As in over 95% of your game's community. "Quite a lot of players complain about the changes" is hereby up for the Understatement of the Year trophy.sayyadin said:
Since certain events showed me personally that GMs are able to have their ship hover in place through the use of a certain script typed in chat, this statement looks like utter bullocks to me. I have trouble believing it would be impossible to have a player's ship speed reduced to 0 when idling, instead of the integer value it used to have.sayyadin said:
But hey, I'm willing to cut you some slack and assume that what you claim is true.
First off: the hover feature hasn't been in the game for months, and only a few players wanted that in. But essentially, the lack of this feature NEVER got in the way of playing the game.
Being unable to steer your ship properly DOES get in the way of playing the game, as it is one of the basics of good gameplay.
Anyone with common sense, would rather choose to keep the latter functioning, even it that would mean the non-essential gameplay feature such as hover would never get implemented.
For a system that "felt weird to play with", it held out pretty wel for MONTHS ON END.sayyadin said:
Personally, I got the hang of it in mere minutes way back when I set my first steps in this game.
The new system which you claim is "more intuative", requires public statements from you and your community managers that people take their high level ships and go back to the noob planets in order to train in steering their ship.
Don't you guys consider it abnormal that people should go through all that trouble, only to get their bloody ship to move where they want it to?
In fact, this system is so "intuative", that it has caused a whole bunch of players to leave this community in less than 2 days(!).
That would seem odd to me, since like I said: the old control system has worked fine for months on end.sayyadin said:
The only thing that I see could have caused trouble all of a sudden, was the implementation of the hover feature. A feature, which I repeat, does not justify overhauling a perfectly working control system only to get it implemented for the minority of people in the community who want it.
Well, it might not have thóse "problems" (whatever they were) but it introduced a whole bunch of new ones, making people's ships close to uncontrollable.sayyadin said:
I would not consider that a fair trade-off.
You really should try to play the game, using an azerty-keycoding instead of a qwerty-one. The old steering allowed this perfectly. The new one is a nightmare, even for old players like me, who are willing to cut you some slack and try to get used to the new steering.sayyadin said:
It simply is too awkward on my azerty-keyboard and response is slow at best.
Well, you tried; you failed.sayyadin said:
"Some things"sayyadin said:
As in "the hover"?
Which has not affected our gameplay although it hasn't been in the game for months?
So, trying to implement this feature and finding it requires a complete retooling of the control system, does NOT cost too much resources?
You know how much resources it would have cost to simply leave the old control system as it was?
(Same with the new cq system, really. All the old one needed was some fine-tuning, which would have cost you far less effort than completely working out a new one and failing at that as well.)
As stated above: if this new system were more "intuative" than the old one... you would not have to make this statement!sayyadin said:
Nor would so many people be ranting or quitting the game over this. In fact, most people dó try to get used to new changes, but when they find it is utterly preposterous and negatively affects their gameplay, they won't hang around "getting used to it" for long.
Sounds simple, doesn't it?sayyadin said:
Try doing that on an azerty-keyboard.
But the players HAVE been trying other ways and none of them works. Especially if their keyboard configuration makes it even more difficult!sayyadin said:
It is YOU as developers who should be looking into how getting it to work properly, instead of forcing it down your community's throat.
After all, it's been reported by test players that the new control system didn't work the way it was supposed to. They told you you shouldn't bother implementing it, yet you did it anyway. And now you expect players to just sit by and not to get frustrated over getting the game to work, when it worked just fine before?
How much white missions have you attempted to put this to the test. From this entire statement, I can safely say: hardly any.sayyadin said:
Because the end result is that people need to spend a huge amount if time for EACH bp, rare or not.
With the old system based on luck: isn't that the case with every game of this type? Because in the end, you may have to spend a long time finding a particular bp, while another may drop for you in a few shots.
Since you always used to have one or the other, it balanced gameplay out in the end.
This new system forces people to spend a long time for EVERY bp. Including the rares. Which is actually even worse than it used to be!
The issue here is that you haven't tackled the problem at its source.sayyadin said:
The actual problem is: WHY do high ranking players go to lower level planets to farm?
Because the higher level Mantis require far more effort (time and e), with the reward only being slightly higher than that of the lower level system.
At to that the lower drop rates and exponentially higher cost for higher level ships and technology.
It is only natural that players rather earn 200 cry in 1 shot, than 60 cry in 20 shots.
And that's not calculating the added chance of being killed on the higher level, losing cry that way.
This is a problem of cry drop balancing, versus energy usage, time, ship and equipment costs. No more, no less.
This is not a problem of player versus Mantis level, as you seem to have treated it.
