Well, that’s why ‘Sigma’ exists.
Sigma 3 to declare a ‘effect’ (0,15% deviation chance)
And Sigma 5 for a ‘discovery’ (0,00003% deviation chance)
I think we can work with a spectrum here as long as the respective spectrum is properly proclaimed. Otherwise it’s fairly willy nilly and senseless, in both directions.
Their job is literally to market their product and provide it.
If they can’t communicate with the playerbase and hence market it then they actually deserve for it to do badly. We can always and repeatedly see that proper communication with the community as well as proper moderation automatically ‘adjusts’ the community accordingly.
Just look at the times when Starbound came out. ‘Decent’ game, by far worse then Terraria… but nonetheless well received as the communication was there. Factorio for example has even more communication and on top is a fantastic game.
Constant communication and updates means that the feedback of the community can also be more instant, meaning for possibilities to affect the direction of the devs before they waste time into something nobody cares about. It’s a win-win.
Also negativity is hard to handle… but the people sorting through those posts and in charge of making a list as properly as possible for the specific parts of the dev team to put into their ‘idea list’ so to speak actively has the job to ignore the tone of any feedback and solely extract the underlying issues and suggestions to make the best possible solutions regarding those.
So yeah, as hard as it sounds… but this is literally their job to do. A sucky part of it but nonetheless a part.
Let me fix that for you:
‘there will be new bugs’ 
Yeah, true, I agree there.
The current state of it needs a ‘grand swipe’ over it though, a one-pass focus adjustment to get them into a rather similar state to then gradually ruin with adjustments before they’re so out of whack that that repeats itself once more.
It’s overdue.
Agreed, it would be very very bad for everyone, both devs and players.
That notion towards development is nonsensically strict and detrimental to a vast degree.
Very close, and would throw a few things out of whack.
But overall agreed, it needs to be an aspect of the whole system, currently scaling favor with cost isn’t a thing when it’s actually a mandatory aspect of it to function well. Higher value demands a higher time investment to align with rarity and hence supply/demand.
I wrote about it in a thread detailing it, suggesting a tertiary resource besides favor and reputation which is faction specific for MG, removing the usage of gold completely. It’s under the point ‘Core Setup: MG suggested changes’ and in more detail under ‘Complex Issues: Resource Sinks’ if I remember right.
This shouldn’t happen actually. The other way around. Power level of item causing a baseline minimum investment, with a far bigger variance then we currently have. So common, rare and very rare uniques being priced very differently, as would be T6, T7, double exalted T6 and further to a large amount. The same going for the difference between bases and their rarity in drop-chance as well as boss-uniques.
It is. If you know how a economy works and see the issues it’s surprisingly ‘easy’ to handle them right. There will be follow-up issues but those generally are far more minor in scale then the existing ones we currently have.
It would be better if they showcased that you get the third lens slot at Rank 9. Alas not the case… still a bit lackluster for such a late Rank though, especially with what a third lens slot provides… which is solely targeting things a bit faster and hence reduction of favor costs.
You can, the downsides are extreme though and not worth it. Minimal RMT is fine, if it takes over it becomes a problem.
Nah, no players means nobody bitches
I agree, the existence of ‘sets’ on their own have always been a problem and it was very ballsy for EHG to try and implement them. They’re either too weak or too strong, getting them ‘just right’ is a masterpiece to do, I would say not worth the effort even… use the resources for something more important instead of making a flimsy system prone to failure ‘not fail’. Because saying it functions well would be going to far in the best of cases.
Doubling the roll-chance for boss-tables. Hence it rolls twice per applicable table to double boss item drops overall and hence reducing time investment to 50% for acquisition of boss uniques.
3-4, yes, agreed. It need to be the same timespan, the same day of the week with the same time of the day each time. Exceptions applying by providing the info at least 2 months ahead of time.
Why?
There’s a chunk of people actively taking time off in preparation for a new cycle, it’s a detriment to deprive such invested people of experiencing the game’s new economy they’re seeking out when it happens and leads to less income. Obviously the scale and goals for the respective cycles need to be properly handled accordingly.
PoE is a prime counter to this argument. I remember full well when GGG had a bit less experience with ‘grand’ league mechanics yet and they literally broke the game in major ways with tons of crashes for both clients or the servers being affected completely. Since they went ahead to acquire the experience and postpone releases that hasn’t happened anymore.
It correlates well seemingly, if it’s the causation isn’t obvious… but it seems to be for now.
It sounds better then saying ‘yeah, game’s not done yet, sorry guys!’. It’s a bad marketing strategy what seems to have become a main point for companies to do nowadays… singular examples where it actually happens is fine… but excusing postponing a release with that and then delivering something unstable is a big ‘oof’ definitely. Makes it turn into a negative rather then a positive.
They’re ‘sales 101’ stuff.
Also in the same aspect… when people start to see something repeatedly they get tired of it. So as soon as a ‘new way to handle things’ comes out and companies adopt this way it becomes commonplace and hence looses value. The value of a specific action comes from being unique and actually truthful.
If you hear one time ‘We’re taking a bit more time to make it the best possible thing’ you think ‘Oh nice! That’s great! really cool!’
If you hear it 15 times the thought changes to ‘Yeah yeah, leave the BS at home and tell me something which is actually true.’
Just the way it goes.
This whole paragraph, absolutely this, 100% agreed.
It’s a disaster to ignore those things.
If it’s known then fix it.
If it’s not known then well, it’s not known.
It’s acceptable to have errors in your game.
It’s not acceptable to leave them in.
It was a good and valid one though, very well voiced. Kudos.
Replacing devs is a dangerous thing.
A good developer crew pulls at the same string, together. A overall vision which is shared and gets diluted the more people work on a project.
Simply pulling in devs not aligned with your vision will cause major problems. This is a HR-issue which is well known and often ignored even by major companies, which is why we see major failing games like ‘Fallout 76’ where a single-player studio tries to suddenly jump on a bandwagon for ‘live service games’ and that doesn’t align with what the devs originally wanted to make game-wise.
Their recipe worked, they switched the recipe, they failed… then devs quit, they tried to return to the known recipe but suddenly the new devs on their team aren’t aligned fully with it anymore. Welcome ‘Starfield’… we know how that turned out.
Elder Scrolls 6 will likely also be lackluster if no major changes are made internally, the same can happen to smaller dev-studios too, never push a company into those directions, it’s a guarantee to fail if your workers aren’t aligned with your visions.
PoE 2 will be a good diablo-clone, with nigh guarantee. Not only has GGG shown that they’re behind improving QoL since the last years after handling the issues of making 2 projects in parallel and starting to handle it after the initial quality drop for PoE 1… but they have their ‘recipe’ down by now. It would be hard for them to fail majorly there. It’ll have issues for sure but their devs are aligned with the vision and actively working on a clear-cut goal.
Tomfuckery can always happen though, so never 100% trust in it. The chance is just higher.
No, that’s actually not true.
Choice paralysis is one major point to take in, more isn’t better by design, it has a tipping point.
Also ‘serial content’ versus ‘parallel content’ is a big thing to take into consideration.
That’s one big topic there I could write half an essay about and did a while back, I’ll spare people unless someone wants to go into more detail there.
Without having heard about those topics thought it seems ‘natural’ to do ‘more is better’, in reality it turns out to be the contrary sadly.
Or easily said: Quality before quantity. More mechanics aren’t boding well, good mechanics make a game life forever.
The answer is: Yes, it is possible.
And actually more enjoyable even… but you miss out on the needed idol slots, passive points and attribute points, the only reason for the campaign with a secondary character.