Jump to content
Bobbylord

Salvaging - Nerfed as a casualty or by intention?

Recommended Posts

On 11/10/2020 at 1:51 AM, Bobbylord said:

I've posted an upvote suggestion regarding the Scavenging/Salvaging suggestion in this thread. This is the second time I post this (I posted it on Friday, 6th of November the first time) on upvote - the first post was deleted without comment (even though I left a proper Email address I received no feedback or reasoning at all).

 

Let's see if it will be approved this time and if NQ allows us to at least vote for our future in DU.

 

image.thumb.png.c5539c727b79fecf9862a6c6861fd6d8.png

A link would help as it's not showing up with search...

On a flip side - I can kinda see a whole bunch of people building a whole bunch of ships, purposely crashing them into the markets and leaving them there in protest against the change XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd love to provide you a link, but, won't be helping much. They deleted the suggestion a second time now:

image.thumb.png.ddb12b001d1b157f1a8bc7f841bbea0e.png

 

This was the second submission: https://upvote.dualuniverse.game/suggestions/132378/make-the-scavenging-profession-salvaging-worth-the-time

 

This is definitely not how you should treat your customers NQ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bobbylord said:

Well, I'd love to provide you a link, but, won't be helping much. They deleted the suggestion a second time now:

 

This was the second submission: https://upvote.dualuniverse.game/suggestions/132378/make-the-scavenging-profession-salvaging-worth-the-time

 

This is definitely not how you should treat your customers NQ...

I'm guessing it was abrasive. Judging by the title alone.

 

Or they may be considering it a duplicate of the topic already posted and planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, NQ-Naunet said he was looking into it and replies here in this thread on the board. That was yesterday. Let's see if/when he finds the time to reply.

 

image.thumb.png.64315a2012342d5ccc764732006a5132.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2020 at 3:45 AM, Bobbylord said:

This post is about the sad state of the "Scavenging" "Profession" in DU currently - resulting from the gimped status of salvaging gameplay. Even though not documented, salvaging gameplay changed drastically in the last few days/couple weeks.


Hi Bobbylord! Thanks for being patient with me - but here I am, as promised. :) (I had to attend a couple of big meetings yesterday, and even got pulled into some emergency player support! 'Twas busy.)

Under the wider umbrella of the topic of scavenging, I feel that there are a few situations at play in this thread:

1) Players who adapted to scavenging before a changes were made to the profession are feeling disappointed by its apparent lack of viability.
2) Players are conflating abandoned player constructs with the NQ-placed ship wrecks.
3) Feature Upvote submissions are tough to track (players don't know when or why some submissions are removed) and it leaves many of you feeling unheard.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood anything, and we'll kick off a discussion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, NQ-Naunet said:


Hi Bobbylord! Thanks for being patient with me - but here I am, as promised. :) (I had to attend a couple of big meetings yesterday, and even got pulled into some emergency player support! 'Twas busy.)

Under the wider umbrella of the topic of scavenging, I feel that there are a few situations at play in this thread:

1) Players who adapted to scavenging before a changes were made to the profession are feeling disappointed by its apparent lack of viability.
2) Players are conflating abandoned player constructs with the NQ-placed ship wrecks.
3) Feature Upvote submissions are tough to track (players don't know when or why some submissions are removed) and it leaves many of you feeling unheard.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood anything, and we'll kick off a discussion!

Hey NQ-Naunet,

 

first of all, sorry for addressing you the wrong way. I'll do my best to remember ;)

 

A very big yes to 1), not sure about 2) and absolutely on 3). I figure most, if not all of the participants in this thread understand the difference between the artificial salvaging event with wrecks spawned out of thin air and actual player constructs which have been crashed and/or abandoned. 

 

Regarding 1) - there is (was) a community of players making a living of Scavenging (salvaging wrecks of player constructs) until a few weeks ago (me included). There were almost infinite amounts of crashed and salvageable player constructs all over the place. That feeling when you make radar contact to a crashed player construct with destroyed core, get closer, identify it and see that there is actually more than just a core... priceless. A couple examples:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DualUniverse/comments/jjmokh/to_the_pilot_who_crashed_locobus_with_gold_in/

- Streamer who used to focus on scavenging: https://www.twitch.tv/sku11face_ (he used to stream multiple hours daily from his scavenger hunts and has hangars full of salvaged elements from player constructs)

 

Sadly though, about a couple weeks ago we noticed that almost all crashed ships we stumbled over were no longer "abandoned"/salvageable. That's also when the discussions and rumors about a "stealth" change started to spawn on reddit, DU discord and on streams of players who used to go scavenging regularly. I also noticed it myself - my usual "hunting" grounds dried up and most of what can be found and salvaged now are essentially empty cores or cores with bugged fuel tanks attached. Not even worth looking for anymore considering fuel and time invest.

 

There is obviously the alternate option that out of the sudden, within just like 12 hours about two weeks ago, all the players who crashed their ships did no longer click "Abandon Construct" (and we have to assume they all did that before). But that seems rather unlikely.

 

 

Regarding 3) - Yes, this is a sad story. Upvote is currently, besides trying to get NQs attention on Discord and the forums (both of which do not seem to work/be the right place to get the attention of NQ and start a proper interaction - so far), the only and obv right place to try and get heard by NQ as a minority group of/in the community. Hence why I chose to suggest this game design suggestion (as outlined in the first post inn this thread) on upvote - twice. And twice, as you know, it was deleted without any feedback even though there are no "duplicates" going into this direction at all. Not even getting the chance to make the communities interest in the scavenging "profession" transparent by giving us the chance to vote for it in the system designed and meant for exactly that is, well, saddening. Saddening to a point where I start to wonder if it was the right decision to fund NQ and DU via Kickstarter in 2016 (imagine spending hundreds of Euros to support a company and a vision you believe in just so that they can ignore you and the community you identify with once they have your money).

 

 

Let's get the discussion started ;)

Bobbylord

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bobbylord said:

Regarding 3) - Yes, this is a sad story. Upvote is currently, besides trying to get NQs attention on Discord and the forums (both of which do not seem to work/be the right place to get the attention of NQ and start a proper interaction - so far), the only and obv right place to try and get heard by NQ as a minority group of/in the community. Hence why I chose to suggest this game design suggestion (as outlined in the first post inn this thread) on upvote - twice. And twice, as you know, it was deleted without any feedback even though there are no "duplicates" going into this direction at all. Not even getting the chance to make the communities interest in the scavenging "profession" transparent by giving us the chance to vote for it in the system designed and meant for exactly that is, well, saddening. Saddening to a point where I start to wonder if it was the right decision to fund NQ and DU via Kickstarter in 2016 (imagine spending hundreds of Euros to support a company and a vision you believe in just so that they can ignore you and the community you identify with once they have your money).


To start, I think this is the easiest thing to tackle & clarify - based on player feedback, I'm in the process of revitalizing the Idea Box here in the forums. I encourage you to place any ideas you suspect were removed from Feature Upvote here instead. (You may have already done this! If you have, send me the link to your post and I'll stick it in my notes ASAP.) 👍

Now that I'm dedicated to checking on the forums daily, you'll absolutely be seen/I will pass the ideas along! (Plus, selfishly... I like being able to organize ideas here where they 'live forever' if that makes sense. Feature Upvote doesn't give me that kind of organization/storage capability.)

If I had to guess, I would say that your submissions were removed because changes to scavenging were recently made, therefore bumping it down in terms of priority. That doesn't mean it will never be revisited, and it certainly doesn't mean you're being rejected. (Another reason why I'd like these ideas to live here permanently. I can re-surface them as many times as I need to once I sense that a topic is re-emerging priority-wise!)

So as a final recap to this point, my gut says that we should:

1) use Feature Upvote first, but if you notice your submission isn't posted within 48 hrs,
2) utilize the Idea Box here so that nothing important is lost. (Being mindful that I can't make any guarantees, but this will help me 'go to bat' for all of your ideas long-term.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NQ-Naunet said:

...
2) utilize the Idea Box here so that nothing important is lost. (Being mindful that I can't make any guarantees, but this will help me 'go to bat' for all of your ideas long-term.)

Done: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect, thank you for doing that! I've tucked the post safely into my notes. ❤️

Alright, onto the meat of the matter: scavenging.

So to my (new) understanding, the situation goes a little something like this:

  • Previously, if you crashed your ship and destroyed the core, the ship would go "grey" on the minimap which indicated that it was abandoned.
  • In order to claim an abandoned ship and all of its parts, all you had to do was repair the core.
  • Players like you used to fly around (with an eye on the radar) seeking out these abandoned ships - once found, you could claim your spoils and make bank. 💰
  • Once Beta hit, this mechanic was changed so that only ships taken down in PvP could be claimed the way that's described above. This fundamentally shifted the way players like you were able to enjoy DU.
  • The reason for the change centered around new players and the learning curve associated with piloting ships. (New players would crash and feel like other, more experienced players were hanging around like 'vultures', waiting to claim their ship.)

I can understand why we at NQ implemented the change, as appealing to the widest player-base possible makes good business sense at this stage of development. During Beta, we want as many people as possible touching the game so that we can understand how best to shape it prior to its official launch. (The more HAPPY testers the better, put simply.)

Having said that, I do personally feel that it would be in our best interest to consider shifting scavenging back to its roots as we creep closer to official launch. To me, it sounds like all of you established a really great slice of emergent gameplay in DU... which is what it's all about!
 

Quote

That feeling when you make radar contact to a crashed player construct with destroyed core, get closer, identify it and see that there is actually more than just a core... priceless.


This quote in particular really moved me, because I understand exactly what it's like to feel that kind of excitement about a game. It's a rare joy, isn't it?


On that note, I will also add that I'm not in any position to make promises, but I'd love to hear about any compromises you feel could work for all of you regarding the future of scavenging. I've heard non-committal buzz about possibly reinstating your version of scavenging in PvP zones in the future - would that feel fair?

Let me know your thoughts, and thank you all again for your patience and engagement!


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NQ-Naunet said:

To me, it sounds like all of you established a really great slice of emergent gameplay in DU... which is what it's all about!
 



 

Ya no duh.  It's pretty frigging irritating to the people who have backed this game for many years. Not just financially, but through word of mouth and time invested, and helping with bugs etc.  Many times DU has been touted to have this so called "emergent gameplay" and when finally, a little sliver of it appears, NQ takes it away, for whatever god forsaken reason.  Here, im going to help you out big time ok.  EvE has been out almost 18 years, and people STILL cry when they get their mining ship blown up to this day.  It will never go away.  Ever.  People will always complain about losing a ship, losing a base, losing time investing in god knows what they spend their time doing in this game.  So don't use that as a barometer for how you should make changes.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Ya no duh.  It's pretty frigging irritating to the people who have backed this game for many years. Not just financially, but through word of mouth and time invested, and helping with bugs etc.  Many times DU has been touted to have this so called "emergent gameplay" and when finally, a little sliver of it appears, NQ takes it away, for whatever god forsaken reason.  Here, im going to help you out big time ok.  EvE has been out almost 18 years, and people STILL cry when they get their mining ship blown up to this day.  It will never go away.  Ever.  People will always complain about losing a ship, losing a base, losing time investing in god knows what they spend their time doing in this game.  So don't use that as a barometer for how you should make changes.   


...yeah, totally! For real, I agree. 🤷‍♀️

People will likely always complain when their ship crashes and they lose out, which is all part of gameplay. Based on my internal research, it seems we modified the mechanic to help new Beta players feel more comfortable and confident during this phase of testing.

(Was it the perfect call? Perhaps not, seeing as it hurt players like you who enjoyed scavenging exactly as it was. Still, I get why it was done and I'd like to make it my mini mission to change the decision so that scavengers can once again enjoy their profession.)

I appreciate you weighing in despite your frustration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NQ-Naunet said:


Let me know your thoughts, and thank you all again for your patience and engagement!
 

 

Hey NQ-Naunet,

 

thanks a lot for taking the time to listen to us and investing it to explore viable options for the scavenging profession going forward. This is really very much appreciated no matter the outcome.

12 hours ago, NQ-Naunet said:

Alright, onto the meat of the matter: scavenging.

So to my (new) understanding, the situation goes a little something like this:

  • Previously, if you crashed your ship and destroyed the core, the ship would go "grey" on the minimap which indicated that it was abandoned.
  • In order to claim an abandoned ship and all of its parts, all you had to do was repair the core.
  • Players like you used to fly around (with an eye on the radar) seeking out these abandoned ships - once found, you could claim your spoils and make bank. 💰
  • Once Beta hit, this mechanic was changed so that only ships taken down in PvP could be claimed the way that's described above. This fundamentally shifted the way players like you were able to enjoy DU.
  • The reason for the change centered around new players and the learning curve associated with piloting ships. (New players would crash and feel like other, more experienced players were hanging around like 'vultures', waiting to claim their ship.)

 

That sounds about right. The only thing we could argue over is the timeline of the change ("Once Beta hit, this mechanic was changed so that only ships taken down in PvP could be claimed the way that's described above. This fundamentally shifted the way players like you were able to enjoy DU.") - as we observed/noticed/witnessed it this change happened, or only came into effect, about 2-3 weeks ago. Other than that your summary looks solid to me.

I also fully understand the reasoning behind it, even though I do not agree with actually implementing the change (or at least on how it was done - silently and to an extend removing scavenging from the game). It somewhat sends a wrong signal removing any risks from the game as there is no "risk vs reward" anymore - only reward (consensual PvP combat in the 100% avoidable PvP enabled piece of space is not really a risk but a choice). Which, obviously, has a big impact on the player behavior (recklessness and ignorance towards flying mechanics/physics, learning that choices in game do not really have consequences), how the game is observed and viewed by the community/new players (PvE gameplay only) and the in-game economy (if you never lose anything there is no need for continuous production; demand dies down and the only reason left to play in the current beta, mining and production, is gone).

And hopefully just as a coincidence, but at around the same time this, and excuse my wording, carebear change has been introduced, NQ starts spawning artificial wrecks with artificial salvaging mechanics (limitations in amount salvageable) - which makes it look even more like the strategic direction is away from any emergent, sandbox and PvP centric content (scavenging essentially is PvP gameplay) towards artificial, PvE based theme park organized content. This felt like: Hey, we take your profession away, we remove the last bit of emergent gameplay left in the game currently and give you artificial wrecks with artificial salvaging mechanics. But, hey, you won't be able to see them on the radar so you got to check every hex "by hand" - have fun!

 

12 hours ago, NQ-Naunet said:


On that note, I will also add that I'm not in any position to make promises, but I'd love to hear about any compromises you feel could work for all of you regarding the future of scavenging. I've heard non-committal buzz about possibly reinstating your version of scavenging in PvP zones in the future - would that feel fair?
 

 

Not sure I'd call it my version, this is more of a result from talking to various (former) scavengers and taking into account how it used to work before the change. Nevertheless, yes, I think introducing a version of the mechanic which would look like the following could do the trick:

 

When a player crashes their ship in a way so that the core gets destroyed (essentially any core that gets destroyed in any way),
said ship (construct) should be salvageable by any other player anywhere in the universe (all planets, moons and in space).

With the _exceptions_ being:
 - On Sanctuary (and sanctuary like moons added in the future) - cause it's the "safe zone" by definition and a place were no bad things should ever happen to you
 - Within the wider "safe zone" (as announced by JC in recent interviews - obviously also on "safe planets/zones" in solar systems/galaxies/universes added in the future) -
   namely Alioth, Thades and Madis - nowhere but on tiles owned by someone else (another player or an org you are not a member of) and which are not owned by
   NQ/Aphelia (markets and such)

Requiring players to "abandon" a destroyed construct/core manually is not emergent gameplay and should not be required for constructs with destroyed cores in order to make them salvagable.

 

Thanks again for your time and support!

Bobbylord

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bobbylord said:

That sounds about right. The only thing we could argue over is the timeline of the change ("Once Beta hit, this mechanic was changed so that only ships taken down in PvP could be claimed the way that's described above. This fundamentally shifted the way players like you were able to enjoy DU.") - as we observed/noticed/witnessed it this change happened, or only came into effect, about 2-3 weeks ago. Other than that your summary looks solid to me.

I also fully understand the reasoning behind it, even though I do not agree with actually implementing the change (or at least on how it was done - silently and to an extend removing scavenging from the game). It somewhat sends a wrong signal removing any risks from the game as there is no "risk vs reward" anymore - only reward (consensual PvP combat in the 100% avoidable PvP enabled piece of space is not really a risk but a choice). Which, obviously, has a big impact on the player behavior (recklessness and ignorance towards flying mechanics/physics, learning that choices in game do not really have consequences), how the game is observed and viewed by the community/new players (PvE gameplay only) and the in-game economy (if you never lose anything there is no need for continuous production; demand dies down and the only reason left to play in the current beta, mining and production, is gone).

And hopefully just as a coincidence, but at around the same time this, and excuse my wording, carebear change has been introduced, NQ starts spawning artificial wrecks with artificial salvaging mechanics (limitations in amount salvageable) - which makes it look even more like the strategic direction is away from any emergent, sandbox and PvP centric content (scavenging essentially is PvP gameplay) towards artificial, PvE based theme park organized content. This felt like: Hey, we take your profession away, we remove the last bit of emergent gameplay left in the game currently and give you artificial wrecks with artificial salvaging mechanics. But, hey, you won't be able to see them on the radar so you got to check every hex "by hand" - have fun!

 


I'll certainly give you that re: the timeline! I'm still a bit foggy on the specifics there, but I trust what you say. You're the eyes and ears on the ground, after all! :) 

Regarding the wrecks event, I can totally see how that would only serve to increase your frustration. I can say for certain that our intention there was to provide players with something to do after reading a lot of feedback that the game had become boring. It was meant to be something we rolled out to parallel player-driven activities, not replace 'em.

 

Quote

When a player crashes their ship in a way so that the core gets destroyed (essentially any core that gets destroyed in any way),
said ship (construct) should be salvageable by any other player anywhere in the universe (all planets, moons and in space).

With the _exceptions_ being:
 - On Sanctuary (and sanctuary like moons added in the future) - cause it's the "safe zone" by definition and a place were no bad things should ever happen to you
 - Within the wider "safe zone" (as announced by JC in recent interviews - obviously also on "safe planets/zones" in solar systems/galaxies/universes added in the future) -
   namely Alioth, Thades and Madis - nowhere but on tiles owned by someone else (another player or an org you are not a member of) and which are not owned by
   NQ/Aphelia (markets and such)

Requiring players to "abandon" a destroyed construct/core manually is not emergent gameplay and should not be required for constructs with destroyed cores in order to make them salvagable.

 

This is a great write-up!! I don't see why shifting back to something like this can't happen. :D 

I'm sure you feel this keenly, but it's worth repeating - I really appreciate that you're willing to engage with me like this. I care a lot about how you're all doing in-game, and interactions like this really help me help all of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to re-iterate:
I've never salvaged a single player wreck to date, and I absolutely despise the kid glove style of change. If I screw up and crash, as a player, I want that sense of urgency and uncertainty of whether my ship is going to be there. As a player, I want that type of game interaction. I want "vultures" to exist and try to sell me my ship back if they claim it, or alternatively attempt to outmaneuver them while running back to my wreck. Negative player interaction drives positive player interaction, thus all player interaction as a result - which can only benefit the playerbase and the game. We are not here to play a single player game, we are not asking for pve mechanics to be removed - we NEED sanctuary type planets for players to learn - I can understand and respect that BUT we also still need the overall game physics and mechanics to exist there too, or heck, even a planet like Alioth which is currently in the blue sector but outside of sanctuary - as a compromise.

If NQ representatives are still reading this tread, I urge you to re-evaluate the crash nerf decision - which is the way I see it more so than salvaging nerf (since I've never done the later, but have the former). What the OP said with regards to this removing more emergent gameplay is 110% spot on. And not just for the scavengers. 

On a flip side - NQ is opening the can of worms now to having to write a new set of arbitrary rules into the registar, as a penalty for people "griefing" by crashing dozens of XS cores into markets or player bases, since the built-in game mechanic that would have prevented this has been removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2020 at 1:28 PM, NQ-Naunet said:


I'll certainly give you that re: the timeline! I'm still a bit foggy on the specifics there, but I trust what you say. You're the eyes and ears on the ground, after all! :) 

Regarding the wrecks event, I can totally see how that would only serve to increase your frustration. I can say for certain that our intention there was to provide players with something to do after reading a lot of feedback that the game had become boring. It was meant to be something we rolled out to parallel player-driven activities, not replace 'em.

 

 

This is a great write-up!! I don't see why shifting back to something like this can't happen. :D 

I'm sure you feel this keenly, but it's worth repeating - I really appreciate that you're willing to engage with me like this. I care a lot about how you're all doing in-game, and interactions like this really help me help all of you.

So what's the update on this and the time table for this to return.  In a "player run" universe it makes no sense that someone can smash into a planet going 3000 speed, while wrecking every element on their ship, and expect 100% certainly that they can get back to it to repair it.  Sure If it's in a remote area and they make it there cool, but if someone else finds a wrecked ship we should be able to salvage it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JohnnyTazer said:

So what's the update on this and the time table for this to return.  In a "player run" universe it makes no sense that someone can smash into a planet going 3000 speed, while wrecking every element on their ship, and expect 100% certainly that they can get back to it to repair it.  Sure If it's in a remote area and they make it there cool, but if someone else finds a wrecked ship we should be able to salvage it. 


Hi Johnny!

At this stage, I'm not comfortable making concrete promises about changes. What I will say, happily, is that the team has heard (and agreed with) all of you. ;) (Does that imply enough?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2020 at 5:59 PM, Volkier said:

Just to re-iterate:
I've never salvaged a single player wreck to date, and I absolutely despise the kid glove style of change. If I screw up and crash, as a player, I want that sense of urgency and uncertainty of whether my ship is going to be there. As a player, I want that type of game interaction. I want "vultures" to exist and try to sell me my ship back if they claim it, or alternatively attempt to outmaneuver them while running back to my wreck. Negative player interaction drives positive player interaction, thus all player interaction as a result - which can only benefit the playerbase and the game. We are not here to play a single player game, we are not asking for pve mechanics to be removed - we NEED sanctuary type planets for players to learn - I can understand and respect that BUT we also still need the overall game physics and mechanics to exist there too, or heck, even a planet like Alioth which is currently in the blue sector but outside of sanctuary - as a compromise.

If NQ representatives are still reading this tread, I urge you to re-evaluate the crash nerf decision - which is the way I see it more so than salvaging nerf (since I've never done the later, but have the former). What the OP said with regards to this removing more emergent gameplay is 110% spot on. And not just for the scavengers. 


I'm still reading! As I said in the reply above, the re-evaluation has happened... but I can't say anything more at this time. ;) 

Also, to the point you made that I highlighted green: totally agree! Even if you're not interested in looting player wrecks, that fear of potentially losing it all totally lends a greater sense of urgency/adrenaline to gameplay. That kind of excitement is priceless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NQ-Naunet said:


I'm still reading! As I said in the reply above, the re-evaluation has happened... but I can't say anything more at this time. ;) 

Also, to the point you made that I highlighted green: totally agree! Even if you're not interested in looting player wrecks, that fear of potentially losing it all totally lends a greater sense of urgency/adrenaline to gameplay. That kind of excitement is priceless!

Thank you Naunet - appreciate the response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NQ-Naunet said:


Hi Johnny!

At this stage, I'm not comfortable making concrete promises about changes. What I will say, happily, is that the team has heard (and agreed with) all of you. ;) (Does that imply enough?)

 

This was a good response.  I know you cant give concrete always. But I needed to know that you accurately conveyed what we have said to the dev team, am I'm glad to hear that they have at least we able to listen to you discuss our concerns about this major gameplay. I appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JohnnyTazer said:

This was a good response.  I know you cant give concrete always. But I needed to know that you accurately conveyed what we have said to the dev team, am I'm glad to hear that they have at least we able to listen to you discuss our concerns about this major gameplay. I appreciate it.


That's what I'm here for! :) I'm really glad my response found you well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...