Deadfire FAILING

[Qumi]

Hello

 

I've been viewing some videos on Pillars of Eternity 2 and I haven't noticed this negative attitude. I'm quite surprised to hear about it, actually. It's also curious that despite it being so common, as the creator of the topic claims, the same creator has trouble finding an example. From what I can read, SonicMage is a big fan of the game and is concerned about where the game is going. When passion is present, our perception is influenced, certain things highlighted. There are concerns within the community - as there should be as it's beta testing period - but I haven't seen much talk about failing. It's best to share your feedback, listing clearly your objections and praises, and gaining interest from community about them. That gives your feedback more visibility and weight. Be specific, don't go in general direction like "game is failing". Make an argument why "a" might cause issues in situations b, c, d.

 

As for developers reading and changing things due to feedback... I've worked in a gaming company and can tell you that devs read threads. Sometimes personally, sometimes a summary created by community managers. Not all developers are particularly sociable and able to handle proper communication with players, so you usually hear only from community managers or community developers. That's also cuz of volume of work. A dev presence draws a lot of attention and demands a lot of attention. Dividing time between writing posts and working on the game can be difficult to manage, hence community managers handle it mostly. I think we have excellent and professional community managers, community developers and developers so I'm sure they take note of every new feedback that is given by the community

 

Cheers!

[Gromnir]

old complaint from Gromnir, but is our opinion the obsidians were too reactive to fan input during poe development.

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91392-the-loss-of-vancian-casting/?p=1880072

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/71242-interview-with-josh-sawyer-tomorrow-thursday-the-19th-at-8-pm-est-on-my-twitch-channel/?p=1589870

 

repost from march 21, 2015:

 

one of the greatest strengths of poe will also be one of its greatest weakness.  josh did mention in the interview just how much impact the input the community had on the game, which should be reassuring.  to know that there is a possibility that features will be changed based on some kinda community consensus, which is 'bout as rare as a unicorn in central park, results in more folks becoming invested in the game, and not just monetarily.  fans already see poe as their game, which is a good thing. more than a few things has been changed in poe as a result o' fan requests, and so fans see that they has made a difference. unfortunately, reactivity is a double-edged sword.

 

fans can be idiots.  the fact that we can be idiots in large numbers is cause for concern rather than applause.  josh, in the interview, made comment about dealing with the feeling requests.  sadly, more than a few o' the feeling changes arguably make the game worse rather than better.  a fighter that is exceptional at simultaneous exacting and absorbing damage were a given in the ie games, so that is what the fans o' poe expected and clamored to get included into poe even though the poe fighter had a more limited role in poe. similarly, the paladin, were meant as a support character that were excellent in defense.  the paladin's role were important to the developers 'cause it helped differentiate the numerous classes they created.  got multiple support characters that is all good offensive and defensive and is great with melee weapons? what is point o' making multiple classes f they is all capable o' fulfilling the same role? even so, the fans wanted a poe paladin who could smite the wicked rather than one who were mere able to hold up a shield and defend against such villains and monsters. well, in response to public demand, we received a smite ability.  is not that smite is bad, but it don't improve the paladin more than giving folks more o' the paladin feel they expected. wasted resources?  perhaps.  

 

from the interview we could see that josh saw value in the way 4e differentiated the roles o' classes.  rogues and wizards in 4e played very different, they had different roles and each class could excel in that role.  unfortunately, 4e rogues didn't feel enough like 3e or ad&d rogues, and 4e wizards didn't feel enough like mordenkainen or tenser to d&d fans. the obsidians ran into the same problem with the poe community.  expectations got/get in the way o' obsidian making progress, and their obstacle is the feelings o' the community.

 

is nothing wrong with fulfilling wishes based on nothing save feel, as long as such stuff doesn't measurably impact developer notions o' balance and their ever-shrinking pool o' man-hours. add token bestiary, exploration and traps/lock xp?  were easy to add, and so we got such token features included in poe.  why?  feel.  were not a tough fix and it appeased those who wanted some kinda throwback to ie game xp awards.  token xp grants didn't fundamentally alter the quest & objective xp mechanic obsidian adopted and were a cheap fix.  win-win, eh?

 

Gromir paid money to obsidian to make poe 'cause we trust that they can make a good pc crpg.  at some point we gotta step back and let the folks that know what they are doing, do their work.  why hire somebody if you aren't gonna trust 'em to do the actual work they were hired to do?  Gromnir wants input, but if developers offer a rational and reasonable reason as to why they chose to do A instead o' B, we typical trust 'em.  yeah, we want explanations and, from time to time, we will rail and moan like a little kid if we disagree, but for the most part, what we is looking for is transparency more than control.  

 

am thinking poe will be a stronger 'cause o' its transparency.  at the same time, we believe that the game were somewhat diminished by the obsidian decision to actual listen to us, 'cause as we said already, we are idiots.

 

end repost

 

terrible thing is, the obsidians attempted to fix some o' their poe mistakes and a great deal o' the pushback from fans you see regarding the deadfire beta is simple reactionary.  the fans o' poe want deadfire to play more like poe, even if the stuff they want "fixed" is the broken stuff from poe the developers is trying improve.  poor balanced classes which is able to excel at everything in part 'cause of obvious dump stats and universal available no-brainer talents is what the loudest fans want.  so we is back to where we were in mid/late 2014 with a small but vocal group o' fans hijacking the dialogue concerning improvement o' poe/deadfire. sure, is no longer ie/d&d grognards making the most noise.  instead it is the hardcore poe fans who resist mechanic and balance changes proposed by obsidian and instead want deadfire to be little more than poe + multiclassing.  

 

the developers spent years developing poe... they spent years coming up with ideas 'bout how to improve poe.  unfortunately, the diehard fans get their hands on the beta for even a few days and many were already in full bedwetting mode. many were complaining 'bout how terrible gimped were ciphers and casters or whatnot 'cause o' changes made regardless o' the actual performance o' such classes in the beta.  "but in poe my cipher could..." 

 

...

 

oh, and balance competing fan wants is dooming deadfire to mediocrity.  look at fan feedback and recognize how divisive is the opinions regarding everything.  even for a relative homogenized group such as the beta testers, there is little consensus 'bout... anything. make game so is acceptable to most number o' people is the same theory behind tract housing and fast food. try and make everybody happy and result is gonna be pleasantly inoffensive.  might be good business for obsidian to shoot for broad appeal, but give folks what they, as a group, actual ask for is dooming the results to mediocrity.  

 

listen to fans is good.  fan feels is important.  nevertheless, there needs be a point at which the developers show confidence in their own abilities regardless o' the protests o' a few mouthy malcontents.  the obsidian developers got Years of feedback and hard tangible data 'pon which to draw conclusions.  has gotta be an end to it. obsidian should make what they believe to be the best possible deadfire even if the best deadfire is a fail for some number o' folks, 'cause it will be a fail for some no matter how many people they try and please.  do something meaningful. 

 

"nobody hated it."  developers gotta realize such an observation is a scathing critique and not a compliment.

 

HA! Good Fun!  

Edited January 6, 2018 by Gromnir

[Qumi]

It's one of the misconceptions of players about feedback. Devs rarely apply it the way you've phrased it. They ponder about it and implement it so that it works within the game. A feedback on game mechanics might not be implemented the way author wanted, but it raises awareness about some aspect of the game. From that, the devs may decide to do some changes, albeit different from the feedback's author. I do think the Obisidian team is professional and their work and game will reflect that.

[MaxQuest]

fans can be idiots. the fact that we can be idiots in large numbers is cause for concern rather than applause.

That's logically true. Fans can be idiots.

 

am thinking poe will be a stronger 'cause o' its transparency. at the same time, we believe that the game were somewhat diminished by the obsidian decision to actual listen to us, 'cause as we said already, we are idiots.

Uhm, sorry for nitpicking, but you said "can be idiots" (which is true), and not "we are idiots" (which may not be true).

Also (in this context) it would probaly make sense to use "shortsighted" instead; because besides having low intelligence, it's also possible to arrive to wrong conclusion by not having enough/correct input data. That said I salute your call for improved transparency.

 

look at fan feedback and recognize how divisive is the opinions regarding everything. even for a relative homogenized group such as the beta testers, there is little consensus 'bout... anything.

Unless you meant unanimous consensus, don't you exagerate a bit?

- topics with high consensus: casting speed, impact of melee vs ranged, beta 1 injuries being too severe

- topics with average consensus: general talents, penetration system (some players still favor the flat and/or gradual approach; but still the majority as finding the iteration of AR vs PEN as being too abrupt)

- topics with low consensus: MIG/RES vs STR/RES

 

listen to fans is good. fan feels is important.

I'd just add that it's great when fans' input and wishes are constructive, concrete and taking an advice or pov, instead of the occasional enforcing form. Edited January 7, 2018 by MaxQuest

[Gromnir]

 

fans can be idiots. the fact that we can be idiots in large numbers is cause for concern rather than applause.

That's logically true. Fans can be idiots.

 

am thinking poe will be a stronger 'cause o' its transparency. at the same time, we believe that the game were somewhat diminished by the obsidian decision to actual listen to us, 'cause as we said already, we are idiots.

Uhm, sorry for nitpicking, but you said "can be idiots" (which is true), and not "we are idiots" (which may not be true).

Also (in this context) it would probaly make sense to use "shortsighted" instead; because besides having low intelligence, it's also possible to arrive to wrong conclusion by not having enough/correct input data. That said I salute your call for improved transparency.

 

look at fan feedback and recognize how divisive is the opinions regarding everything. even for a relative homogenized group such as the beta testers, there is little consensus 'bout... anything.

Unless you meant unanimous consensus, don't you exagerate a bit?

- topics with high consensus: casting speed, impact of melee vs ranged, beta 1 injuries being too severe

- topics with average consensus: general talents, penetration system (some players still favor the flat and/or gradual approach; but still the majority as finding the iteration of AR vs PEN as being too abrupt)

- topics with low consensus: MIG/RES vs STR/RES

 

listen to fans is good. fan feels is important.

I'd just add that it's great when fans' input and wishes are constructive, concrete and taking an advice or pov, instead of the occasional enforcing form.

 

reply/quote to small portions?  is how these debates devolve as folks lose track of larger issues and then quibble over tangential details.

 

we will note how we do believe it is fair to refer to fans, as a whole, as idiotic. am not speaking of individual posters, but of fans, collective. from pov o' the developer, the fans is self-contradictory, irrational, unreasonable AND myopic. as a group, those qualities, presented consistent, would be justifiable described as idiotic.  will also disagree 'bout your perceived and arbitrary levels o' consensus.  casting times is, for example, far less a consensus issue than you may believe.  take a look at summoned weapon threads for example.  like it or not, is including a cast time aspect and is not consensus. also, a few folks such as Gromnir who suggested the real problem for casters were the penetration mechanic and overpowered synergies available to many melee builds making casters appear weak by comparison, has begun to suffer fatigue and reduce posting.  developers already heard us, so is no reason to beat the horse to death as those demanding shorter casting times has done. 

 

regardless, we stand by opinion the developers should be careful o' listening to fan feedback. at some point, listen to fan must end for a good game to result.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[MaxQuest]

reply/quote to small portions?

Yeap. Breaking a bigger task into smaller, more manageable chunks works well for me, including situations when it's applied to forum posts.

Personally I like when it's easier to track which excerpts are targeted by the replier, as it provides a more detailed context.

Additionally it allows for ommiting the parts about which I'm feeling nothing-to-add or neutral about.

 

is how these debates devolve as folks lose track of larger issues and then quibble over tangential details.

My point of view on the issue stated in the starting post is already expressed in this thread. Targeting new input is a natural thing to keep the discussion flowing, provided that the input caught ones attention.

 

we will note how we do believe it is fair to refer to fans, as a whole, as idiotic. am not speaking of individual posters, but of fans, collective. from pov o' the developer, the fans is self-contradictory, irrational, unreasonable AND myopic. as a group, those qualities, presented consistent, would be justifiable described as idiotic.

Well, thanks for clarification. I could not agree about "all", but can agree with "collective".

Although must note that PoE community is one of the most mature gaming communities I've been part/witness of.

 

will also disagree 'bout your perceived and arbitrary levels o' consensus. casting times is, for example, far less a consensus issue than you may believe. take a look at summoned weapon threads for example. like it or not, is including a cast time aspect and is not consensus. also, a few folks such as Gromnir who suggested the real problem for casters were the penetration mechanic and overpowered synergies available to many melee builds making casters appear weak by comparison, has begun to suffer fatigue and reduce posting. developers already heard us, so is no reason to beat the horse to death as those demanding shorter casting times has done.

I remember few posts mentioning that the real problem for casters being low penetration of spells. Have to note though that beside damage-dealing spells, there are also heals, debuffs and buffs. Having a priest take 6s+2s in order to cast a single-target +5MIG buff, is... a bad deal even if you try to counter a MIG-affliction.

 

As for melee synergies - it's a valid point. And it's up to devs, to [nerf those], [reduce casting durations] or make both solutions meet in between. In the end one could say that the main difference between these approaches is the resultant (average) duration of combat.

 

Must note though: even though some spells are currently not worthy of their cast time, some of these are even less worty than the others. And it's important to detect and tune this "trash" options. I'd also like to quote this article from an interview with Josh:

It is now 2014 and, friends, I am here to tell you that trash options are bull****.

 

---

While big RPGs always let a few of these trash options slip through unintentionally, the best way to avoid the problem on a large scale is simply to ask why well-informed players, acting with eyes wide open, would want to pick any given option over a different option in the first place.

regardless, we stand by opinion the developers should be careful o' listening to fan feedback. at some point, listen to fan must end for a good game to result.

Agreed. It's wise to take fan feedback with caution. Edited January 7, 2018 by MaxQuest

[Gromnir]

more awkwardness.

 

example: we reply 'bout holy meditation casting time... observe how the problem ain't pregnant cast times but rather disproportionate short durations for a few such spells.  is nothing inherent unbalanced with a level 1 single-person buff taking long to cast.  only becomes an issue if melee folks is attacking multiple times for big damage during such a casting time, particular when the duration o' the buff lasts little longer than the cast+recovery. why cast the spell priest is gonna contribute much more by simple using his/her own melee weapons during the cast time? the payoff from the spell is only gonna come close to evening out if it has a long duration.

 

'course such a disagreement and discussion takes us further afield o' the point o' the thread... and much further than the direction o' Gromnir's posts which you is now s'posed responding to.

 

however, we will observe how such illustrated disagreement does serve to undercut the consensus notions you embraced earlier regarding casting times.

 

even so, am relieved you found clarification regarding our point regarding idiocy o' fan collective.  baby steps it seems.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[SonicMage117]

I'm confused of how this thread somehow turned out to be fans vs haters. Maybe I missed a page but moreover, I never said criticism should not be allowed and devoided, only that the game should not take on epic changes which hinder the end result more than help it.

 

I think we can all agree that Early Access/Beta doesn't always help and while this isn't Early Access, some backers are treating it as so. Are we as backers really so entitled because we funded the game? I knw some people would love to think so but if we are being honest and realistic then the answer is "No."

 

I, also, don't expect any backer to calculate any given system that is more accurate or advanced than what Obsidian comes up with, as the people working at Obsidian have much more experience in D&D and so on than any of us.

 

Thank God it's already in Beta and that the big decisions are likely already made. It would be a disaster if a group of beta backers agreed something/things needed to be changed and that ruined the game for everyone else.

[SonicMage117]

"He cannot find evidence to back up his claim, therefore it does not exist..."

 

It's not that I can't find the evidence, it's as I already stated long ago, there are tons of videos, I don't feel like looking through all of them. Sorry. Should you choose not to believe that is,entirely up to you, I couldn't care less. The fact remains I'm afraid and if it didn't, there wouldn't be a point of making this post.

 

Now excuse me, I'm cooking my weiner on the grill. I don't want to burn my frank, so...

[algroth]

Now excuse me, I'm cooking my weiner on the grill.

 

Sounds painful.

[thelee]

I'm confused of how this thread somehow turned out to be fans vs haters. Maybe I missed a page but moreover, I never said criticism should not be allowed and devoided, only that the game should not take on epic changes which hinder the end result more than help it.

 

I think we can all agree that Early Access/Beta doesn't always help and while this isn't Early Access, some backers are treating it as so. Are we as backers really so entitled because we funded the game? I knw some people would love to think so but if we are being honest and realistic then the answer is "No."

 

I, also, don't expect any backer to calculate any given system that is more accurate or advanced than what Obsidian comes up with, as the people working at Obsidian have much more experience in D&D and so on than any of us.

 

Thank God it's already in Beta and that the big decisions are likely already made. It would be a disaster if a group of beta backers agreed something/things needed to be changed and that ruined the game for everyone else.

 

While it's true that committee-based or fan-based game design would likely be terrible, this is still ultimately a video game that needs customers, and "the customer is always right."

 

Sometimes it means Obsidian taking its backer beta/fan feedback figuratively, not literally. (illustrative quote: "the cries of the poor are not always just, but if you do not listen then you will never know what justice is.") JE Sawyer had a story in a GDC presentation where people complained to him during PoE1 backer beta about how guns mechanically sucked. They changed the sound effects to be more dramatic and that solved most of the complaints, without affecting the mechanics of how the guns worked. There were several more stories like this.

[injurai]

Sometimes people feel they have to nitpick simply because they feel that is the role they should play. But they don't really have the proper insight to offer any real constructive criticism, so they throw around a bunch of red herrings that sound that far bigger issues than they're really are.

 

I think the true test of balance will come from post-launch patches.

[Ninjamestari]

While it's true that committee-based or fan-based game design would likely be terrible, this is still ultimately a video game that needs customers, and "the customer is always right."

 

This simply isn't true, every single great visionary brand builder can attest to this. The customer by and large doesn't know what he wants until he gets it. EDIT: sometimes not even then.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Ninjamestari

[Boeroer]

Well maybe some don't know, but I know exactly what I want... and like.

[Lephys]

This simply isn't true, every single great visionary brand builder can attest to this. The customer by and large doesn't know what he wants until he gets it. EDIT: sometimes not even then.

 

*nod nod*. My favorite note on this is that famous quote by Henry Ford that apparently wasn't actually a quote by Henry Ford (some newspaper reporter at the time didn't have their facts, or twisted some words, or something, for a better story), but darnit if it doesn't illustrate the problem with consumers. I think it went something like "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would've said 'a faster horse.'" (in regard to his pursuit of automobile mass production).

 

Game mechanics and the like are much like cookies. Sure, people know "I like chocolatey cookies," but they don't often stop to really consider all the aspects of the cookie. They just equate it to a good thing because it's tastey. So, if we were gonna go with the analogy, then they'd demand chocolate cookies from you. So you'd go "Oh, okay, I'll just give them what they want to please them." Then, a few days later, a big group of people might say "Hey, I ate like 150 of these cookies in one day, and now I'm in a diabetic coma!" And you'd think, "but I gave you the cookies you wanted!"

 

Basically, just because people want a thing does not mean they have fully considered the specifics of what will affect their enjoyment in the big picture. There are easy examples for RPGs, like... start characters out with mega powerful spells and abilities, and that's super fun in one respect, but they'll quickly complain that nothing's challenging and/or that they never get to progress and they're bored, etc. Most discrepancies are more nuanced than that (though some are that silly... *shrug* humans tend to be mentally lazy), but they function the same way.

[Gromnir]

Well maybe some don't know, but I know exactly what I want... and like.

 

in our experience, most people believe as do boeroer.  unfortunate, history teaches us how most people is wrong. particular for entertainment, give folks what they claim to want is doomed.  at best, match expectations results in a product which is derivative and uninspired and dull. is particular difficult for crpg developers who got a product which is gonna require tens o' hours o' time investment by the player. hard to be fresh for +20 hours.

 

is a few comic examples o' fans not knowing what they want...

 

the single most common demand from boardies during bg2 development, other than bug reduction, were an appeal for less 'o the bg1-style wilderness maps.  fans wanted more durlag's tower and less one-map-south-of-beregost nonsense. not kidding.  were not even a close call for most common appeal.  durlag's tower portion o' totsc were representing the sea change 'bout which the bg2 fans were clamoring.  unfortunate, bg2 is released and sudden we see loads 'folks complaining 'bout the dearth o' exploration.  heck, we were genuine shocked by how many folks complaining 'bout bg2 lack o' exploration were also the same folks demanding less bg1 wilderness map mowing.  so even if developers thinks they got some kinda clear consensus from fandom, there is a good chance the fans simple got no idea what the heck they want.

 

*chuckle*

 

immediate following the initial deadfire beta release, we saw many demands for a return o' the universal talents.  how could the developers believe reducing customization options which were available in poe would be a good idea for deadfire? 'course the developers explained how over the past few years one o' the most common complaints regarding the poe classes were lack o' differentiation-- players were tending to take same/similar universal talents regardless o' class.  deadfire beta created more differentiated classes.  turns out class differentiation ain't what folks actual wanted even if they were demanding.  

 

yeah, sometimes the problem is folks who know what they want do not realize how what they want is self-contradictory.   'course other times the difficulty facing developers is simple the reality o' the inevitable fail o' matching expectations.  folks can't ask for what they do not know.  can't like something you ain't experienced. unfortunately, if obsidian cobbles together a frankenstein o' stuff bob or mary enjoyed and wants from a host o' other games or entertainment sources, the results is gonna be so much regurgitated pap.  perhaps obsidian gives bob and mary poe 4.0 with elements o' fallout and witcher iii and whatever is the crpg flavor o' the week at the moment.  great?  no.  derivative. tired. dull. 

 

listen to fans, but don't trust they know what they want, 'cause chances are they do not.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sedrefilos]

I know what I want in the sense of I know what kind of games I like most and what I like most in games. I believe most of us mean it this way when we say "I know what I want". Overanalysing (others') similar statements is boasting imo

 

Anyway, the truth is that beta has its controversial parts in mechanics design up to this point but saying "most people hate it" is hyperbole. Mostly there is constructive critisism or just pointing out things that don't feel that good.

 

Thankfully the devs are open to change and have their backup plans and ideas of their own.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Sedrefilos

[Boeroer]

Obsidian is putting out a beta and asking for feedback expilictly.

 

So what's all that fluffy drivel about?

[kierun]

 

Well maybe some don't know, but I know exactly what I want... and like.

 

 

is a few comic examples o' fans not knowing what they want...

 

[…]

 

listen to fans, but don't trust they know what they want, 'cause chances are they do not.

 

"Fans" is not a homogeneous blog with one opinion. There might be many vocal fans clamouring for something but whether they are a majority, or just a loud (and obnoxious?) minority is hard for the developers to judge. In addition, what fans say they want might not be what they need nor do the develop understand it right:

 

 

 

Look at the date, not a new problem.☹

[Guest 4ward]

 

hopefully the devs will find the golden way with the help of the fans‘ feedback

 

[Gromnir]

Obsidian is putting out a beta and asking for feedback expilictly.

 

So what's all that fluffy drivel about?

*sigh*

 

already explained.  listen to fans is good, but listen too much to idiotic fans can hurt the game.  we gave numerous examples o' questionable choices not made 'cause developers genuine believed such changes helped the game, but 'cause developers were caving to fan demands. vancian casting were never 'posed to be in poe, but a small group were extreme vocal, so obsidian changed.  numerous post release builds o' poe saw the developers attempting to walk balk that decision before vancian were finally exorcised in deadfire.  insofar as vancian casting, how many builds and years did it take the obsidians to final get back to where they started 'fore they mistaken listened to a small number o' overrepresented fans? 

 

ain't the fan's fault.  as you note, developers is asking for fan feedback.  the problem for developers is board fans not only represent only the smallest portion o' total game fans, but trying to glean useful notions 'bout fan consensus from a homogenized group which is nevertheless myopic, irrational, unreasonable, self contradictory and frequent idiotic is o' questionable merit. even when fans do appear to reach consensus, one must be dubious 'bout arriving at conclusions based 'pon such consensus as fans do not appear to realize what it is they has requested.

 

so what is the fluffy drivel 'bout? again, developer reactivity feels like a good thing. however, often such reactivity is the very thing which hurts the game and ultimate angers fans. developers need be careful 'bout too much reactivity.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Boeroer]

*supersigh*

Because Obsidian can't handle this and needs counseling on that matter... from the same fans? 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Boeroer

[Gromnir]

*supersigh*

 

Because Obsidian can't handle this and needs counseling on that matter... from the same fans? 

 

yes.

 

"if developers is convinced by a good argument from the boardies, then numbers shouldn't matter.  if is good for the game, then do it.  and sure, sometimes player ineffable feels and emotions is actual as important as is cold, hard facts or well crafted logic. can't dismiss the gut impressions o' the mob before or after release.  even so, am thinking the obsidians realized, too late, that trying to make everybody satisfied tends to be resulting in nobody being complete happy."

 

am suggesting the developers need step back from reactivity.  don't go all absurdism on us and pretend as if such an appeal means developers should complete ignore any and all advice. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Boeroer]

I didn't mean to go all absurdism on you.

 

If you really think that it's necessary to remind Obsidian about this every now and then then go ahead. 

[Blades of Vanatar]

Don’t forget that crowd-funding is helping to keep them, the devs, working. So of course they will try to please all the backers. It’s the ‘inherent problem in the system’ which causes all the board violence and creates our PoE fan repression.