DUST Search - The formula to kill a game ;

The Attorney General wrote:

That video interview is from E3 this year.

It is queued up to the dev talking about how after they released the ADS, air vehicles became too dominant, so now they are releasing the anti-air tank.

Now, tell me if you think that ADS are dominating the battlefield. I have never seen such a thing occur. They could not have gotten that info from data mining, because it just doesn't happen, even in pub matches. They certainly didn't data mine PC battles for that info, so where did it come from? The only logical answer is internal testing.

So we have devs taking there new creations out for a spin, then, without seeing how they get used by people who play the game, deciding that they are too strong, and that they need a counter.

So on the one hand, we have a majority of vehicle and AV users agreeing that DS's are just trash, but the Devs seem to think they were dominating.

That level of disconnect needs to be explained somehow, and I just can't do it.

But I do know that it does not bode well for the future if that is how the devs are thinking.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Crash Monster Snipers Anonymous 724	Posted - 2013.06.23 10:35:00 - [1] - Quote OP, you are just butthurt because CCP is making their game and not yours. Perhaps you were in early beta or something and think you have some say in how the game will develop... but all of your opinions are just as subjective as mine or anyone elses. Get over yourself. Like the game. Don't like the game. CCP is not the company that is going to make a pure FPS along the lines of your basement fantasies. Don't blame me. That's something that anyone should be able to see as this game is played within the Eve universe. That wasn't my idea. That wasn't your idea. We'll have to see if CCP can pull it off. That is their idea (as far as I can tell). Finally, whining and crying is no constructive. However, if you want to make petty lists and hope for the heavy duty trolling and complaining to appear after the fact -- knock yourself out.
Crash Monster Snipers Anonymous 726	Posted - 2013.06.23 10:44:00 - [2] - Quote Banning Hammer wrote: Really ...... You fanboys try to hard , sit back for a second, analyze the game, think about all the things that could make this game better... then read my post again. Did you even read my post? I'm telling you -- it's not about what I think the game should be either. I'm aware of the issues. If you paid attention you'd see me mention problems or things that need fixing here and there as well when I'm not arguing against ****posters. However, you have to remember that other people will have different ideas about what they want in the game. Maybe there are tons of folks with a hardon for the RPG elements, the EVE integration, etc, etc. It's CCP's game and where their views cross the items on your list -- we'll you won't be getting it your way. Same goes for me. I, however, can deal with the fact that I am not making this game.
Crash Monster Snipers Anonymous 726	Posted - 2013.06.23 10:59:00 - [3] - Quote Ferren Devarri wrote: - Follow a Pay to Win model in a FPS game ( Check ) - Release a closed Beta as an Official Release ( Check ) - Create a Lobby Shooter and then call it a MMOFPS ( Check ) These lines are the rookie mistakes that has bit DUST in its ass, and will continue to do so with a half-assed game with little developer interest besides short term gains from those people so desperate for an 'edge' that they're willing to pour hundreds of dollars into a dead end product. The rest are subjective evaluations, as you can have an RPG and skill system in any game, as long as it's implimented properly. Hey, OP, look... someone who can actually make a decent post on the subject... though we can argue whether we agree with the items selected. - Most people feel that we don't have a P2W model, but it's something to keep an eye on. - The release has issues that need fixing, pretty much universally agreed. - At the moment we don't really have MMOFPS in the game.
Crash Monster Snipers Anonymous 726	Posted - 2013.06.23 11:14:00 - [4] - Quote Ferren Devarri wrote: Crash Monster wrote: Hey, OP, look... someone who can actually make a decent post on the subject... though we can argue whether we agree with the items selected. - Most people feel that we don't have a P2W model, but it's something to keep an eye on. - The release has issues that need fixing, pretty much universally agreed. - At the moment we don't really have MMOFPS in the game. CCP has a bad history of scam shops for those who care to look up $70 monocles on google and see what they come up with. The fact that they allow players to buy prototype-grade equipment that can cut out months or years of active play and passive gains is, in effect, pay-2-win. It's got the interesting side effect of being a diminishing return now that people are already in proto-gear, but it still gives payers an edge over non-payers. I understand your view... I don't share it. CCP is a company that needs to make money for it's effort somehow. Did they make mistakes? Yep. Have they learned from them? For SP, I don't consider speeding up progress P2W in the sense that a free player, who never pays money, has no right to complain that a short cut is available for fee. It's if there is move to giving paying people the ability to get items that non-paying people cannot that I'll get concerned. I do however agree this is something to keep a close eye on... because nobody likes P2W if it's really present.
Crash Monster Snipers Anonymous 726	Posted - 2013.06.23 11:17:00 - [5] - Quote Banning Hammer wrote: Fine, no point arguing with brainwash fanboys, you right and i'm wrong, happy now ? Don't be so childish. Unless you are arguing with someone else... I'm just saying it's not about what you want and it's not about what I want. That isn't a fanboy/hater issue.
Crash Monster Snipers Anonymous 729	Posted - 2013.06.23 11:41:00 - [6] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: I do not agree with your opinion here. I think it is absolutely about what we want. If CCP were interested in making a game for themselves, they could have done so internally. They instead chose to make a game for public consumption. Further, they then decided to attempt to monetize that project. At that point it becomes central to their goal to attend to what the customer base wants. So it is about what we want, we just want different things. Also, we have different levels of patience. Mine is running out, while yours seems to continue to endure. Good for you, but maybe I just have more experience with CCP to see where this is heading. Finally, someone who can argue a point and make sense! I don't think this is a situation where either of us are wrong. The question really is whether or not CCP has a direction in mind already. If they are going for a target then they already have a view of the customer they want -- if they aren't, then we are in for interesting times. It's also possible that the target customer they had in mind doesn't exist. Then we'd also be in for interesting times as it seems they are willing to evolve over time to either find customers or accumulate those that fit into their customer view. The Attorney General wrote: Also, it is a fanboy/hater issue, because any critical post on these forums finds a CCP ball licker quickly getting in here to act a fool. In this thread it was Sir Petersen, but there is always one. Some blind, semi-autistic dotard who feels the need to express solidarity with CCP as if the critics were the Gestapo. Too many fanfests make developers lazy and unoriginal. Too many fanboys make games stale and bad. Perhaps, but you look at it from one side as well. There's balance. We have haters and fanboys. So what. Somehow people think that CCP has no ability to review comments in a critical way and look at the issues being discussed from both viewpoints and take what fits into their own vision. Seriously? By the way, if we had 100,000 fanboys playing at a time the game would be great success wouldn't it? No matter how many haters we accumulate they will never be a measure of its success until they stop being haters.
Crash Monster Snipers Anonymous 732	Posted - 2013.06.23 13:57:00 - [7] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: That video interview is from E3 this year. It is queued up to the dev talking about how after they released the ADS, air vehicles became too dominant, so now they are releasing the anti-air tank. Now, tell me if you think that ADS are dominating the battlefield. I have never seen such a thing occur. They could not have gotten that info from data mining, because it just doesn't happen, even in pub matches. They certainly didn't data mine PC battles for that info, so where did it come from? The only logical answer is internal testing. So we have devs taking there new creations out for a spin, then, without seeing how they get used by people who play the game, deciding that they are too strong, and that they need a counter. So on the one hand, we have a majority of vehicle and AV users agreeing that DS's are just trash, but the Devs seem to think they were dominating. That level of disconnect needs to be explained somehow, and I just can't do it. But I do know that it does not bode well for the future if that is how the devs are thinking. I can't say where the concept comes from but I'm not sure it's a good idea to assume it must come from internal testing. I just thought they had a whole range of roles and vehicles that they were considering. Also, if you want to go into these things you have to be careful of timing. Do you remember people complaining that they could not aim upwards high enough? Various changes have been made previously and it is very possible that some of those changes are coming back out.