DEV Zoom wrote:

Segreto wrote:

But my confusion aside, I cannot abide by a developer’s surprise attack on a player created character.  Finding out about this idea in a side remark in an ‘idea’ thread is unacceptable.

This caught my eye.

*scratches head*

*takes deep breath*

A lot of players are complaining that the level of information flow from us has decreased lately. One of the many reasons for this is exactly the topics like this one.

When we don't say anything, it's bad.

When Alf hints some work-in-progress and subject to change infos, everyone starts theorycrafting based on that, and then even more people come complaining that we should post specifics of something that we don't even know because it's still work in progress. So that's bad too.

I'm open for any suggestions, other than "work faster goddammit!".

On a brighter note, we're close to wrapping up the concept of the account reset and attribute system changes, and will post the results in the devblog very soon.

That's a very good post Zoom.

I think the issue stems from specifics. Alf didn't mention it was in the works.. he said what was so far planned. This closes the ability to discuss the change. If it has or has not been decided is beyond the point and honestly you're damned if you do talk about changes and damned if you don't.

Not talking about changes is probably the worse of the two. If you don't talk about changes you not onlyupset the people who would be upset anyway but you also give a royal slap to the face of anyone that, had they been informed, wouldn't have flown off the handle and could have helped shape the idea.

As said the issue is specifics. Don't be so specific. If you have changes in mind then talk about them, then make a decision and then makes minor or major changes as feedback and loopholes are found.

E.g.
Thread:
   Person 1: Do we need attributes? It limits player choice and locks a player inter a career too soon.
   Person 2: [Argument against]
   Person 3: [whining and no content]
   Person 4: [Arguments fore]

Dev meeting: Point discussed, player feedback analysed. Idea supported, rejected or modified.

Back to the thread:
   Person 34: [More whining and nothing more being added]
   Developer: Having reviewed this idea we agree/disagree with this idea and would like to take it further with/without modification.
   Person 1: [More ideas, discussion]
   Person 3: [Threats to leave game forever but never leaves]
   Person 2: [Intelligent argument as possible exploit found]
   Person 1: [Exploit guards thought about without major changes]
   Developer: [Response to possible exploits in system and safeguards]

Result:
Many happy and sad players but everyone is informed. This way only ideas that the developers believe to be supporting to the game (Not the players) will be accepted. Because ideas are not for the players to benefit from, they're for the game to grow and move forwards instead of stagnating.

Lime wrote:

Alexander wrote:

They only said they're thinking about it.
I doubt they have made any sort of decision.

The date it was set to be introduced was nearly a month ago. Is it really that hard too brainstorm a good system? something a few hour roundtable couldn't resolve?

GM Blaster announced it was on schedule and would come with a free reset. What's the hold up here ........................?

I've highlighted the issue here. This is the same GM that continually says things like this yet doesn't appears to really know what's happening.

Whats Steam?

Nice. Lets wait some tackled m2s\62 *** and nerf for the great whiners.

P/S patch history: "plz add highways to our island" "plz remove highways our enemys use them" "nerf erp we cant owerhelm 15to1 bot" and finally it would be "slow down tacklers our assalts cant run away from them".