|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Naturi Riclenore
BetaMax.
120
   |
Posted - 2013.01.15 18:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
I myself have brought this up as well; they give us these tidbits of info, and it only causes more ?????? and deer-in-headlight looks. No one is asking for an in-depth look / analysis of every little thing, but a little high level detail about how is "should" work would be nice.
Case in point: When they changed the content streaming. They said "We made some changes to content streaming server. you should definitely play ambush." First off, no one knew what they even meant by content streaming. So no one knew what to look for. On top of that, it was broken, so no one even saw anything different to try and determine if it was broken, cause no one knew it was broken, cause we had no idea what to look for. Had CCP said "We made some changes to content streaming server. You should definitely play ambush as the sky may rain down upon you ;) " That statement is still vague enough to not give away what would happen, but you know what changes to look for.
The thing is, we get blindsided each new build with stuff that isn't in the patch notes (we know not everything can be), or some crazy nerf / buff that no one knows a reason for. It would be nice to have some information about how many of the systems are "supposed" to work, so we can give better feedback. |
Naturi Riclenore
BetaMax.
120
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 17:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
crazy space 2100046106 wrote:Keep faith, your forum posters not professional game devs
We may not be professional game devs, but many (probably most) of us are very avid gamers and this is not our first pony ride. There are things that work, and things that don't. Problem is, we receive so little communication about how DUST is SUPPOSED to function, that we are under the impression our feedback is totally ignored.
Most here understand that CCP wants us to play and give feedback / point out bugs / issues and they don't want to handhold us. So instead of trying to give specific things to look at, they instead leave it up to us to explore find out things. I'm 100% fine with that, as are most people. But is it really too much trouble to give us some sort of an explanation of how some things are suppose to work.
The devblogs are pretty much a joke to most of us as they contain very little new information; if any new information at all. They stated (back in august) we would be seeing more communication and more devblogs.. Guess how many devblogs have appeared... 3 (THREE)... one which was just announcing open beta, so it really doesn't count.. so 2.
Add to that, they make drastic changes with no warning, and no explanation as to why a change was made. There are also key features missing, which no one can explain why they weren't there from day 1. For instance: This is an FPS, why does it not show my PING and what Server I'm connected to? In Voice Comms, why does it not show who is talking? Why does it not tell me 1. I'm SL and 2. If SL has changed. These things have been asked for for at least 4 builds, yet nothing as to why they weren't there, or when we may see them (Wang mentioned a couple of them in a recent Feedback Update thread).
All we are asking for is some 2-way communication.
|
Naturi Riclenore
BetaMax.
120
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Laurent Cazaderon wrote:I get what you mean Bendtner. But would it be relevant for us to judge changes before effectively testing them ?
I guess if it had worked this way in the past, maybe we could have avoided some unpleasant changes like the 2sec timer. That and other stuff dont need any testing for us to know that it's a bad move.
Maybe it's also a man-power issue. Doing such a thing would require much more time from devs and such that they probably dont have.
Caz, there are some things that do not need to be tested to get input on.
As you mentioned, the 2 second timer on grenades. We could have told them "Bad idea.. bad idea... bad idea.. bad idea.." way before the change took place. I'm sure a large number of people have played other FPS's and so right away, that's a bad idea. You just know from experience it's a bad idea.
I played an MMO (not that one) and there was an ability in the game that 100% of the community said "It is EXTREMELY OP.. TAKE IT OUT OF THE GAME AND FIX IT!" Now this wasn't just a minority, or some people thinking it was OP, 100% of the community (EVERYONE) KNEW it was OP and wasn't working properly. 1.5 years later the developer said "We are taking 'OP' ability out of the game because we have found the damage calculation is incorrect." 1.5 years and then they take action, when 100% of the players said "remove it, it's not working properly." The developer listened to nothing the community had to say, and implemented some pretty poor stuff that no one wanted to start with. We just don't want to see that happen with DUST.
On top of that, they announced 2 new game variations today, then don't say what the game variations are.. WTF. How come you can't tell us what the game variations are? We have to try random games to even try and see the new variations (which you may or may not see due to the matchmaking system). So we are randomly thrown into matches, so we MIGHT see a new game variation and we MIGHT not. How are we suppose to test that?
We just want a 2-way roadand feel they are at least somewhat interested in our opinions. |
|
|
| |
|