PC The loot linearity is killing my interest in this game
- Thread starter KiaDragon
- Start date
I deleted my post as it was really nitpicking. But ok, when nitpicking there is only all or nothing:
So if I look at Rolands recent poll though 45% say they "like" it. 43% don't like or hate it. And there are 6% indifferent (aka "all was ok") group, gaining a a small absolute majority for the "ok or better" group . And 6% "other" who could be anywhere.
As Roland said such a poll is just for curiosity's sake, but it definitely speaks against any theory that players could be uniformly disliking the change
Last edited by a moderator:
That's also limited to the forum; if you opened it up to Facebook; for example, the #1 result would be "Where's our console update?"
JCrook1028
New member
You got served a sample in the kitchen. Not the full meal in the dining room. The meal is still being cooked..... you paid to get to taste it along the way.
Your point is moot since they had a purported release date of May, 2014 and that date is still visible on the Kickstarter page. Seeing as the "meal" was supposed to be ready over 6 years ago, I have every right to complain about a plate of raw eggs.
2014 was when THEY said it was supposed to be ready; after all, NOT me.
RestInPieces
New member
Roland's recent (masterfull) poll has nothing to do with the current state/change, with every one of its options asking for an opinion for something that hasn't happened yet, and is promised to happen within the following years. So no, using it as a measure of approval of the game's current state is at the very least misleading.
The question of Rolands poll is "How do you feel about the CURRENT loot progression?". And the answers start with "I like it, ..." or "I don't like it", followed by versions of "I like/don't like where it is going". So at most one could say that the answer is only half about the present, and the question is 100% about the present.
Since all combinations of current/future testimony are present as answer you can just filter out the part of the answer that says something about the future and you even arrive at testimonies that are 100% about the present
RestInPieces
New member
Kalen
New member
What good is a poll about the current state of looting if the current state of looting is only a step toward the final state of looting?
Just guessing, but I would expect TFP are also not happy with the current state of looting.... if they were, it would be the final product.
If it isn't clear, with filter i meant adding all answers together that say the same about the current state irrespective of what they say about the future. If all possible future answers are included in this sum, only the testimony about the current state is left as testimony.
RestInPieces
New member
Well, if a poll's purpose is to get feedback about something (as its title implies) and that something gets mixed with future changes that haven't already happened, you don't really get any feedback about the effects of that something - you get feedback about the expectations people have about the whole thing.
Anyhow, whether the change is a necessary step™ or yet another step of experimentation, wish the whole player scaling went away when it comes to areas. My guess is that they will initially add modifiers, in the next alpha see that linearity is more or less the same and various POIs also become obsolete and decide to add negative modifiers and/or caps, in the alpha after that rebalance lootlists to see if things improve, in the next realize that they could have done everything with area scaling in the first place, and somewhere around A4x, a believable world might emerge, if they don't get fed up in the meantime and start developing their new game.
The choice itself is influenced by all parts of the answer. You can't just isolate some of them and ignore the rest.
An example of a double-barreled question would be the following: "do you think that students should have more classes about history and culture?" This question asks about two different issues: "do you think that students should have more classes about history" and "do you think that students should have more classes about culture?" Combining both questions into one makes it unclear what exactly is being measured, and as each question may elicit a different response if asked separately there is an increased likelihood of confusing the respondents.[2] In other words, while some respondents would answer "yes" to both and some "no" to both, some would like to answer both "yes and no".[4]
Other examples of double-barreled questions:
"Please agree or disagree with the following statement: Cars should be faster and safer."[3]
"How satisfied are you with your pay and job conditions?"[4]
"How often and how much time do you spend on each visit to a hospital?"[5]
"Does your department have a special recruitment policy for men and women?"[5]
"Do you think that there is a good market for the product and that it will sell well?"
"Should the government spend less money on the military and more on education?"
"Is this tool interesting and useful?"
Other examples of double-barreled questions:
"Please agree or disagree with the following statement: Cars should be faster and safer."[3]
"How satisfied are you with your pay and job conditions?"[4]
"How often and how much time do you spend on each visit to a hospital?"[5]
"Does your department have a special recruitment policy for men and women?"[5]
"Do you think that there is a good market for the product and that it will sell well?"
"Should the government spend less money on the military and more on education?"
"Is this tool interesting and useful?"
Last edited by a moderator:
But notice that in the first example they expect only yes or no as an answer, which makes the answer a useless combination of the four possible answers to the question.
Would they allow as answers all 4 permutations "yes and yes", "yes and no", "no and yes" and "no and no" the double-barrel would not exist anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kalen
New member
I hear ya, but feedback about what currently exists without the context of why it exists (ie. what comes next) seems unhelpful.
RestInPieces
New member
You are correct. The reason I considered this a double-barreled poll is that I didn't consider the choices as permutations of all possible answers.
Personally, I detest it and I want it reverted. Even though the future as described is fine, I can't "live with it" in the sense that this phrase usually implies compliance and, as the OP says, it has killed my interest in the game. Might be nitpicking over that one, but that is the reason I expressed my distaste about the poll. Yes, Roland wants us to think of it in the context of a bigger picture, and the bigger picture has its merits. But these merits are completely irrelevant to the player scaling itself and could easily stand on their own. In other words mixing a (subjectively/for me) overall good system with a (subjectively) negative part and asking our opinion through the lens of the overall system. Even if one considers the latest changes negative, they are bound to see them in a more positive light.
Definitely, but my gripe is that the why hasn't been realized, or even thoroughly explained yet in this case. And in the end, they decided they wanted a player scaling factor in this system, a con/pro depending how one sees it, so I feel that factor should be judged/probed for feedback individually, versus judging all aspects of that system at once.
JCrook1028
New member
From the KS page -
Estimated delivery May 2014
You may want to brush up on the definition of estimate. Obviously that was supremely optimistic. In reality tho, the game is FAR more than they ever thought it could be then and imo is worth the price even now unfinished. That however changes nothing regarding the point I made. The meal is unfinished. Period. You are eating a sample in the kitchen off the chef's ladle.
Roland
Community Moderator
Regardless of how muddy you want to paint my poll questions, the fact is plain that this is a polarizing issue. It is not universally loved nor hated. Reverting it would anger a lot of people even as the original change angered a lot of people. Since TFP has a plan that they want to see through and lots of people are going to be angry either way the best course is to see it through. There are ways to revert it for yourself in the meantime. If you enjoy every other aspect of A19 then use the mod that returns the A18 looting and enjoy yourself until A20 comes out at which point you can try vanilla again to see if you like it.
@meganoth made the point that the feelings are pretty evenly divided. If you want to blame my poll questions for that then just look at dracula's poll which shows the same exact thing without any context of future plans. When asked simply whether you like it or not on its own merits the result so far is a split. That could change over the next few days but I doubt it will by much. The system works well for what it is trying to accomplish and it seems about half of the people like that slower progression with a pronounced primitive era while others hate it. If Dracula's poll shows exactly the same result as mine then I think we can safely assume that nobody was misled by my tricky questions.
@meganoth made the point that the feelings are pretty evenly divided. If you want to blame my poll questions for that then just look at dracula's poll which shows the same exact thing without any context of future plans. When asked simply whether you like it or not on its own merits the result so far is a split. That could change over the next few days but I doubt it will by much. The system works well for what it is trying to accomplish and it seems about half of the people like that slower progression with a pronounced primitive era while others hate it. If Dracula's poll shows exactly the same result as mine then I think we can safely assume that nobody was misled by my tricky questions.
RestInPieces
New member
Your (and TFP's) nefarious plan to pack the universally beloved area scaling and slower progression along with the abomination that is player scaling may have succeeded in muddying the waters, but these two things can happen without the latter. If they don't, so be it, but I do hope TFP have thoroughly planned this out (don't blame me for having doubts), because that post only describes a rough idea of what they will do. Do they plan on revisiting the GS formula? Making lootlists more POI-dependent? Having GS caps in POIs? etc etc. (Rhetorical questions)
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not saying that it changes your point in that it's unfinished; however, my point was that I was sold on a meal 6 years ago and, while they've added a lot of garnish in the time and completely changed it. Obviously I'm still waiting for the finished product; like how I'm waiting on Elder Scrolls 6.
@Roland
That's exactly why I made the poll I did; no fluff, no filler, no ambiguity. It's as easy as I could think of and removes the argument of speculation.
Boidster
New member
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "player scaling"? When I read that I interpret it as "gamestage" or maybe just the sub-component "level", but I don't think that's what you mean.
RestInPieces
New member
That's what I mean. Loot/spawns being governed by GS, which is mainly governed by your level.