It was asked for with proof archived in (necro) threads. There is just not enough to tie implementation down to do loops in maintenance mode. (meaning more manual work). Of course, I see more than just a turning nerf to avoid. I keep such things around if ever needing a demo, which isn’t needed with decent articulation. I’m just one.
There would be more in spite of the pretend language barrier between American english and British English. (constant David and Goliath drama).
…
…
…
What the actual cluck…?
This one is not questioning the honesty of your statement, but that people requested jank staggers the mind.
Do you have the link handy?
This one would like to engage in some nostalgia rage.
This helped narrow it down: Search results for 'insta-turn' - Funcom Forums
So the best example you can come up with of Funcom making changes that the players want is Funcom removing an unwanted change that they made that completely crippled gameplay for a huge proportion of the player base? Removing an unwanted change is not evidence that Funcom makes wanted changes; it is direct evidence that Funcom repeatedly forces unwanted changes on the player base, and then (very rarely) walks them back. It should also be noted that they received overwhelming complaints about the terrible change they had made (which for KB/M players meant the character completely locked to a straight line in combat and could not be turned until you sheathed a weapon and escaped combat - hard to do when you can only move in one direction, no matter what scenery is in the way) - yet they still did not actually fix the issue, they just added a band-aid solution over the top that only partially solves it and still regularly results in characters becoming locked to a single facing.
The change that was made was adding the feature that locked players in the first place - that was an unwanted and unasked for change - like the vast majority of what Funcom has done in the past couple of years. Partially walking it back because player numbers collapsed when KB/M players could no longer engage in combat is not evidence of ‘adding things to the game because they were requested’. If you wanted a stronger argument, you could have tried ‘Sorcery’ - that actually is something that players (not me) requested for a long time. But the past couple of years have seen a huge number of unwanted (by players) changes forced onto the game.
This one sees @Dzonatas point.
The tank control reversion was something the community howled for.
It is an example of player input actually mattering.
This one is reading back over the threads to see what level of vitriol and relentless hounding is the level that got results.
The threads in question honestly don’t seem as much angry as they are filled with sign offs.
But this one is still reading them all.
But this one is also snooping around the social media that Funcom more often replies on as well.
Also, Sorcery wasn’t a player request.
That was an extremely long neglected dev promise.
Like mounts.
It was said to be in the works from many years ago, and then they said, they wouldn’t do it…
And that went over like a lead balloon.
Funny that, retracting features promised in early access after main release tends to cause displeasure.
Quoted for emphasis.
Whatever the development’s direction is based on, it’s not player feedback, at least not via any channel or source I can see.
There is a logical path through each chapter. It appears to have a lead role in the direction of development (on such paths). Development of CE is not an overnight whim. The matter of thought is quite heavy with all these books… not to be ignored. Someone just needs to unload their head… not spoiling it.
I do not understand your reply. What do you want to communicate?
I do not believe we played the same Age of War.
Yes yes yes, they are going somewhere with all these unsolicited and poorly received changes.
But they are extremely bad at letting the player base know where they are going. The road itself and the piecemeal roll out might be better received if we had a reasonable expectation of where it is building to.
While they might not want to spoil the surprise, waiting over a year with half implemented features and modifications designed to work off of a change still 6 months in the future isn’t prudent.
None of us are playing this fantasy game they are building towards. There seems to be an oversight where it is not understood that the customers are all playing the game that was released in the most recent patch, not some sky minded hypothetical game that they are building towards.
How good that game of the future is, honestly, is utterly irrelevant.
Possibly, if we all knew what the goal was there might be more tolerance.
Might.
But unlikely.
Faith has already been broken and confidence is exceedingly low.
But that doesn’t matter. Optimistic or Pessimistic, the game we are playing, the version that is live this moment, is what matters and it so very rarely seems to matter to the people in charge of these roll outs.
They don’t want to ruin the surprise when whatever feature they are working on is finally revealed next year.
In protecting this surprise, and in releasing half @$$ed updates along the way, they are alienating their fans.
Who looks forward to the next patch?
Now who instead dreads it, wonder what new bugs are coming and what undesired changes that are part of some multi year scheme that will likely be forgotten will be inflicted on the them?
I am firmly in the “dread” camp.
This is based on every single Age of War update.
Heey there Funcom. The people are mad. Now you know.
Pretty much - I used to look at TestLive updates and wonder what was new, now it is as ‘what did they break this time?’ and the feedback threads are the coming attractions of what to expect when it goes live.
Though, seeing as I was clocked out early on in AoW and uninstalled the game before chapter 4 of AoW even came out I now just use it as a way to gauge if there’s anything worth reinstalling it for yet. I’d rather just stick to building stuff in Enshrouded for the time being even if I’m limited to an old mortal nemesis of mine in all things creative - ‘90 degree angles in floorplans only.’
I just reordered it a bit. As a dev, I hate deadlines. It’s a constant battle. I understand making something worthwhile while not changing the comprehension of it.
[To unknown: my life doesn’t evolve around your attempts to fill up your knowledge.]
The insight is helpful.
Well, mad or sad.
I’ll play other games until they fix the things the broke.
Deadlines often make for bad products.
Unfortunately business revolves around them in the modern era.
An effective product manager will keep the update schedule realistic based on information they get from the Dev team and then manipulate the c-suite into thinking that is their idea.
Also, the crux of this one’s irritation is that the live game is kept in an extremely rough work in progress state where changes are made to accommodate features that either are forgotten or will not be implemented for many months of not years.
Thralls with pittance health are less of an issue if they can be revived, being one recent example of the change coming before the feature and leading to anger.
Pets being nerfed into the ground in preparation for some big overhaul being an example of an apparently abandoned feature leaving something basically useless in game, reduced to just a lawn ornament that counts against follower limits.
The level of QA that goes into what gets released is pathetic. Worse when we consider bugs get caught in the server formerly known as testlive and then allowed into the main game despite being reported.
That’s the other side of having to work on a project, having sold oneself to a master.
When the master gives a time frame, it is the professional’s job to make progress that fits that frame, or at least some progress that can be released, even if it means some features take much longer behind the scenes.
This game isn’t art.
It’s barely even product.
It’s billed as a clucking “live service” game.
It’s a service.
And the service is poop.
That said, this one still defends the concept of a longer release cycle (6 month chapters). Even if this one does believe that instead of more polished updates at a slower pace we are going to get the same (lack of) quality updates just less often.
I disagree. I get it, but that is not my view, which is just a generation gap. The long release cycle seems quite recent. I’m leaning that way, “months”.
Age of the Bomb? 
Bugs being put into the game, and old bugs coming back, isn’t poop service?
Probably a generational gap.
This one is old enough to expect something closer to a finished product upon release and has extremely low tolerance for things getting worse, rather than better, with subsequent updates.
But the modern era is one of perpetual early access incomplete state for many games.
I agree… online game stores should be more limited to avoid that. Sheesh, need a poop shovel to unbury it.
I don’t care if it is B.S. It’s still progress even if “more” was unwanted. Players switch in and out of alts maybe too easily. Maybe devs need to follow SLDC rules more closely. It is ideal, and it is not just a carrier wave opinion.