community began protesting the way the game was being developed and the route it was taking. Rather than stick to it and adapt and make changes CCP full stopped what they were doing re-evaluated talked to the community, did a full 180 on their development and did not stick to what they wanted or thought was best, even going so far as to cancel entire new game development to better focus the company on what the community wanted. since they have had a resurgence in the popularity of the game and many subscribers who had quit returning to the game.