Hypernaut1 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Blame is on them also for not saying it is work in progress. Steve did word that quite horribly, and it sounded omnious. He could have said that rework is work in progress and everything can be changed based on feedback. His statement sounded like change is already decided. i thought he did say this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invalid_Infinity Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 how can you not see this is misinformation? no it doesn't mean that at all. Youre jumping to ridiculous conclusions based on little knowledge and little foresight. where did they say " players will burn through game faster!" they didnt, and obviously it wont be a static 20 nodes that people play once. You are doing the same thing by saying "obviously it wont be a static 20 nodes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboDoge Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) i thought he did say this? He said this in devstream that followed one where he announced it. Last one i think. Edited June 8, 2015 by RoboDoge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaugahn Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Blame is on them also for not saying it is work in progress. Steve did word that quite horribly, and it sounded omnious. He could have said that rework is work in progress and everything can be changed based on feedback. His statement sounded like change is already decided. Even though it was bad wording, the meaning was pretty clear. As usual, the community just jumped the gun a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invalid_Infinity Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Even though it was bad wording, the meaning was pretty clear. As usual, the community just jumped the gun a bit. Note that whenever we don't jump the gun something bad happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypernaut1 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 You are doing the same thing by saying "obviously it wont be a static 20 nodes". difference is i'm coming to that conclusion based on EVERYTHING they talked about. and based on just simple logic really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaugahn Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Note that whenever we don't jump the gun something bad happens. That is 100% false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypernaut1 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) Note that whenever we don't jump the gun something bad happens. like? They made a few horrible choices, but i remember them being quickly reverted when they had a basis in reality. Edited June 8, 2015 by Hypernaut1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboDoge Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 As long as i can choose mission type that i want, on planet that i want freely, i am satisfied. Not gonna care much about given tileset or even mob types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invalid_Infinity Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 difference is i'm coming to that conclusion based on EVERYTHING they talked about. and based on just simple logic really. Then I have to ask if they will have all of the mission types will be available at all times for all factions. If not then it is not improving anything at all. like? Chroma and we barely salvaged that fiasco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KvotheTheArcane1 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Even though it was bad wording, the meaning was pretty clear. As usual, the community just jumped the gun a bit. Not without reason. If the community doesn't jump on something can call it a bad idea, it won't change. I.E., the void datamining debacles, or the averted XP change. Hell, it doesn't ALWAYS work though, i.e. removing infested from the star chart, moving infested research mats to the OD, etc. difference is i'm coming to that conclusion based on EVERYTHING they talked about. and based on just simple logic really. WHAT simple logic did you use before the last devstream? What I got from the devstream was that their plan was to do a 20 node alert-esque system, along with some dumb key building, which would probably be fethed up like it always has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaugahn Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) Then I have to ask if they will have all of the mission types will be available at all times for all factions. If not then it is not improving anything at all. Chroma and we barely salvaged that fiasco. Here's a quote from the last devstream, which you supposedly watched: "every time something is proposed we ask ourselves, can I still access 100% of the content, rewards, and gear. So that is to say, if a certain mod like Malicious Raptor drops off the Powerfist, Powerfists need to be on the star chart at any time so people can actively go for that mod. It's not like this type of accessibility is going to go away." Also, if you think Chroma was a fiasco you're so far off the mark it isn't even funny. Chroma's release was a perfect example of the problems in this community. Not without reason. If the community doesn't jump on something can call it a bad idea, it won't change. I.E., the void datamining debacles, or the averted XP change. Hell, it doesn't ALWAYS work though, i.e. removing infested from the star chart, moving infested research mats to the OD, etc. The difference between those and this is that those things actually happened or were in the process of happening, where as this is a half-formed idea explicitly stated to be nowhere near final. Edited June 8, 2015 by vaugahn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrsrkr Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Then I have to ask if they will have all of the mission types will be available at all times for all factions. If not then it is not improving anything at all. Chroma and we barely salvaged that fiasco. Fiasco?Ehrmagerd this helmet is uglehh DE pls fix Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invalid_Infinity Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Here's a quote from the last devstream, which you supposedly watched: "every time something is proposed we ask ourselves, can I still access 100% of the content, rewards, and gear. So that is to say, if a certain mod like Malicious Raptor drops off the Powerfist, Powerfists need to be on the star chart at any time so people can actively go for that mod. I't not like this type of accessibility is going to go away." Also, if you think Chroma was a fiasco you're so far off the mark it isn't even funny. Chroma's release was a perfect example of the problems in this community. The difference between those and this is that those things actually happened or were in the process of happening, where as this is a half-formed idea explicitly stated to be nowhere near final. Or a perfect example of how off the latest frames have been. I have learned that what DE says and what they do are two very different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboDoge Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Or a perfect example of how off the latest frames have been. I have learned that what DE says and what they do are two very different things. True, to some degree. They had bright moments also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
--.B.--HARDCOREDAVE- Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) As long as i can choose mission type that i want, on planet that i want freely, i am satisfied. Not gonna care much about given tileset or even mob types. I also want the choice whom and what I want to fight on that day it gives me flexibility that's what makes this game unique over the others it tailor fits what your playstyle and what you want to achieve atm I am glad we did not BEND and just take such a game changing and that we resisted shows that we care about the game so much that its worth fighting for those people that want everything nerfed will never understand why we are opposing the change. Edited June 9, 2015 by HARDCORE_DAVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisk1991 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) You must realize that they are suggesting cutting nearly all of the nodes in this game down to a mere 20. You know what that means? Faster star chart progression. That means players burn through the game faster. That means players run out of things to do. That means players will get bored faster and leave the game faster. As someone who's spent 1000+ hours playing the game I can tell you that the fact that I've yet to complete the star chart is not the reason I keep coming back, or even something I'm actively pursuing for that matter. Also how does the presence of 4 for all intents and purposes identical missions (Same mission, ememies, and tile set) on say Eris enrich the game in a way that's more meaningful than say playing just one of them 4 times considering the aforementioned similarities? Also I really dislike the implication that we're going to be "Locked" at any given number of nodes with no possibility of expansion to the planets or solar system as a whole. Edited June 9, 2015 by Basilisk1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaugahn Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Or a perfect example of how off the latest frames have been. I have learned that what DE says and what they do are two very different things. If they released Excalibur today people would have complained how he was "off". Complaining about art direction is a wonderful combination of nostalgia goggles and ignorance. I am glad we did not BEND and just take such a game changing and that we resisted shows that we care about the game so much that its worth fighting for those people that want everything nerfed will never understand why we are opposing the change. There wasn't anything to take. None of those things were confirmed as even planned to happen. Also, nice job conflating balance and larger game design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KvotheTheArcane1 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) The difference between those and this is that those things actually happened or were in the process of happening, where as this is a half-formed idea explicitly stated to be nowhere near final. You mean like their purposed new XP system which promoted leeching? Point is, time and again have proven forum rage has gotten things fixed/changed quicker, or nipped problems in the bud. And you know, the big rage was before steve bothered to mention to us that it was simply an idea, which sounds like a load of backpedaling to me. Edited June 9, 2015 by KvotheTheArcane1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaugahn Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 You mean like their purposed new XP system which promoted leeching? Point is, time and again have proven forum rage has gotten things fixed/changed quicker, or nipped problems in the bud. That new XP system was like "guys, we're going to do this", and everyone said no. This is like "hey, here's an idea we had" and everyone spends 60 pages acting like that idea is set in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KvotheTheArcane1 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) That new XP system was like "guys, we're going to do this", and everyone said no. This is like "hey, here's an idea we had" and everyone spends 60 pages acting like that idea is set in stone. Because that was all the info we had. Can you please quote me a timestamp (rough time stamp, i.e. "around 23:00") or a simple quote from the FIRST dev stream where DE said it was an idea/example/whatever being tossed around/still in design. The XP changes clearly weren't set in stone either, it was an idea they had. Just like if the community didn't react to this change negatively, it'd be DE going "guys, we're going to do this" Edited June 9, 2015 by KvotheTheArcane1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)WiiConquered Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 That new XP system was like "guys, we're going to do this", and everyone said no. This is like "hey, here's an idea we had" and everyone spends 60 pages acting like that idea is set in stone. It wasn't an idea; it was a plan. There's a huge difference. A plan is a framework built around an idea. DE was already building around the idea of a starchart rework, and they had some specific details to give as well. It was those details that people reacted to most. I'd bet under 5% of the player base would be opposed to a starchart rework, or to some reduction of nodes. Not many are reacting to the ideas of reducing node counts, or the idea of a revamped alert system. They're reacting to the specifics, the details, for those ideas--reducing the nodes to ~20, making interactions with bosses rely on a beefed up alert system. Now the reasons for some are certainly flawed, but you can't just lump everyone together and dismiss us all at once. People have raised valid points, and it's frustrating when the response to those points is "but it wasn't already being rolled out!" Of course not; no one waits until the house burned down to call the firefighters. DE gave a plan, we didn't like it, and now DE is apparently revising that plan. Not everyone was acting like the plan was set in stone. Many, including me, just didn't want it to get that far in its current state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaugahn Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Because that was all the info we had. Can you please quote me a timestamp (rough time stamp, i.e. "around 23:00") or a simple quote from the FIRST dev stream where DE said it was an idea/example/whatever being tossed around/still in design. The XP changes clearly weren't set in stone either, it was an idea they had. Just like if the community didn't react to this change negatively, it'd be DE going "guys, we're going to do this" Five minutes in. Note that this is the second stream, and they acknowledged that the last stream was very confusing (due to Steve being a doofus, mostly). If you watch the first stream around 56 minutes you'll hear them talking about the proposal using words like "planning", "idea", "suggested", "working on", stuff that seemed to me to pretty clearly imply they weren't finished. Combine that with the vagueness of the proposal and you can see why many people arrived at the conclusion that it was a half-formed idea. The XP changes as I remember them were two different ideas that were both put forward, one of which wasn't very good. I'd like to point out that you seem to believe negativity is the only way to convey that something is a bad idea, which isn't exactly true either. Negativity and vitriol are best used to rally people already on your side, if you're trying to communicate something to someone else being polite will get your point across much better. Not everyone was acting like the plan was set in stone. Many, including me, just didn't want it to get that far in its current state. I agree. If they had carried down that line of thought, the rework could have been disastrous. To me, it seems like more of a "calling the firefighters before the fire's started" type of thing. Edited June 9, 2015 by vaugahn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KvotheTheArcane1 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Five minutes in. Note that this is the second stream, and they acknowledged that the last stream was very confusing (due to Steve being a doofus, mostly). If you watch the first stream around 56 minutes you'll hear them talking about the proposal using words like "planning", "idea", "suggested", "working on", stuff that seemed to me to pretty clearly imply they weren't finished. Combine that with the vagueness of the proposal and you can see why many people arrived at the conclusion that it was a half-formed idea. Again, where or when in the FIRST stream did they mention ANYTHING about it being ANYTHING more than a nebulous idea? You wanna wonder why people freaked out? because it seemed like it was set in stone, because, again, DE #*($%%@ up what they needed to communicate (well, mostly steve there since he was being @(*()$ around like an unprofessional &#!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaugahn Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Again, where or when in the FIRST stream did they mention ANYTHING about it being ANYTHING more than a nebulous idea? You wanna wonder why people freaked out? because it seemed like it was set in stone, because, again, DE #*($%%@ up what they needed to communicate (well, mostly steve there since he was being @(*()$ around like an unprofessional !). It didn't seem set in stone at all...half of it was vague in the extreme, they wouldn't stop laughing enough to actually talk about it, and everything was "planned" or "proposed". Yes, it was a bad proposal. It was clearly a proposal though, and thinking otherwise was a feat of selective listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now