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.
Please return the old level by playing system
- Thread starter jonifire
- Start date
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.
pApA^LeGBa
Hunter
Which is a good thing. The old LBD system we had wasn´t ideal.
Kalen
Survivor
I dont think anyone wants the old system exactly as it was.
Riamus
Hunter
Whatever they do, people will complain about it...
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.
- 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.
Kalen
Survivor
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.
toores
Refugee
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.
Riamus
Hunter
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.
Lax
Survivor
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.
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.
Kyoji
Survivor
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.
Jost Amman
Hunter
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.
Kyoji
Survivor
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.
Riamus
Hunter
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.
Jost Amman
Hunter
Where did I say to ignore feedback?
My point is that you seem to want players to control the development direction (bad).
Almost every single product on the market is based mainly on someone coming up with an idea and a plan to implement that idea.
For me feedback is acceptable if done AFTER development, to correct the course if necessary, while you seem to be wanting feedback BEFORE development to completely control the direction the game must go, which I absolutely disagree with. That may work with open-source projects or some crowd founded ■■■■. It shouldn't be expected from independent developers.
It's not that hard to imagine, or you put no effort in. Looting is fun in the game. Magazines are a part of loot. It gives the players more incentive to explore around specific locations and loot. On top of being able to loot tool stores for tools, i can also choose to loot a tool store for tool magazines. If you find magazines mind numbing then you must find looting to also be mind numbing, which is strange. Looting would be important whether magazines exist or not.
Learn by doing is actually mind numbing and boring from an objective point of view. Spam crafting is extremely monotonous and not nearly as exciting as delving into a POI. Being forced to waste a ton of time repeatedly spamming an action to level it up instead of doing something more interesting. LBD is literally the most repetitive thing yet you don't see it that way for some reason. Survival has as much importance as it's had for many years, though the water change made it slightly better for early game.
I can't understand your logic at all. Calling what's essentially caveman leveling "intuitive" is interesting. Of course anyone with a braincell can figure out such a simple and uncreative system, that doesn't mean it's intuitive or better than magazines.
Lax
Survivor
Forgive me for joining the discussion, but I seem to remember that you couldn't do spam crafting because they changed how LBD works. maybe I'm wrong, I think some of your arguments are opinion, for example you say that LBD is boring and tedious based only on your opinion, looting as you say is important with or without books, yes, that's why there's no need for everything to be books, what you see as a lot of wasted time repeating actions over and over again, others see as normal play and natural progress, plus you can spend time building and mining without thinking, “Oh, I'm not progressing, I have to go looting.” There are different players and different play styles, and even though LBD wasn't perfect and you progressed too quickly, I think a hybrid system would work well. I also have to say that I don't think the new system is all bad, although I do think there are too many books and the progression is very slow. With the default loot options, of course. This is just my opinion.
theFlu
Hunter
They could make the magazines at least auto-read on loot. Open a book case, get a random increase. Purely quality of life. Now the repetitive thing you do to improve everything, is open bookshelves. Not exactly ... better.
BFT2020
Hunter
I prefer the magazine system over LBD, I actually don't like LBD. Games with LBD I usually play very little of or not at all. Crafting IMHO is much better when it is with the magazine system.