Yeah, definitely this. I really find it quite strange - though sadly not surprising - that a few people in this thread will go as far as throwing insults against the Devs, while simultaneously describing their love and passion for the game. The game created and nurtured by those very same devs, who apparently were good enough to create a game worth so much, but suddenly - apparently in the view of these people - now can't be trusted with making changes and are considered to be contemptuous of the players in doing so.meganothing wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:01 pmIn most cases I trust the judgement of a developer who has shown that he can produce a great game more than the mass of users in a forum. Especially since forum users have a big resitance to change in any form. I've seen it with 7D2D more than once, forum is protesting a change, half a year later everyone agrees the change was good. I don't want to get a game produced by comitee, sorry.
Case in point..
I don't know what thread you've been reading. But every developer comment I've read in this thread has been thoughtful, considered, and appears to be honestly trying to explain the developers' thought processes whilst simultaneously attempting to understand the viewpoints of users. For you to characterise this as 'stuffing customers opinions down their asses' is baffling, to say the least, and surely entirely unhelpful.
And guess what: of course the devs are going to 'do whatever they want with the game', and they must. Because otherwise, as meganothing said, it's design by committee and that never works.
From all that I have seen in the 8 months I've been playing, Wube are extremely good at a) communicating their intentions, b) throwing those intentions out for discussion, and c) listening to the resulting feedback. In this very same FFF we see a change reversed as the result of past feedback.
We can give our feedback on proposed changes, but ultimately the devs have to make a choice, one that attempts to take into account every user, of every experience and skill level, the vast majority of whom will never post on this forum. And I believe that history has shown that they arrive at very good decisions, else we wouldn't be where we are today with a fantastic game that arouses such passion.
FWIW, I too am leaning towards the group that feels that maybe there is be a better solution than the one so far described in the FFF, that could both meet the goal of softening the new-user curve while having less overall impact throughout the game. I'm a little concerned about reducing the uses of intermediate products, and the pushing back of bots. And I share the view that the planned new tutorials and guided freeplay will on its own have a significant impact on the difficulty curve that exists for new players today. Though I imagine it's quite possible that it's the planning for/creation of those campaigns/tutorials that has lead the devs to make this decision - perhaps finding that it was hard to clearly narrate the point at which the player first gets oil, because there's more new concepts introduced at that point than before or after. Just a guess.
Regardless, even if the changes go forward exactly as described, I believe that they would be a net positive for new users (some could cope with more complexity, but others will appreciate less) and, at the least, not catastrophic for existing/longer-term players. I also don't buy into the slippery slope argument put forward by some; if the devs were thinking of removing refineries completely, or anything close to that, they'd have done that in this change. But there's nothing to suggest they're thinking anything along those lines, or will in future.