Another area perma flagged for PVP?

Is this true? Nodes that have been destroyed... through siege or neglect... will be auto flagged PVP areas for some time?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

DarkTides

SongRune wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?

You guys were ok with this type of PvP?

Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....

That design screams PVP to me, looooong ago.

Indeed it does, and that's the game Dygz invested in. He didn't invest in a non-PvP game. He invested in a game with "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box". He put a lot of effort into verifying this, too. He was told there would be PvP events and objectives like sieges and caravans, but otherwise there would in fact be "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box".

Ashes of Creation today is a game where "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box" exists only in certain regions, even if those regions are the majority.

Not everyone cares about that difference, but you can't deny it's real.

I think you guys are worried over nothing. The original game design is far more PVP oriented than anything else that has come afterwards. If you PVPd more, you would understand.

Azherae

DarkTides wrote: »

SongRune wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?

You guys were ok with this type of PvP?

Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....

That design screams PVP to me, looooong ago.

Indeed it does, and that's the game Dygz invested in. He didn't invest in a non-PvP game. He invested in a game with "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box". He put a lot of effort into verifying this, too. He was told there would be PvP events and objectives like sieges and caravans, but otherwise there would in fact be "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box".

Ashes of Creation today is a game where "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box" exists only in certain regions, even if those regions are the majority.

Not everyone cares about that difference, but you can't deny it's real.

I think you guys are worried over nothing. The original game design is far more PVP oriented than anything else that has come afterwards. If you PVPd more, you would understand.

See, this MIGHT be a bad take.

Because this happens when you go 'this person who has this opinion can't possibly have had the same experiences/seek the same experiences as I do'.

Except it would be VERY difficult for me to PvP more. In MMOs perhaps, but given that nearly 80% of my time gaming is spent in PvP games and some of those are also 'matchmaking-less' MMOs (by the definitions of some, MMOFPS I guess), I'm not giving up the other 20%, I don't think.

Every 'you guys are worried over nothing' post makes me less confident that this is going to work. Because I LIKE it here, I LIKE what AoC is, and that response still makes me want to ditch it because it just indicates that those who believe it will have NO real answers (or concern for others) if it fails.

Are we going to go around claiming now that 'Ashes was always even more PvP and then got toned down'? Or are we talking about Lineage and claiming that Ashes is 'Lineage toned down'?

We have too many Lineage veterans around here to get away with that, I hope.

CROW3

Abarat wrote: »

Ah. I think I finally understand.
This incessant pronouncements that you will not play IS YOU RAGE QUITTING.
I understand, Dygz, and I am sorry. it is hard to have your heart broken.

It's awkward when someone says they 'finally understand' then clearly demonstrate they lack understanding.

Dygz

Veeshan wrote: »

you manually choose to enter the zone, its like terms and service pop up for games so you can hit the i agree button to enter or decline to not enter, so basicly you can agree enter for potential pvp or u can go around the ruins to opt out.

Right. So, in this case, I manually choose to opt-out of playing the game. Yes.
If there are areas in the game that I cannot explore without being auto-flagged for PvP, I just won't play.
Especially where there are unique bosses and unique rewards to entice people to explore there.
That makes Ashes a game that caters to PvPers without sufficient balance for players who typically play on PvE-Only servers.

GrandHarfang

CROW3 wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Ah. I think I finally understand.
This incessant pronouncements that you will not play IS YOU RAGE QUITTING.
I understand, Dygz, and I am sorry. it is hard to have your heart broken.

It's awkward when someone says they 'finally understand' then clearly demonstrate they lack understanding.

I don't expect much from a child trying to bully a member of the community because they do not agree with them. It's embarassing.

Strevi

Dygz wrote: »

Veeshan wrote: »

you manually choose to enter the zone, its like terms and service pop up for games so you can hit the i agree button to enter or decline to not enter, so basicly you can agree enter for potential pvp or u can go around the ruins to opt out.

Right. So, in this case, I manually choose to opt-out of playing the game. Yes.
If there are areas in the game that I cannot explore without being auto-flagged for PvP, I just won't play.
Especially where there are unique bosses and unique rewards to entice people to explore there.
That makes Ashes a game that caters to PvPers without sufficient balance for players who typically play on PvE-Only servers.

What if before reaching those unique bosses, you have to defeat some other bosses and they prove to be too difficult for you? Basically you might never even pass beyond 30% of the dungeon.
Is it the knowledge that a human controlled rather than an AI controlled character defeated you bothers you?

Azherae

Strevi wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Veeshan wrote: »

you manually choose to enter the zone, its like terms and service pop up for games so you can hit the i agree button to enter or decline to not enter, so basicly you can agree enter for potential pvp or u can go around the ruins to opt out.

Right. So, in this case, I manually choose to opt-out of playing the game. Yes.
If there are areas in the game that I cannot explore without being auto-flagged for PvP, I just won't play.
Especially where there are unique bosses and unique rewards to entice people to explore there.
That makes Ashes a game that caters to PvPers without sufficient balance for players who typically play on PvE-Only servers.

What if before reaching those unique bosses, you have to defeat some other bosses and they prove to be too difficult for you? Basically you might never even pass beyond 30% of the dungeon.
Is it the knowledge that a human controlled rather than an AI controlled character defeated you bothers you?

Yes, Dygz has said this before, and I am as usual butting in to back Dygz up on this.

Moreso that a Dev-Designed boss has a LIMIT, and a SYSTEM backing up that limit. PvP players do not have this, especially not in a non-Objective based PvP situation.

In a Siege if you lose to players, you lost to 'the number of players the game allowed to join the Siege'.

At sea, if you lose to players, there was no limit on that number. You could lose to 'One tank and 3000 mages spamming their basic wand attack'. I'm not arguing if this is fair or not, don't care. But it IS very different and for some, not enjoyable. Some PvP players don't even like this 'no-holds-barred' PvP.

Strevi

Azherae wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Veeshan wrote: »

you manually choose to enter the zone, its like terms and service pop up for games so you can hit the i agree button to enter or decline to not enter, so basicly you can agree enter for potential pvp or u can go around the ruins to opt out.

Right. So, in this case, I manually choose to opt-out of playing the game. Yes.
If there are areas in the game that I cannot explore without being auto-flagged for PvP, I just won't play.
Especially where there are unique bosses and unique rewards to entice people to explore there.
That makes Ashes a game that caters to PvPers without sufficient balance for players who typically play on PvE-Only servers.

What if before reaching those unique bosses, you have to defeat some other bosses and they prove to be too difficult for you? Basically you might never even pass beyond 30% of the dungeon.
Is it the knowledge that a human controlled rather than an AI controlled character defeated you bothers you?

Yes, Dygz has said this before, and I am as usual butting in to back Dygz up on this.

Moreso that a Dev-Designed boss has a LIMIT, and a SYSTEM backing up that limit. PvP players do not have this, especially not in a non-Objective based PvP situation.

In a Siege if you lose to players, you lost to 'the number of players the game allowed to join the Siege'.

At sea, if you lose to players, there was no limit on that number. You could lose to 'One tank and 3000 mages spamming their basic wand attack'. I'm not arguing if this is fair or not, don't care. But it IS very different and for some, not enjoyable. Some PvP players don't even like this 'no-holds-barred' PvP.

There is a limit in the open sea too: there can be no more than 9997 players against Dygz. (if we don't count those waiting in the queue to login, while Dygz makes a short work with them)

Dygz

SongRune wrote: »

The other important point to note is that he did not invest in the thing that Ashes has recently changed into. The thing he invested in is the Ashes that he was explicitly told would not be this way. (Whether his interpretation was correct or not is not relevant.) Then he was told that it's no longer the thing he invested in. (Whether his original interpretation was correct is still not relevant.) He can't get his money (or time) back now, but he would never have invested at all in the thing that Ashes currently is. In short: He didn't invest in the thing he's rejecting. He invested in something that was (from his perspective) replaced by the thing he's rejecting.

Well...
I invested to support former DayBreak devs working on systems I want in future MMORPGs, primarily Nodes.
Never mattered whether I actually played Ashes or whether Ashes ever releases.
I want it to be quicker and easier for these devs to implement systems similar to Nodes when they work on other MMORPGs, after they are finished with Ashes.

Also, stemming from EQNext, I'm curious to see how they are going to entice players who typically play on PvE-Only servers to play on the same servers as PvPers.
The solution for that was supposed to be Corruption. I'm skeptical that will be a viable solution, but certainly open to testing that.
But, if the game has permanent auto-flag PvP zones and no permanent PvE-Only zones -- that's too PvP-centric for my comfort. I don't need to test that to know.
And, again, I asked Steven about ArcheAge because I chose not to play ArcheAge because their naval combat was too PvP-heavy for my comfort.
As soon as I understand that Ashes has similar gameplay, I know Ashes is not a game I will enjoy exploring and leveling in.
I tried to get Steven to reveal that 4 years ago, so that the PvP mechanics would not be "vague".

The money I've spent on Ashes is fine. My invesment has been doing exactly what I hoped.
And more, since my pal, Ombwah, is now working for Intrepid.

SongRune wrote: »

The main point is that Open Seas PvP is a deal-breaker for him in terms of making a new investment: the long-term commitment of the hours and years involved in progressing in the final game. He might as well stick around and enjoy the Alphas and Betas he's already bought in to. It's not like he hates the rest of the game, and without his prior investment in it as a long-term commitment, it's easier to brush off the feeling "this game sucks long-term" and enjoy what's left.

Yeah, I mean... the only reason why change is even relevant is because it would have been a dealbreaker for me back when I asked Steven about EvE and ArcheAge. It's why I asked for those comparisons. And I think Steven realized it would be a dealbreaker - which is why he tried to skirt around the answer.
I'm not crying over the change... it's an amusing surprise because I tried to get him to say that 4 years ago.
It's kind of like guessing, "I think the secret ingredient in your recipe is nutmeg."
"Oh. No. It's different than nutmeg."
Then 4 years later, it's revealed that the secret ingredient is nutmeg and I'm all, "That's hysterical! Remember when I said I think it's utmeg and you said it wasn't!!?? LMFAO."

My stance seem weird to people who have not been a QA Tester as a pad job.
I worked in Activision QA for a couple of years. I've tested a bunch of games I don't play, like MechWarrior and Call of Duty.
Of course, I am going to support my dev friends by testing and giving feedback on stuff they work on.
Doesn't mean I will play their game once it releases.

Previously, Ombwah worked on Chronicles of Elyria. I invested in that game for similar reasons as Ashes, but... that game was way too hardcore and competitive for my comfort. And I spent about two years saying, "You know, you still haven't convinced me that this is a game I would want to play. There are some interesting systems I want to test, but... I don't understand what the appeal of this game is supposed to be.
It dosn't sound like fun.

Dygz

DarkTides wrote: »

Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?

The orginal design has Corruption as a punishment for non-consensual PvP and no permanent zones with auto-flag to Combatant. Default in all zones is Non-Combatant.
This means that PKers have a harsh penalty for PKing (non-consensual player killing).
Where some people, like CROW3 will say you auto-consent by logging into the game so non-consensual is not a thing, I say we know that non-consensual PKing is a thing because it is punished with Corruption.

As soon as there are permanent zones with no Corruption, I agree with CROW3: You auto-consent to PKing by logging in.
And I won't play on a PvP server that has that ruleset.
Ashes only has one server ruleset for all servers. Which means I won't be playing Ashes.

DarkTides wrote: »

You guys were ok with this type of PvP?
Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....

I'm a PvP-sometimes player.
For those, you can be in those areas as a Non-Combatant, so... yes. Theoretically, I'm fine with those as long as Corruption works sufficiently for non-consensual PKing to be rare.
But, I would have to test that to know if it's actually rare enough for my comfort.
People like CROW3 and Nikr, who have played the Karma mechanic say that it should be.
But, I don't need to test to know how I respond to PvP servers that have permanent auto-flag PvP servers.

DarkTides wrote: »

That design screams PVP to me, looooong ago.

Yep. Just not permanent auto-flag PvP zones.
That's an automatic deal-breaker for me.

Dygz

Strevi wrote: »

What if before reaching those unique bosses, you have to defeat some other bosses and they prove to be too difficult for you? Basically you might never even pass beyond 30% of the dungeon.
Is it the knowledge that a human controlled rather than an AI controlled character defeated you bothers you?

Human players are more ruthless and conniving than AI.
And I'm confident that I can Stealth past AI and sufficiently avoid combat with AI as I explore areas.
For the most part, I can explore the areas I want to explore without being concerned much about AI.
Eventually, I should be able to make it through any dungeon I wish to explore... if it's just AI.

That's not really possible with Human player characters.
Human player characters do not have a tether, for instance.
And... it's not really about whether or not I defeat the would-be PKer.
The issue is that I don't want to be involved in PvP when all I really want to do is explore and possibly gather.
And, when I'm exploring somewhere and some asshat PKer on a PvP-Optional server tells me, "Why are you here and flagged for PvP if you don't want to PvP??!!" I rage-quit and move to a PvE-Only server. Even though I like PvP-sometimes.
I really don't like playing on the same servers as PvPers, but...
Supposedly, Corruption is supposed to make that feel OK.
And I'm open-minded enough to say..."OK. Let's see..."
But, permanent zones with no Corruption is an automatic deal-breaker for me.

That's really more of a hardcore v casual thing.
I am a casual challenge, non-competitive player.
I sometimes like PvP to defend a town (or Caravan) for about 1 hour of an 8 hour play session.
After that hour, I'm going to want to spend the rest of my time exploring, maybe gathering, maybe hunting some mobs. And, Corruption would have to be enough of a deterrent for PKing that I am rarely PKed during that 7 hour period where I am not in the mood for PvP.
Has nothing to do with defeat and everything to do with other players forcing me into a mode of gameplay I'm not in the mood for. Doesn't matter to me whether I win or lose the PvP battle.
You know... other players cannot make me Craft when I don't want to, so they should not be able to make me PvP when I don't want to.

DarkTides

Azherae wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

SongRune wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?

You guys were ok with this type of PvP?

Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....

That design screams PVP to me, looooong ago.

Indeed it does, and that's the game Dygz invested in. He didn't invest in a non-PvP game. He invested in a game with "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box". He put a lot of effort into verifying this, too. He was told there would be PvP events and objectives like sieges and caravans, but otherwise there would in fact be "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box".

Ashes of Creation today is a game where "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box" exists only in certain regions, even if those regions are the majority.

Not everyone cares about that difference, but you can't deny it's real.

I think you guys are worried over nothing. The original game design is far more PVP oriented than anything else that has come afterwards. If you PVPd more, you would understand.

See, this MIGHT be a bad take.

Because this happens when you go 'this person who has this opinion can't possibly have had the same experiences/seek the same experiences as I do'.

Except it would be VERY difficult for me to PvP more. In MMOs perhaps, but given that nearly 80% of my time gaming is spent in PvP games and some of those are also 'matchmaking-less' MMOs (by the definitions of some, MMOFPS I guess), I'm not giving up the other 20%, I don't think.

Every 'you guys are worried over nothing' post makes me less confident that this is going to work. Because I LIKE it here, I LIKE what AoC is, and that response still makes me want to ditch it because it just indicates that those who believe it will have NO real answers (or concern for others) if it fails.

Are we going to go around claiming now that 'Ashes was always even more PvP and then got toned down'? Or are we talking about Lineage and claiming that Ashes is 'Lineage toned down'?

We have too many Lineage veterans around here to get away with that, I hope.

You guys feed the definition of hypocrisy from multiple fronts. You have the trench, you're dug in. Where can this go? All the moving parts are there, set plainly before your eyes.

Why would Ashes fail with open sea combatant flagged pvp?

Azherae

DarkTides wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

SongRune wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?

You guys were ok with this type of PvP?

Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....

That design screams PVP to me, looooong ago.

Indeed it does, and that's the game Dygz invested in. He didn't invest in a non-PvP game. He invested in a game with "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box". He put a lot of effort into verifying this, too. He was told there would be PvP events and objectives like sieges and caravans, but otherwise there would in fact be "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box".

Ashes of Creation today is a game where "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box" exists only in certain regions, even if those regions are the majority.

Not everyone cares about that difference, but you can't deny it's real.

I think you guys are worried over nothing. The original game design is far more PVP oriented than anything else that has come afterwards. If you PVPd more, you would understand.

See, this MIGHT be a bad take.

Because this happens when you go 'this person who has this opinion can't possibly have had the same experiences/seek the same experiences as I do'.

Except it would be VERY difficult for me to PvP more. In MMOs perhaps, but given that nearly 80% of my time gaming is spent in PvP games and some of those are also 'matchmaking-less' MMOs (by the definitions of some, MMOFPS I guess), I'm not giving up the other 20%, I don't think.

Every 'you guys are worried over nothing' post makes me less confident that this is going to work. Because I LIKE it here, I LIKE what AoC is, and that response still makes me want to ditch it because it just indicates that those who believe it will have NO real answers (or concern for others) if it fails.

Are we going to go around claiming now that 'Ashes was always even more PvP and then got toned down'? Or are we talking about Lineage and claiming that Ashes is 'Lineage toned down'?

We have too many Lineage veterans around here to get away with that, I hope.

You guys feed the definition of hypocrisy from multiple fronts. You have the trench, you're dug in. Where can this go? All the moving parts are there, set plainly before your eyes.

Why would Ashes fail with open sea combatant flagged pvp?

All I'm telling you is that as a heavy PvP player, I am less likely to decide to finally play this game because of that Open Sea Combatant Flagged PvP.

You can just go 'well, you leaving doesn't mean anything, game will still definitely succeed'. Who knows.

You just can't go 'you'd understand if you did more PvP!' because basically all I do is PvP.

Get it?

Vaknar

Ashes of Creation is a big and complex game with many systems. Not everyone will love every system of Ashes of Creation and that is ok as long as we respect those with differing opinions and are well unto one another😌

Strevi

Dygz wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

What if before reaching those unique bosses, you have to defeat some other bosses and they prove to be too difficult for you? Basically you might never even pass beyond 30% of the dungeon.
Is it the knowledge that a human controlled rather than an AI controlled character defeated you bothers you?

Human players are more ruthless and conniving than AI.
And I'm confident that I can Stealth past AI and sufficiently avoid combat with AI as I explore areas.
For the most part, I can explore the areas I want to explore without being concerned much about AI.
Eventually, I should be able to make it through any dungeon I wish to explore... if it's just AI.

That's not really possible with Human player characters.
Human player characters do not have a tether, for instance.
And... it's not really about whether or not I defeat the would-be PKer.
The issue is that I don't want to be involved in PvP when all I really want to do is explore and possibly gather.
And, when I'm exploring somewhere and some asshat PKer on a PvP-Optional server tells me, "Why are you here and flagged for PvP if you don't want to PvP??!!" I rage-quit and move to a PvE-Only server. Even though I like PvP-sometimes.
I really don't like playing on the same servers as PvPers, but...
Supposedly, Corruption is supposed to make that feel OK.
And I'm open-minded enough to say..."OK. Let's see..."
But, permanent zones with no Corruption is an automatic deal-breaker for me.

That's really more of a hardcore v casual thing.
I am a casual challenge, non-competitive player.
I sometimes like PvP to defend a town (or Caravan) for about 1 hour of an 8 hour play session.
After that hour, I'm going to want to spend the rest of my time exploring, maybe gathering, maybe hunting some mobs. And, Corruption would have to be enough of a deterrent for PKing that I am rarely PKed during that 7 hour period where I am not in the mood for PvP.
Has nothing to do with defeat and everything to do with other players forcing me into a mode of gameplay I'm not in the mood for. Doesn't matter to me whether I win or lose the PvP battle.
You know... other players cannot make me Craft when I don't want to, so they should not be able to make me PvP when I don't want to.

- some asshat PKer on a PvP-Optional server tells me, "Why are you here and flagged for PvP if you don't want to PvP??!!" I rage-quit

You do not have to read the chat.

So if tether is removed from the NPCs, you will not play the game?
You seem to expect NPCs to be dumbed-down, with short sight, loosing interest if you move far enough because that is how the tradition in such games is.

Would it be ok if you get good invisibility to some reasonable distance, similar to what NPCs detect?
Maybe there will be fog on the sea. Also some areas might be under permanent or long control by alliances.
And when battles happen, small ships further away might be ignored.

- I sometimes like PvP to defend a town (or Caravan) for about 1 hour of an 8 hour play session.

That one hour might be enough to cross the ocean and visit places. Also is enough to play as a support character in a team which do not need you to be in top shape. There will be other players like you too.
Wait for that PvP hour mood to come and only then go into the ocean. And even then, it can happen that you see no battle at all. You ended up associating negative feelings with such events because you went there when you was not prepared. And now even the possibility that it could happen (even if that 1 hour PvP mood comes) it bothers you. You can undo that if you try.

Your bigger problem might be the friends who do not wait and pull you into pvp zones when you are not ready.

Abarat

Azherae wrote: »

All I'm telling you is that as a heavy PvP player, I am less likely to decide to finally play this game because of that Open Sea Combatant Flagged PvP.

I understand having concerns... i guess i find it amazing that folks are willing to decide to NOT PLAY before we even see what it looks like and what happens. We have at least a year and a half of alpha 2 and the betas to let things settle in. I am very much in support of "I have concerns, lets see how it plays out"... just not, I read a thing which i interpret to mean something and I WILL NOT PLAY.

Seems dumb.

Abarat

Dygz wrote: »

For the most part, I can explore the areas I want to explore without being concerned much about AI.
Eventually, I should be able to make it through any dungeon I wish to explore... if it's just AI.

If players can successfully get to the end of ANY dungeon in AoC solo using stealth and avoiding combat the entire time... I will rage quit.

SongRune

Abarat wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

All I'm telling you is that as a heavy PvP player, I am less likely to decide to finally play this game because of that Open Sea Combatant Flagged PvP.

I understand having concerns... i guess i find it amazing that folks are willing to decide to NOT PLAY before we even see what it looks like and what happens. We have at least a year and a half of alpha 2 and the betas to let things settle in. I am very much in support of "I have concerns, lets see how it plays out"... just not, I read a thing which i interpret to mean something and I WILL NOT PLAY.

Seems dumb.

Really? "Based on the clear statements of design intent this game, as it is now, is not for me." Is that that weird? Sure they can completely change what kind of game they're building. Sure they can decide to go back on core gameplay elements. But if they're clear about what they're going to build, and you don't like THAT? Why the hell would you go "Oh, well maybe this time I WILL like these things I always hate"?

I get "not being sure of the details", but those people aren't talking about the DETAILS. They're talking about the clear statements. The ones who ARE talking about the details tend to say "I hope it changes, but if it stays this way, I won't play."

If you have any breadth of experience, and know anything about yourself, you'll know at least SOME of your personal deal-breakers. You just have to check whether those are core aspects of Ashes of Creation.

Abarat

SongRune wrote: »

Really? "Based on the clear statements of design intent this game, as it is now, is not for me." Is that that weird? Sure they can completely change what kind of game they're building. Sure they can decide to go back on core gameplay elements. But if they're clear about what they're going to build, and you don't like THAT?

Why the hell would you go "Oh, well maybe this time I WILL like these things I always hate"?

I get "not being sure of the details", but those people aren't talking about the DETAILS. They're talking about the clear statements. The ones who ARE talking about the details tend to say "I hope it changes, but if it stays this way, I won't play."

Intrepid... please refund this persons money and cancel their account. They clearly feel you have betrayed them in a meaningful way.

Azherae

Abarat wrote: »

SongRune wrote: »

Really? "Based on the clear statements of design intent this game, as it is now, is not for me." Is that that weird? Sure they can completely change what kind of game they're building. Sure they can decide to go back on core gameplay elements. But if they're clear about what they're going to build, and you don't like THAT?

Why the hell would you go "Oh, well maybe this time I WILL like these things I always hate"?

I get "not being sure of the details", but those people aren't talking about the DETAILS. They're talking about the clear statements. The ones who ARE talking about the details tend to say "I hope it changes, but if it stays this way, I won't play."

Intrepid... please refund this persons money and cancel their account. They clearly feel you have betrayed them in a meaningful way.

What even is this post...?

Child Item