PC Feedback for The Fun Pimps on Alpha 17

[meganoth]

Maybe the sandbox game design wasn't drawing as much audience as I thought..?

Well, the orginal kickstarter page as the most reliable witness points to the fact that they never intended to make a relatively pure sandbox game. The sandbox was just one of the the first parts that was implemented. Roland also said this multiple times but he also said to use a wrench on mines, so nobody believes him anymore :fat:

If you are in doubt, read the kickstarter page. Really. Details may have changed from what the kickstarter promised, but they always wanted to do a genre-mix.

 

[Roland]

Roland also said this multiple times but he also said to use a wrench on mines, so nobody believes him anymore :fat:

I am so often misunderstood. I was always talking about A17.3. In A17.3 you will be able to pick up mines by using a wrench.

 

[FileMachete]

Have to agree to disagree a bit w you @meganoth on a17 changes not forcing gameplay changes.

Biggest one for me was the inability to melee defend a horde night base. Months later they've added options to, I guess, make something a16 like possible, but I haven't tested the settings.

And that's mainly due to the GS or zed's it calls, whichever, ramping too quickly so, along with the complete lack of incentive loot wise on horde nights, I wind up running myself out of town, heh.

Add that the significant majority of pois are now dungeons. Digging z's so now mines must be 40 or so blocks deep or ore mines starting at surface need a bunch more defensive work than previous.

Basically more than half the major things to do in-game are significantly different now than in a16, and not for the better, currently, imo.

Now fully agree that MM & TFPs have lately given some indications that apparently there's a lot coming that may well resolve/balance/polish some things, and that's great, looking forward to it.

But for me personally, well, a17 hasn't been all that much fun compared to a16. Which is ok. I've certainly recieved more than fair value, nor am I heading for the exit.

Peace

 

[meganoth]

Have to agree to disagree a bit w you @meganoth on a17 changes not forcing gameplay changes.

I meant that in the general sense, i.e. if you prefered building over scavenging, nothing prevents you from doing mostly building. If you prefered scavenging instead nothing prevents you from doing mostly scavenging.

Difficulty definitely has gone up but that is true for building AND scavenging. The only change I see is that in our co-op sessions we team up a lot more often. But I don't see that anyone of us has changed much, i.e. suddenly changed into a killer machine or started farming xp or hid himself somewhere. Generally everyone should have just turned down difficulty one step to be in a similar situation to A16. We didn't do that because we were playing at a difficulty that was one step too low already, the change in A17 was just the right fit your us

Biggest one for me was the inability to melee defend a horde night base. Months later they've added options to, I guess, make something a16 like possible, but I haven't tested the settings.

And that's mainly due to the GS or zed's it calls, whichever, ramping too quickly so, along with the complete lack of incentive loot wise on horde nights, I wind up running myself out of town, heh.

The fast ramping up of zombies in A17.1 was a bug and fixed. And if the game now still feels like it is ramping up too quickly, turn down the difficulty one step, this decreases GS immediately.

Add that the significant majority of pois are now dungeons. Digging z's so now mines must be 40 or so blocks deep or ore mines starting at surface need a bunch more defensive work than previous.

If you use an auger, then yes. If you use an axe, an ore mine starting at the surface does not feel much different from A16. This was at least my experience when I was operating a surface mine in our last co-op game.

PS: Since we talked about that previously: If you want to see the end result of our surface mine, I posted 3 pictures of the horde base we built down there eventually: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?112326-New-Auger-Heat-and-its-Problems&p=959725#post959725 . We never put up any protection at the mine edge and even used augers a lot which gave us lots of screamer visits. In SP I probably would add protection and/or use axe though.

Basically more than half the major things to do in-game are significantly different now than in a16, and not for the better, currently, imo.

Now fully agree that MM & TFPs have lately given some indications that apparently there's a lot coming that may well resolve/balance/polish some things, and that's great, looking forward to it.

But for me personally, well, a17 hasn't been all that much fun compared to a16. Which is ok. I've certainly recieved more than fair value, nor am I heading for the exit.

Peace

 

[FileMachete]

I meant that in the general sense, i.e. if you prefered building over scavenging, nothing prevents you from doing mostly building. If you prefered scavenging instead nothing prevents you from doing mostly scavenging. Difficulty definitely has gone up but that is true for building AND scavenging. The only change I see is that in our co-op sessions we team up a lot more often. But I don't see that anyone of us has changed much, i.e. suddenly changed into a killer machine or started farming xp or hid himself somewhere. Generally everyone should have just turned down difficulty one step to be in a similar situation to A16. We didn't do that because we were playing at a difficulty that was one step too low already, the change in A17 was just the right fit your us

ah, ok, fair point on choices. I was thinking a bit more granularly. Like previous starting game scavenging felt more 'natural' & was quicker, prior to all the dungeons. There are still a few scattered non-dungeon pois, but not enough imo. And as you said, it's still a viable choice in a17.

The fast ramping up of zombies in A17.1 was a bug and fixed. And if the game now still feels like it is ramping up too quickly, turn down the difficulty one step, this decreases GS immediately.

Now that you mention it you're right, it was a 17.1 game where I just said, "eh, enough" due to all the rads.

My current playthrough in 17.2 is quite strange since I decided to up xp to 200% till lvl 100. Think I was lvl ~115 for day 28 horde night; and it wasn't solid greenies even at a gs of 220 or so.

When I came back for a17exp, last 7dtd I'd played was WoW and Ravenhearst, so I actually upped difficulty a tick for stable.

Right now I'm back at default & been tweaking weapon stats to better fit my expectations.

If you use an auger, then yes. If you use an axe, an ore mine starting at the surface does not feel much different from A16. This was at least my experience when I was operating a surface mine in our last co-op game.
PS: Since we talked about that previously: If you want to see the end result of our surface mine, I posted 3 pictures of the horde base we built down there eventually: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?112326-New-Auger-Heat-and-its-Problems&p=959725#post959725 . We never put up any protection at the mine edge and even used augers a lot which gave us lots of screamer visits. In SP I probably would add protection and/or use axe though.

It was the 17.1 game where I ran a pit mine. No auger, can't deal w the noise. Wound up with a full shoot-through r-concrete wall all around it due to screamers. To be fair though the mine was close to the base and the forges were drawing the screamers.

Now -that's- a pit! ha! :jaw: :biggrin1: (bet that has you grumbling about the ladder climb speed a wee bit huh? )

On diggers in general I'm mainly bothered by the range. I get that if they only sensed you up to say 10 blocks down, then what's the point, but then, to me, 40 blocks, and not bedrock, isn't much different other than aggravation factor.

I use to use a basement as main work area. Now I use the second floor. Never put anything important on first floor. I just fill it in entirely and only a mineshaft goes through it. No way am I going up and down 40+ blocks to tend forges, heh.

So I wind up w a cramped 5x5 work area on second floor. My choice of course. :loco:

 

[meganoth]

Now -that's- a pit! ha! :jaw: :biggrin1: (bet that has you grumbling about the ladder climb speed a wee bit huh? )

Yes and no, because the zombies were slow on ladders as well. So while they were trundling down the ladder as if inside a slow elevator we could snipe them like ducks on a conveyor belt in an amusement park :fat: . Great fun.

On diggers in general I'm mainly bothered by the range. I get that if they only sensed you up to say 10 blocks down, then what's the point, but then, to me, 40 blocks, and not bedrock, isn't much different other than aggravation factor.

I use to use a basement as main work area. Now I use the second floor. Never put anything important on first floor. I just fill it in entirely and only a mineshaft goes through it. No way am I going up and down 40+ blocks to tend forges, heh.

So I wind up w a cramped 5x5 work area on second floor. My choice of course. :loco:

Well, the reason for the bedrock loophole is probably that if you really really want a zombie-safe area you show that desire by going down those 40 blocks. It's an acceptable compromise because ore mining isn't good at bedrock anymore. We do that second floor workspace thingy as well.

 

[FileMachete]

Yes and no, because the zombies were slow on ladders as well. So while they were trundling down the ladder as if inside a slow elevator we could snipe them like ducks on a conveyor belt in an amusement park :fat: . Great fun.

ya know... you guys could dig out recesses in the corners and string electric fencing across for z's to fall through no idea if it would get triggered, but could be funny to see sparky's flying by :biggrin1:

Well, the reason for the bedrock loophole is probably that if you really really want a zombie-safe area you show that desire by going down those 40 blocks. It's an acceptable compromise because ore mining isn't good at bedrock anymore. We do that second floor workspace thingy as well.

Good point. And it's not a _huge_ imposition now that I'm semi used to the ladder climb speed, heh.

Starter/early game it's a regular thing for me to dig the 40 down; it's actually easier in a way since digging down with a stone axe is actually the least painful way, and small rocks are really what you're after to make cobblestone.

This playthrough I had a flat-forehead moment and realized rather than having a surface strip mine for clay soil I could just dig out the clay under the base & then fill it back in with cobblestone. Helped to keep busy & productive the first few nights.

 

[meganoth]

ya know... you guys could dig out recesses in the corners and string electric fencing across for z's to fall through no idea if it would get triggered, but could be funny to see sparky's flying by :biggrin1:

Ah, didn't think of that. Wrote it down and will test it.

Good point. And it's not a _huge_ imposition now that I'm semi used to the ladder climb speed, heh.

Starter/early game it's a regular thing for me to dig the 40 down; it's actually easier in a way since digging down with a stone axe is actually the least painful way, and small rocks are really what you're after to make cobblestone.

This playthrough I had a flat-forehead moment and realized rather than having a surface strip mine for clay soil I could just dig out the clay under the base & then fill it back in with cobblestone. Helped to keep busy & productive the first few nights.

That is another good idea. IF the base POI is structurally sound enough to not collapse. In a co-op game a man-made collapse of the craft base is enough for a month of jokes at your expense :smile-new:

 

[FishStyk]

All they can do is follow their own vision.

I disagree. All they can do is follow their own judgment, but that includes learning and adjusting their vision. Game design is a skill like any other, and can be developed and improved. There are game designers that build games for themselves, and hope/expect the players like what they built, and there are game designers that build games for their audience, learning and adjusting as they go.

Sure, any path they take will result in someone being unhappy and ranting at them (like I arguably have been doing), but the difference is that those that build fun games, either because they built a game for themselves that others liked or they built a game for their audience, are more successful and get to make more and better games. Those that do not either fail or remain stuck making niche games on shoe string budgets.

This is all FP’s prerogative, but they have options other than ‘follow their vision’.

I can't say if FP's new direction is right or wrong, nor do I know if they're building the game for themselves or their audience, or whether I'm among the audience they're targeting. What I do know is that there's no way for them to read my mind, so on the chance that I'm part of their target audience, and their willing to adjust course, I'm providing my input

 

[FileMachete]

Ah, didn't think of that. Wrote it down and will test it.

Was curious myself so just tested. Worked sometimes, and the, err, "fatties" seemed more likely to get shocked (blame TFPs!), but even then I don't think even 50% were triggering the fence

Only had one strung across a few blocks down from lip since test hole wasn't that deep.

You might see better results if you have a couple few for z's to fall through on their way down..?

That is another good idea. IF the base POI is structurally sound enough to not collapse. In a co-op game a man-made collapse of the craft base is enough for a month of jokes at your expense :smile-new:

Only a month? your crew is faaar kinder than my old one! :biggrin1:

 

[FishStyk]

People who are having fun typically don't think about how much fun they would've had if the current default were somehow different so for those who are having fun whether they have "complete information" or not is irrelevant.

Fun is not a Boolean. Gaming is a competitive market. Games compete for the limited attention/money of gamers. If a game is less fun, that will result in more players opting to spend their time/money on other games.

The incomplete information is relevant to weighting the feedback of the player base. The assessments of those with less information are less credible. This of course, presumes the FP's are leveraging the assessments of the player base in the first place.

It would take a third party to go and get in their face and explain that they aren't having as much fun as they think they are...

It's not about having less fun than they think they are, it's about less fun than they could be having. When that puts them in the range of 'less fun than they'd have playing other games' this results in less customers.

 

[Roland]

Fun is not a Boolean.

Exactly my point. It is complex and ever shifting-- not only from person to person but even within the same person over time. This is why chasing some perceived idea of what is most fun for the most people is folly. In any creative endeavor the artist must do what is best for their own vision (or judgement if you like that better).

Gaming is a competitive market. Games compete for the limited attention/money of gamers. If a game is less fun, that will result in more players opting to spend their time/money on other games.

This sort of thinking is exactly what gets us carbon copy re-iterations of the same games with numbers at the end or years. It is the mantra of the huge corporate game studios that never risk or experiment or do anything different than what has already been shown to be most fun for the most people in the past. It is exactly because this is a small independent studio that we got an A17 that wasn't simply Alpha Sixteen 2019 or Alpha Sixteen 2-- even though there are those that wanted that.

The incomplete information is relevant to weighting the feedback of the player base. The assessments of those with less information are less credible. This of course, presumes the FP's are leveraging the assessments of the player base in the first place.

All feedback is biased. You want to discredit the feedback of the brand new because they aren't aware of older versions they never played? How about the feedback of the experienced who are burnt out on certain play mechanics and don't find them fun anymore? How about discrediting the feedback of the super knowledgeable who read all the patch notes and even looked at the code so that they understand all the workings under the hood? How about discrediting those with 4000+ hours who can no longer accurately recall what it was like to play the game as a fresh experience?

None of them should be discredited or weighted. But neither should they be chased. TFP should use their own judgement but consider the feedback to tailor slightly what they want to do. Large adjustments can be left to modders who represent the different factions of fun. TFP does leverage the feedback they get from the player base but not to pick a direction. It's usually to try and make the direction they've picked not quite as painful for those who don't want to go.

It's not about having less fun than they think they are, it's about less fun than they could be having. When that puts them in the range of 'less fun than they'd have playing other games' this results in less customers.

Completely subjective. This is nonsensical to try and control, predict, or develop to. What I feel about how much fun I could be having compared to what I'm having will change from day to day. Right now I'm having more fun tinkering with my mod than I am playing. Tomorrow, I might feel that playing another game in my library is going to feel more fun.

You make the game YOU feel is going to be fun and hope that others come along for the ride. TFP has proven to be successful at this.

 

[ZomBella]

You make the game YOU feel is going to be fun and hope that others come along for the ride. TFP has proven to be successful at this.

I agree to a point. I think they did make a great successful game, and for the most part players loved it or it wouldn't have the fan base is has or this massive forum for another, and then they made a lot of poor decisions both in roll out and fundamental changes that undermined their product.

I do also think the devs have somewhat lost touch with what the game was and have tried to make it too many things to too many people or perhaps into something it is not. For example: It is not a triple A title, never was, but I don't think anyone loved it any less for not being one. In fact I know many players love it because it's not. It was never solely an FPS, but it feels like it has tried to shift more in that direction.

A17 really changed the game in a way many long time fans, such as myself, didn't expect nor ask for. We wanted fixes to spinning zombies and instant respawns (which still happen) new POIs and new zombies, not a complete overhaul of xp and removing the perks and point of mining. It no longer has the longevity it once had.

I also agree that mods certainly do help with that longevity, I doubt I'd have 2000 odd hrs racked up without them, but when some fundamental elements are made redundant such as mining, it really does limit the time you spend in game. There are only so many mods you can combine until it's literally unplayable, as in, it doesn't even load.

Going back to the original OP, I think he has a point and is not alone in feeling curtailed in a players choices that were once there and then removed. The devs might not be "directly trying to kill player options." but in implementing 'new behaviors' in the zombies AI, they have done just that.

My 10 cents is: I loved the game: it had exploration, looting, trading, mining, building, you were rewarded for simply playing - it still has many of those things with quests and dungeon houses and more vehicles but now mining is virtually pointless thereto so is base building to a point, and then they made super architectural genius zombies that know exactly which beam to target or block to destroy esp. re-enforced concrete (which they demolish like butter).

Perhaps a solution is that maybe not ALL zombies have these super abilities but some, like cops do?

All I can say is I hope you're right Roland, that this is a change they made and it's still a work in progress and just like diggin zoms and Hawaiian shirt guy, they were reimplemented. Right now, "I might feel that playing another game in my library is going to feel more fun." has been today's flavour and has been for over a month now. I'm waiting for A18 I just hope I don't have to wait almost two years for it.

 

[meganoth]

My 10 cents is: I loved the game: it had exploration, looting, trading, mining, building, you were rewarded for simply playing - it still has many of those things with quests and dungeon houses and more vehicles but now mining is virtually pointless thereto so is base building to a point, and then they made super architectural genius zombies that know exactly which beam to target or block to destroy esp. re-enforced concrete (which they demolish like butter).

If mining is pointless, where do you get the material for building a horde base and all the traps (and repairing it?).

 

[FishStyk]

This sort of thinking is exactly what gets us carbon copy re-iterations of the same games with numbers at the end or years.

Minus creativity and innovation, sure. To think I was advocating for uninventive cookie cutter games is a very ungenerous interpretation of what I’ve said, if not an outwrite straw man.

All feedback is biased. You want to discredit the feedback of the brand new because they aren't aware of older versions they never played?

Let’s be clear here, I didn’t discredit anyone’s feedback, I made a general claim about the relative credibility of an assessment as it relates to the information available at the time of the assessment. Moreover, this line of discussion was in response to you making a similar claim, but in favor of new players. A claim that goes against our best understanding of decision making with incomplete information (from Information Theory). A claim backed solely by your own bias, which you now project upon others.

Completely subjective. This is nonsensical to try and control, predict, or develop to.

Demonstrably wrong. There are game companies that, with creativity, innovation, a strong sense of what’s fun for their audience, and solid game design principles repeatedly produce successful games. They recognize the patterns in what their audience finds enjoyable and build games leveraging those patterns. If this was entirely subjective then that would not be possible.

You make the game YOU feel is going to be fun and hope that others come along for the ride.

That is one of the approaches I mentioned. The cost of that approach is that if developers that follow this path are wrong they go out of business. I acknowledge this approach, contrasted it with others, as well as conceded that it’s TFP’s choice what they do. Our difference here seems to be in that you think this is the only viable path, whereas I see, and advocate for, other paths.

TFP has proven to be successful at this.

Game companies that have repeatedly produced successful games have proven they can develop fun games, TFP has not demonstrated this yet. This is their first game. It’s successful so far, but their changing it and it’s not yet clear if these changes will help or hurt the game, nor is it clear their final vision will be good.

 

[Roland]

I do also think the devs have somewhat lost touch with what the game was....

That is one possibility. Another is that some people didn't understand what the game was destined to be. This goes to the sandbox nature of the game as well. Were the early versions of the game purely sandbox because that was the ultimate intention of the devs but then they lost touch with that or were the early versions of the game purle sandbox because there were missing features that were always planned and then finally implemented which whittled away at the pure sandbox nature of the game? I guess the possibilities people will believe is dependent upon how they feel about the game.

Those who are angry about the changes because they were married to interim and placeholder features will assume negative motives and reasons I suppose.

A17 really changed the game in a way many long time fans, such as myself, didn't expect nor ask for. We wanted fixes to spinning zombies and instant respawns (which still happen) new POIs and new zombies, not a complete overhaul of xp and removing the perks and point of mining. It no longer has the longevity it once had.

Yes, franchises such as Call of Duty, Madden, etc have trained us to expect subsequent releases to be rehashes of what we already know with a few enhancements. Fortunately, as an independent studio with no marketing executives to demand hard release dates and taking no risks with tried and true formulas, TFP experiments and doesn't just churn out Alpha Fifteen 2 and Alpha Fifteen 3 and Alpha Fifteen 4. Alpha 17 is its own iteration and it really is an evolution of the game and despite the love affair that many have for LBD, there is nothing inherently wrong with a Central Pool XP system. Zombie AI is in its first iteration and will be improved. RWG is being improved.

Going back to the original OP, I think he has a point and is not alone in feeling curtailed in a players choices that were once there and then removed. The devs might not be "directly trying to kill player options." but in implementing 'new behaviors' in the zombies AI, they have done just that.

Notice the date of the OP. This is early feedback. Since that time there have been many posts by people who have discovered that base building is not as restrictive as it was originally thought. The problem for some is that they quit before learning to innovate and are now waiting for A18 but still reposting their feelings they had early on. I'm not saying that A17 should be fun for you and others if it isn't. Only you can decide if something is fun for yourself or not. However, saying that choices are curtailed is a statement that was thrown around freely at first but much less so among those who have actually put some time into A17.

All I can say is I hope you're right Roland...

Me too! Hoping for the best can lead to disappointment but worrying about failure only makes you suffer twice.

 

[meganoth]

Game companies that have repeatedly produced successful games have proven they can develop fun games,

If you take 100 dice and throw each of them 5 times and write down the values, you probably will find a few specific dice that totally rock and produce high values for all 5 throws? Those dice must be the so called lucky dice. Right?

But please share the names of those companies. Once people thought Bethesda was among them, not anymore. Some people thought Blizzard could never err, but then the Diablo 3 in-game store was quite a disaster. At the moment CD Project has a clean record, maybe Paradox as well. What are your picks?

 

[FishStyk]

If you take 100 dice and throw each of them 5 times and write down the values, you probably will find a few specific dice that totally rock and produce high values for all 5 throws? Those dice must be the so called lucky dice. Right?

So it’s just random chance, at 5-120 mill per dice roll.

But please share the names of those companies. Once people thought Bethesda was among them, not anymore. Some people thought Blizzard could never err, but then the Diablo 3 in-game store was quite a disaster. At the moment CD Project has a clean record, maybe Paradox as well. What are your picks?

No game company is infallible, especially since they are always in flux as markets, technology, leadership and team compositions change over time. I think Blizzard and Bethesda both have good records, but both got greedy. I also suspect they'll correct course after their latest missteps. At least I hope they do. I think Bioware had a fairly long and solid run, until EA bought them. They made some missteps along the way, but generally showed good judgment and adjusted course quickly as mistakes were made (again, until EA's involvement). I think Valve and Id also have good records. Rockstar. Back in the day, Westwood was solid (until EA). I suspect there are others I've missed.

 

[Roland]

Minus creativity and innovation, sure. To think I was advocating for uninventive cookie cutter games is a very ungenerous interpretation of what I’ve said, if not an outwrite straw man.

Not necessarily you but the sentiment is definitely real. I've lost track of the number of times people (pretty much the same half dozen people) have mused, "Why couldn't they have just done better graphics on Alpha 16 and have called it done?!" And in the industry that sentiment (strategy?) is exactly why we do end up with cookie cutter games.

Let’s be clear here, I didn’t discredit anyone’s feedback, I made a general claim about the relative credibility of an assessment as it relates to the information available at the time of the assessment. Moreover, this line of discussion was in response to you making a similar claim, but in favor of new players. A claim that goes against our best understanding of decision making with incomplete information (from Information Theory). A claim backed solely by your own bias, which you now project upon others.

All I claimed was that new players are predominately finding the game fun based on the feedback. I said that the predominate negative mark against the game by new players is regarding performance and there is very little in the way of negativity regarding the design of the gameplay. You then responded that new players have less credibility as a source of feedback for the devs because they don't know how much fun they could've been having if they had tried Alpha 16. If that is not the very definition of "discrediting" then I don't know what is I suppose. And as far as bias, I'm not sure what kind of bias would lead me to erroneously think that enjoying what is actually happening should always be compared to what enjoyment I might be having under different circumstances. Anti-Multiverse Bias? Are we in an episode of Sliders?

There is no who's right and who's wrong. Everyone is right about the fun they are individually having. If you aren't having fun because you can't help but compare A16 gameplay to A17 gameplay but I am having fun for the same reason we are both right. And then new guy purchases the game tomorrow and starts playing and has a blast...he's right too.

Moreover, if TFP is trying to attract new players with their new money then you bet your bottom dollar that the fun that new players are having is credible regardless of whether those new players have a complete and full understanding of all previous versions of the game and how fun they might have been.

Demonstrably wrong. There are game companies that, with creativity, innovation, a strong sense of what’s fun for their audience, and solid game design principles repeatedly produce successful games. They recognize the patterns in what their audience finds enjoyable and build games leveraging those patterns. If this was entirely subjective then that would not be possible.

I'll give you that there are marketing departments adept at finding out what the masses find fun. They do a good job at keeping games safe and fun for maximum profits. And we can see why. Gamers are not forgiving. They say that they wish game companies would take more risks and try new things but we see what happens when formulas change and gamers don't like the change. Burn the world rage.

That is one of the approaches I mentioned. The cost of that approach is that if developers that follow this path are wrong they go out of business. I acknowledge this approach, contrasted it with others, as well as conceded that it’s TFP’s choice what they do. Our difference here seems to be in that you think this is the only viable path, whereas I see, and advocate for, other paths.

We do disagree. I want TFP to experiment and try new things and go with their instincts. I'm glad they made the changes for A17 instead of just keeping what they had with some graphics and performance boosts. I'm glad they are sticking to their vision. I don't see them going out of business. I see some players who have already put massive time and gotten massive entertainment value for that time possibly moving on to a new game but that isn't horrific. That's normal in this industry. Actually it already is literally a success. If TFP went to a convention and talked to other devs of other studios and said, "yeah, we could only keep some of our players for like 4000 hours before they moved on to a new game". I really doubt those other teams are going to be smugly thinking, "Epic Fail".

This is not to say that they should ignore their longtime players at all. Listen and use their feedback to make slight adjustments.

Game companies that have repeatedly produced successful games have proven they can develop fun games, TFP has not demonstrated this yet. This is their first game. It’s successful so far, but their changing it and it’s not yet clear if these changes will help or hurt the game, nor is it clear their final vision will be good.

It won't be good for some and it will be brilliant for others and meh for still others. Fun is subjective. But I bet it will be fun enough for enough people with them trusting to their own vision that they will stay in business and see lots of interest for their next game.

 

[FishStyk]

Not necessarily you but the sentiment is definitely real. I've lost track of the number of times people …

Fair enough, though this discussion was between us and that was not my argument. I’ll toss this up to a miss communication due to the medium.

All I claimed was that new players are predominately finding the game fun based on the feedback.

You stated this, and that most of the negative feedback was from older players, while defending the latest design changes. I took this as favoring the new players assessments over the older players assessments, but that was my interpretation, and may have been in error, so I’ll take responsibility for that. I apologize if I misunderstood your point.

As for ‘discrediting’ anyone, I don’t find it reasonable to weight all feedback equally. Weighting some feedback less than other feedback is not, imo, discrediting it. I weight the feedback of my mechanic friend over my pet groomer friend when it comes to buying cars, that doesn't mean I'm discrediting their input, just that when their advice conflicts, I'll tend to defer to my mechanic friend. I suggest we agree to disagree on this.

If you aren't having fun because you can't help but compare A16 gameplay to A17 gameplay.

That’s an assumption. I’m not having fun because I don’t like the game anymore. After about 15 hours of trying to enjoy a17, because I really wanted to, I’m done. Like many, I’m waiting until a18. Of the 3k+ hours I’ve played this game, I’m fairly confident that I’d not have made it even to hour 15 if the current gameplay was what I’d first experienced. There’s no way of knowing that for sure, but I’ve a pretty good handle on what I like and don’t like. The point of contrasting it with a16 was to communicate to the developers what changes have altered my degree of interest.

We do disagree. … I'm glad they are sticking to their vision.

I think we understand each other, and can agree to disagree.

If TFP went to a convention and talked to other devs of other studios and said, "yeah, we could only keep some of our players for like 4000 hours before they moved on to a new game". I really doubt those other teams are going to be smugly thinking, "Epic Fail".

Absolutely true, assuming the final game design keeps players that long. If the final shipped game design keeps people like 5 hours before they rage quit or, worse, few players even bother buying the game, then yeah, that’s a fail. In that case, it would be good that they got as much money from the beta as they did, because the early beta would have been more fun than the final game.

I bet it will be fun enough for enough people with them trusting to their own vision that they will stay in business and see lots of interest for their next game.

I hope the final game is fun as well, either because they stick to their vision and it happens to be fun, or because they learn what their players enjoy and adjust course. I'm not making an effort to provide constructive feedback because I want them to burn..?