Please return the old level by playing system

They said that about the glass jars and yet they do come back.

I would prefer a good mix with LBD, perks and recipes. In a way that you can´t abuse the LBD by sitting in the forge and watch arrowheads being crafted.

But the jars are apparently reworked, so if a LBD system comes back, it will be a different LBD system not just returning to the old one.
 
Whatever they do, people will complain about it...

  • Go back the original LBD
    • "I hate LBD, you should have left it as magazines."
    • "You keep changing direction over and over. You're awful devs."
  • Stick to magazines
    • "I hate magazines. Give us back LBD."
    • "Nothing after A16 is any good."
  • Compromise
    • "This is not enough of LBD."
    • "This is too much LBD."

TFP has made some mistakes with how they have handled things related to features. By changing direction on features, they create this break in the players, where they just want to complain about the change in direction. If they had stuck with one option or another and didn't change it, but just worked to improve it, there would be fewer complaints. Yes, you'd still get people complaining and either liking or not liking the implementation, but they'd complain less about it if the direction was constant.

Now, I'm not saying I'm not happy they got rid of LBD, because I am. I'm just saying that the direction changes and back and forth for features just generates a lot of bad feelings among players. I hope they have learned their lesson from this game and that they'll hold off making the next game(s) Early Access until they are sure of the direction they are going and then stick to that direction. But considering they are still flip-flopping on stuff, I don't think they have learned the lesson and they'll end up alienating many of the players who start playing it in the early (and middle) parts of Early Access just like they've done here.
 
Whatever they do, people will complain about it...
Well said.... and as much as I'd love to see a return of LBD in some capacity, its probably best that they don't and stick with the direction they're going. I'm still going to advocate for the changes that I think make a better game, but realistically they should probably go with minor tweaks only.
 
what is their reason for that?
With a quantum of sarcasm:
They want to promote mod makers and mods like: "Learn By Doing Returns".

In all seriosness though, I cannot imagine who would prefer the book hunting over LBD. It is mind numbingly boring. The last few big updates I have given up on the game in record time. It has become so repetitive and survival is being diluted out of the game.

I cannot understand the logic of removing the more intuitive progression system because some people can meta the game and replacing it with a system that teaches everybody to meta the game through a less intuitive gameplay.
 
I'm still going to advocate for the changes that I think make a better game, but realistically they should probably go with minor tweaks only.
Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with suggesting things or even complaining about things. My point was that no matter what they do, they can't "win" because there will always be people upset no matter what they do. I do think they should stop backtracking and just get the game finished, but I also mostly like where the game is right now. I personally would prefer that if they are going to add something to the game that it is something new and not a rehashing of something old so that it does feel like we're moving forward rather than backward.
 
I don't particularly like the gameplay of learning new skills by reading books, magazines, but I do like the concept. After all, we do learn new things by reading information.

Even though I don't like "how" the new system is implemented, I still embrace it and roll with the punches because I enjoy the "core" gameplay of the game.

I've mentioned this before but "learn by doing" does still exist within the game. Just not the old way people got accustomed to.

Instead of getting experience directly by doing a certain action, you now get XP for doing different types of action. Then you distribute that XP into skills of your choice. I can live with that.
 
Whatever they do, people will complain about it...
This same logic would apply to anything whether they go back and reimplement something or come out with something new. The problem isn't whether people would complain or not it is whether it would provide enough benefit to enough players to warrant the change and a myriad of other factors.

How long would it take to develop?
How many players actually want this?
Would this enhance or negatively impact the game?
What negative or positive externalities would come from this change?

Those are the questions they should ask and not so much about whether "some" would complain.

I hope they have learned their lesson from this game and that they'll hold off making the next game(s) Early Access until they are sure of the direction they are going and then stick to that direction. But considering they are still flip-flopping on stuff, I don't think they have learned the lesson and they'll end up alienating many of the players who start playing it in the early (and middle) parts of Early Access just like they've done here.
Early access is all about feedback and it is critical to any game developer. How developers respond to that feedback is of the upmost importance to their games future.

The issue, IMO, isn't changing direction it's whether that new direction is better or worse than the old version. If the new implementation is better than the previous version then very few would complain.
 
The issue, IMO, isn't changing direction it's whether that new direction is better or worse than the old version. If the new implementation is better than the previous version then very few would complain.
And who decides if it's better? The community?

Who? ... Even if 1000 players post their disappointment (or praise) after the change, it would still be a vocal marginal minority of the player base.
How do you really can know if that's the general community's sentiment?

That's why, in the end, the decision needs to be TFP's and only theirs.
Only AFTER they've added, changed or reverted something, they could hear feedback from several sources and optionally correct the aim.
 
And who decides if it's better? The community?

Who? ... Even if 1000 players post their disappointment (or praise) after the change, it would still be a vocal marginal minority of the player base.
How do you really can know if that's the general community's sentiment?

That's why, in the end, the decision needs to be TFP's and only theirs.
Only AFTER they've added, changed or reverted something, they could hear feedback from several sources and optionally correct the aim.
When Star Wars Battlefront implemented microtransactions the majority of the player base protested forcing them to remove it. Is that not an example of better? Even if 1000 people like microtransactions if the majority doesn't and they are vocal enough to impact sales then the answer is self evident IMO.

A game isn't made in a vacuum and anyone in development will tell you that. The worst thing you can do is ignore feedback. You don't have to take every little detail in but you need to understand the general trends of the players and what they want. You are selling a product, it's not like it's some hobby on the side. The developers job is to understand these trends.
 
This same logic would apply to anything whether they go back and reimplement something or come out with something new. The problem isn't whether people would complain or not it is whether it would provide enough benefit to enough players to warrant the change and a myriad of other factors.

How long would it take to develop?
How many players actually want this?
Would this enhance or negatively impact the game?
What negative or positive externalities would come from this change?

Those are the questions they should ask and not so much about whether "some" would complain.


Early access is all about feedback and it is critical to any game developer. How developers respond to that feedback is of the upmost importance to their games future.

The issue, IMO, isn't changing direction it's whether that new direction is better or worse than the old version. If the new implementation is better than the previous version then very few would complain.
There's a difference between new features and going backwards to old features. You can see from many posts here what people think about them changing direction so much. It's easier for people to accept a direction that is constant than one that is changing. Even if they don't like the direction, they KNOW the direction. There's always a benefit/cost to anything they do, but that's not really related to whether or not changing direction will go over well with players.
 
Back
Top