Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I don't think it was a good idea :p
Agreed. Why remove perfectly good characters that many people love, while also adding in maps and other characters that people never wanted instead of fixing the game like everyone does want?
I've never joined a lobby that was happy about the removal of these characters and at the same time I've never joined a lobby that didn't feel this game could use a lot of improvement rather than messing around with these silly bits.
If you had an annoying splinter in your finger today, but had important knee surgery scheduled for next week, you wouldn't insist upon waiting until the knee surgery was done to remove the splinter. You also wouldn't expect your knee surgery to take equally long as removing the splinter.
My point is that it's not a matter of "priority." The significant difference in relative difficulties -- real in my analogy, presumed on the part of the developers -- are what cause the wait for the more pressing need.
Nah man it is critical that you leave a splinter alone until all other ailments are handled
Plus, I'm talking about the golden characters, as well as the other huge pile of characters they added and the prototype maps.
They've been continuingly adding and playing with new content that nobody particularly wants rather than fixing the flaws that EVERYONE wants fixed. It's not a matter of "a splinter VS knee surgery." It's a matter of constantly shopping for clothing accessories while you have a broken arm that you're pretending isn't broken.
The point of my analogy is "if you are unable to fix one thing, that doesn't mean you shouldn't fix other things." Are you suggesting that they shouldn't add new content, or make decisions on what belongs in the game and what doesn't, just because they're not currently able to figure out and fix some issues for whatever reason?
It's not like they're in their ivory tower cackling "AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHA the fools! We could fix this join lag, but we want them to SUFFER!" I think the sentiment of "they're pretending their arm isn't broken" is provably wrong as evidenced in the forums. They respond to issues with the game, they have several pinned threads for community feedback which I'm sure they read, and they are adding new content. You may not appreciate that, but I sure do, and I'm certain I'm not alone in the sentiment.
Could you imagine if the problem were "our coders currently lack the skills to fix the problem." They'd probably fear an absolute riot. No way they'd ever admit to that, and I wouldn't blame them. Keep reading your coding books or whatever, surprise the people when you do finally figure out how to fix it, and take that secret to the grave, IMO.
There's nothing wrong with adding new content. But as far as the community knows they're essentially ignoring any of the problems they have. Join lag is one of the minor ones that might just be unfixable because the game is so fast-paced that the amount of time it takes for a new player to synch to the milliseconds required to play this game may be too much to negate the momentary pause the game takes to let that person connect.
If the problem truly is that they coders currently lack the skills, they should be very open with that knowledge because then perhaps someone in the community does have the skills and could help the problem get fixed sooner.
Messing around with maps that were perfectly fine before they messed with them further and adding in characters that nobody particularly wants but no one is particularly complaining about isn't the way to work on these problems. Being transparent with the community and NOT removing content that the community loves is definitely how they should be acting, but aren't. The way they're acting now it feels more like they're "up in their ivory tower cackling" that they've already made their money off this silly Early Access system and would rather continue adding content rather than fixing their broken game. Because all we ever see is the new content flowing in and we don't hear anything about them fixing or attempting to fix any broken pieces.
For one thing, if they were happy simply with the money they've made, why would they bother responding to anything at alI? Why bother updating anything at all? Why not take the money and run, as it were? They're giving it a good effort, IMO. You can't expect absolute perfection from a small group of human beings. If all they do is respond to forum posts, that's less time spent getting things done.
I wouldn't be surprised if they are probably watching a lot of youtube videos of people playing this game. However, unlike "the community" at large, there is a lot of incentive for them to watch new players. They're not trying to just learn the game, they're trying to learn what new players struggle with. "The community" doesn't see that very much, because "the community" is comprised mainly of people who put a lot of effort into this game, and want to learn to improve, not see "scrubs" sucking.
This is why the changes that they decide are good for the game are the exact same changes that "the community" hates. "This map was fine before!" says "the community" member. "I don't get this map, where the hell am I supposed to go?" said the newbie youtube player before the change was made. "The potato is funny, the potato is a great gag, long live potato." says "the community" member. "WTF I can't even tell when this thing is trying to trip me or what" says the newbie.
And speaking of all this using "the community" as a defense for why some change was bad: I've always found this to be a bit suspect: the vast majority of players of this game are not going to come on here unless something changes that they don't like. "The community" is nothing more than the frequent opinion of a small handful of players (with data slanted toward those that have a lot of time on this game), coupled with the rare opinion of new posters who almost always are posting about something they didn't like. People who liked/didn't care about a change aren't going to be posting about it very much unless they already post here a lot.
Viewed in that light, it's plain to see that "the community" can be cited as "proof" that paints any change even remotely controversial as a diaster that is hated by a large portion of "the community."