The community is horrible

"

mrmath wrote:

Here's the problem with the community:

There is a group of people who love the game, as GGG designed it, and while they accept minor tweaks and balance adjustments, do not want GGG's vision to be sacrificed at the altar of mass consumption.

There is another group of people who refuse to adapt to the game and want it changed to suit their preferences.

The former group generally tells the latter to piss up a rope.

True. Adapt or go home.

I can't really blame them

the diablo 3 guys who started playing at open beta have been a cancer to the community demanding changes or they will "quit" and the game will fail, ect

I think "go back to d3" will become a meme soon enough

"

mrmath wrote:

Here's the problem with the community:

There is a group of people who love the game, as GGG designed it, and while they accept minor tweaks and balance adjustments, do not want GGG's vision to be sacrificed at the altar of mass consumption.

There is another group of people who refuse to adapt to the game and want it changed to suit their preferences.

The former group generally tells the latter to piss up a rope.

This

my opinion is full repec auction house and option to turn FFA off are all BAD ideas. So I am going to say so. My opinion is valid just like yours. stop being a cry baby.

"

mrmath wrote:

Here's the problem with the community:

There is a group of people who love the game, as GGG designed it, and while they accept minor tweaks and balance adjustments, do not want GGG's vision to be sacrificed at the altar of mass consumption.

There is another group of people who refuse to adapt to the game and want it changed to suit their preferences.

The former group generally tells the latter to piss up a rope.

This AND

There were, are, and will always be idiots everywhere in every game community.
If the community annoys you so much, hide the global chat and play with your friends only until guilds are part of the game.

"

Tabouret wrote:

"

mrmath wrote:

Here's the problem with the community:

There is a group of people who love the game, as GGG designed it, and while they accept minor tweaks and balance adjustments, do not want GGG's vision to be sacrificed at the altar of mass consumption.

There is another group of people who refuse to adapt to the game and want it changed to suit their preferences.

The former group generally tells the latter to piss up a rope.

This AND

There were, are, and will always be idiots everywhere in every game community.
If the community annoys you so much, hide the global chat and play with your friends only until guilds are part of the game.

Quoted for truth.

i've only seen a dynamic similar to this in Star Trek Online. something about few players paying vast sums of money rather than vast sums of players paying few monies. I would say this community is worse because I feel the identity of those who've donated is less anonymous. I've seen censorship implemented by a moderator at a community member's request that was, frankly, both appalling and despicable. and then i wonder, what kind of jackass spends $500 on a videogame, anyway?

"

what kind of jackass spends $500 on a videogame,

No one here spent any money on the game, the games free. Some of us did however, offer financial Support to GGG for further development and sustainability, and GGG, in return gave gifts. I dont see anything wrong with that.

"

FatesDefiler wrote:

i've only seen a dynamic similar to this in Star Trek Online. something about few players paying vast sums of money rather than vast sums of players paying few monies. I would say this community is worse because I feel the identity of those who've donated is less anonymous. I've seen censorship implemented by a moderator at a community member's request that was, frankly, both appalling and despicable. and then i wonder, what kind of jackass spends $500 on a videogame, anyway?

Strawman...

The reason this came up is because of the premise that the game NEEDS legions of people who contribute very little to survive, and that without this population the game will shrivel up and die *gasp*

This premise is bullshit, and those of us who have contributed hundreds or even thousands of dollars to the game are the reason continues to thrive.


By the way, your last sentence reeks of the same condescension you claim to be "appalled" by.

h y p o c r i t e

"

Moist wrote:

Adapt or go home.

A simplistic approach which may (or may not) prove disastrous for the game's future. Generally, speaking, this "fuck off" approach never worked in the long term, in any development I've seen, be it a game, an application, a hardware product, etc. It all depends on what game creators expect or have targeted down the roadmap. It's either:

- deny most requested changes and risk keeping the community small
OR
- implement most requested changes and grow, risking to fork away the game from their own vision.

I have played a game which had about 1000 players, out of which 100 or so were online usually. The game was great but had a few horrible downfalls which basically prevented the community from growing. After I pointed out quite a few of those issues, I was basically called a crybaby. Fair enough, I simply stopped playing (after investing a mere 20 bucks) and moved on. Last I heard, there were about 650 players left. Thing is, the (5 or so) developers who built the game said they had enough income to stay true to their vision, it was a conscious choice.

From how I see it, the veteran community pushes back on change requests because they have invested in the game as-is and feel "betrayed", as in "why should newbies have it easier than how I had it"?

"

Ne0mega wrote:

FFA - Free For All. The first to grab the loot wins internet. ;)

Still I have no opinion because I play solo. When I would decide to join a group, I will carefully choose my team mates to prevent loot issues from happening. But thanks for explaining :)