The problem with todays player base

To me, after around 7 months of playing this game, it seems to me that the biggest down fall of releasing a game isn't that it isn't fully developed or that it always feels like it's a beta, but that the player base isn't used to a game changing. It seems that, from reading the forums, if it was released as it is now most wouldn't know the changes and in the end wouldn't QQ so much. The same reason why so many play HALO, CoD, and pretty much any other game that doesn't release GUs every other week.

Players should have patients and understanding about where the game is going and not how it personally affects them in that moment of change.

You buy a weapon for x SC, then they change it a week later -> there's reason to be upset.

I can agree that there is a problem with that but they didn't force you to buy that SC. They didn't put a gun to you head and tell you to buy that item. On top of that if they didn't change those items the game would be broke as hell and wouldn't have last a month. I also believe in the term "buyer beware." But, alternatively, I do feel that they shouldn't allow new guns for sale via SC until the have been LIVE for at least 3 weeks.

I would advise everybody on these forums to not spend actual cash on weapons that may change. Get yourself a membership and earn the weapons with certs, that way if they changes it will soften the blow. Spend the money on cosmetics by all means as these are nice investments if your into that kind of thing.

Until this point you were dead the on spot.

Dont purchase ridiculously op **** with your SC. You will be a better player for it, and you wont feel cheated when it gets nerfed.

This isn't just about SC this is about any addition/change to the game. This is also about the reason why an idea that should be welcomed with open arms (again not talking about the SC thing) is constantly being used throw blame, hate, personal threats, and just pure immature criticism towards something that is actually one of the most noble things ever to be tried in the game industry in this age.

People have to keep in mind that almost all forum post are written about things that people think are wrong about the game and that only a few are positive because most people that like what's happening in the game are playing the game.

OR ... maybe they shouldnt have rushed this game out to compete with Black ops 2 ... a properly finished product would have been much nicer than this ... this , whatever this is ...

I think the problem is actually people who think they know what "the Problem is" and make reedonculous threads like this one ...
$OE doesnt need your defense Mason ...

I don't get what your picture is about. and I'm not defending SOE from anything, just giving food for thought. And a statement like "$OE" on an SOE game thread is like saying "McDonalds is a menace to America, but I'll still eat the s**t out of that quarter pounder!"

Lol I don't think that was their plan at all. Seems to be just the opposite. Pease re read my post. You are the person I am describing

................sigh.

How can releasing a game that isn't fully developed and always feels like beta 7 months after its release...not be a massive down fall? I mean, are your expectations SO low? Maybe its different for some of us, that have invested heavily because we saw the potential 7 months ago. 7 MONTHS. Now we see a Roadmap with numerous items unscheduled. A shift in priority to the PS4 version. MLG this, MLG that.

My sub ends in July. I'll be watching from the free seats till I get a better idea where this game is headin.

I will agree that their roadmap isn't what they have promised at all and that the Hossin sould have been out long ago. But you might also be forgetting all the changes that have been made for the better. My expectations aren't low but at the same time I have never been a member and I haven't spent much more than $80 on this game.

Again like is I said, I am a believer in "buyer beware" and it sounds like you threw your eggs in one basket. Most games that are fully developed aren't F2P. Again I said MOST games.

To me the "priority" for PlayStation is actually going to benefit us PC players with the re engineering for muti core processors. So I really don't see the negatives for that.

The only major MLG content they are putting in the game are the battle islands, which have been said to be incorporated with a continental lattice link for the general public to use. And if balance is a problem with this game (as is the main topic of most forum grief) how would catering to MLG be bad?

This game is still in development. The end goal is PS4 and China. So yeah, it basically is a beta. Welcome to F2P.

But do undertand that this creates a bad image. I haven't been shafted yet, as all the guns i bought haven't been nerfed or changed yet, but seeing all these nerfs... that scares me. I wanted to buy SC again to buy a certain weapon, but i'm too scared it's just going to get nerfed.

It is true no one is pointing a gun at me for buying station cash, but no where does it say ''this weapon can change any moment SOE feels like it''. Imagine buying a TV and suddenly it turns into an oven or wood.

Balance must be maintained, but if you're going to put stuff on the market, then it should stay that way. In other words, make sure the weapon is BALANCED from the beginning. *cough* test server *cough*.

Have you played dustbowl? That map has a winning and a losing condition? This game is an open world control point domination set of 3 giant maps without a win condition. Imaginary wins and losses are imaginary. If you play hockey without hockey nets what are you doing?

Alerts are the closest thing to a win condition but for them to be relevant you need a balanced population on a balanced continent starting out at 33% pop control for each faction. But now there are cross continent alerts that make server population imbalance even more pronounced. So....Indar is the hockey net. Fight perpetually on Indar for highest % control.

Wasn't this game voted best MMO of 2012?

Well to be honest not enough people play on the test server to actually find a true balance and I agree that new weapons shouldn't have an SC cost to them until they do find I a balance. The only problem with that is when they add new content they may have to go through and rebalance it again.

I have never heard of the game, I'll probably check it out. And as for your analogy it would be more like if the hockey game had nets but no game timer imo. But at the same time the devs are planning on putting in player generated missions, resource revamp (who nows what that's about) and other ideas to give a better meta game. Just because they are not live doesn't mean they wont happen. And that is pretty much the point of my thread and what people should expect from this game. If you don't like it, don't spend money on it and wait a few months.

It *is* beta (see version number of your very own PS2 process). Game yet is treated from the publisher perspective like a "final" release. The monetization process up and running.
What you say is only one small part here where PS2 development constantly crossing various borders where "patience" and "understanding" naturally doesn't exist on the players side anymore since there is no hint for a bigger picture nor should the active player base be treated as paying beta testers that get nothing in the end.

Additionally, this community around here is treated like ****. There is very little care to these forums and instead you have to get your informations elsewhere on third party platforms.


The level of upset threads in this forum is a mere mirror of the entire PS2 development and information politics.

no one is forcing you to.. if you decide to spend money to unlock it faster it's up to you.. dev's owe you nothing for it..

How can you not see that as a negative? The PC version has been out for 7 months, and we have to wait till its OK for the PS4 before we see multi core optimization? Really? Why not work out that problem on the PC and use that solution for the PS4, considering we are already playing/paying for this game.

You will agree that the roadmap isn't what they have promised, yet tell me Its my own fault for investing in the game. Shame to see it that way, really.

The game has done some things very well. I wouldn't have immediately subscribed back in December if I didn't see that. Thing is with the roadmap in its current form, and a shift in feature priority for the console demographic, will this game ever advance beyond the "BF3 on steroids", as higby put it, to a "PS2 experience". Guess only time will tell.