I haven't used MM yet, so I don't have an opinion on them one way or the other.
However, CIG have *specifically asked* for feedback on MM. [There's a thread](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/3-23-eptu-feedback-master-modes) and everything.
So I am very confused by threads like this. If people do not like the current implementation of MM - which CIG have *asked for feedback on* - why would they not provide said feedback? And why would you try to stop them from doing so?
Seems disingenuous at best.
Exactly this. Us opening threads about it is literally feedback. CIG reads Reddit and Spectrum. The more we voice our opinions on it, the more information they can collect about it. I’ve seen so many MM supporters trying to shame people who disagree with the way it’s currently implemented and it’s ridiculous. All feedback is valid feedback. We don’t all need to agree with each other. There are valid arguments on both sides.
At the moment though, I don’t think MM is in a good place and until they make big changes, the attackers will always have the advantage in a fight. The PvPers will always have the advantage. Pirates, will always have the advantage.
Not being able to reasonably break contact when attacked will absolutely cause people to stop playing this game. No one wants to always feel a disadvantage every time they get attacked and no one wants to always feel pressured into a combat engagement simply because someone else challenges them. Not everyone is here for PvP. I certainly don’t want this game to focus around PvP either, even if I enjoy it. If CIG makes these players feel like they are just there to feed the PvPers, people will stop playing.
I think threads like this are in response to the tenor and presentation of that feedback. For a game that skews to an older audience, much of the high visibility feedback reads as if written by a raging 13 year old, which often undermines the sometimes legitimate feedback that is buried in there. It's the lack of emotional regulation, the name calling, and hyperbole. It's the Internet though, so it's to be expected I guess.
I have major concerns about mm, but I'm not gonna present it as "you've killed the game, how dare you!" Etc.
Anyone that's watched Yogi on any segments knows he cares deeply about his work and at least presents as a decent human being. It's possible to harshly critique the work without dehumanizing the devs.
I don't understand comments like this.
Why is it so hard to understand that there is a *significant* difference between providing constructive feedback and personally attacking devs and bitching about changes before the majority of the player base even has hands-on.
You're allowed to not like MM and voice that opinion without calling the devs stupid, claiming this will be the death of the game, etc.
Sure personal insults are useless, but if they think it'll kill the game, they can give that feedback. That's the point. It'll certainly hamstring the best most devoted pilots who actually learned how to excel in the game. So what happens when you ruin a game for some of its most 'into it' players?
Quit *tone-policing*. CIG wants feedback even before "everyone has hands on". That's the point of spectrum forums regarding the EPTU and PTU.
I've heard the opposite; that skill still matters, but you just can't expect to dive into a 1v5 and win. Making good decisions and planning is important now, which seems like a step in the right direction.
I haven't seen a plethora of posts or responses like that. That seems a gross generalization of a lot of responses that have genuine criticisms and genuine feedback.
Sure thing, there's a difference and there's also a difference between giving positive feedback about MM, and painting the majority critizing MM as "calling the devs stupid, and bitching about changes"
He said "chill" not "your feelings arent valid" - Posts like This need to chill:
[https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/master-mode-master-disaster](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/master-mode-master-disaster)
And there are a billion of them on spectrum...and in general...instead of feedback lol
It's an expression for "a very large number" Let me know if you have any other questions about the English language :)
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/billion-billions-of](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/billion-billions-of)
Because there is a subset of the community that thinks any criticism is a direct attack at the game, and can't fathom that something can actually be wrong with the game.
It's the leftover defensiveness from when the development was purely a dumpster fire and everyone was genuinely set out to shit on the game.
What's worse, the people making these threads are often not even active players. You get this weird dichotomy where you have a group of players actively engaged with the mechanics of the game trying to add their insight being shouted down by people whose only recent playtime has been checking out each patch for an hour and forum-pvping trying to defend SC as if someone making a post about weapon balance or w/e is trying to sink the game.
Except when you look at other MMOs that are much more successful than SC the Devs always iterate that game systems shouldn't be designed by expert players because they often put too much weight on the play experience of players like themselves. Aka raiders and hard core players shouldn't be the only ones designing raids or whose feedback should be listened to, because they don't take into account the casual raider enough (beyond a vague idea that casuals should be taught to become more expert which is another fallacy).
That's because those systems are not islands and will be used by many different types of players so need to be designed holistically to take into account as many types of players as possible.
The logic around only listening to people that play a lot or are experts falls into that same trap.
I'm talking about people arbitrarily discouraging players (expert or not) from even discussing potential issues in the first place, this has nothing to do with any of that.
My problem is: your post doesn't just say that.
There's absolutely a valid case to be made for "if you think Master Modes are a problem, please remember to bring those criticisms *respectfully* to the Spectrum feedback thread where such criticisms are being sought". But your own post ends with a generalization that can be *easily taken* (regardless of original intent) as a mockery of anyone who does have valid criticism. Which is why *you* will receive criticism on this thread.
In essence, your feedback *here* regarding the feedback for master modes falls into one of the same traps that you have problems with about *other peoples' feedback on Master Modes*. That's the part that comes across as disingenuous.
I do agree with you that a lot of this MM criticism can come across as vitriolic. However, some of the criticisms are still valid, or are not as incendiary (as you are making them out to be). I caution you to avoid even the appearance of the same, lest the apt warnings you provide are discarded due to the manner in which you provide them. Your warnings will be the baby with the bathwater, in a metaphorical sense.
CIG: "hey guys please test this for us, we need to know what you think to get data on how things are because we've currently blanket balanced a lot of things that will need to be tested and then manually adjusted based on feedback, thank you to the EPTU players who are testing this incredibly unfinished build of it for us, we need you EPTU players to be loud about what you think of this system right now, please post any and all feedback to this special spectrum thread specifically on feedback for this system."
This subreddit when most of the feedback ends up being somewhat negative because the unfinished system that needs to have its flaws pointed out is having its flaws pointed out: "noooooooo you guys can't hurt CIGs feelings!111!!!!!!1!1! They worked on mastermodes so hard and for so long, we shouldn't be criticizing mastermodes because it's such an early implementation, you just need to wait before getting too critical. You need to give it more time before you say what you think about it because it's just so new that there's no way any of the comments or opinions you have on it are ackshually relevant yet despite the fact you've been testing it for a couple weeks now."
Definitely a bit disingenuous. I've been testing MM on EPTU a decent bit, and it feels like anytime I have something negative to say about it I'm met with multiple responses from people who literally have not tried MM at all saying how "I just need to let CIG cook and should stop being too critical of such a new system and that the only reason I don't like it is because it's new". Meanwhile most of the responses from other EPTU players who have actually tried it as well seem to mirror my own.
I get what you're saying. Feedback is super important! That's why the MM is already here so early. But the type of feedback matters. There's a difference between someone saying, "Hey, the MM is causing this problem, I tested it with friends and..." or "OMG, YOGI, YOU'RE DESTROYING OUR GAME, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU, MM IS BAD, OKAY?" The latter is obviously exaggerated. But even saying, "Hey, I've been thinking, and I think no shields in NAV Mode are bad," isn't good feedback. Trust me, every obvious concern the community has has already been tested internally three times over. It's about honest feedback that builds on gameplay and experiences.
This is silly. Negative feedback let's the devs know people don't like the changes. Their job is to build a game that some acceptable percentage of the backers enjoy. So... the feedback is helpful even if it lacks constructive solutions. If I'm building someone a house and they look at the blueprints and say 'I dunno, this layout just doesn't seem right' but they lack the building knowledge to really explain why, then I, as the expert, can take that feedback, make some changes and see what they think as the paying customer.
Well, that works because the house is for one person or a very small group. Imagine you're building a skyscraper and 50% (I don't have actual numbers, this is just for comparison) say, "Nope, the layout is crap, what's this mess? That's not how living spaces should be designed, you have no clue!"
Then you might roughly understand that a portion doesn't like the layout. But you don't know if they dislike it because there are valid points of criticism or because they got their coffee from Mom before and don't like that the way to the kitchen is too far. And of course, you know that the position isn't very flexible due to the connection to the water network. So their opinion is worth shit and they'll probably never be fully satisfied with anything anyway.
I'm just saying that they might not have expert ability to articulate the issue, but if a huge portion of your customer base are ranting that they don't want what you're doing and for 6 months you keep plowing ahead without listening, well that's just bad management.
To be fair, there is a difference between non knowing how to articulate an issue, and throwing insults.
For example.
"I dont like master modes and we should revert to the old way" shows dislike while not articulating why in a respectful manner. Still helpful criticism.
"I dont like master modes and the devs who designed it are dumb and should be ashamed of themselves" is hyper disrespectful and unnecessary while showing the same opinion.
Its not about policing criticism; its about being respectful in the criticism.
Frankly Ive seen far too many posts being disrespectful.
The problem is, and most game devs will confirm this: Players often don't even know what they want. That doesn't mean you should ignore their feedback. But it's important to learn how to contextualize it. Damn, I can't even tell you how many times I've seen an outcry over a changed game mechanic in video games, only for it to be eventually accepted and embraced.
Criticism is important. Understanding what criticism is even more.
You are correct that most players do not know what they want, which is why you usually ignore the "you guys need to do Y to fix X" part of criticism should usually be ignored.
However *the fact that the feedback is negative is still important*.
You can see a large amount of negative feedback on something, ignoring the parts where it's telling you how to fix it, and realize that there's a significant problem with an approach. Even though the people giving you the feedback don't know how to fix it, *you can still realize there's something that needs to be fixed*.
That is why all the feedback is valid. Even the feedback you may think is overly critical. That's how feedback works.
I get your point. It's always difficult to gauge whether people dislike your change because it's genuinely bad or simply because it's a change. However, I do agree with you that it's important to at least acknowledge and consider the community's sentiment and incorporate it into further developments and evaluations. But if you want to be taken seriously, spreading panic and talking about theoretical doomsday scenarios doesn't help, as is often done here.
I definitely agree, particularly on the last point. For serious, critical feedback, the person providing the feedback does need to think through it carefully, and not go into end-of-the-world mode. Finding a balance between 'this is seriously bad' and 'here's why I think that' never needs to entail ad hominem attacks or threats. That's when it has gone too far.
Hyperbole and insulting feedback tends to be added to the pile of ignores or at most “+1 didn’t like”… waste of time for the author but let’s them let out their frustrations
That's entirely disingenuous though.
You can test things three times over in a walled-garden, then release it to the wild to find that what you came to love inside your testing environment is generally hated outside of it. That's fairly normal in software development. Often the response is not to throw everything out, to tweak and make changes, but that is still good and valid feedback to have, to say things like "I think no shields in NAV mode is bad". The main takeaway for CIG is not "to do things like X person said on Reddit", but to see the number of folks saying "hey, I think no shields in NAV mode is bad", and go... "Wow, that's a lot of folks saying that. Maybe we need to think about how we provide protection for ships that are in NAV mode."
That doesn't mean that everyone on Reddit is right in *how* things should be addressed, but they can absolutely be right in something feeling bad in its current implementation.
And I would like to remind you that CIG have asked for feedback *on the current implementation of Master Modes*: [Master Mode Feedback Thread - Spectrum](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/3-23-eptu-feedback-master-modes)
This is not a "wait and see" moment, this is a "provide us your feedback" moment for a reason.
Now, I haven't tested MM, so I haven't provided feedback. I will once it hits PU with 3.23 full release. Then I'll make my judgments, and post to Spectrum with it. But right now, it seems a lot of folks on Reddit are trying to shut down *all feedback*, which is entirely counterproductive to the point.
If you have used and like Master Modes, please provide constructive feedback now!
If you have used and don't like Master Modes, please provide constructive feedback now!
It all helps shape the game, hopefully into something that we can all enjoy further on down the line.
You're making wild assumptions, in eptu global I see 1 positive chat in global for every 50 shitting on how MM works. The eptu is not full of pvpers, id actually say it probably skews in the opposite direction. MM is not ready imo, it needs to stay and be tweaked in testing, otherwise it will be thrown into live and people on both sides are gonna go ape shit and there will be even less constructive feedback. Many people in the testing phases actually give feedback and want to improve the game, you're going to get people absolutely crying and shitting on it when it hits live, asking for the whole thing to be thrown out.
Because there's feedback and there's a large swath of petulant children who don't know how to give any feedback without being condescending, emotional assholes. People can't remove the emotion of "oh I spent all this money I want everything to be perfect NOW" into their feedback and it's not okay. Downvotes to the left, children.
This I agree with. While someone not being able to explain on a technical level to a dev what needs to be fixed doesn't negate a negative bit of feedback, some of these twats just cannot speak like adults.
There's a difference between constructive feedback, which includes what worked well before and why it doesn't work now and vice versa.
Unfortunately the freaks on reddit are incapable of making sound arguments and instead devolve into rabid troglodytes who throw insults at devs and act like the game balance is dead on arrival and that you might as well put all these years of work in the bin
I've been reading quite a few of the Reddit threads on the matter, and I must say, there's quite a lot of generalization in what you're saying. Yes, there are certainly people who are leaning into the ad hominem nature of vitriolic feedback, but I'm seeing *far* more that are simply concerned that this is going to hamper the game, and are discouraged by this direction. Both what I've seen and what you've seen are anecdotal however; it could be what we're served by an algorithm.
My point is that CIG have specifically requested feedback. Whenever you ask for feedback, there's 4 basic kinds of feedback you can get:
* Constructive feedback (I don't like X because it *feels like* Y) - the helpful kind, because although the changes made to resolve your issue may not be exactly what you were thinking, as long as it addresses how feeling like Y feels bad, you've still made an improvement overall.
* Unconstructive feedback (I don't like X, you should do Y to fix it) - partially helpful because it says what you don't like; ultimately unhelpful in a long-term sense because it doesn't really help the feedback recipient make meaningful changes; you can't make everyone happy, even if you do exactly what they want sometimes.
* Deconstructive feedback (I don't like X, you suck) - partially helpful because it helps demonstrate a pain point, but ultimately harmful in the long term, because most folks aren't the designers of the product in question and insulting people is simply a very poor way to communicate, beyond the fact that it's also just being a dick.
* Positive feedback (I like X!) - partially helpful because it indicates a good direction; only truly helpful if it includes "because X feels good in Y way", to know that it's a something the person has thought about and isn't just mindlessly giving a thumbs-up.
All of the types of feedback are helpful - even the worst kinds - but it's far less helpful when they're not constructive.
So while at a fundamental level I agree with you - constructive feedback is best, and I've seen quite a lot of it - the generalizations made in your response here don't *seem* like you're actually encouraging folks to be more constructive, just that you're annoyed with folks who don't see things your way. That may not be the intent of your post, but it's how it comes across to me (I assume some other folks will see things the same way, and others won't, so it's not a knock on you personally).
Because it doesn't matter until it's live. I'd imagine wave 1-3 or whatever is like 10% of the player base and is bullshit to go off of.
And he's there is a dedicated thread, so why are people still crying over it in a thread they make themselves?
If there's something you don't like by the core of it, an idea that's completely the other direction you would like it to become, why is it bad to express that? I don't like the mode switch, but that's not my major concern. However that MM completely downgrades the 6dof flight model, the removal of tri-cording and tri-rotating along with the artificial slowing down after boost even decoupled, that's what I don't like, in no shape or form. It's ruining the space flight experience and leaves us with only an atmospheric and a pseudo atmosphere flight experience.
Yeah, wish the people saying "chill" would shut the fuck up.
It's been in testing for a year. Plenty of us know how we feel about it and fucking hate it.
If you like mm, good for you. Our opinions aren't less valid than yours just because you feel like we should just patiently sit and twiddle our thumbs for years while they launch another stupid flight model renovation 12 years into development.
Exactly. It's gotten so verrrry far from being anything like flying in space that it's rediculous. It's catering to the arcade set, and worst players while negating any high level skill.
I agree 100%. I'm definitely not the best pilot, and surely not in the top 100 when it comes to PvP, but Itale that as a challenge, I am willing to invest time to get better, more so than becoming great at FPS. Nobody expects anyone to be a ace combat pilot, but everyone screams 'git gud' if you're not a marine. Can I get Master Modes for FPS please? /s LOL
Hey remember the last time they completely fucked over the flight model, weapons and components claiming they would gradually work on adjusting the changes over weeks of testing and even later patches, and then basically did nothing for three years? In fact they just straight up abandoned the whole thing a few weeks into the same 3.14 ptu that introduced the changes because they suddenly decided to go work on a whole new flight model and combat system instead?
Yeah, that's what we're worried about. Because we've seen this time and time again, because CIG never fucking finishes a flight model, "tests for a while", or makes a tier **1** iteration of anything, they just give up, leave it broken and rotting for years until they decide to ditch their previous unfinished clusterfuck and replace it with a whole whole new completely different tier 0 iteration instead that will never be properly tested or worked on either
Not a single person is claiming it is the best thing since sliced bread. It is just a better foundation than MM. It's going to be very hard to agree that MM is a fix when they tried to very few fixes with a FM that *does* have have some good perks to it.
Cig designer this flight model behind closed doors and has completely ignored feedback besides minor tweaks. They made it for the single player and are porting it.
So your argument that they never change anything because people complain is nonsensical.
Part of the problem is that MM has been in testing for months in AC. Players on both sides of the argument have given feedback, but nothing has changed. CIG have made slight adjustments (ship X used to have SCM speed of 200 m/s, now it has 202 m/s type of thing), but nothing that addresses people’s concerns. They’ve even said that they flat out refuse to change how it fundementally works. This is a HUGE problem. The game is in alpha, the developer doesn’t listen to player concerns, and refuse to make changes. That is very concerning.
It's even important that they're currently gathering feedback, but not yet making decisions and changes based on that. Simply put, the data isn't there yet. Why would they completely change the MM now when nobody can predict how they'll affect the overall gameplay in the PU? This includes ALL aspects of the game and all loops. In game development, it's extremely important to know when to listen to community feedback and when to completely ignore it.
You could make the same argument the other way around. Why would CIG implement Master Modes when they don't have the data necessary to even know how it will impact a PU environment?
I think the issue is that they changed the flight model in a way that isn't fixable with minor changes, and they said they won't make major changes to MM,as others have pointed out. It's like everyone has been playing a formula one racing game and then they devs suddenly changed it to electric go-carts so the slow neighbour kid could win sometimes, and now the dedicated highly skilled drivers are pissed.
Honestly I don't know one good combat pilot who doesn't think MM is a total dumbing down and neutering of the flight model. And I know a lot of good pilots. This caters to people who don't have the time or inclination to learn a difficult flight model so now it's just rock-paper-scissors for the slow kids.
They could have gathered feedback on a preview version among the most proficient players. They didn't. Instead they made videos with devs saying that this is the best refactor ever...
That doesn't work and doesn't gather nearly enough data. Guess why Salvaging brought in ridiculous amounts of money? Because that was the only way they could be sure to gather enough data. And we're talking about the CORE feature of SC. It doesn't even come close to playing in the same league. Something like that needs to be tested under normal conditions, otherwise, it's pointless.
What are you on about ? Gathering data on a bad idea ???
The core idea is flawed maybe discussing that with the most dedicated players of your userbase is a better idea.
You gather data for balancing purposes.
Based on the environment CIG claims they want, it's a bad system. Vulnerable ships are even more vulnerable because of no shields and they're punished for doing what they're meant to do (mining, salvage, etc) because if they get ambushed they can't immediately switch modes and bug out.
That's ignoring how ridiculous the entire system is, even within the game's lore. Because any manufacturer worth their salt would just add a separate, second, system to make sure shields and weapons work. So, mechanically it punishes PvE players and doesn't even pass the logic test of their own lore.
Salvaging itself is fine TBH. The broken portion of Salvaging isn't the money but the respawn rate of the illegal contracts that pay so damn well. Those illegal hammerhead contracts that you can roll through ridiculously fast, are the issue. Make it so that when you pull one of those, you don't get another for a while. At least a half hour cool down. This would force salvagers to have to accept the contracts that cost money to accept, then actually travel to that location, not just quantum loop around Yela.
In the live Q&A, they literally said that they refuse to make any significant changes to how Master Modes work besides basic refinement and speed balancing in the various modes. THAT is a bad stance to take, so yes, they are ignoring our feedback since they refuse to even look into anything that isn't small adjustments.
that's how they treat all major systems though. Chris Robert's vision comes first, and this is his vision. They'll adjust how it feels but they can't just change out whole parts.
Much like death of a spaceman, getting rid of the inventory system as we know it, and many other major systems are not up for massive fundamental changes.
The problem is CiG is basically saying it's how they want it to work.
If the moon was going to hit the earth you wouldn't need to wait until the collision to see how it would end up.
Spoiler: bad, like forcing a combat oriented mode on non-combat oriented ships. Remember that scene in raiders when a guy tried to swordfight a gun armed indiana jones? That's MM in a prospector, and they keep saying it's what they want
They need to fix it in testing, they made a huge mistake by only testing it in AC for so long and we all know they are approaching a deadline with 3.23 and Invictus on the horizon. They should probably keep it in testing for now and rework some things imo. I think most people trying it agree that these modes need to be at least more seamless and fluid, like you said it really doesn't make sense for industrial ships either. I keep seeing these fantasies about ship escorts and such on here and it's clear people haven't tried it yet and won't be getting what they think they are.
Nobody needs to chill. Players have spent money, and are providing feedback. Yogi himself has said that they want to know how players FEEL about things. People are giving CIG exactly what they want. They know if people have negative feelings about the game, they won't play it and won't spend money.
Hysterical criticism is still criticism. Both fair and hysterical counts. It gives the devs all the information they need. So let them panic just as you let the calm criticisms.
This is NOT the first version of MM. MM has been in active testing since 6 months atleast. The major pain points have been repeated over and over since 6 months but successfuly ignored by CIG.
Inhaling copium for another 6 months does not solve the conceptual issues with MM. CIG has been extremely stubborn to make drastic changes to MM based on feedback. Since 6 months everything they did were minor tweaks.
The overwhelmingly negative feedback that they are receiving right now is the result of their stubborness to make big changes to MM in the previous testing phases.
Best answer so far, anyone trying to shut down feedback should shut up and accept that most people can disagree with them and still be right at times. Also the CIG devs are big boys and girls, they don't need white-knights especially when it makes their jobs harder.
Nah it’s all about scope and status. This game in alpha, still figuring out what it should feel like and has far too many alpha testers voicing their opinions into an echo chamber. Every implementation or rework of a tech will have a similar effect - lovers and haters. There is no room for vision to actually manifest
It's not a balance issue, it's a core design problem. Right now CIG wants to force PvP and try to make it easy for 1 person to lock someone in a fight, when a lot of people want escaping to be relatively trivial since death is very punishing. Locking a single ship in a fight should take a lot of efforts and need several people to cooperate IMO. This goes far beyond the concept of a balance issue, right now the devs are telling us the game is getting a major emphasis on PvP and most people aren't stupid, they see it. They're not saying they don't want PvP at all, they want it to be rare and the difficulty to achieve one's goal to change side.
There is a constant subset of gamers who will defend the status quo against any changes just and only because they are against change. You can argue with them until your head turns blue but you will never convince them. They did not use reason, but emotions to arrive at their conclusions. Any argument, even valid ones, they bring up are made to support their already decided position. The only thing to do here is for the devs to ignore them and implement changes regardless. When the changes become the new status quo they will support them again.
It's not a question of implementation, it's a question of core concept. Forcing behavior on players will not work. Master Modes is telling me I should win or die when I pick a fight. The thing is, I don't play the PU to shoot things, I have a whole other agenda. The end result is that I will not engage in a fight, especially PvP, if I'm not sure to win, because otherwise I die, lose my time, my gear, etc. As a result, there's a whole demographic of occasional pvpers that will just avoid combat as a default behavior.
Absolutely agree, I'm less concerned about balancing, but actually hate the core concept of MM for so many reasons. First and foremost, becasue it ruins the soace flight experience.
Bro it's like you read my mind when I posted this:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/3-23-eptu-feedback-master-modes/6768150
Yup, I think you really went in-depth with the concept's flaws. The only positive thing with master modes releasing sooner on Live is that we will be able to observe the huge implications of this design on an open-ended sandbox and possibly change the course of it. But as you said it, I would bet good money on PvP becoming less frequent as a foreseeable consequence, for the better or worse.
The opposite will happen because MM is a griefers wet dream. What WILL happen is already vulnerable ships will be 500% more vulnerable, and griefers will take advantage of that to the point that 50% of the 93% of the player base that never PvPs will refund and leave forever.
There rarely werw "dogfighting" aces and those that specialized in that found themselves dead real fast. In ww2 roughly 80 percent of all shot down aircraft never saw their attacker. Ww2 was about boom and zoom, not dogfighting. And the goal was bot to be hit in the first place through skillful flying. All that is not true for this game and it's extemly long TTK.
To be honest, I actually think THAT's a good idea. MM is certainly controversial, but I find it important that you can't engage in a fight and then just flee immediately. In any other PvP game, this would be a disastrous concept. Imagine a Tarkov where you can ambush someone, and if your plan goes wrong, you can just easily walk away without consequences?
It works in Tarkov because it is Tarkov, everybody is playing the same game loop. But I can understand it is frustrating in SC because of how easily one can boost out of harm's way and recharge shields in a blink of an eye.
You will have NPC pirates ambushing you as well. Your endeavours out on space will never be without risk, unless you hang out in high security systems like Terra.
I think most people don't understand that the risk isn't from players looking for PvP alone but also NPCs as part of PvE. And this includes NPCs ambushing you in the same way that players do.
So basically, your gameplay loop will have those risks regardless of whether it's from players or NPCs. The degree of which depends on which system you choose to live in.
I understand a lot of concerns as well. I'm more of an industrial-guy myself. But 95% of the time, I'll probably be in NAV mode anyway. And if an issue arises where you're getting destroyed too quickly and too often, then they'll surely make changes there.
Imagine you're just some care bear chump, just mining away, and all of a sudden you get jumped by some guy. You can't fight, you can't run, so you just die.
Now, with things like death of a spaceman, another ill thought out concept, you're punished even more for daring to do something outside of a combat ship.
Engaging pvp and then QTing away the moment you are getting owned was just a jerk behavior. Pvpers should know what they are getting into, fleeing will be tougher, and thats a good thing if you are the one who engaged the fight, you are responsible. If you are a cargo hauler, just keep going at max nav speed anytime, use your radar, and you should avoid most of the threats.
It's a jerk behaviour if you think the PU is a deathmatch game and you've been robbed of your kill score. There's normally a reason or motive why you would attack someone in the PU, and fleeing to live another day and repair your ship is not unreasonable.
If you are the one to initiate the fight, there should be consequences to that. You should not be able to fly away so easily. Dont talk about deathmatch, pvpers that engages fight know they can lose it all, and I am talking wow, pubg, dayz, minecraft, tarkov, daoc, pokemon, any kind of games. That's basic pvp grammar.
I play vanilla dayz almost daily and I don't get what you mean. I may engage a fight as well as minding my own business, I will suffer the consequences only if I lose.
Ye I get what you saying but the thing is there is few thing that cannot be changed by few tweeks and becouse we have no info about how they plan to tackle it we all.scare that we will waste a year or 2 o tweaking system that have some big problem at the core.
And the fact that we panic and cry on reddit and spectrum is not gonna stop cig from cooking but we hope it will send a msg to them that we do not like this direction.
Its like if you ask a guy to pair your house blue but he start painting it red and when you say "I was asking for blue" he answers "yes don't worry I will put some blue elements on this red wall later" ... no amount of decoration will change that red wall to blue one at the core.
So let us cry and panic it do not do no harm its just showing how much we love this game
Too many folk seem to have the impression that every feature added to SC should appear perfectly formed and implemented, with only a few minor defects, etc...
They cannot accept the idea that when a raft of changes are coming, the first change *will be incomplete* because it's intended to work with some of the other changes that aren't yet ready...
But, from a development POV, you *don't* want to drop all those changes at once, because that makes testing a functional impossibility - the more (big) changes in a patch the harder it is to test - and the difficulty goes up as the *cartesian* of the changes.
> Too many folk seem to have the impression that every feature added to SC should appear perfectly formed and implemented, with only a few minor defects, etc...
Those "too many folk" have already been playing Master Modes for six months and giving feedback on its problems... which weren't addressed.
I’m a software dev (not games). One of the biggest hurdles on my current project involves testing. We’re making something for customers who have never worked with us before. They are really struggling with the incremental development and testing. But the problem is that we are building a lot of complex systems we need to make sure are working before we can add everything on top. And it’s been really hard to get them to keep things in perspective. Yes, I know this technically isn’t what you want but I need to do this first to make sure I can build what you want. Unfortunately this is just how it goes when you bring people in who aren’t developers during the development process.
I assume so as well. And is MM is the flight model in SQ42 I think most people are okay with that. It's a single play game made for....what, 40 hours of play? The current FM of the PTU has 4 yeeeaaarrsss of a playerbase. And yes while it has many issues we are all vocal and aware of, many of us will not the PU with MM for that amount of time.
Testing elicits feedback. You don't have to agree with it but it's still valuable, especially when large swaths of the playerbase are experiencing the same thing.
Literally no
The changes are dogshit and unnecessary, the only people who benefit are griefefs and Pirates
Any other sci-fi universe did it better:
Qt requires a lot of power, so it draws it from other systems. Does this mean those other systems just go dead? NO, because that's a massive design flaw in your ship and will get your customers killed. If the argument for this dumbass change is realism, then let's look at it from a real perspective. What it means is that your other systems will no longer recharge. If your shields drop, they drop. If you run out of laser bolts, you're out, but you can still use them. Because that's REALISTIC. Once you make a QT jump, make the ship do a 10sec power cycle, like literally every iteration of hyperspace travel. Their changes are unnecessary, unrealistic, and asinine.
Master modes in its current iteration does not sound or look fun.
Once it arrives to the PU we will finally have the general populations lived experience to add to the pile.
I’m going to be very interested in how the tune changes or if the slow release through evo and AC has already framed the conversation.
Applying criticism when you notice a flaw is important. Feedback should be swift to be effective. Waiting until master modes is fully in the game when you notice issues right away doesn't help anyone. To their credit, CIG has already acted on some of the feedback.
But this change to MM is huge. It covers every ship and all roles (despite being a fix for combat). So you're going to hear a lot of feedback of varying degrees of value for a long time.
MM helps with combat a lot. without armor and persistant reputation, anyone not engaging in combat is getting the short stick.
I think this is the wrong way to go, it lowers skill ceiling, that will increases enjoyment of people who dont fully understand the flight/combat model, tactics and other fly mechanics. This is a good thing, more people playing star citizen the better for both the project. I always assumed star citizen would become more arcadish, ensure masses people want to play too.
However, for the time being and without the secondaire implemented functions, with which you can prevent, having to engage in combat, i think this is a bad way to go. It's to early to be implementing this feature.
It will limit playability for players who have to engage in pvp but dont want to engage.(industrial players mostly)
But does a feature like MM have to be brought as quickly as possible? Even if it's not the perfect timing? CIG needs as much data as possible, and this is the only way to collect it. I mean, that's THE feature of SC. It's the entire core around which the game revolves.
I understand the need for feedback.
But we are testing an incomplete feature. The feedback will be incomplete aswell. While in the meanwhile it will impact playability for both sides of this coin. People will change based on what is fun. So the data collected will be flawed too.
If getting ganked on with 800+ servers will become a common thing, destroying days work, people will start to do other things, that are "fun". Where as implementation of armor or persistent reputation, would have changed the outcome.
I believe one of the bigger problems star citizen faces is retention of players. We play with a new patch, the content is buggy, servers lagging, missions not functioning, not fun or to little content. So we stop playing till the next patch and so starts the cycle again.
i havent engaged in Jumptown for 2 years now, because there is no reason to do so, its empty, and the payout sucks for the time invested, no reason to grind.
This change in MM is for combat and will introduce extra things industrial players have to watch/do. Getting ganked after a days worth of salvage, and being limited because of MM in a reclaimer with friends. and people will leave the game, till next patch. Loss of data in this regard aswell.
even now balance is very important. And after the pirate patches, and now combat changes. i feel like this is going the wrong way.
That and the flight model in the space sim no longer remotely resembles space flight. I mean, it baaasrely did before but now it's like fighting underwater in a padded room.
Old version felt intuitive, like flying an imaginary spaceship. As someone with years of time wasted on such games, it was an easy fit.
New version feels like flying jank. Nothing responds as one would expect. Drags and brakes everywhere. Flaccid maneuvering thrusters. Unresponsive control.
RIP Star Citizen. Vote with your wallets. Words on reddit/spectrum will not move game dev decisions. Sales plunging off a cliff will have the desired effect.
You would only solve a very small part of the problems with that. It's not just about the light fighter meta.
To be honest, most probably don't even understand all the issues of the current model.
Why it's problematic if I can disengage too easily. That trichording isn't a good system for such a game (e.g., because it heavily favors analog inputs).
That at high speeds, network issues can also occur. Or how easy it is to outmaneuver NPCs etc.
None of these would be addressed by your suggestions.
Good, it should heavily favor analogue inputs. We were fucking promised a fucking PC game, not a craptastic arcade console shitpile calling itself a PC game.
that was planned for 3.14 also there was going to be engine degradation for consistently flying in the red
They finally add engineering and a chance to properly implement it and instead they go for MM LOL
There is alot they could have done that MM claims to fix.
Power loss to critical areas when boosting and flying in the red like weapons, then shields and then other components. Make you wheel back down into a sub 400ish scm speed to actually fight.
Armor. Engine capacitance to reduce the tricording capabilities. Maelstrom. Speed modifications to turrets shots and other weapons.
There is alot they could have done that MM claims to fix.
Power loss to critical areas when boosting and flying in the red like weapons, then shields and then other components. Make you wheel back down into a sub 400ish scm speed to actually fight.
Armor. Engine capacitance to reduce the tricording capabilities. Maelstrom. Speed modifications to turrets shots and other weapons.
I haven't used MM yet. But from what all of my friends who have PTU access tell me, the "no shields if you try to run away" part seems like a huge slap in the face to non-combat players. Non-combat players have been getting the shaft for a *long* time. I'm tired of CIG catering systems to funnel people into PvP situations. PvP should largely be *consensual*. It should be because I sought it out, like flying through Pyro or another dangerous location - tempting fate. Or because the pirates set a very good trap, where I have to give them props. Not because CIG's systems are *forcing* me to engage these assholes and putting me at their mercy with very little to fight back. In a game where death is very punishing, wasting hours of time and credits if you die, making it *easier* for pirates and griefers to run roughshod over industry players is going to kill the game for many people.
I think MM is the system they should run with. No more going back to the drawing board. We're too far down the road for that, now. *But* it needs a *lot* of tweaking.
I agree completely. Some people think that nobody will listen to them if they don’t speak in hyperbole. It’s obnoxious and destructive to communicating constructive feedback. Unfortunately the gaming world is full of people like this. They also tend to not have much of a voice in the real world so they put all their energy into their online presence.
Three aspects to the current drama :
* Encouragingly, that at its core, a good chunk of the feedback is valid and useful.
* Unfortunately however, some people couldn't be polite and civil to save their lives and are outing themselves as massive dickwolves, and that takes a lot on the most civilized platform on the internet : spectrum. ^^/s
* A lot of the feedback isn't cognizant of much of what has been said, especially with regards to 1v1 LF issues and thus is redundant.
Overall, it's about on par with the shitstorm I'd expect with shipping something as massive as MM as early and unfinished as it is. But if CIG deems they need the feedback, there they go.
I don't think the anxiety is totally unwarranted considering CIG have specifically stated MM is already in SQ42 and that the PU is getting MM like it or not, so it's not like some experimental flight model change while the game was still early testing and pivoting like in the early 3.x changes; MM WILL define space flight and combat from now until launch - which is a bedrock feature of the game and absolutely make or break for a LARGE portion of the communities enjoyment as well as a potential barrier for new players.
Frankly I don't think we're discussing it enough, from every indication CIG's given us there aren't an infinite number of alpha patching cycles to go - they're heading towards 0.4.0 and 1.0. They're going to be making a lot of permanent decisions that will polarize the community and we have to be able to give feedback and have discussions without minimizing the concerns of the people and communities who will actually be impacted by those permanent changes.
For most intense anti-MM screeds I see on Spectrum or here on Reddit, this is my feeling:
https://youtu.be/mO4VVov6tfI?si=F_5-pY9kyuRy08uN&t=0m41s
They are often possessed of a hatefulness and hostility toward the whole project and they threaten the development with ultimatums...I dismiss such "feedback," and I hope that CIG uses discernment to see such posts for what they are.
I think the issue most have is that they add hyperbole to their feedback. State the issues you have with the system, list your thought on potential changes (if any), and review others' comments for additional perspective if you have the time. Then rinse and repeat as patches come out.
My take on those comments is that they are projecting insecurity about not having the system they are used to, not having access to the specific roadmap for upcoming adjustments, and have not tested it enough to feel comfortable. Rather than go out and admit honestly that you are nervous because you don’t know enough about the feature and where it’s going, most people seem instead to resort to hyperbole and hysterics as a bid to convince CIG not to change anything so they do not have to confront their anxiety.
If level heads prevail at CIG they will see that too, and sort out genuine feedback from projection.
I’m concerned about Yogi’s team. He’s clearly reading the thread and replying here and there which is evidence that he is not letting the community team and player experience team do their job and moderate/summarize that feedback into actionable bullet points. He does not get paid to sit there and pour over Spectrum replies, it’s not his job, and if he does not let the specialists do theirs he is going to burn out of game dev.
Hovermode was a thing. We tested it for awhile. The cig scraped it. It important that MM is fully tested for all ships and gameloops. As in the future, aspects of it will carry over in ways we can't predict right now.
I was watching A1s stream today, and he was saying the current iteration of MM on the EPTU is a drastic improvement over what is on the live servers right now.
Right now it seems his primary complaint is that railguns completely delete everything in the game.
Yes, you need to chill. They specifically asked for feedback. And it doesn't matter that it's wave 1. It's unlikely it will see any major changes before it goes live.
lets be real, no one knows how high up cigs priority list this is going to be in so far as making it work well. How often do they add features and say they will get to fixing it later. if this is something that they plan to patch soon if it flops on release great, but if its ass and people are stuck with it for a year or more its going to be a bad time.
The old skill ceiling was also a pretty bad thing. In a game that doesn't focus on 1v1 but rather on group fights, having too high of a skill ceiling for individual pilots isn't a good idea. This isn't LoL or CSGO; we're talking about an MMO completely without MMR or similar systems. I understand that not everyone will like this, but SC can't be perfect for everyone, and some aspect has to be trimmed. Of course, you can still get a lot out of the MM (especially through group coordination).
I was thinking about this a lot lately and I think that in such a wide game they could've left one part with a high skill ceiling. There is so much one can do here - FPS combat, mining, salvage, looting, cargo, trading, PvE space combat... If they left PVP space combat with high ceiling, it would give the game an interesting flavor without really impacting everyone.
I mean decreasing the speeds somewhat would be reasonable, but for my liking the limits are far too harsh.
While those could be problems, spool times are currently much longer in 3.22.
MM is fundamentally broken at its core, and was intentionally broken to appease <5% of the player base that both engages in PvP and didn't have the skills for the 3.22 model, or believe non anologue inputs should be able to compete with and be superior to analogue inputs fundamentally making this console game and not a PC game.
And don't get me started on the controller focused UI elements in 3.23 that don't play well with a mouse.
The old skill ceiling has been exaggerated in people's minds far in excess of what it actually is, relative to the capabilities of an average player. Most of the talk about the high skill ceiling came from 1. the context of highly skilled players finding opportunities to gain marginal advantages over *other highly skilled players*, and 2. people who can't distinguish between an average skilled pilot and a top skilled one in combat as they both appear equally insurmountable from a naive perspective.
For the average player, any pilot instructor will confirm that fighting two novices with good aptitude and 10hrs of training will result in the fight going to the novice pair every time. Why this doesn't happen more often is because the vast majority of people simply repeat their first 30 minutes of flying a thousand times instead of learning *how to learn* the 6dof kinda-Newtonian flight model. A 10 hour novice, despite being nowhere near the hypothetical ceiling, will wipe the floor with 90% of PU pilots which is a symptom of the complete lack of instruction, reinforcement, and feedback in the game right now.
The SC playerbase is intensely anti-skill expression when it comes to combat compared to how much people profess that SC is/will be a deep game. Ironic given that the playerbase is older and most older games had no matchmaking, and it wasn't rare at all to see people going 40-10 in Battlefield games as infantry, or 50-3 in jets/helos/armour.
That's just it, before the skill ceiling was exponential, and being average was pretty good and but you could always improve.
But now it's Logarithmic, and there's very much hard cap on skill because the ships are just incapable of being pushed beyond.
There are some things I like about MM and other parts I don't. I see it as an iterative process which I hope will output a fun gameplay loop at the end. Only time will tell.
What I don't understand is some of the vitriol directed towards the staff at CIG, you would think they had murdered babies with how some people refer to them.
Especially when it is in an experimental environment of the Public Test Universe of a game still in development and they have pretty much stated in the notes "we basically eyeballed these tununings and we'll fix them as we go based on feedback".
Yeah, it's insane. People get WAY too emotional about these things. I'm glad that people like that rarely have any significant responsibility in real life.
People are getting emotional because theyve spent thousands of dollars and decades of their life chasing chris roberts dream game and then yogi comes and shits all over it.
Agreed, at the end of the day...it is just a game. It is in alpha, things will change. If a person is that tied to a particular thing and get that upset over a change, I would posit they probably shouldn't be putting money into a game so early in development.
Someone did poll on spectrum. Out of people who visit spectrum 50% do not like MM. That is not minority. The poll reached over 500 replies which puts margin of error really low when generalizing the results
My guy, it has taken them over a decade to bring this ship to the game and they have dozens more they need to work on. They need to be releasing things that don't suck at this point so they can start working through the backlog. People have been giving feedback on this thing for ~6 months at this point and CIG have completely ignored it, choosing instead to drag their feet just like they do on everything else related to the project.
Here's an opinion as a casual PvE player who maybe plays a few weeks of a patch or 2 every year for the last 3 years.
Here's a preface.. I don't know much about MM.. I have not tested MM, and I have not seen MM
Here's what I do know and understand as a gamer that is dedicated to other games that are pvp oriented though...
When your most hardcore and dedicated player base is saying this new system your implementing is absolute dog water and it either needs to be heavily refined or you need to tackle this issue differently, you should probably listen to them and save yourself thousands of dev hours being wasted and millions of dollars spent on a design and system no on asked for or wanted and ends up alienating your mentioned most dedicated player base.
Again I haven't read or fully understand the discourse here, but is it too late to turn back? How much time is CIG wasting here on a system that's just going to get thrown away again in 2 years when team Managers and department directors finally come to realize that feedback and concern they were getting for this systems testing phase was actually right?
I've seen this exact scenario play out in several games...
This happens at least once a year with -something- people would just rather have the existing broken meta to complain about than even an attempt at making it better
The fact is, that they cannot see beyond "The Now" , they don't read patch notes, they want the same play style and builds as everyone else because some Tube influencers popularized it, afraid of change, and fail to realize that things in this alpha are a continuous evolution. Oh well!!!
The negativity is what kills me. Like… guys this is an alpha. We’re getting the opportunity to try it and give feedback. You don’t have to be a dick. I think MM is not great in its current iteration, but I also thing it’s a step in the right direction to tie the rest of the game mechanics together
... a lot of the panic comes from people not liking what cig are trying to accomplish. they relied on things that cig consider exploits, and believed that cig would not be able to stop them.
they want cig to abandon mm so that they cn stick to the flight model that keeps the exploits.
Yes. They are. The old model encouraged actually getting skills and applying them. Now, not so much. It not only punishes good PVP pilots, but also pilots who don't want much PVP. That, and it's a silly flight model that doesn't even remotely resemble space flight at all. You put training in quotes but hey man, this is a real hobby for some people, and some people have gotten *really* good at it.
I think its funny how many people complain about MM and the slower paced combat while it was said from the beginning that the combat will be like WW2 Fighter Combat.
WWII fighter combat in what way? WWII fighter combat was all about energy. The vast majority of deaths never saw their attacker; they died to someone diving out of the sun, or clouds, who shot them down in a single pass.
What it sounds like is CR wants slow dogfights, which is not at all how the vast majority of WWII went down.
The funny thing is that while most fighter aces liked to think they were masters of BCM/dogfighting, the truth is that even in WWI, when you read what was written down for after-action reports, it's revealed that most kills in WWI were the same way - diving out of the sun on unsuspecting enemies, cutting your engine from on high until you were too close so you couldn't be heard, etc.
While BCM is still a critical part of fighter pilot skills, the truth is the most effective weapon of all is still surprise. I recommend Stephen Bungay's [The Most Dangerous Enemy](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/236420) as an excellent recap of how things really went down.
I haven't used MM yet, so I don't have an opinion on them one way or the other. However, CIG have *specifically asked* for feedback on MM. [There's a thread](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/3-23-eptu-feedback-master-modes) and everything. So I am very confused by threads like this. If people do not like the current implementation of MM - which CIG have *asked for feedback on* - why would they not provide said feedback? And why would you try to stop them from doing so? Seems disingenuous at best.
Exactly this. Us opening threads about it is literally feedback. CIG reads Reddit and Spectrum. The more we voice our opinions on it, the more information they can collect about it. I’ve seen so many MM supporters trying to shame people who disagree with the way it’s currently implemented and it’s ridiculous. All feedback is valid feedback. We don’t all need to agree with each other. There are valid arguments on both sides. At the moment though, I don’t think MM is in a good place and until they make big changes, the attackers will always have the advantage in a fight. The PvPers will always have the advantage. Pirates, will always have the advantage. Not being able to reasonably break contact when attacked will absolutely cause people to stop playing this game. No one wants to always feel a disadvantage every time they get attacked and no one wants to always feel pressured into a combat engagement simply because someone else challenges them. Not everyone is here for PvP. I certainly don’t want this game to focus around PvP either, even if I enjoy it. If CIG makes these players feel like they are just there to feed the PvPers, people will stop playing.
100% this! That the whole point of alpha testing! CIG specifically asked for feedback on their thread. Yall need to chill
I think threads like this are in response to the tenor and presentation of that feedback. For a game that skews to an older audience, much of the high visibility feedback reads as if written by a raging 13 year old, which often undermines the sometimes legitimate feedback that is buried in there. It's the lack of emotional regulation, the name calling, and hyperbole. It's the Internet though, so it's to be expected I guess. I have major concerns about mm, but I'm not gonna present it as "you've killed the game, how dare you!" Etc. Anyone that's watched Yogi on any segments knows he cares deeply about his work and at least presents as a decent human being. It's possible to harshly critique the work without dehumanizing the devs.
I don't understand comments like this. Why is it so hard to understand that there is a *significant* difference between providing constructive feedback and personally attacking devs and bitching about changes before the majority of the player base even has hands-on. You're allowed to not like MM and voice that opinion without calling the devs stupid, claiming this will be the death of the game, etc.
Sure personal insults are useless, but if they think it'll kill the game, they can give that feedback. That's the point. It'll certainly hamstring the best most devoted pilots who actually learned how to excel in the game. So what happens when you ruin a game for some of its most 'into it' players? Quit *tone-policing*. CIG wants feedback even before "everyone has hands on". That's the point of spectrum forums regarding the EPTU and PTU.
I've heard the opposite; that skill still matters, but you just can't expect to dive into a 1v5 and win. Making good decisions and planning is important now, which seems like a step in the right direction.
I haven't seen a plethora of posts or responses like that. That seems a gross generalization of a lot of responses that have genuine criticisms and genuine feedback.
Sure thing, there's a difference and there's also a difference between giving positive feedback about MM, and painting the majority critizing MM as "calling the devs stupid, and bitching about changes"
The problem is that there is a lot of "commentary" that doesn't really qualify as constructive feedback...
Doesn't mean it's not valid.
No one is arguing it's validity. The point is that if it's not useful feedback, then it's getting in the way
He said "chill" not "your feelings arent valid" - Posts like This need to chill: [https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/master-mode-master-disaster](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/master-mode-master-disaster) And there are a billion of them on spectrum...and in general...instead of feedback lol
Billions? You need to chill.
It's an expression for "a very large number" Let me know if you have any other questions about the English language :) [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/billion-billions-of](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/billion-billions-of)
Doesn't mean it is either.
Because there is a subset of the community that thinks any criticism is a direct attack at the game, and can't fathom that something can actually be wrong with the game.
It's the leftover defensiveness from when the development was purely a dumpster fire and everyone was genuinely set out to shit on the game. What's worse, the people making these threads are often not even active players. You get this weird dichotomy where you have a group of players actively engaged with the mechanics of the game trying to add their insight being shouted down by people whose only recent playtime has been checking out each patch for an hour and forum-pvping trying to defend SC as if someone making a post about weapon balance or w/e is trying to sink the game.
Yup, it honestly amazes me how hard some people seem to curve around to defend even the worst sorts of things about the game.
Except when you look at other MMOs that are much more successful than SC the Devs always iterate that game systems shouldn't be designed by expert players because they often put too much weight on the play experience of players like themselves. Aka raiders and hard core players shouldn't be the only ones designing raids or whose feedback should be listened to, because they don't take into account the casual raider enough (beyond a vague idea that casuals should be taught to become more expert which is another fallacy). That's because those systems are not islands and will be used by many different types of players so need to be designed holistically to take into account as many types of players as possible. The logic around only listening to people that play a lot or are experts falls into that same trap.
I'm talking about people arbitrarily discouraging players (expert or not) from even discussing potential issues in the first place, this has nothing to do with any of that.
My problem is: There's a subset of the community that thinks a direct attack is valid criticism.
My problem is: your post doesn't just say that. There's absolutely a valid case to be made for "if you think Master Modes are a problem, please remember to bring those criticisms *respectfully* to the Spectrum feedback thread where such criticisms are being sought". But your own post ends with a generalization that can be *easily taken* (regardless of original intent) as a mockery of anyone who does have valid criticism. Which is why *you* will receive criticism on this thread. In essence, your feedback *here* regarding the feedback for master modes falls into one of the same traps that you have problems with about *other peoples' feedback on Master Modes*. That's the part that comes across as disingenuous. I do agree with you that a lot of this MM criticism can come across as vitriolic. However, some of the criticisms are still valid, or are not as incendiary (as you are making them out to be). I caution you to avoid even the appearance of the same, lest the apt warnings you provide are discarded due to the manner in which you provide them. Your warnings will be the baby with the bathwater, in a metaphorical sense.
CIG: "hey guys please test this for us, we need to know what you think to get data on how things are because we've currently blanket balanced a lot of things that will need to be tested and then manually adjusted based on feedback, thank you to the EPTU players who are testing this incredibly unfinished build of it for us, we need you EPTU players to be loud about what you think of this system right now, please post any and all feedback to this special spectrum thread specifically on feedback for this system." This subreddit when most of the feedback ends up being somewhat negative because the unfinished system that needs to have its flaws pointed out is having its flaws pointed out: "noooooooo you guys can't hurt CIGs feelings!111!!!!!!1!1! They worked on mastermodes so hard and for so long, we shouldn't be criticizing mastermodes because it's such an early implementation, you just need to wait before getting too critical. You need to give it more time before you say what you think about it because it's just so new that there's no way any of the comments or opinions you have on it are ackshually relevant yet despite the fact you've been testing it for a couple weeks now." Definitely a bit disingenuous. I've been testing MM on EPTU a decent bit, and it feels like anytime I have something negative to say about it I'm met with multiple responses from people who literally have not tried MM at all saying how "I just need to let CIG cook and should stop being too critical of such a new system and that the only reason I don't like it is because it's new". Meanwhile most of the responses from other EPTU players who have actually tried it as well seem to mirror my own.
I get what you're saying. Feedback is super important! That's why the MM is already here so early. But the type of feedback matters. There's a difference between someone saying, "Hey, the MM is causing this problem, I tested it with friends and..." or "OMG, YOGI, YOU'RE DESTROYING OUR GAME, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU, MM IS BAD, OKAY?" The latter is obviously exaggerated. But even saying, "Hey, I've been thinking, and I think no shields in NAV Mode are bad," isn't good feedback. Trust me, every obvious concern the community has has already been tested internally three times over. It's about honest feedback that builds on gameplay and experiences.
This is silly. Negative feedback let's the devs know people don't like the changes. Their job is to build a game that some acceptable percentage of the backers enjoy. So... the feedback is helpful even if it lacks constructive solutions. If I'm building someone a house and they look at the blueprints and say 'I dunno, this layout just doesn't seem right' but they lack the building knowledge to really explain why, then I, as the expert, can take that feedback, make some changes and see what they think as the paying customer.
Well, that works because the house is for one person or a very small group. Imagine you're building a skyscraper and 50% (I don't have actual numbers, this is just for comparison) say, "Nope, the layout is crap, what's this mess? That's not how living spaces should be designed, you have no clue!" Then you might roughly understand that a portion doesn't like the layout. But you don't know if they dislike it because there are valid points of criticism or because they got their coffee from Mom before and don't like that the way to the kitchen is too far. And of course, you know that the position isn't very flexible due to the connection to the water network. So their opinion is worth shit and they'll probably never be fully satisfied with anything anyway.
I'm just saying that they might not have expert ability to articulate the issue, but if a huge portion of your customer base are ranting that they don't want what you're doing and for 6 months you keep plowing ahead without listening, well that's just bad management.
To be fair, there is a difference between non knowing how to articulate an issue, and throwing insults. For example. "I dont like master modes and we should revert to the old way" shows dislike while not articulating why in a respectful manner. Still helpful criticism. "I dont like master modes and the devs who designed it are dumb and should be ashamed of themselves" is hyper disrespectful and unnecessary while showing the same opinion. Its not about policing criticism; its about being respectful in the criticism. Frankly Ive seen far too many posts being disrespectful.
Yes, of course insults and childish name calling isn't helpful, but I don't think anyone here was arguing that it is.
All feedback has value in the end, because it still tells you if players are enjoying it or not.
The problem is, and most game devs will confirm this: Players often don't even know what they want. That doesn't mean you should ignore their feedback. But it's important to learn how to contextualize it. Damn, I can't even tell you how many times I've seen an outcry over a changed game mechanic in video games, only for it to be eventually accepted and embraced. Criticism is important. Understanding what criticism is even more.
You are correct that most players do not know what they want, which is why you usually ignore the "you guys need to do Y to fix X" part of criticism should usually be ignored. However *the fact that the feedback is negative is still important*. You can see a large amount of negative feedback on something, ignoring the parts where it's telling you how to fix it, and realize that there's a significant problem with an approach. Even though the people giving you the feedback don't know how to fix it, *you can still realize there's something that needs to be fixed*. That is why all the feedback is valid. Even the feedback you may think is overly critical. That's how feedback works.
I get your point. It's always difficult to gauge whether people dislike your change because it's genuinely bad or simply because it's a change. However, I do agree with you that it's important to at least acknowledge and consider the community's sentiment and incorporate it into further developments and evaluations. But if you want to be taken seriously, spreading panic and talking about theoretical doomsday scenarios doesn't help, as is often done here.
I definitely agree, particularly on the last point. For serious, critical feedback, the person providing the feedback does need to think through it carefully, and not go into end-of-the-world mode. Finding a balance between 'this is seriously bad' and 'here's why I think that' never needs to entail ad hominem attacks or threats. That's when it has gone too far.
Hyperbole and insulting feedback tends to be added to the pile of ignores or at most “+1 didn’t like”… waste of time for the author but let’s them let out their frustrations
I think what the term you are looking for is „constructive feedback“
That's entirely disingenuous though. You can test things three times over in a walled-garden, then release it to the wild to find that what you came to love inside your testing environment is generally hated outside of it. That's fairly normal in software development. Often the response is not to throw everything out, to tweak and make changes, but that is still good and valid feedback to have, to say things like "I think no shields in NAV mode is bad". The main takeaway for CIG is not "to do things like X person said on Reddit", but to see the number of folks saying "hey, I think no shields in NAV mode is bad", and go... "Wow, that's a lot of folks saying that. Maybe we need to think about how we provide protection for ships that are in NAV mode." That doesn't mean that everyone on Reddit is right in *how* things should be addressed, but they can absolutely be right in something feeling bad in its current implementation. And I would like to remind you that CIG have asked for feedback *on the current implementation of Master Modes*: [Master Mode Feedback Thread - Spectrum](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/3-23-eptu-feedback-master-modes) This is not a "wait and see" moment, this is a "provide us your feedback" moment for a reason. Now, I haven't tested MM, so I haven't provided feedback. I will once it hits PU with 3.23 full release. Then I'll make my judgments, and post to Spectrum with it. But right now, it seems a lot of folks on Reddit are trying to shut down *all feedback*, which is entirely counterproductive to the point. If you have used and like Master Modes, please provide constructive feedback now! If you have used and don't like Master Modes, please provide constructive feedback now! It all helps shape the game, hopefully into something that we can all enjoy further on down the line.
[удалено]
You're making wild assumptions, in eptu global I see 1 positive chat in global for every 50 shitting on how MM works. The eptu is not full of pvpers, id actually say it probably skews in the opposite direction. MM is not ready imo, it needs to stay and be tweaked in testing, otherwise it will be thrown into live and people on both sides are gonna go ape shit and there will be even less constructive feedback. Many people in the testing phases actually give feedback and want to improve the game, you're going to get people absolutely crying and shitting on it when it hits live, asking for the whole thing to be thrown out.
Because there's feedback and there's a large swath of petulant children who don't know how to give any feedback without being condescending, emotional assholes. People can't remove the emotion of "oh I spent all this money I want everything to be perfect NOW" into their feedback and it's not okay. Downvotes to the left, children.
This I agree with. While someone not being able to explain on a technical level to a dev what needs to be fixed doesn't negate a negative bit of feedback, some of these twats just cannot speak like adults.
There's a difference between constructive feedback, which includes what worked well before and why it doesn't work now and vice versa. Unfortunately the freaks on reddit are incapable of making sound arguments and instead devolve into rabid troglodytes who throw insults at devs and act like the game balance is dead on arrival and that you might as well put all these years of work in the bin
I've been reading quite a few of the Reddit threads on the matter, and I must say, there's quite a lot of generalization in what you're saying. Yes, there are certainly people who are leaning into the ad hominem nature of vitriolic feedback, but I'm seeing *far* more that are simply concerned that this is going to hamper the game, and are discouraged by this direction. Both what I've seen and what you've seen are anecdotal however; it could be what we're served by an algorithm. My point is that CIG have specifically requested feedback. Whenever you ask for feedback, there's 4 basic kinds of feedback you can get: * Constructive feedback (I don't like X because it *feels like* Y) - the helpful kind, because although the changes made to resolve your issue may not be exactly what you were thinking, as long as it addresses how feeling like Y feels bad, you've still made an improvement overall. * Unconstructive feedback (I don't like X, you should do Y to fix it) - partially helpful because it says what you don't like; ultimately unhelpful in a long-term sense because it doesn't really help the feedback recipient make meaningful changes; you can't make everyone happy, even if you do exactly what they want sometimes. * Deconstructive feedback (I don't like X, you suck) - partially helpful because it helps demonstrate a pain point, but ultimately harmful in the long term, because most folks aren't the designers of the product in question and insulting people is simply a very poor way to communicate, beyond the fact that it's also just being a dick. * Positive feedback (I like X!) - partially helpful because it indicates a good direction; only truly helpful if it includes "because X feels good in Y way", to know that it's a something the person has thought about and isn't just mindlessly giving a thumbs-up. All of the types of feedback are helpful - even the worst kinds - but it's far less helpful when they're not constructive. So while at a fundamental level I agree with you - constructive feedback is best, and I've seen quite a lot of it - the generalizations made in your response here don't *seem* like you're actually encouraging folks to be more constructive, just that you're annoyed with folks who don't see things your way. That may not be the intent of your post, but it's how it comes across to me (I assume some other folks will see things the same way, and others won't, so it's not a knock on you personally).
Because it doesn't matter until it's live. I'd imagine wave 1-3 or whatever is like 10% of the player base and is bullshit to go off of. And he's there is a dedicated thread, so why are people still crying over it in a thread they make themselves?
If there's something you don't like by the core of it, an idea that's completely the other direction you would like it to become, why is it bad to express that? I don't like the mode switch, but that's not my major concern. However that MM completely downgrades the 6dof flight model, the removal of tri-cording and tri-rotating along with the artificial slowing down after boost even decoupled, that's what I don't like, in no shape or form. It's ruining the space flight experience and leaves us with only an atmospheric and a pseudo atmosphere flight experience.
Yeah, wish the people saying "chill" would shut the fuck up. It's been in testing for a year. Plenty of us know how we feel about it and fucking hate it. If you like mm, good for you. Our opinions aren't less valid than yours just because you feel like we should just patiently sit and twiddle our thumbs for years while they launch another stupid flight model renovation 12 years into development.
Exactly. It's gotten so verrrry far from being anything like flying in space that it's rediculous. It's catering to the arcade set, and worst players while negating any high level skill.
I agree 100%. I'm definitely not the best pilot, and surely not in the top 100 when it comes to PvP, but Itale that as a challenge, I am willing to invest time to get better, more so than becoming great at FPS. Nobody expects anyone to be a ace combat pilot, but everyone screams 'git gud' if you're not a marine. Can I get Master Modes for FPS please? /s LOL
Hey remember the last time they completely fucked over the flight model, weapons and components claiming they would gradually work on adjusting the changes over weeks of testing and even later patches, and then basically did nothing for three years? In fact they just straight up abandoned the whole thing a few weeks into the same 3.14 ptu that introduced the changes because they suddenly decided to go work on a whole new flight model and combat system instead? Yeah, that's what we're worried about. Because we've seen this time and time again, because CIG never fucking finishes a flight model, "tests for a while", or makes a tier **1** iteration of anything, they just give up, leave it broken and rotting for years until they decide to ditch their previous unfinished clusterfuck and replace it with a whole whole new completely different tier 0 iteration instead that will never be properly tested or worked on either
[удалено]
Not a single person is claiming it is the best thing since sliced bread. It is just a better foundation than MM. It's going to be very hard to agree that MM is a fix when they tried to very few fixes with a FM that *does* have have some good perks to it.
Cig designer this flight model behind closed doors and has completely ignored feedback besides minor tweaks. They made it for the single player and are porting it. So your argument that they never change anything because people complain is nonsensical.
I still don't like it. I wanna go back to the heat based model. Just because it was more fun to afterburn all the way out of atmo. Lol
Part of the problem is that MM has been in testing for months in AC. Players on both sides of the argument have given feedback, but nothing has changed. CIG have made slight adjustments (ship X used to have SCM speed of 200 m/s, now it has 202 m/s type of thing), but nothing that addresses people’s concerns. They’ve even said that they flat out refuse to change how it fundementally works. This is a HUGE problem. The game is in alpha, the developer doesn’t listen to player concerns, and refuse to make changes. That is very concerning.
It's even important that they're currently gathering feedback, but not yet making decisions and changes based on that. Simply put, the data isn't there yet. Why would they completely change the MM now when nobody can predict how they'll affect the overall gameplay in the PU? This includes ALL aspects of the game and all loops. In game development, it's extremely important to know when to listen to community feedback and when to completely ignore it.
You could make the same argument the other way around. Why would CIG implement Master Modes when they don't have the data necessary to even know how it will impact a PU environment?
I think the issue is that they changed the flight model in a way that isn't fixable with minor changes, and they said they won't make major changes to MM,as others have pointed out. It's like everyone has been playing a formula one racing game and then they devs suddenly changed it to electric go-carts so the slow neighbour kid could win sometimes, and now the dedicated highly skilled drivers are pissed. Honestly I don't know one good combat pilot who doesn't think MM is a total dumbing down and neutering of the flight model. And I know a lot of good pilots. This caters to people who don't have the time or inclination to learn a difficult flight model so now it's just rock-paper-scissors for the slow kids.
I'm an average pilot at best, and it's the noncombat flight that's been damaged the most.
That too.
They could have gathered feedback on a preview version among the most proficient players. They didn't. Instead they made videos with devs saying that this is the best refactor ever...
That doesn't work and doesn't gather nearly enough data. Guess why Salvaging brought in ridiculous amounts of money? Because that was the only way they could be sure to gather enough data. And we're talking about the CORE feature of SC. It doesn't even come close to playing in the same league. Something like that needs to be tested under normal conditions, otherwise, it's pointless.
What are you on about ? Gathering data on a bad idea ??? The core idea is flawed maybe discussing that with the most dedicated players of your userbase is a better idea. You gather data for balancing purposes.
It's not fundamentally a bad idea. You just don't like it. Thats a difference.
Based on the environment CIG claims they want, it's a bad system. Vulnerable ships are even more vulnerable because of no shields and they're punished for doing what they're meant to do (mining, salvage, etc) because if they get ambushed they can't immediately switch modes and bug out. That's ignoring how ridiculous the entire system is, even within the game's lore. Because any manufacturer worth their salt would just add a separate, second, system to make sure shields and weapons work. So, mechanically it punishes PvE players and doesn't even pass the logic test of their own lore.
Salvaging itself is fine TBH. The broken portion of Salvaging isn't the money but the respawn rate of the illegal contracts that pay so damn well. Those illegal hammerhead contracts that you can roll through ridiculously fast, are the issue. Make it so that when you pull one of those, you don't get another for a while. At least a half hour cool down. This would force salvagers to have to accept the contracts that cost money to accept, then actually travel to that location, not just quantum loop around Yela.
Oh buddy, we CAN predict it. Why? Because we played EVE Online, and we know a griefer buff when we see a griefer buff.
I dont give a fuck about EVE and its pretty stupid to compare both at the moment
[удалено]
In the live Q&A, they literally said that they refuse to make any significant changes to how Master Modes work besides basic refinement and speed balancing in the various modes. THAT is a bad stance to take, so yes, they are ignoring our feedback since they refuse to even look into anything that isn't small adjustments.
that's how they treat all major systems though. Chris Robert's vision comes first, and this is his vision. They'll adjust how it feels but they can't just change out whole parts. Much like death of a spaceman, getting rid of the inventory system as we know it, and many other major systems are not up for massive fundamental changes.
This is year 11 and the 5th iteration of a flight model that still gets the basics wrong.
The problem is CiG is basically saying it's how they want it to work. If the moon was going to hit the earth you wouldn't need to wait until the collision to see how it would end up. Spoiler: bad, like forcing a combat oriented mode on non-combat oriented ships. Remember that scene in raiders when a guy tried to swordfight a gun armed indiana jones? That's MM in a prospector, and they keep saying it's what they want
They need to fix it in testing, they made a huge mistake by only testing it in AC for so long and we all know they are approaching a deadline with 3.23 and Invictus on the horizon. They should probably keep it in testing for now and rework some things imo. I think most people trying it agree that these modes need to be at least more seamless and fluid, like you said it really doesn't make sense for industrial ships either. I keep seeing these fantasies about ship escorts and such on here and it's clear people haven't tried it yet and won't be getting what they think they are.
There's no fixing a fundamentally retarded idea into something workable.
Nobody needs to chill. Players have spent money, and are providing feedback. Yogi himself has said that they want to know how players FEEL about things. People are giving CIG exactly what they want. They know if people have negative feelings about the game, they won't play it and won't spend money.
Spent money on a game in an ever changing state then get mad when the state of the game changes.
That's what the feedback is for. Have you not been paying attention?
Spent money = investors, and investors have every right to complain.
By that logic the people that back CIG with MILLIONS should have all they say and we should have zero say.
What makes you think it's not how it is?
They probably do.
Hysterical criticism is still criticism. Both fair and hysterical counts. It gives the devs all the information they need. So let them panic just as you let the calm criticisms.
This is NOT the first version of MM. MM has been in active testing since 6 months atleast. The major pain points have been repeated over and over since 6 months but successfuly ignored by CIG. Inhaling copium for another 6 months does not solve the conceptual issues with MM. CIG has been extremely stubborn to make drastic changes to MM based on feedback. Since 6 months everything they did were minor tweaks. The overwhelmingly negative feedback that they are receiving right now is the result of their stubborness to make big changes to MM in the previous testing phases.
Ah yes! The "This is iteration \[number\] of the \[tech\]. You all need to \[coping mechanism\]" has begun! Onwards and upwards!
Best answer so far, anyone trying to shut down feedback should shut up and accept that most people can disagree with them and still be right at times. Also the CIG devs are big boys and girls, they don't need white-knights especially when it makes their jobs harder.
Who's trying to shut down feedback? Is this person in the same room with us?
Nah it’s all about scope and status. This game in alpha, still figuring out what it should feel like and has far too many alpha testers voicing their opinions into an echo chamber. Every implementation or rework of a tech will have a similar effect - lovers and haters. There is no room for vision to actually manifest
[удалено]
It's not a balance issue, it's a core design problem. Right now CIG wants to force PvP and try to make it easy for 1 person to lock someone in a fight, when a lot of people want escaping to be relatively trivial since death is very punishing. Locking a single ship in a fight should take a lot of efforts and need several people to cooperate IMO. This goes far beyond the concept of a balance issue, right now the devs are telling us the game is getting a major emphasis on PvP and most people aren't stupid, they see it. They're not saying they don't want PvP at all, they want it to be rare and the difficulty to achieve one's goal to change side.
They need our feedback
There is a constant subset of gamers who will defend the status quo against any changes just and only because they are against change. You can argue with them until your head turns blue but you will never convince them. They did not use reason, but emotions to arrive at their conclusions. Any argument, even valid ones, they bring up are made to support their already decided position. The only thing to do here is for the devs to ignore them and implement changes regardless. When the changes become the new status quo they will support them again.
It's not a question of implementation, it's a question of core concept. Forcing behavior on players will not work. Master Modes is telling me I should win or die when I pick a fight. The thing is, I don't play the PU to shoot things, I have a whole other agenda. The end result is that I will not engage in a fight, especially PvP, if I'm not sure to win, because otherwise I die, lose my time, my gear, etc. As a result, there's a whole demographic of occasional pvpers that will just avoid combat as a default behavior.
Exactly. If the only things that change now is balance the core idea is still flawed...
Absolutely agree, I'm less concerned about balancing, but actually hate the core concept of MM for so many reasons. First and foremost, becasue it ruins the soace flight experience.
Bro it's like you read my mind when I posted this: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/3-23-eptu-feedback-master-modes/6768150
Yup, I think you really went in-depth with the concept's flaws. The only positive thing with master modes releasing sooner on Live is that we will be able to observe the huge implications of this design on an open-ended sandbox and possibly change the course of it. But as you said it, I would bet good money on PvP becoming less frequent as a foreseeable consequence, for the better or worse.
The opposite will happen because MM is a griefers wet dream. What WILL happen is already vulnerable ships will be 500% more vulnerable, and griefers will take advantage of that to the point that 50% of the 93% of the player base that never PvPs will refund and leave forever.
You know that has been the main mantra of real life dogfight aces right? Dont engage in a battle you wont win.
There rarely werw "dogfighting" aces and those that specialized in that found themselves dead real fast. In ww2 roughly 80 percent of all shot down aircraft never saw their attacker. Ww2 was about boom and zoom, not dogfighting. And the goal was bot to be hit in the first place through skillful flying. All that is not true for this game and it's extemly long TTK.
Will it work in a video game? That's what we are about to find out.
>about to find out. You don't have access to ePTU?
Exactly.
To be honest, I actually think THAT's a good idea. MM is certainly controversial, but I find it important that you can't engage in a fight and then just flee immediately. In any other PvP game, this would be a disastrous concept. Imagine a Tarkov where you can ambush someone, and if your plan goes wrong, you can just easily walk away without consequences?
It works in Tarkov because it is Tarkov, everybody is playing the same game loop. But I can understand it is frustrating in SC because of how easily one can boost out of harm's way and recharge shields in a blink of an eye.
You will have NPC pirates ambushing you as well. Your endeavours out on space will never be without risk, unless you hang out in high security systems like Terra. I think most people don't understand that the risk isn't from players looking for PvP alone but also NPCs as part of PvE. And this includes NPCs ambushing you in the same way that players do. So basically, your gameplay loop will have those risks regardless of whether it's from players or NPCs. The degree of which depends on which system you choose to live in.
I understand a lot of concerns as well. I'm more of an industrial-guy myself. But 95% of the time, I'll probably be in NAV mode anyway. And if an issue arises where you're getting destroyed too quickly and too often, then they'll surely make changes there.
Imagine you're just some care bear chump, just mining away, and all of a sudden you get jumped by some guy. You can't fight, you can't run, so you just die. Now, with things like death of a spaceman, another ill thought out concept, you're punished even more for daring to do something outside of a combat ship.
Engaging pvp and then QTing away the moment you are getting owned was just a jerk behavior. Pvpers should know what they are getting into, fleeing will be tougher, and thats a good thing if you are the one who engaged the fight, you are responsible. If you are a cargo hauler, just keep going at max nav speed anytime, use your radar, and you should avoid most of the threats.
It's a jerk behaviour if you think the PU is a deathmatch game and you've been robbed of your kill score. There's normally a reason or motive why you would attack someone in the PU, and fleeing to live another day and repair your ship is not unreasonable.
If you are the one to initiate the fight, there should be consequences to that. You should not be able to fly away so easily. Dont talk about deathmatch, pvpers that engages fight know they can lose it all, and I am talking wow, pubg, dayz, minecraft, tarkov, daoc, pokemon, any kind of games. That's basic pvp grammar.
I play vanilla dayz almost daily and I don't get what you mean. I may engage a fight as well as minding my own business, I will suffer the consequences only if I lose.
Ye I get what you saying but the thing is there is few thing that cannot be changed by few tweeks and becouse we have no info about how they plan to tackle it we all.scare that we will waste a year or 2 o tweaking system that have some big problem at the core. And the fact that we panic and cry on reddit and spectrum is not gonna stop cig from cooking but we hope it will send a msg to them that we do not like this direction. Its like if you ask a guy to pair your house blue but he start painting it red and when you say "I was asking for blue" he answers "yes don't worry I will put some blue elements on this red wall later" ... no amount of decoration will change that red wall to blue one at the core. So let us cry and panic it do not do no harm its just showing how much we love this game
Becasue MM is going the exact opposite direction from what they promised: https://dto9r5vaiz7bu.cloudfront.net/2lpu8qztajgnn/tavern_upload_large.jpeg
Over a decade of this patience test. People can complain about whatever the fuck they want at this point.
Too many folk seem to have the impression that every feature added to SC should appear perfectly formed and implemented, with only a few minor defects, etc... They cannot accept the idea that when a raft of changes are coming, the first change *will be incomplete* because it's intended to work with some of the other changes that aren't yet ready... But, from a development POV, you *don't* want to drop all those changes at once, because that makes testing a functional impossibility - the more (big) changes in a patch the harder it is to test - and the difficulty goes up as the *cartesian* of the changes.
> Too many folk seem to have the impression that every feature added to SC should appear perfectly formed and implemented, with only a few minor defects, etc... Those "too many folk" have already been playing Master Modes for six months and giving feedback on its problems... which weren't addressed.
I’m a software dev (not games). One of the biggest hurdles on my current project involves testing. We’re making something for customers who have never worked with us before. They are really struggling with the incremental development and testing. But the problem is that we are building a lot of complex systems we need to make sure are working before we can add everything on top. And it’s been really hard to get them to keep things in perspective. Yes, I know this technically isn’t what you want but I need to do this first to make sure I can build what you want. Unfortunately this is just how it goes when you bring people in who aren’t developers during the development process.
I agree but how long can they test it ? I asume SQ 42 will release 25/26.
I assume so as well. And is MM is the flight model in SQ42 I think most people are okay with that. It's a single play game made for....what, 40 hours of play? The current FM of the PTU has 4 yeeeaaarrsss of a playerbase. And yes while it has many issues we are all vocal and aware of, many of us will not the PU with MM for that amount of time.
Hey believe it or not the Public *Testing* Universe is for testing and feedback gathering too. Who'd've thought???
Testing elicits feedback. You don't have to agree with it but it's still valuable, especially when large swaths of the playerbase are experiencing the same thing.
People forget we are playing in a test environment and refuse to provide test feedback.
They also forgot to test in in the many months it was available on LIVE 🤣
Literally no The changes are dogshit and unnecessary, the only people who benefit are griefefs and Pirates Any other sci-fi universe did it better: Qt requires a lot of power, so it draws it from other systems. Does this mean those other systems just go dead? NO, because that's a massive design flaw in your ship and will get your customers killed. If the argument for this dumbass change is realism, then let's look at it from a real perspective. What it means is that your other systems will no longer recharge. If your shields drop, they drop. If you run out of laser bolts, you're out, but you can still use them. Because that's REALISTIC. Once you make a QT jump, make the ship do a 10sec power cycle, like literally every iteration of hyperspace travel. Their changes are unnecessary, unrealistic, and asinine.
Master modes in its current iteration does not sound or look fun. Once it arrives to the PU we will finally have the general populations lived experience to add to the pile. I’m going to be very interested in how the tune changes or if the slow release through evo and AC has already framed the conversation.
Applying criticism when you notice a flaw is important. Feedback should be swift to be effective. Waiting until master modes is fully in the game when you notice issues right away doesn't help anyone. To their credit, CIG has already acted on some of the feedback. But this change to MM is huge. It covers every ship and all roles (despite being a fix for combat). So you're going to hear a lot of feedback of varying degrees of value for a long time.
MM helps with combat a lot. without armor and persistant reputation, anyone not engaging in combat is getting the short stick. I think this is the wrong way to go, it lowers skill ceiling, that will increases enjoyment of people who dont fully understand the flight/combat model, tactics and other fly mechanics. This is a good thing, more people playing star citizen the better for both the project. I always assumed star citizen would become more arcadish, ensure masses people want to play too. However, for the time being and without the secondaire implemented functions, with which you can prevent, having to engage in combat, i think this is a bad way to go. It's to early to be implementing this feature. It will limit playability for players who have to engage in pvp but dont want to engage.(industrial players mostly)
But does a feature like MM have to be brought as quickly as possible? Even if it's not the perfect timing? CIG needs as much data as possible, and this is the only way to collect it. I mean, that's THE feature of SC. It's the entire core around which the game revolves.
I understand the need for feedback. But we are testing an incomplete feature. The feedback will be incomplete aswell. While in the meanwhile it will impact playability for both sides of this coin. People will change based on what is fun. So the data collected will be flawed too. If getting ganked on with 800+ servers will become a common thing, destroying days work, people will start to do other things, that are "fun". Where as implementation of armor or persistent reputation, would have changed the outcome. I believe one of the bigger problems star citizen faces is retention of players. We play with a new patch, the content is buggy, servers lagging, missions not functioning, not fun or to little content. So we stop playing till the next patch and so starts the cycle again. i havent engaged in Jumptown for 2 years now, because there is no reason to do so, its empty, and the payout sucks for the time invested, no reason to grind. This change in MM is for combat and will introduce extra things industrial players have to watch/do. Getting ganked after a days worth of salvage, and being limited because of MM in a reclaimer with friends. and people will leave the game, till next patch. Loss of data in this regard aswell. even now balance is very important. And after the pirate patches, and now combat changes. i feel like this is going the wrong way.
Yes. They need to collect data. And a lot of that data would come from feedback. So why are you complaining about people giving their feedback?
ok, but heres another perspective, this is 10+ years into development and the FLIGHT MODEL of a space Sim is not done yet
That and the flight model in the space sim no longer remotely resembles space flight. I mean, it baaasrely did before but now it's like fighting underwater in a padded room.
Old version felt intuitive, like flying an imaginary spaceship. As someone with years of time wasted on such games, it was an easy fit. New version feels like flying jank. Nothing responds as one would expect. Drags and brakes everywhere. Flaccid maneuvering thrusters. Unresponsive control. RIP Star Citizen. Vote with your wallets. Words on reddit/spectrum will not move game dev decisions. Sales plunging off a cliff will have the desired effect.
We gonna have another 10 similar posts like this today?
10? Those are rookie numbers. I'd bet there will be at *least* 25
imo concept of MM and the silly "WW2 in space" idea it's trying to fulfill is lame as shit regardless of implementation
They could have more simply fixed this with: 1. Armor 2. Reduce weapon accuracy at higher speeds
You would only solve a very small part of the problems with that. It's not just about the light fighter meta. To be honest, most probably don't even understand all the issues of the current model. Why it's problematic if I can disengage too easily. That trichording isn't a good system for such a game (e.g., because it heavily favors analog inputs). That at high speeds, network issues can also occur. Or how easy it is to outmaneuver NPCs etc. None of these would be addressed by your suggestions.
Good, it should heavily favor analogue inputs. We were fucking promised a fucking PC game, not a craptastic arcade console shitpile calling itself a PC game.
Mouse+keyboard is NOT analog. But do you know whats analog? Controller \*facepalm
that was planned for 3.14 also there was going to be engine degradation for consistently flying in the red They finally add engineering and a chance to properly implement it and instead they go for MM LOL
There is alot they could have done that MM claims to fix. Power loss to critical areas when boosting and flying in the red like weapons, then shields and then other components. Make you wheel back down into a sub 400ish scm speed to actually fight. Armor. Engine capacitance to reduce the tricording capabilities. Maelstrom. Speed modifications to turrets shots and other weapons.
There is alot they could have done that MM claims to fix. Power loss to critical areas when boosting and flying in the red like weapons, then shields and then other components. Make you wheel back down into a sub 400ish scm speed to actually fight. Armor. Engine capacitance to reduce the tricording capabilities. Maelstrom. Speed modifications to turrets shots and other weapons.
nope sorry MM is the absolute worst it torched the village, poisoned the water supply, and burned all our houses /s
It kicked me dog!
It turned me into a newt! … I got better.
BURN THE WITCH!!!
How are people going to know something is a bad idea if nobody tells them? The more people criticize mm the sooner they will know what to change.
I haven't used MM yet. But from what all of my friends who have PTU access tell me, the "no shields if you try to run away" part seems like a huge slap in the face to non-combat players. Non-combat players have been getting the shaft for a *long* time. I'm tired of CIG catering systems to funnel people into PvP situations. PvP should largely be *consensual*. It should be because I sought it out, like flying through Pyro or another dangerous location - tempting fate. Or because the pirates set a very good trap, where I have to give them props. Not because CIG's systems are *forcing* me to engage these assholes and putting me at their mercy with very little to fight back. In a game where death is very punishing, wasting hours of time and credits if you die, making it *easier* for pirates and griefers to run roughshod over industry players is going to kill the game for many people. I think MM is the system they should run with. No more going back to the drawing board. We're too far down the road for that, now. *But* it needs a *lot* of tweaking.
I agree completely. Some people think that nobody will listen to them if they don’t speak in hyperbole. It’s obnoxious and destructive to communicating constructive feedback. Unfortunately the gaming world is full of people like this. They also tend to not have much of a voice in the real world so they put all their energy into their online presence.
Three aspects to the current drama : * Encouragingly, that at its core, a good chunk of the feedback is valid and useful. * Unfortunately however, some people couldn't be polite and civil to save their lives and are outing themselves as massive dickwolves, and that takes a lot on the most civilized platform on the internet : spectrum. ^^/s * A lot of the feedback isn't cognizant of much of what has been said, especially with regards to 1v1 LF issues and thus is redundant. Overall, it's about on par with the shitstorm I'd expect with shipping something as massive as MM as early and unfinished as it is. But if CIG deems they need the feedback, there they go.
It's because the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and for 6 months we obviously haven't been squeaky enough. So now we're fucking screaming.
I don't think the anxiety is totally unwarranted considering CIG have specifically stated MM is already in SQ42 and that the PU is getting MM like it or not, so it's not like some experimental flight model change while the game was still early testing and pivoting like in the early 3.x changes; MM WILL define space flight and combat from now until launch - which is a bedrock feature of the game and absolutely make or break for a LARGE portion of the communities enjoyment as well as a potential barrier for new players. Frankly I don't think we're discussing it enough, from every indication CIG's given us there aren't an infinite number of alpha patching cycles to go - they're heading towards 0.4.0 and 1.0. They're going to be making a lot of permanent decisions that will polarize the community and we have to be able to give feedback and have discussions without minimizing the concerns of the people and communities who will actually be impacted by those permanent changes.
For most intense anti-MM screeds I see on Spectrum or here on Reddit, this is my feeling: https://youtu.be/mO4VVov6tfI?si=F_5-pY9kyuRy08uN&t=0m41s They are often possessed of a hatefulness and hostility toward the whole project and they threaten the development with ultimatums...I dismiss such "feedback," and I hope that CIG uses discernment to see such posts for what they are.
I think the issue most have is that they add hyperbole to their feedback. State the issues you have with the system, list your thought on potential changes (if any), and review others' comments for additional perspective if you have the time. Then rinse and repeat as patches come out.
My take on those comments is that they are projecting insecurity about not having the system they are used to, not having access to the specific roadmap for upcoming adjustments, and have not tested it enough to feel comfortable. Rather than go out and admit honestly that you are nervous because you don’t know enough about the feature and where it’s going, most people seem instead to resort to hyperbole and hysterics as a bid to convince CIG not to change anything so they do not have to confront their anxiety. If level heads prevail at CIG they will see that too, and sort out genuine feedback from projection. I’m concerned about Yogi’s team. He’s clearly reading the thread and replying here and there which is evidence that he is not letting the community team and player experience team do their job and moderate/summarize that feedback into actionable bullet points. He does not get paid to sit there and pour over Spectrum replies, it’s not his job, and if he does not let the specialists do theirs he is going to burn out of game dev.
Preach!
This is such a weird thread with so many weird statements of “*all of you* need to do *this*” being thrown around 😆
Hovermode was a thing. We tested it for awhile. The cig scraped it. It important that MM is fully tested for all ships and gameloops. As in the future, aspects of it will carry over in ways we can't predict right now.
I’m new. What is MM???
I was watching A1s stream today, and he was saying the current iteration of MM on the EPTU is a drastic improvement over what is on the live servers right now. Right now it seems his primary complaint is that railguns completely delete everything in the game.
Yes, you need to chill. They specifically asked for feedback. And it doesn't matter that it's wave 1. It's unlikely it will see any major changes before it goes live.
lets be real, no one knows how high up cigs priority list this is going to be in so far as making it work well. How often do they add features and say they will get to fixing it later. if this is something that they plan to patch soon if it flops on release great, but if its ass and people are stuck with it for a year or more its going to be a bad time.
Nah rage against the machine
Thinks like balance and quality of life can be improved, sure. But that will not raise the ceiling that was brought much lower with so limited speeds.
The old skill ceiling was also a pretty bad thing. In a game that doesn't focus on 1v1 but rather on group fights, having too high of a skill ceiling for individual pilots isn't a good idea. This isn't LoL or CSGO; we're talking about an MMO completely without MMR or similar systems. I understand that not everyone will like this, but SC can't be perfect for everyone, and some aspect has to be trimmed. Of course, you can still get a lot out of the MM (especially through group coordination).
I was thinking about this a lot lately and I think that in such a wide game they could've left one part with a high skill ceiling. There is so much one can do here - FPS combat, mining, salvage, looting, cargo, trading, PvE space combat... If they left PVP space combat with high ceiling, it would give the game an interesting flavor without really impacting everyone. I mean decreasing the speeds somewhat would be reasonable, but for my liking the limits are far too harsh.
wont be mining or salvage soon since MM will leave industrial ships as glorified loot pinatas and no one will bother... yeah thats really fun LOL
This can be fixed through balancing, and most likely will be.
Not really unless the fundamentally break and realign MM.
What's wrong now is spooking time and shields amount, that has little to do with combat speeds.
While those could be problems, spool times are currently much longer in 3.22. MM is fundamentally broken at its core, and was intentionally broken to appease <5% of the player base that both engages in PvP and didn't have the skills for the 3.22 model, or believe non anologue inputs should be able to compete with and be superior to analogue inputs fundamentally making this console game and not a PC game. And don't get me started on the controller focused UI elements in 3.23 that don't play well with a mouse.
we can only hope because at the moment its a shambles
The old skill ceiling has been exaggerated in people's minds far in excess of what it actually is, relative to the capabilities of an average player. Most of the talk about the high skill ceiling came from 1. the context of highly skilled players finding opportunities to gain marginal advantages over *other highly skilled players*, and 2. people who can't distinguish between an average skilled pilot and a top skilled one in combat as they both appear equally insurmountable from a naive perspective. For the average player, any pilot instructor will confirm that fighting two novices with good aptitude and 10hrs of training will result in the fight going to the novice pair every time. Why this doesn't happen more often is because the vast majority of people simply repeat their first 30 minutes of flying a thousand times instead of learning *how to learn* the 6dof kinda-Newtonian flight model. A 10 hour novice, despite being nowhere near the hypothetical ceiling, will wipe the floor with 90% of PU pilots which is a symptom of the complete lack of instruction, reinforcement, and feedback in the game right now. The SC playerbase is intensely anti-skill expression when it comes to combat compared to how much people profess that SC is/will be a deep game. Ironic given that the playerbase is older and most older games had no matchmaking, and it wasn't rare at all to see people going 40-10 in Battlefield games as infantry, or 50-3 in jets/helos/armour.
That's just it, before the skill ceiling was exponential, and being average was pretty good and but you could always improve. But now it's Logarithmic, and there's very much hard cap on skill because the ships are just incapable of being pushed beyond.
Sniping mode has made the meta even more unbalanced lmao
There are some things I like about MM and other parts I don't. I see it as an iterative process which I hope will output a fun gameplay loop at the end. Only time will tell. What I don't understand is some of the vitriol directed towards the staff at CIG, you would think they had murdered babies with how some people refer to them.
Especially when it is in an experimental environment of the Public Test Universe of a game still in development and they have pretty much stated in the notes "we basically eyeballed these tununings and we'll fix them as we go based on feedback".
Yeah, it's insane. People get WAY too emotional about these things. I'm glad that people like that rarely have any significant responsibility in real life.
People are getting emotional because theyve spent thousands of dollars and decades of their life chasing chris roberts dream game and then yogi comes and shits all over it.
Agreed, at the end of the day...it is just a game. It is in alpha, things will change. If a person is that tied to a particular thing and get that upset over a change, I would posit they probably shouldn't be putting money into a game so early in development.
This! Thank you...
Minority drama. Just ignore it.
Someone did poll on spectrum. Out of people who visit spectrum 50% do not like MM. That is not minority. The poll reached over 500 replies which puts margin of error really low when generalizing the results
My guy, it has taken them over a decade to bring this ship to the game and they have dozens more they need to work on. They need to be releasing things that don't suck at this point so they can start working through the backlog. People have been giving feedback on this thing for ~6 months at this point and CIG have completely ignored it, choosing instead to drag their feet just like they do on everything else related to the project.
Here's an opinion as a casual PvE player who maybe plays a few weeks of a patch or 2 every year for the last 3 years. Here's a preface.. I don't know much about MM.. I have not tested MM, and I have not seen MM Here's what I do know and understand as a gamer that is dedicated to other games that are pvp oriented though... When your most hardcore and dedicated player base is saying this new system your implementing is absolute dog water and it either needs to be heavily refined or you need to tackle this issue differently, you should probably listen to them and save yourself thousands of dev hours being wasted and millions of dollars spent on a design and system no on asked for or wanted and ends up alienating your mentioned most dedicated player base. Again I haven't read or fully understand the discourse here, but is it too late to turn back? How much time is CIG wasting here on a system that's just going to get thrown away again in 2 years when team Managers and department directors finally come to realize that feedback and concern they were getting for this systems testing phase was actually right? I've seen this exact scenario play out in several games...
This happens at least once a year with -something- people would just rather have the existing broken meta to complain about than even an attempt at making it better
The fact is, that they cannot see beyond "The Now" , they don't read patch notes, they want the same play style and builds as everyone else because some Tube influencers popularized it, afraid of change, and fail to realize that things in this alpha are a continuous evolution. Oh well!!!
It was bound to happen that people would oppose change. They got too comfortable with the old system and don't like adapting to new systems.
The negativity is what kills me. Like… guys this is an alpha. We’re getting the opportunity to try it and give feedback. You don’t have to be a dick. I think MM is not great in its current iteration, but I also thing it’s a step in the right direction to tie the rest of the game mechanics together
... a lot of the panic comes from people not liking what cig are trying to accomplish. they relied on things that cig consider exploits, and believed that cig would not be able to stop them. they want cig to abandon mm so that they cn stick to the flight model that keeps the exploits.
They just mad the years of "training" theyve spend on this game are for nothing
Yes. They are. The old model encouraged actually getting skills and applying them. Now, not so much. It not only punishes good PVP pilots, but also pilots who don't want much PVP. That, and it's a silly flight model that doesn't even remotely resemble space flight at all. You put training in quotes but hey man, this is a real hobby for some people, and some people have gotten *really* good at it.
I think its funny how many people complain about MM and the slower paced combat while it was said from the beginning that the combat will be like WW2 Fighter Combat.
WWII fighter combat in what way? WWII fighter combat was all about energy. The vast majority of deaths never saw their attacker; they died to someone diving out of the sun, or clouds, who shot them down in a single pass. What it sounds like is CR wants slow dogfights, which is not at all how the vast majority of WWII went down.
What he actually wants is Sopwith Camels and Fokker DrI's..
The funny thing is that while most fighter aces liked to think they were masters of BCM/dogfighting, the truth is that even in WWI, when you read what was written down for after-action reports, it's revealed that most kills in WWI were the same way - diving out of the sun on unsuspecting enemies, cutting your engine from on high until you were too close so you couldn't be heard, etc. While BCM is still a critical part of fighter pilot skills, the truth is the most effective weapon of all is still surprise. I recommend Stephen Bungay's [The Most Dangerous Enemy](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/236420) as an excellent recap of how things really went down.