An in depth discussion on zombie loot in alpha 17

[Jedo]

This is the worst argument ever. This game is meant to be fun,

 

*MY OPINION INCOMING* Surviving zombies being the reward is not fun in this game they would have to completely redo the entire combat and ai of this game for surviving to to be the only joy of the game.

 

Surviving is not fun, thriving is.

 

Your post should have included the bolded part.

 

The game is meant to be fun, but how you (which really means "everybody") define fun is not necessarily what the game is meant to be. Some don't find thriving to be fun, hence they play Dead is Dead and max difficulty and they handcuff themselves in all kinds of ways. The only legitimate definition of fun is what TFP wants it to be. They hope that others will agree, but they know that not all will.

[Xtrakicking]

It doesn't have to make sense to you (or anyone). That it doesn't make sense to those outside of TFP does not lend credence to any of the arguments against TFP's decision.

 

No one is claiming that. However, there are clearly plenty of solid and reasonable concerns from many players with this decision, and so, if it ends up downgrading the experience for so many players even after trying it out it's worth looking into it.

[Jedo]

No one is claiming that. However, there are clearly plenty of solid and reasonable concerns from many players with this decision, and so, if it ends up downgrading the experience for so many players even after trying it out it's worth looking into it.

 

If "this change just makes no sense to me" was your entire point in a nutshell, then why I have we exchanged these walls of text?

 

And it's not worth looking into no matter how many people disagree with it if it is what TFP wants (and if they're okay with suffering the blowback). Artists make the product and craft the vision that they want. Considering MM's own words about eschewing the easy path of making an awesome PVP game, I would guess that he intends to push forward with what he wants. That's the point.

 

Edit: I guess I should say the same that I tried to emphasize with eidobunny: You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and your feelings, they're just completely relative to TFP's opinion.

[Survager]

Please remember that we paid to be part of the construction process so we get to see things that are currently under construction.

 

Relax ) I remember )

[cnconrad]

Your post should have included the bolded part.

 

The game is meant to be fun, but how you (which really means "everybody") define fun is not necessarily what the game is meant to be. Some don't find thriving to be fun, hence they play Dead is Dead and max difficulty and they handcuff themselves in all kinds of ways. The only legitimate definition of fun is what TFP wants it to be. They hope that others will agree, but they know that not all will.

 

Ok my mistake, sitting in a hole in the ground or on a roof all night is not fun TO ME but if you find sitting still doing nothing but surviving fun it appears our viewpoints are far enough apart that we will have no common ground to further discuss this.

[Jedo]

Ok my mistake, sitting in a hole in the ground or on a roof all night is not fun TO ME but if you find sitting still doing nothing but surviving fun it appears our viewpoints are far enough apart that we will have no common ground to further discuss this.

 

We'll have no common ground to further discuss this because you seem intent upon not engaging in logic. The strawman argument of your post is Exhibit A.

 

My post provided one definition of "surviving," and it involved neither of the things which you just posted.

 

You also didn't address my concluding point that TFP's definition is the only one that matters. *shrug*

[Xtrakicking]

If "this change just makes no sense to me" was your entire point in a nutshell, then why I have we exchanged these walls of text?

 

And it's not worth looking into no matter how many people disagree with it if it is what TFP wants (and if they're okay with suffering the blowback). Artists make the product and craft the vision that they want. Considering MM's own words about eschewing the easy path of making an awesome PVP game, I would guess that he intends to push forward with what he wants. That's the point.

 

Edit: I guess I should say the same that I tried to emphasize with eidobunny: You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and your feelings, they're just completely relative to TFP's opinion.

 

I'm sorry but if everyone shared that thought process then every game would end up being trash. Feedback is about one of the most important aspects of a game's development, and I'm sorry, but if a developer thinks that something that concerns a huge side of your playerbase isn't worth looking into, then that person has no business in game developing. Luckily, TFP aren't like that, and I'm sure they'll do their best to please their playerbase.

 

And wall of text exchange is my favorite hobby

[Jedo]

I'm sorry but if everyone shared that thought process then every game would end up being trash.

 

That's the mindset that indies (games and movies) use: "I'm making what I want and what I think is good. I believe that other people will agree with me." Do they have mass appeal? Maybe not. That doesn't automatically make them trash.

 

What would make every game trash would be if devs (and directors) catered to the whims of every single one of their players. Games would become a bloated mess of a hodge-podge of parts.

 

Feedback is about one of the most important aspects of a game's development, and I'm sorry, but if a developer thinks that something that concerns a huge side of your playerbase isn't worth looking into, then that person has no business in game developing. Luckily, TFP aren't like that, and I'm sure they'll do their best to please their playerbase.

 

I didn't say that there should be no feedback. There should be good quality feedback (as in, in a format which is useful for the devs, i.e., not whining), and the devs should be wise enough to disregard it when it gets in the way of their vision.

 

This may hurt: Howling about a change that you (and others) haven't even tried is not what I would call "feedback," and I think that the devs would be right to disregard it. What comes after we all have played A17 is a different matter.

 

And wall of text exchange is my favorite hobby

 

We agree on something! *hugs*

[Xtrakicking]

That's the mindset that indies (games and movies) use: "I'm making what I want and what I think is good. I believe that other people will agree with me." Do they have mass appeal? Maybe not. That doesn't automatically make them trash.

 

What would make every game trash would be if devs (and directors) catered to the whims of every single one of their players. Games would become a bloated mess of a hodge-podge of parts.

 

Not saying they should listen to the whims of every single one of their players, but if such a big chunk of people aren't ok with your decisions, ignoring them is an absurd approach.

 

 

I didn't say that there should be no feedback. There should be good quality feedback (as in, in a format which is useful for the devs, i.e., not whining), and the devs should be wise enough to disregard it when it gets in the way of their vision.

 

This may hurt: Howling about a change that you (and others) haven't even tried is not what I would call "feedback," and I think that the devs would be right to disregard it. What comes after we all have played A17 is a different matter.

 

Those are very vague descriptions of "quality feedback". A good developer should also be able to understand that not all feedback will come in the exact shape and form they wish, and so, disregarding anything that they feel isn't up to their standards of "quality feedback" is also absurd. Some people are outright rude, but listening to the reasons behind your frustrated players, especially those you know are your most loyal players, is essential.

 

Addressing your last point, I disagree. If the negative opinions of players towards a feature they've seen aren't valid, how come the positive reception is? We haven't tried the new vehicles either, jet no one is saying they're a terrible addition, that is a good primary feedback. Same applies with features that rise concern. Not saying they should change it back right noq, but completely disregarding any negative criticism is stupid.

 

 

 

We agree on something! *hugs*

[bloom_meister]

The difference is that now hardly any zombie will have loot, and the ones that pop backpacks won't have anything of value. Obviously, if this is the case, it's not practical to have that mechanic.

 

This

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Does this answer your problem for the grind...

(I don't know how to multi quote so I'm doing it with a picture)

 

http://upload.bg/?get_file=3c9e14d7cfb2fbd6d97aaad6cdf1fe32787e8f43&inline

 

(post can be found in Dev Diary or through faatal's profile by searching chassis)

 

To me this means schematics will be scrapped in the future. Maybe...

Maybe not.

Just wanted to give the info.

 

Sorry I know this post isn't about what this thread is.

 

Yes for gun schematics but not for all the others

[Jedo]

Not saying they should listen to the whims of every single one of their players, but if such a big chunk of people aren't ok with your decisions, ignoring them is an absurd approach.

 

Did you see The Shape of Water? It made less money worldwide than Avengers: Infinity War made in North America alone. That means that there were plenty of people who weren't enthused enough by the Best Picture winner and chose not to see it. Should it not have been made? Should they have added in more things which would give it greater appeal? (Notice how this doesn't hinge on "listening to the whims of every single person," but it does hinge on "a big chunk of people.")

 

 

Those are very vague descriptions of "quality feedback". A good developer should also be able to understand that not all feedback will come in the exact shape and form they wish, and so, disregarding anything that they feel isn't up to their standards of "quality feedback" is also absurd. Some people are outright rude, but listening to the reasons behind your frustrated players, especially those you know are your most loyal players, is essential.

 

Look, whining is always unhelpful feedback. It can clue you into unrest or dissatisfaction, but it isn't particularly actionable. The same goes for advance feedback of this feature. I mean, focus groups are useful for movies and politicians, and though I can't say for sure, I imagine that they are useful for non-EA games. For one alpha of an EA game when the devs are not going to change their course on the alpha--advance feedback is basically useless.

 

Addressing your last point, I disagree. If the negative opinions of players towards a feature they've seen aren't valid, how come the positive reception is? We haven't tried the new vehicles either, jet no one is saying they're a terrible addition, that is a good primary feedback. Same applies with features that rise concern. Not saying they should change it back right noq, but completely disregarding any negative criticism is stupid.

 

I haven't said that affirmation of witnessed changes is valid (or let's stick with "actionable" or "useful"). What does it change? What should TFP take from it? The difference is that people who thumbs up an anticipated feature don't tend to badmouth the devs or justify their position through faux logic or tell other people that they are wrong for their position. (Ok, plenty of them do this last one, but they shouldn't. I believe they get told that.)

[PiercedFromWithin]

I like getting good stuff. I couldn't care less whether that loot comes from a cupboard or a twice-dead cheerleader. I find spending half a day looting and chopping horde corpses for what usually amounts to nothing of note to be incredibly boring. Even more so when I know I have to spend the next half a day patching the holes in my walls. I know some of that stuff had some value as crafting materials and some of it could be sold and once you got 5 thousand t-shirts you could get enough dukes to buy something you could've already crafted by that time, but it is still boring as hell. As long as they have something in mind to help replace the bits of it that you actually need or reduce the needed amount of those bits to balance it, I doubt it will be much bother once we are all used to it.

 

Lots of people completely avoid hordes(without killing them) already anyway so I doubt the moldy bread and shoes are that compelling an incentive for people to kill every zombie they can. I've read dozens if not more posts of people complaining about how long looting post 7day hordes take and how they never have anything anybody really wants. I've read dozens more complaining about corpse duping. Now I guess we won't have to hear those complaints anymore but the game has been completely ruined in the process.

 

Getting something nice from a random zombie encounter is cool, hopefully that can still happen now and then with less "oh look, another skirt to fill up my inventory before I even get to where I'm going."

[Rez090]

A negative aspect of this too, if people just start avoiding zombies because they will not hardly drop loot, you weapon skills will suffer later down the road. Like me, I kill every zombie I see, not just because of the potential of loot but it levels up my melee skill, then my blade skill for grinding their bodies up. Horde night, I mostly stick to ranged weapons but mix it up with melee. If you start avoiding zombies, later on when you start getting tougher enemies, you won't hardly be able to down them because you're doing so very little damage to them.

 

All zombies might be for now is trying to get some xp to level up but TFP might decide to lower your xp gains from those kills too.

[Roland]

People are not going to stop killing zombies.

 

A) It is fun to kill zombies for it's own sake.

B) You still will look for loot drops.

C) You do get xp and skill progression for killing them.

D) It is fun to kill zombies for it's own sake.

 

I think the whole "Now, nobody will kill zombies anymore" piece is a bit ridiculous. I've been playing with it for a month or more and I don't kill zombies much less than I ever did. I just don't see them as ambulatory loot boxes any more. Shooting a zombie with an arrow, retrieving the arrow, and shooting them again with the same arrow is pure entertainment.

[meganoth]

The part I don't understand is that this has been a core feature of the game since the very beginning. They have put significant work into making it what it is today. It is a very significant aspect of what the game is and what the game has been since 2014. (When I started)

 

If it was killing performance and stopping TFP from adding or updating some new significant feature I can at least understand it.

 

But to remove a feature that was complete and I have never heard a complaint about in the 10th or 11th hour of development because of a change of heart just makes no sense to me.

 

Core? Was spamcrafting a core feature? Yes (See, I can put "core" to any feature to make it sound important). Was it complete? Yes. Were people complaining? No. Still it was removed and it was well.

 

TFP removed gun parts and wellness in A17, surely you would label them core too, right? They were complete too and nobody complained.

 

This is the worst argument ever. This game is meant to be fun,

 

Surviving zombies being the reward is not fun in this game they would have to completely redo the entire combat and ai of this game for surviving to to be the only joy of the game.

 

Surviving is not fun, thriving is.

 

So you don't like to shoot zombies? You don't have fun scrounging and looting buildings? You don't have fun building defenses and battle with zombie hordes? Then why did you play this game? Yes, all this is surviving. And it is fun, otherwise I wouldn't do it.

[JCrook1028]

You are correct that I skipped over part of the process. Granting that zombies have things on their person when they turn (though arguments have been presented elsewhere for why that wouldn't necessarily be the case), why would somebody (not just me) risk fighting them for the chance of getting it rather than going to the place where their chances are increased and the risk is reasonably less?

 

 

 

 

This confuses me. (Not least because it is incongruous for you to say that you would attack a zombie and risk death but you wouldn't climb Everest because of the potential for death.) Maybe because I wasn't clear. Part of the conversation is risk/reward (hence your post 161). Everest is high risk (in terms of potential bodily harm and financial expense) but there is no reward except to do it.

 

Wrong, there IS a massive reward for climbing Everest. The knowledge that you did something not only risky but HARD. Extremely hard! Something that very few highly skilled and practiced people in the world are capable of doing. Hardly comparable to the ease of walking up and snuffing out a zombie.

[meganoth]

Not saying they should listen to the whims of every single one of their players, but if such a big chunk of people aren't ok with your decisions, ignoring them is an absurd approach.

 

Look at the top at the survey, an equally big chunk IS absolutely ok with the decision. Ignoring this crowd then would also be absurd, so what are they to do? Probably what the majority voted for, i.e. trying it out.

 

Your present opinion as well as mine about this change is a nice topic to discuss in this forum but absolutely useless to TFP because we are not here as game design experts, we are here as voluntary testers. Only the feedback after playing with it for a while has any relevance to them at all.

 

Sure, if you find a compelling logical reason for not doing a change that they haven't thought of yet, that could have relevance as well. But not even eidobunnys argument, as good as it is, is in that category because nobody can be sure if it really will be a problem and there are other ways to deal with it if it turns out to be one.

[Xtrakicking]

Did you see The Shape of Water? It made less money worldwide than Avengers: Infinity War made in North America alone. That means that there were plenty of people who weren't enthused enough by the Best Picture winner and chose not to see it. Should it not have been made? Should they have added in more things which would give it greater appeal? (Notice how this doesn't hinge on "listening to the whims of every single person," but it does hinge on "a big chunk of people.")

 

That's a very flawed comparison. I said that if there's a big chunk of your audience that's disappointed by your decisions, it's worth looking into it, not that you should change your product because not the whole world is playing it.

 

 

Look, whining is always unhelpful feedback. It can clue you into unrest or dissatisfaction, but it isn't particularly actionable. The same goes for advance feedback of this feature. I mean, focus groups are useful for movies and politicians, and though I can't say for sure, I imagine that they are useful for non-EA games. For one alpha of an EA game when the devs are not going to change their course on the alpha--advance feedback is basically useless.

 

Feedback is feedback, however you want to look at it. Obviously, contructive criticism is always the best and most helpful feedback of it all, and normally when there's controversy about a new feature, out of one whiner there's 10 times more people willing to give their opinion in civil manners.

 

Advanced feedback is important too. I remember when TFP changed the appearance of the burnt zombie, and it looked like a lava demon. A huge amount of the people raised their dislike towards the new texture, and they changed to something better looking. That was one example of advanced feedback that, as you can see, was useful in a way.

 

If TFP decided tomorrow that in the next update 7dtd will become a battle royal with micro transactions, everyone would go nuts and start basically begging for them to stop. Isn't that an indication that, maybe, it's not a good decision? Well, that's what advanced feedback is all about. Sure enough, it's always better to wait for the final product and then raise your final judgement (as you can see from the results of the poll), but that doesn't mean advanced feedback has no purpose.

 

 

Look at the top at the survey, an equally big chunk IS absolutely ok with the decision. Ignoring this crowd then would also be absurd, so what are they to do? Probably what the majority voted for, i.e. trying it out.

 

Your present opinion as well as mine about this change is a nice topic to discuss in this forum but absolutely useless to TFP because we are not here as game design experts, we are here as voluntary testers. Only the feedback after playing with it for a while has any relevance to them at all.

 

Sure, if you find a compelling logical reason for not doing a change that they haven't thought of yet, that could have relevance as well. But not even eidobunnys argument, as good as it is, is in that category because nobody can be sure if it really will be a problem and there are other ways to deal with it if it turns out to be one.

 

Well, firstly, this poll doesn't depict the whole audience. You can go to Joel's video and read the comments, you'll be surprised to find many more people that aren't so keen on the loot change, but their vote isn't accounted here.

 

And like I said, it's obviously better to wait for final judgement, but the first reception after a change has been made should definitely be noted, in my opinion.

[Dosu Kinuta]

People are not going to stop killing zombies.

 

A) It is fun to kill zombies for it's own sake.

B) You still will look for loot drops.

C) You do get xp and skill progression for killing them.

D) It is fun to kill zombies for it's own sake.

 

I think the whole "Now, nobody will kill zombies anymore" piece is a bit ridiculous. I've been playing with it for a month or more and I don't kill zombies much less than I ever did. I just don't see them as ambulatory loot boxes any more. Shooting a zombie with an arrow, retrieving the arrow, and shooting them again with the same arrow is pure entertainment.

 

To be honest, you don't see survivors looting zombies in any movie or tv series like the Walking Dead, maybe very rarely, as far as I've seen in the walking dead. I agree, zombies should be a threat, not some loot containers. Those kids that don't like the change, they just love to make a drama out of it....like "Now nobody is going to like the game, they will lose all their players....blah blah blah etc..."

[Jedo]

A negative aspect of this too, if people just start avoiding zombies because they will not hardly drop loot, you weapon skills will suffer later down the road. Like me, I kill every zombie I see, not just because of the potential of loot but it levels up my melee skill, then my blade skill for grinding their bodies up. Horde night, I mostly stick to ranged weapons but mix it up with melee. If you start avoiding zombies, later on when you start getting tougher enemies, you won't hardly be able to down them because you're doing so very little damage to them.

 

All zombies might be for now is trying to get some xp to level up but TFP might decide to lower your xp gains from those kills too.

 

People only would be avoiding zombies out in the wild. They practically have to kill zombies in POIs and on horde nights. (See how that "have to" works?) Maybe their gamestage progresses slower (Oh my God! TFP only did this to increase grind!), and so the horde nights which they encounter are not out of their reach to combat.

 

Wrong, there IS a massive reward for climbing Everest. The knowledge that you did something not only risky but HARD. Extremely hard! Something that very few highly skilled and practiced people in the world are capable of doing. Hardly comparable to the ease of walking up and snuffing out a zombie.

 

You are going to wander in here and take a snipe at an example? An example which you twisted out of context? And you are going to attempt to tell me that I was wrong when I made the exact same point you did? Be better next time.

 

That's a very flawed comparison. I said that if there's a big chunk of your audience that's disappointed by your decisions, it's worth looking into it, not that you should change your product because not the whole world is playing it.

 

There's a couple of ways we can go about this. Are we going to confine TFP and movie producers to target audiences, or are we going to say that their target audience is the whole world? I can guarantee you that executive producers would love to make as much money as possible, so they want as wide an audience as possible. Shouldn't TFP still be looking to expand their audience?

 

Let's take the target audience approach (since you seem to think that this will help your point). TFP's target audience is gamers in general, PC gamers specifically. Does it narrow further? Many on the forum are arguing against this new mechanic on behalf of the PVP crowd, a crowd which extends beyond players of this game. PVP is a massive element of the gaming industry. If the PVPers who already are playing the game hate this change, then how can TFP expect to draw in more PVPers? So the logic goes. Maybe, as I've argued elsewhere, TFP isn't interested in targeting the PVP demographic. They, like the Shape of Water people, have decided against marketing in that direction. Cries to the contrary are irrelevant.

 

What's the result? Part of the current players might stop playing, and future customers might not come. Why is that a problem if the result is what TFP wanted? "Because they should satisfy the people who have invested in their product!" They have no responsibility to do that. As for your disappointment, I point you again to my wise friend's comments.

 

If TFP decided tomorrow that in the next update 7dtd will become a battle royal with micro transactions, everyone would go nuts and start basically begging for them to stop. Isn't that an indication that, maybe, it's not a good decision? Well, that's what advanced feedback is all about. Sure enough, it's always better to wait for the final product and then raise your final judgement (as you can see from the results of the poll), but that doesn't mean advanced feedback has no purpose.

 

First of all, that likely would be a breach of TFP's kickstarter because they marketed the game a certain way. I wasn't around for the kickstarter, so I can't really back that up. My point is that it my be better for you to pick a less extreme example.

 

That said, I don't think that that response would be an indication that it's not a good decision. It would be an indication that the current players generally don't like the decision. I've tried to tell you that "good" is relative, and the ultimate judgment of "good" rests with TFP. Obviously, if TFP made that change, they likely would be drawing in an entirely new crowd of players, and if moving to battle royale with micro transactions matches what they think is good, then it's a double win for them.

 

(Personally, I don't like the advent of micro-transactions in games. I still play some of those games insofar as I am able to do so without making use of that mechanic. I think, "Man, I would have enjoyed this game more if that wasn't in there," but I don't expect the companies to take it out. People buy micro-transactions, and they can't help themselves sometimes. I think that's why you saw the outcry over Electronic Arts implementing this mechanic: People knew that they would buy them, and they didn't want to do so. Also, they thought that it would prevent an unfair advantage and lock people out of all the content. I think that EA was wrong to back down (unless there was legal trouble, which I might have missed). That's just what I think for EA because I know that they are a company that is only about making as much money as possible. It would have made them a treasure trove of money.)

[SylenThunder]

The walls of text running in circles arguing with each others opinions is getting a little old guys.

 

You act like there's going to be no more loot. That scavenging from zombies has come to an end. That you're not going to have easy mode anymore and it will be more of a struggle to survive.

Oh wait, this is a survival game. Loot is too easy as it is.

 

I offered this suggestion in the Steam forum, I'll offer it here.

 

Test this right now. Start a new game. Set loot to 25%. Play until you're level 200.

I'd be willing to bet that's going to be close to what's in a17, except you will be missing out on the increased loot from boss zombies.

Starting out will be more of a challenge sure. I'm certain that once you're established, you'll still be throwing things away because you don't need them.

 

 

For a survival game, there is no real challenge currently. The game should be a challenge.

[Shiana]

It's a very bad decision to remove almost all the loot from the zeds. I mostly play on multiplayer, PVE-Only Servers, and yes, that means we have a friendly community, and want to show of our houses, and defend against zeds alone together. (that means we dont share resources, but we will defend someones home and life)

 

Very often in these games its a fact, that the ONLY loot comes from zombies, because everything in the nearby areas has already been lootet by someone, and the respawn will still take a few days to come.

With this new idea of loot only in cupboards and containers, that whole game style is gone. No more building together alone in PVE. no more building near to someone and showing off your building skills in the zombie apocalypse.

For that alone, my guess is that - if you look at the PVE/PVP Server ratio - 7d2d will loose about 60% of its community/players. This will also lead to bad reviews in steam by new players, and sorry to say: it will bring doom to the game..

[DragonFyre]

Very often in these games its a fact, that the ONLY loot comes from zombies, because everything in the nearby areas has already been lootet by someone, and the respawn will still take a few days to come.

With this new idea of loot only in cupboards and containers, that whole game style is gone. No more building together alone in PVE. no more building near to someone and showing off your building skills in the zombie apocalypse.

 

I wonder how much of a problem this is on servers that don't greatly exceed the number of players the game is designed for.

 

Which is something they should have addressed a long time ago. Locking the servers into 8-players instead of allowing people to set it for more players than what is supported by the game.

 

 

With this new idea of loot only in cupboards and containers...

Are you dim?

Did you read what Sylenthunder said?

Zombies will still drop loot!

 

 

 

I'm going to give his suggestion a try and see how it turns out.

[meganoth]

That's a very flawed comparison. I said that if there's a big chunk of your audience that's disappointed by your decisions, it's worth looking into it, not that you should change your product because not the whole world is playing it.

 

This "looking into", what should that entail? For example in this specific case? I don't see any reasonable reaction from TFP except continuing as is and letting people try it out. If it IS a bad decision, players will tell them after playing it and only then do they have the evidence to actually do something. And don't just tell me that it helps them because they know this might be a problem later. Tell me how that knowledge changes the future, I don't see it.

 

 

Advanced feedback is important too. I remember when TFP changed the appearance of the burnt zombie, and it looked like a lava demon. A huge amount of the people raised their dislike towards the new texture, and they changed to something better looking. That was one example of advanced feedback that, as you can see, was useful in a way.

 

But in the case of the burnt zombie all the information was already in that picture or preview video. That is nearly impossible with a game play change. At least not enough to change something before the release, except for things that are provably wrong.

 

Well, firstly, this poll doesn't depict the whole audience. You can go to Joel's video and read the comments, you'll be surprised to find many more people that aren't so keen on the loot change, but their vote isn't accounted here.

 

And like I said, it's obviously better to wait for final judgement, but the first reception after a change has been made should definitely be noted, in my opinion.

 

1) The whole audience hasn't played A17 just like us, their information is as theoretical and useless as ours. 100000*useless is still useless .

2) Pointing to an even less representative group of people to disregard the vote of a group is not helping. The people not satisfied with a change are more likely to post their opinion than the ones happy or indifferent or waiting to try it out.

 

Actually, the first reception might be "noted" by TFP, but maybe as an indication that a feature will meet heavy prejudice. The sensible thing would be to even wait much longer after release before feedback is considered. Is that what you wanted to recommend to TFP?

 

 

 

The walls of text running in circles arguing with each others opinions is getting a little old guys.

 

We all like to argue until our tongues hang out Welcome to our personal groundhog day and thank you for your argument

[SylenThunder]

We all like to argue until our tongues hang out Welcome to our personal groundhog day and thank you for your argument

Well, if it doesn't stop, the discussion will get shut down.

 

It's not constructive at all.