DUST Search - How long

The Robot Devil wrote:

Malkai Inos wrote:

I'd totally and vehemently disagree with an infantry only mode. What you consider as evidence of an arrogant and lazy developer, I view as the absolutely right decision and true to their original concept in this particular case.

It goes without saying that I agree on quite a few of those points, but you seem to not properly seperate what you want, what the "community" wants, what ccp wants, and what is actually doable(and in what timeframe) as independant, coexisting entities which, when reconciliated, might not entirely please one or all of them.

All they would have to do is use a medium socket with no way out and call it an underground bunker or cave and let us fight without vehicles, we should be able to get away from vehicles but it should be in rotation and not a map that we can select just to make it easier on us. He is correct we do need a vehicle free map but you are just as correct when you say that his listed examples are not evidence that we are not listened to.

You can take a benign object, -you can take a cheeseburger and deconstruct it to its source...

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Malkai Inos Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1289	Posted - 2014.03.21 01:44:00 - [31] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: Malkai Inos wrote: I'd totally and vehemently disagree with an infantry only mode. What you consider as evidence of an arrogant and lazy developer, I view as the absolutely right decision and true to their original concept in this particular case. It goes without saying that I agree on quite a few of those points, but you seem to not properly seperate what you want, what the "community" wants, what ccp wants, and what is actually doable(and in what timeframe) as independant, coexisting entities which, when reconciliated, might not entirely please one or all of them. All they would have to do is use a medium socket with no way out and call it an underground bunker or cave and let us fight without vehicles, we should be able to get away from vehicles but it should be in rotation and not a map that we can select just to make it easier on us. He is correct we do need a vehicle free map but you are just as correct when you say that his listed examples are not evidence that we are not listened to. Again i'd disagree with the map part. No playstyle should ever be completely safe from another.* Large urban parts in maps where vehicles cannot utilize their superior force projection to contrast the open areas where they can? Yes. All maps are sorely lacking in that regard. Whole maps where an entire playstyle (vehicles are a completely different approach to the game, not some gimmick like in most other games) is effectively excluded from participating? A whole mode even? No. Absolutely not. But the specific reasons for our disagreement are besides the point anyways. The important part is that we as a community do, in fact, disagree with each other on some fundamental topics and we do it all the time while we're at it. Forgetting this leads to frustration when CCP doesn't engage seemingly "simple", "clear" problems the way one or the other expects them to. *I ignore infantry/vehicle balance issues for the sake of the argument because it's, despite going on for too long already, temporary. You can take a benign object, -you can take a cheeseburger and deconstruct it to its source...
Malkai Inos Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1289	Posted - 2014.03.21 01:47:00 - [32] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: The Robot Devil wrote: Listening to us is not the same as doing what we say. I listen to my kids but I don't always do what they want, I am not ignoring them but they don't always see the big picture. I guess I have to go back to using the disclaimer already. Do your kids pay your paycheck? They probably will once he retires. You can take a benign object, -you can take a cheeseburger and deconstruct it to its source...
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2078	Posted - 2014.03.21 02:00:00 - [33] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: The Robot Devil wrote: Listening to us is not the same as doing what we say. I listen to my kids but I don't always do what they want, I am not ignoring them but they don't always see the big picture. I guess I have to go back to using the disclaimer already. Do your kids pay your paycheck? I know... No, they do not and even if they did I would not do what they wanted every time they wanted to do. Let me try again. I listen to my wife but we don't always do what she wants like we don't always do what I want, we both pay the bills. One liners don't hurt me because it is just a like generator that you used to try to make me look even more foolish than I already do. Jokes on you because I am balls deep as it is. Not listening and not implementing the suggestions are two totally different things. You do understand that just because we think it is right or want it does not mean that it is good for the game or the players. We do not have a road map of features they are planning on releasing and when. We don't see the limitations they are under due to cost, complexity or staff limitations. Things take time and if you think they can just magically change something and it work perfectly the first time every time then you don't understand coding. We are mad and I get that but that doesn't mean that we are correct in what we think is happening or going to happen. People in EVE complained about the new structures that were introduced. They said they were useless, not needed and that they didn't understand why they were being released. When in reality those changes are the core of all the changes that they have been asking for and the new structures have created content and new tactics for players. Just because we don't understand the reason doesn't always make it bad. I am not saying it is correct or anything like that but complaining everyday in thread after thread is not the way to go about changing their minds or influencing their decisions. They said that is what is happening and there isn't much we can do but try it out, provided constructive feedback and play the game before we jump to conclusions. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2078	Posted - 2014.03.21 02:12:00 - [34] - Quote I know... Malkai Inos wrote: But the specific reasons for our disagreement are besides the point anyways. The important part is that we as a community do, in fact, disagree with each other on some fundamental topics and we do it all the time while we're at it. Forgetting this leads to frustration when CCP doesn't engage seemingly "simple", "clear" problems the way one or the other expects them to. . This is a very good example of what I am trying to say most of the time when I am debating a topic. Having a mode that a player can choose that restricts vesicles is bad but having a map or two that is put in the rotation that is random adds to diversity. If we ever have a map that is a ship in space it will basically be a vehicless map. I just want you to think outside of the common FPS mentality that war should be fair. Nothing in war is fair and by adding a map or two that doesn't have space for a vehicle is just another way to play the game, it doesn't make it bad, it just makes it different. Hopefully in a few years there will be so many maps that we won't have these problems like we do now. My only point is that we shouldn't restrict how they give us tools to use because when we do that we are only restricting ourselves. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 1180	Posted - 2014.03.21 02:15:00 - [35] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: One liners don't hurt me because it is just a like generator that you used to try to make me look even more foolish than I already do. Jokes on you because I am balls deep as it is. I don't care about spacebook likes. If no one "liked" another one of my posts I would continue to live a fulfilling and happy life. The Robot Devil wrote: Not listening and not implementing the suggestions are two totally different things. You do understand that just because we think it is right or want it does not mean that it is good for the game or the players. We do not have a road map of features they are planning on releasing and when. We don't see the limitations they are under due to cost, complexity or staff limitations. Things take time and if you think they can just magically change something and it work perfectly the first time every time then you don't understand coding. I think you are under the impression that I believe CCP can implement whole, bug-free patches every week... I know time is a resource just like money and labor. They will need time to develop Dust, I get that. But you cannot tell me CCP has a roadmap that somehow makes the current state of HAV/AV balance valid and productive. How about the "dead skills" that only has value at levels I, II, and V? What about the complete lack of CEO tools for Dust CEO's? These are things the community has been wanting forever and how much communication have we need given on these topics? Right next to nothing. We are constantly being told things are going to improve, but so far I haven't been impressed by what they have delivered. The Robot Devil wrote: We are mad and I get that but that doesn't mean that we are correct in what we think is happening or going to happen. People in EVE complained about the new structures that were introduced. They said they were useless, not needed and that they didn't understand why they were being released. When in reality those changes are the core of all the changes that they have been asking for and the new structures have created content and new tactics for players. Yes yes, "think of the big picture." If Dust had the depth that Eve did I would actually agree with you. Comparatively Eve is an Olympic diving pool and Dust is the moisture that pooled on my glass coaster. The Robot Devil wrote: They said that is what is happening and there isn't much we can do but try it out, provided constructive feedback and play the game before we jump to conclusions. The community is pissed and you are trying to excuse bad business decisions by saying it's all part of CCP's plan. Sorry, but I'll not be drinking that kool-aid. He imposes order on the chaos of organic evolution...
Rusty Shallows 1178	Posted - 2014.03.21 02:41:00 - [36] - Quote Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: snip Can you please point to the Developer thread laying out changes in vehicle mods and our opinion of them and the polls asking us to rate those changes? Can you do the same for the AV changes in 1.7? Can you do the same for the changes where a DEVELOPER asked the community about the implications of changeing grenades from 3 down to 2?? Pardon me but I have the distinct impresion that CCP just implemented the changes with no forum discourse or input from the playerbase. Not to nitpick but every single Uprising 1.7 nerf was asked for over and over again last year a few people. Many of us also believed buffs on most HAVs and all Dropships were needed. That isn't proof they were listening but it is possible we have good and bad influences on the Devs. I just wish they'd stop caving-in to every nerf demand. CCP Rogue is in place now so if the team fails it's his head. I guess those of us still here will find out from Uprising 1.8 to Fanfest. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2079	Posted - 2014.03.21 02:44:00 - [37] - Quote I know... As you can see I don't go for likes either and I was just poking you a bit. I don't think you specifically think patches will be bug free. Just because it is borked doesn't mean they don't have a plan or are working towards a master plan, balancing is difficult and it is broken now. Dead skills will not stay that way but right now there is nothing for us to use them on because they are growing room. They can't release everything at once, look at EVE's development for examples. I am not impressed with what they have accomplished either but I am not going to just write it off as a feature that will never be here. DUST will have the depth similar to what EVE enjoys but EVE wasn't built in a day or even a year, they just now changed corp stuff to allow for more members and there are plenty of things that EVE pilots want that we haven't received yet all the way from more destroyers to alliance bookmarks. I am not trying to excuse anything but I am trying to bring to light that we don't know what they have planned. Like I said before, there are lots of things they can't talk about because of the NDA and if one of them is a AV medium frame that allows for more grenades or something similar then we all are going to just pat each other on the back but none of use will say that we were wrong for calling them inept. It is shortsighted and ignorant to say that they are borking the game on purpose or don't listen. Use EVE as an example on how the operate and you should see that they try and usually have a plan they are working on. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2079	Posted - 2014.03.21 04:27:00 - [38] - Quote Patrlck 56 wrote: Too long. That's what she said. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page