Thanks (Laz) man.I have asked if any of the promotional cosmetics will be available as DLC at a later time. Will cross my fingers.
As far as having trouble getting the drops, here is a helpful link.
Twitch Help Portal
help.twitch.tv

Thanks (Laz) man.I have asked if any of the promotional cosmetics will be available as DLC at a later time. Will cross my fingers.
As far as having trouble getting the drops, here is a helpful link.
Twitch Help Portal
help.twitch.tv
A method you could do is say nothing until a release is a few weeks from being really done, then announce you will release it 3 months from now, which should mostly guarantee success, if there were such a thing. I think some companies do that, but it is really hard to be that patient with all the pressure to build hype and get products out the door.
Yep, I did leave out the AAA technique of "can you play it?", cut features, ship it now and fix the bugs after.Another method is to have marketing executives who insist on making the date and expect programmers to pull all-nighters in the weeks leading up to that date, force the team to push out the update before it is ready, and then have community management people out there spinning damage control...
That describes EA perfectly. They've messed up so many games. It's unfortunate considering there have been a lot of games released through them that could have been so much better if the dev studios didn't use EA. To be clear, that' the company "EA" and not short for Early Access.Yep, I did leave out the AAA technique of "can you play it?", cut features, ship it now and fix the bugs after.
You missed my new favorite.Another method is to have marketing executives who insist on making the date and expect programmers to pull all-nighters in the weeks leading up to that date, force the team to push out the update before it is ready, and then have community management people out there spinning damage control...
that accurately describes 2.0 imo...you only left out the part where it was already 6 months late...and that it's probably going to take more than 6 months more to fix and finish it. the roadmap I was SOLD on, implied TFP were finishing up what they had. Am I wrong about that? You guys are still imagineering...which even I know means that deadlines do not matter. So how do they put out a roadmap WITH timings and have an open schedule for experimentation? it does not make sense. unless the roadmap dates were just a "device" to get it on the console platforms.Yep, I did leave out the AAA technique of "can you play it?", cut features, ship it now and fix the bugs after.
that accurately describes 2.0 imo...you only left out the part where it was already 6 months late...and that it's probably going to take more than 6 months more to fix and finish it. the roadmap I was SOLD on, implied TFP were finishing up what they had. Am I wrong about that? You guys are still imagineering...which even I know means that deadlines do not matter. So how do they put out a roadmap WITH timings and have an open schedule for experimentation? it does not make sense. unless the roadmap dates were just a "device" to get it on the console platforms.
Yes. The implication was all in your head. It was your own assumption. In actuality, the roadmap listed major new content updates. I don't know how you worked out the assumption in your mind that some final polish to the exsiting game was all that was planned. Storms, bandits, event manager, and story are not tasks that are just finishing moves. There is some of that listed like Crossplay, UI improvement, and Workshop support but a good portion of the roadmap does not point to polishing and releasing.the roadmap I was SOLD on, implied TFP were finishing up what they had. Am I wrong about that?
that accurately describes 2.0 imo...you only left out the part where it was already 6 months late...and that it's probably going to take more than 6 months more to fix and finish it.
then explain it. explain how the road map was not a "device" to get console gamers to buy back in. The timings indicated they were finishing up what they had...they ARE still imagineering...which takes as much time as it takes...those two things DO NOT MIX...what am I not getting?And again 90% of your post is about deadlines, roadmaps, timings. While practically nobody agrees with you that it is important that they miss those deadlines. As you can see from the ■■■■storm on youtube, most players are interested in game details not timings. And yes, you missed the fine print where it said that the dates are no guarantees, we got that as well as that you think the dates should still be somewhat accurate. But look at Cyberpunk 2077, their schedule was completely blown to pieces as well, those things happen.
And there ARE alternative explanations to the roadmap that you simply don't accept because you are dead set on your explanation.
So what sense does it do to discuss this with you? The best outcome is being called that one imagineers.
Yes. The implication was all in your head. It was your own assumption. In actuality, the roadmap listed major new content updates. I don't know how you worked out the assumption in your mind that some final polish to the exsiting game was all that was planned. Storms, bandits, event manager, and story are not tasks that are just finishing moves. There is some of that listed like Crossplay, UI improvement, and Workshop support but a good portion of the roadmap does not point to polishing and releasing.
you are inserting words...trying to make it seem like I said anything about it being too buggy to play. I didn't.You are also wrong about this viewpoint of 2.0. You want to characterize it as an unfinished buggy mess. On the contrary it ran just fine. Storms, biome progression, the new enemies, everything ran well. It was complete as it was. The reason we are taking an additional 6 months on imagineering is due to community feedback and TFP's willingness to accommodate the complaints. They communicated that their actions would delay 3.0 but that they would make changes based on community feedback. They could have ignored community feedback and gone straight on to 3.0 leaving the game as it was. That's what they did with LBD. They stuck to their own vision despite the complaints and continued on with development. If they had done that again here then we would probably be on 4.2 as the final 4.x which would have just been some minor performance and bug fixes for the original 2.0 features and you would be playing the complete 2.x game right now with badges and being forced to progress through the biomes in order, the yeti and the mummy, storms that simply kill you, and-- no jars, no apiaries, and no smell which were never planned as part of 2.0 in the first place.
You have such conviction of your own assumptions based on nothing but what you want the reality to be. This response indicates you are unwilling to entertain any explanation other than the one you cooked up for yourself. You keep asking for explanations but you obviously aren’t going to accept them.what a load of ■■■■.
So you admit it wasn’t buggy. Great That’s because it was finished as far as they planned. They couldn’t anticipate the negative response. They were expecting it to be well received.you are inserting words...trying to make it seem like I said anything about it being too buggy to play. I didn't.
they didn't have storms for storm's brewing...gaslight someone else about why they are still imagineering
Let me save you the trouble Meganoth by giving you the likely responsethen explain it. explain how the road map was not a "device" to get console gamers to buy back in.
what a load of ■■■■.
WHAT??? the FIRST SIX MONTH DELAY was because they did not have Storm's for Storm's Brewing...do you think memories are THAT short?You have such conviction of your own assumptions based on nothing but what you want the reality to be. This response indicates you are unwilling to entertain any explanation other than the one you cooked up for yourself. You keep asking for explanations but you obviously aren’t going to accept them.
So you admit it wasn’t buggy. Great That’s because it was finished as far as they planned. They couldn’t anticipate the negative response. They were expecting it to be well received.
No storms eh? Then what were the dozens and dozens of posts about people sitting in their base for 15 minutes with nothing to do all about? No storms in 2.0…..talk about gaslighting….
Post automatically merged:
Let me save you the trouble Meganoth by giving you the likely response
Basically, yes.Am I wrong about that?
The delay was for a number of things that were not complete, including storms. But when they finally released 2.0, it had storms. You said that 2.0 didn't have storms. Go back and read your own post. Maybe in your head you were explaining the delay for 2.0 but you didn't type that out. You responded to my post that 2.0 was complete and had their planned features in it by saying that it didn't have storms. It's fine if you want reframe what you meant by that.WHAT??? the FIRST SIX MONTH DELAY was because they did not have Storm's for Storm's Brewing...do you think memories are THAT short?
Course correcting is not the same thing as putting out an incomplete update that doesn't match the roadmap. They did that and after they did that they decided to do some course correcting which many are grateful for but you are using as a lever for your own reasons.They are course correcting because they were not listening....for years...and it grew to bite them in the ■■■.
Just did. But you won't accept it.Please...for the love of whatever you hold as holy...explain to me how I am not right.
What hate? I'm not the one perpetually angry and ranting. I am very pleased with the content going into the game and with the pace of development. Do you want to know why? It's because I'm satisfied with playing each iteration as we go instead of shelving the game until some arbitrary time in the future when I believe it is done. You want to assign nefarious motives behind every delay or change. It's not hate that makes me reject your tinfoil hat ravings. It's "In Pimps We Trust"Again...I think you do not like that I see it this way...you just hate that it casts any kind of a negative light. and what do I want?
feel free to post whatever snark you want...It'd be a lot more interesting IF you had reasoning to back it.Basically, yes.