Old systems are not better systems simply because they are old.

[Morloc]

maybe don't show us where the package is

This might be a "fun" feature of level 5 quests...OR perhaps a different category...like now we have "Fetch", "Clear", "Infested". TFP could add "Lost (or Hidden) Supplies" as a quest type. People who like that sort of thing could choose that quest, others who prefer a more grab-and-run quest could ignore them.

If this turned out to be too difficult, perhaps a marker could show up based on the player's treasure hunting skill at a certain (very small) radius.

 

[Roland]

Or complain until a town hall is held and they change the game to match what you want. Squeeky wheel gets the grease.

Here’s the the thing though. Most of the squeakiest of wheels were squeaking due to longstanding complaints and badges, yetis, mummies, and smoothies were just the excuse to bring up all the butt hurt from years past.

Yes, TFP is making adjustments in line with very valid criticisms. But at the end of the day spitters are still in and yetis are still in…they will just appear different. Biome hazards are still in but now you craft the solutions rather than complete tasks for the solutions. The biomes can be settled in any order but they are surely going to up the threat significantly to the point that most players will mostly progress in the same order anyway.

I do agree that the proposed changes will improve the 2.0 additions. But will that really oil up the wheels who still have no jars, still must search for magazines, still have to progress by spending skill points, and still must interact with traders and do quests, and still must explore POIs with sleepers and trigger points? None of that is changing at all.

TFP always makes adjustments to their new features based on player feedback. They almost never remove features or revert to previous mechanics regardless of player outcry and they didn’t this time either. It was just more dramatic this time.

 

[Morloc]

It was just more dramatic this time.

 

[Kalen]

TFP always makes adjustments to their new features based on player feedback. They almost never remove features or revert to previous mechanics regardless of player outcry and they didn’t this time either. It was just more dramatic this time.

Except for Item degradation, which I'm very pleased to see

 

[theFlu]

But will that really oil up the wheels who still have no jars, still must search for magazines, still have to progress by spending skill points, and still must interact with traders and do quests, and still must explore POIs with sleepers and trigger points?

At least this particular wheel will keep squeaking, about, well, all of that.. muh biggest gripes with the update were the 1) tick-box lists to get the 2) good boy badges and the weird implementation of the storms... I'm glad those are getting some attention, but that obviously doesn't give me satisfying lake mechanics.

 

[Kyoji]

Here’s the the thing though. Most of the squeakiest of wheels were squeaking due to longstanding complaints and badges, yetis, mummies, and smoothies were just the excuse to bring up all the butt hurt from years past.

Yes, TFP is making adjustments in line with very valid criticisms. But at the end of the day spitters are still in and yetis are still in…they will just appear different. Biome hazards are still in but now you craft the solutions rather than complete tasks for the solutions. The biomes can be settled in any order but they are surely going to up the threat significantly to the point that most players will mostly progress in the same order anyway.

I do agree that the proposed changes will improve the 2.0 additions. But will that really oil up the wheels who still have no jars, still must search for magazines, still have to progress by spending skill points, and still must interact with traders and do quests, and still must explore POIs with sleepers and trigger points? None of that is changing at all.

TFP always makes adjustments to their new features based on player feedback. They almost never remove features or revert to previous mechanics regardless of player outcry and they didn’t this time either. It was just more dramatic this time.

Yetis and spitters weren't the issue it was the design being out of place.

It's also not a zero sum game. It's alright to have many things accomplished but not everything. People will still ask for jars, fishing, etc but while they are asking they will still be much happier with the game and it's direction.

Also the idea isn't to please everyone but to see valid criticism and make adjustments that don't conflict with the direction of the game. It's what they did and it was good.

Either way I think this was a win for TFP IMO. We may never get a proper LBD system for this game and I am fine with that as I understand there have to be constraints for development and doing a 180 would be time consuming. That being said even Laz has stated that his ideal system would be a combination of LBD and perks which is a statement I agree with. So while we may never get that, the feedback may effect future titles.

I understand people who love the game can get frustrated at the 100th post asking for something different and there are many who don't word things properly when asking for those things. I also think that whatever it may be it's always best practice to criticize the argument and not the person as everyone wants what they think will be positive for the game just a difference of opinion on how to get there.

 

[Corwyhn]

One critique... this is faulty logic. That isn't the only reason why they would want to add options to disable things. They know some people prefer sandbox, so they made it possible to disable the things that took away from that sandbox experience, while at the same time adding the things that fit in with their story plans for those who are more interested in that. Knowing that some will like something and some will not and adding an option is not the same thing as thinking it's a bad idea. And I'm saying that even though I'm not a fan of any form of gating mechanic in this game.

If adding options was proof that a mechanic was a bad idea, then you'd also be saying that having zombies in the game or horde nights in the game were thought to be bad ideas as well, considering those also have the ability to be disabled.

Agree with you completely. Too many players equate "bad idea" to simply what they dont want and "good idreas" to things they do want. Think is no one player is the whole game audience. I like storms. I like biomes having debuffs (not how FP implemented it but loved the general idea of it).

Everyone should love more options in the game settings as it lets us each play how we want without dictating to others how they should play.

 

[grz__]

Agree with you completely. Too many players equate "bad idea" to simply what they dont want and "good idreas" to things they do want. Think is no one player is the whole game audience. I like storms. I like biomes having debuffs (not how FP implemented it but loved the general idea of it).

Everyone should love more options in the game settings as it lets us each play how we want without dictating to others how they should play.

I agree, but when I make a suggestion, I try to focus on the vision of the original game, and not change it to my taste, I could ask to introduce medieval armor and shields, or I can also play bannerlord 2.

 

[Riamus]

I agree, but when I make a suggestion, I try to focus on the vision of the original game, and not change it to my taste, I could ask to introduce medieval armor and shields, or I can also play bannerlord 2.

Are you responding to the right thing? This was related to whether or not having options to disable hazards or storms had to be because they though it was a bad idea or just that they knew some people prefer sandbox and decided to allow both choices. Not sure how that relates to what you said, unless I'm missing something?

 

[grz__]

Are you responding to the right thing? This was related to whether or not having options to disable hazards or storms had to be because they though it was a bad idea or just that they knew some people prefer sandbox and decided to allow both choices. Not sure how that relates to what you said, unless I'm missing something?

The comment refers to player ideas, at the beginning of the thread ideas are suggested for the game, which may not focus on the vision of the original game, of course I am in favor of options, and that others do not dictate how I have to play. I have suggested it several times, increase the options. I know there are people who think that the options for storms and progression are there because they think it is bad.