Ratline

What, if any, are the negative impacts on the port raided?

Much of the issue actually seems to stem purely from the fact that English is not admin's first language. If nothing else then having a native speaker proof read stuff to say 'hey, you know this statement can be interpreted in a really bad way?' would have avoided much of the fuss about this review. People will seize on any ambiguous comment and twist it, it's a game admin and the devs need to learn to play rather than continually throwing the trolls and haters ammunition.

I'm not backing down, just acknowledging that my post could have been worded in a less confrontational way. Quite frankly I think 'admin' needs to have a very serious think about how he approaches this kind of issue and perhaps hand over certain aspects of PR communication to somebody a little less emotionally invested and more capable of calm, clear and unambiguous posting. To make the post I questioned, worded as it was, was a serious error of judgement. Now admin may not see it that way and, indeed, his response suggests just that. That is exactly why somebody else should be handling these matters.

That's cool, and thanks for replying. Sorry if my first post seemed a little short. Really though, the wording of things like that is so important and that single comment is already being used against you in reviews and on Steam =-i

What you 'think' is irrelevant and in this case doesn't even make sense. If you can't see that it is exactly that type of comment which has caused a lot of this crap then you need to have a little think about it rather than posting snide, condescending comments.

What are you saying here, that because people (not necessarily even members of the game's community) upvoted this you are holding back content? If not that what, exactly, do you mean and do you never fucking learn? Seriously.. given the context of this thread and the review you are just shooting yourself in the face typing things like that. *facepalm*

I'd much rather see you guys take your time and do things right rather than push out stuff you and we might not be happy with just to meet arbitrary and ultimately meaningless deadlines.

What is nonsense is the fact that fast ships are viewed as 'tacklers' in the sense you mean. People have got so used to exploiting the disparity between OW and battle time that they can't see how bad the current ROE are. Frigates should not be 'tacklers' that rush off, tag an enemy and then evade while their support rushes to enter the battle in OW time while the target is trapped in battle time and unable to put any distance between themselves and their attacker, even though all logic dictates they ought to be able to do so unless the tagging ship can actually slow/disable them in combat. Smaller ships are meant to screen larger ones and chase down runners, not be magic tagging machines as if this were EVE. As it was historically it may actually end up being quite hard to force a SOL fleet to battle if it does not wish to engage. That's not a bad thing. It means SOL will come out for the big fights, when nobody is going to back down... not for hit and run raiding in enemy waters, which was inane. To be honest this works in the advantage of raiders as well since it applies both ways... fast ships to catch and engage fast ships, SOLS for the slugging it out. People are going to need to relearn how to fight and, hopefully, it will lead to better and more realistic engagements.

Yeah I paraphrased slightly, but not with the intent to misrepresent but only to try to clarify my point. The reason I used that example was because it was an instance where I thought you'd had a (potentially) really good idea but were worried about testing it due to potential player reactions. I think in the cases where you guys stick to your guns and follow your vision for the game you generally get it spot on, so seeing you worrying about testing something (during a test period) because of Steam reviews disappointed me. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick. But no Kraken you say? That's a game changer... going to make a negative Steam review right now

Looking forward to this and good to see some brave changes being tested. "crew colliders standardisation" - what on Earth does this mean?

Jesus, seriously? I'm not wasting my time digging out the random comment in the random thread where you said that. You seem to be deliberately picking up on that rather than the actual point I was making and thus this conversation is now pointless.

Look, I agree with you both on up/downvoting reviews that are either good or blatantly untruthful. I had posted counters to many points in that review since the bullshit annoyed me. Then he linked the quote in question and I had to ask myself if it was really acceptable, the answer I came to was that the comment was not defensible. Yes dev actions matter, but saying dev words do not matter is simply not the truth of the matter. For those not already part of your player base words can matter a great deal and a comment such as the one in question can only do you harm. Let me put it this way... you shelved plans for variable wind strengths (something I was very sad to see dropped) because you were worried it might result in negative reviews and affect sales. A post such as the one the guy linked also clearly affects reviews and sales, just look at the responses. Why shoot yourself in the foot over something that isn't even content? Anyway, not looking for an argument and you know my feeling. I appreciate the responses.

Seriously? Nothing 'purposeful' about my post. The quote of 'I changed my mind and trading xp will never get implemented until release because of your comments. I am not joking.' was pretty clear. Professionals working on a serious project such as this should not be having temper tantrums or be so easily offended as to allow their work to be influenced in such a way by the comments of one person. For fuck's sake, I was a professional musician for years, you handle criticism like a pro and get on with your job. I wouldn't jack in a gig, or an album, because one person said they didn't like it =-i Anyway this is going nowhere. Hopefully something was learned from it and it won't be repeated.

You are open, and you are influenced by the community, it's one thing I've always appreciated as I appreciate your honesty in responding to my post. All I'd say is that perhaps don't be too sure that 'the community did not care' about that feature and consider the wider effect your comments can have, that post is now linked in the top viewed Steam review. There are ways to phrase and present things which avoid this kind of bullshit, it's not unwise to consider that. It's no good saying you don't want to try things like variable wind strengths because it might affect reviews and sales but also say you don't give a shit how people feel about posts such as the one in question. As far as ship paint customisation, I'm sure it is amazing and wonderful for the lucky few who got to access it, less so for others who live in hope that it will be made available to those who can't do time intensive special events on days they may be working/hours they are asleep or who simply don't get lucky. Trade XP is something that might have been less eye catching but would potentially please, and affect, a lot more customers. *shrug*. You've said before that you like to stand for the silent majority... perhaps this was a case where you could have held that in mind before making the decision.

Got no problem with people being direct or honest. I'm being direct and honest here. I have not the slightest interest in No Man's Sky or what they do on their forums, my interest is in this game and what happens here. The 'importance' of the feature is not the issue, and I think you know the post in question and thus the feature. The issue is that it appears that you delayed or removed a feature purely to spite an individual, or small group of individuals. Now, maybe you were just trolling him, maybe you wrote it in a heated moment and didn't really mean it. Maybe the feature was delayed anyway and you were just winding him up. I don't really care which it is. What matters to me is that I've defended choices and stances taken by the dev team many times but it's hard to do when you post something like that. I'm looking for reassurance that it is not the case that you make decisions on development based on whether somebody pisses you off on the forum.

To threaten the delay, or removal, of a feature based on the criticism of a couple of users is not a good way to go and if Admin is unable to handle that frustration then taking a deep breath and walking away from the keyboard before posting would be a good idea. That kind of post stays and does real harm to the perception of the devs and how they treat their community. If they want our support, and most of us want the game to do well, then they need to act accordingly regardless of a few negative responses. I'm willing to overlook frustration and the odd snarky remark. I'm not willing to overlook a dev who would be so petty as to remove a feature from development over something so trivial to punish a single user when what it really does is punish the wider community and damage their image, which some of us have gone to some lengths to try to protect, especially on places like Steam where they have taken a bashing. That's my $0.2

So instead of a vapid remark point me to some clarification if it exists.

This has just come to my attention: "We worked very hard this month and your comment offended my programmers and artists (makers of Bucentaure and Santa Cecilia). I changed my mind and trading xp will never get implemented until release because of your comments. I am not joking. We focus on making happy customers happier. Half empty pessimists are not our market" http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15485-patch-993-bucentaure-acceleration-rework-and-many-other-things/page-8 Would 'Admin' be so kind as to clarify whether this comment was actually meant seriously or if he was just trolling a customer? If it is the case that trade xp was delayed based on the comments of one customer I'm disgusted. If you were simply trolling do you have any concept of how badly this can affect your image and potential customer support? Either way, I feel that I've defended your responses one too many times in the belief that this is (potentially) a great game, but if you are delaying, or even removing, features based on something that trivial I'm pretty much done. Any support I have left rests heavily on your response, or lack thereof.

Simplest solution would be a full asset wipe at the time of the patch. Careful what you ask for.

What he says Would like to see the 'neutral' idea given a run for testing.

I think so far we've seen that this simply does not happen. Even nations reduced to one port make comebacks but they need to play the political game and rebuild. Player alliances never really hold long term, power blocs always break up, there is always infighting and pressure to go in different directions. I think each nation (and pirates) having a handful of 'safe' ports which cannot be capped is not a bad idea, from there we fight and build and players have a small amount of asset security, if for instance they take a break or are more casual in playtime. To me map resets reinforce the artificial gamey side of NA rather than helping build a believable persistent game world. Some people will prefer that, same as some prefer gamey teleport bluffs, defensive tagging and exploiting timers/battlescreens or whatever. Not for me though.

Got nothing against gameplay which requires thought, but a lot against the kind of bullshit gamey crap that we had with the old system. If you prefer gaming a system in that way over having something vaguely believable in terms of how the overarching game mechanics work that's your business, ain't gonna convince me it's good though no matter how much you sneer

While I'm looking forward to mot of the proposed changes I am not a fan of map resets. Take PvP1 for example; with map resets we would have missed out on so much drama and politics... the collapse of the Spanish and subsequent revival, same with the Americans. The taking of Jamaica and the fight to reclaim it. With map resets we lose the essential to and fro which actually makes strategic warfare interesting.

So you prefer bs gamey 'tactics' and unopposed port battles over what we have now?

And I already said that I accept that it is not a priority and agree that other things need to be worked on first, so not sure what your post was aiming at. The point I am making is that I hope you do not abandon the idea simply because you are afraid some people might not like it. Not the same thing at all.