Constructive feedback

Support Feedback
1

Listening to the Hangouts #1-3, is a fun thing to kill time with at work with … and i truly think its a good thing, its entertaining.

But, What the fuck, Almost every singel topic is NEW-ish IC… and things are so vauge its impossible to see any direction its basicly a brainstorming session of what imaginary IC could be sometime in the future with new features and what not if we had the money and if we there is time ever to make it… etc etc. and thats a good thing i guess?

What about a plan and a discussion now to try increase the player amount round by round… with small active measures … we gotta be able to seperate between small picture and big picture? Everything cant be big picture?

Why are we not able to say STOP, next round there is no alliances or UA alowed… do we realy need to reprogram the whole game first? why can there not be a temp solution ?

So to the last drop.

I lead a fam in MW this round to the top with minimal effort, we basicly did nothing other than some agressive diplo and shady tactics by exploiting UA and Named feature… after 5 weeks. 2 of 5 weeks saving and building up for this last EOR war… The time was finaly here to jump fleets and have at it. But wait!!! there is implemented a rule with 25% attack stop so you cant attack anyone after u jump fleet since most will be less than 25 % of a jumped attacker… so 90% of the enemy fam was untoucable.

AGAIN ? Yes unfortuantly again there is untested feature implemented into the game.

I am getting abit tired of being this test rat for new features. :yum:

I am here to play IC, not to be disappointed by new features that could have been tested and given some thought before implemented…time after time.

25% attack stop
named play
UA
Free yama.
Attack bug

The list of shitty features right now is too overwhelming :yum:. and the fact that we cant even get imo the core game aka attack formula operating to even out som of the imbalance is mind boggling…

The player pool is grown ups mostly, there is no need for a perm ingame solution to end the UA policy temporary. Some ground rules and willingness to play by them would go along way. no doubt.

After listeing to the hangouts which is a fun listen i must say, i am even more convinced now than ever that next round will be the same shit show again.

We will go back to 8 e ships a day. we might have some smaller fams, but there is no interest in even looking at the underlying issues like UA etc…couse what if somone breaks the rules what than ? isnt it better to have somone breaking the rules and have a fun round than shitty rounds , round after round after round?

Taking a long break … i’ll be back next winter.

When core players like @SCORP , @TheBigOne @YoungWolf_WiLd , @OrBit
@Remo @Lord_Pickle @DustyAladdin . deletes from MW. its not Drama, its a HUGE sign that somthing is WAY off… and its not 8 e ships a day. :yum:

3

I had written out a post that covered why most of this is completely untrue, and then I deleted it.

Instead, here’s a quick summary:

  • Features are claimed to be untested, even though they were in fact tested.

  • The hangouts are portrayed as vague and directionless, even though they cover our roadmap and specific features. (listen for yourself)

  • It is claimed that there is no interest in fixing underlying problems, despite the fact that I’ve taken time to have lengthy 1-on-1 conversations with this player to explore specific solutions. It’s as if these conversations never happened. :man_shrugging:

@Airwing, I appreciate your insight and opinion, but it isn’t a productive use of my time anymore to respond to these kinds of blatant mis-represenations of IC’s development efforts.

Despite the title, this is not constructive feedback.

If anybody has questions about what we are doing or not doing, or why we are doing it or not doing it, please ask. I’m very willing to provide details and insight into our direction and development efforts. I always have been.

Unfortunately though, I am no longer willing to spend so much time and effort responding to assumptions, false statements, and mis-representations of our efforts.

Thanks for understanding.

1 Like
4

So the feature is working as it should than?.. since it was tested and approved.

Meaning the whole War concept is gone from the game from now on? This is news to me… DID ANYONE ELSE KNOW THIS? and so why did i just waste 5 weeks in mw.

The roadmap is vague too… find more than 1 player who red it, and find more than 2 players that are able to find it in the forum maze. i’ll bet you wont be able to.

Ur missunderstanding, there is no doubt u want the best for the game Pie.
But if it gone take years to fix somthing like UA, tell us :stuck_out_tongue: not with a roadmap that you need a doctor degree in linguistic to figure out but first find it in the maze of a forum.

but to offer my services, i’ll be playing on the test server from now on as your tester for whatever u need? sounds good?

5

@Airwing you have some valid criticisms, and a good eye for some underlying issues. That’s what makes it especially frustrating when you disregard so much of what we do, and what I myself do.

3 weeks ago you and I had a 2-hour long PM in Discord about several of the game’s issues, including UA specifically. This was 2 hours that I did not spend working on the game, because I value your opinion and respect your insight as a long-time player. I want to consider what you have to say.

We discussed a path towards a short term AND a long term solution for UA. It felt very productive.

Then, you come here and post about how “there is no interest in even looking at the underlying issues like UA etc”.

Can you see how from my perspective, the respect and consideration seems one-sided?

I’m burnt out man. If you have specific issues you’d like to discuss, please start a new thread.

The dev server will be available to any and all Patreon subscribers.

6

Pie, i Respect the hell out of you and this is not personal at all. But i truly belive your killing your own game in the spirit of good intentions.

Would it be better if i just shut up and not tried to make you see what I see as one of your most active players in this game ?

So since i am prolly 1/2 who has red the roadmap and was able to find it: ill post some excamples of how vague it is:

1: Reduce the need to be extremely active to be competitive. Activity should not trump strategic skill.

VS

2: Encourage skirmishes during the entire round, not just EoR wars.

You want skirmish the whole round instead of war’s but than activity should not trump strategic skill? the one kinda kills the other no? or ?

3: Give players more reasons to play than just size/nw rank…

hmm ok… are we starting a prayer group on the side or somthing?

4: Reevaluate war dynamics and definition, and the balance between flexibility vs structure.

i am not the smartes guy around, but can anyone smarter please help me explain what is ment here?

7

Nah man, I don’t want you to shut up. However, it would be nice if you didn’t assume so much.

For example, your issue with the roadmap is based on an assumption that it should be detailed, when the purpose of a roadmap is specifically not to be detailed. It has to be specific enough to provide direction but also general enough to stay adaptable.

That aside, I believe when you say that your feedback isn’t personal, but it’s difficult for me to justify spending so much time in conversation with individual players when they don’t seem interested in listening themselves.

I can only say “Please assume less and ask more” so many times before I get tired of repeating myself.

8

Pie do you always put on Queen - ‘Another one bites the dust’ before you log in for another IC sesh? Did you lose too much early days and this is your way of seeking ultimate victory when you have singlehandedly made every player in IC quit? Do you chalk our names off a board?

And another one gone, and another one gone

9

Nah, I go for “Don’t stop me now.”

1 Like
10

its like a line from the bible…
yeah, and your surpised we assume and find it vague? :stuck_out_tongue:

We are going to fix the UA issue for the next round. with a temp solution… thats not adaptable enough? Couse that would bring back players i can gurantee you that.

i am ready in test server when you are to test the new battle forumla etc etc :stuck_out_tongue: if u need help.

11

Welcome to the world of software development. The entire industry works this way.

No, I’m not surprised that people outside of the industry don’t know the purpose of a roadmap. I am frustrated though that you repeatedly ignore my request to stop turning your assumptions into false statements. Wouldn’t you be?

That guarantee doesn’t mean anything. You might think that it will, and have good arguments for it, but you can’t guarantee it. Even experts don’t speak this way, because they know better.

Regardless, I appreciate your ideas. I would appreciate them more if they were in specific threads, instead of an “everything is shitty” post alongside a bunch of false statements. :slight_smile:

12

no i mean it litteraly… :stuck_out_tongue:

i am basicly just refering to what was said in Discord from one of the private servers that contain players like , pickle, Remo etc

and to quote it directly… " I would play if IA was scrapped"

13

Yeah, and we can’t enforce it, so it will directly reward the cheaters.

This is another conversation that I’ve had countless times.

14

so you rather see less players play, than more players playing and us having a fun round with a possible cheater or two?

why isnt the underlying issue identified yet?

you said assume less, ask more… i am asking

1 Like
15

I would rather see fewer players playing a fair game, than more players playing an unfair game.

More players at any cost is not the solution to our problems.

It isn’t a priority, as determined by our community brainstorming session last year.

16

If its not a priority to fix UA, my statment that there is no interest is pretty accurate.

and doing small adjustment to grow the player pool is also not a goal, as that would make the game unfair in your opnion is also pretty accurate

you can close the thread. i am finished

18

Priority does not mean interest. If that was the case, that would mean that we can not be interested in anything except what we can do at this exact moment. That is obviously not true.

If there was no interest, I would have not bothered spending 2 hours in PM with you discussing solutions instead of writing code.

Your statement is still very much not accurate.

I don’t follow what you mean about growing the player pool not being a goal, or see how it would make the game unfair. That does not describe anything I’ve stated.

Closing the thread as requested. If you have other questions or feedback, specific topics are most useful. Thanks.

20

A final note for clarity: the original complaint here about the “new” 25% rule is referring to something that’s been around since at least 2009:

this-isnt-new
this-isnt-new.png1254×756 207 KB

This has been around for most of IC’s history.

Hopefully you can understand how ridiculous it is when vets say we are killing the game by moving away from “Classic IC”, and then complain about features from the same era.

To @Airwing and friends: I did not on a whim personally introduce a pre-existing feature from 2009. You simply jumped yourselves out of range of your targets before a war started.

You made a common strategic error, as many others have before you. People have been making that mistake for years. Instead of blaming me for adding a new feature that isn’t even new, you should be owning your mistake, accepting it, and learning from it.

For as much shit as some of you vets give me for being “out of touch”, you may be due for a refresher yourselves.

It’s not often I stroke my own ego, but to be quite honest if I were to play again I may very well spank the lot of you just yet. You forget that I’m a vet too with some rank behind me as well, and I don’t recall ever overjumping. :ic_winky:

I apologize if this is rude, but it gets old when players have such strong opinions but don’t bother doing the bare minimum to understand what they’re complaining about.

Yes, i’m grumpy. :ic_angry: Looking for mods soon. :ic_tongue:

2 Likes
22

Hey now, I certainly think I’m good enough at this game to easily beat the occasional cheater or two. I don’t actually care if there’s a little cheating if it means two or three people get rewarded rather than diplo being the be all end all of every round.

Ultimately, I really think you’re choosing the much harder route by trying to rebalance the game rather than doing away with UA. I respect the decision though. It’s probably better in an extremely long term view, but the underlying game design and balance issues absolutely need to be addressed somehow.

It’s been a couple years now I think and there really haven’t been any game balance changes to adjust for the fact that IC is no longer set up as standalone families with the same exact starting resources and options available competing alone against eachother (or with 1-2 allies when that feature worked). The game was not only balanced around that but it completely hinged on it. It has to be possible to make it work separately, but certain things have to change.

I don’t know if I can give great input on the game design aspects in particular, but I’d start with limiting the necessity to avoid any fighting near the start of the round - make economic growth less exponential and make it possible to defend planets before portalling.

2 Likes