I would reply point by point but it's not worth it, especially when I pretty much agree with the ideas you've explained, also, after all, we are all just typing long walls of texts that don't change anything.
Rhetorical excercise.
But still I am convinced that the best thing that could happen to this game (sticking to what's possible imo) is a tutorial and/or special area for new players.
Would agree at this point.
And Malice Song, about what you said, that we should also listen to the guys that leave the game, yeah I never said/thought anything against that, but it's just true that 1) many people simply quit because this isn't Fallout 1/2 (understandable somehow, but it's like expecting the movie to be just like the novel), and 2) the actual act of reading those posts and doing something after that is imo the devs' task, not ours. I am not saying we shouldn't care about it, what I mean is that although the playerbase "creates" part of the game, we're not a homogeneous group at all and therefore we can't really make a decision after reading what those people say. Devs, however, are the ones that make the tools the playerbase uses to shape the game.
Fair enough, then I'll chalk that one up to really unfortunate timing. Have to disagree with your second point here, though. What we can do is enter dialog on the basis of such posts (kind of like we're doing now) and provide direct feedback. For one thing this may be beneficial to the initiator and either may change his decision or confirm that the game really isn't for them. It would also provide a direct response to criticism from the player base and I think that would make the act of the actual decision on the devs' part more rooted in the perception of the playerbase. By which I don't mean that the devs are necessarilly supposed to do what the playerbase wants, far from it, but I think it is safe to say that the devs are less in touch with day to day gameplay than the players (and quite understandably so). If we as a playerbase can identify and articulate situations, what problems exist within those, what could be potential worthwhile adjustements, etc, instead of ignoring criticism or responding to ideas with nothing but "that's terrible", then I think that could be valuable design feedback.
Hybrid for the win.
Yeah, that's kind of what I hoped we could avoid. Partly because it sits right at home with the topic "Do we want to get rid of alts alltogether", which is a pretty substantial one and tied to fundamental changes in gameplay mechanics. Anyplace else it tends to overtake the conversation, while, with the current mechanics in place, boils down to personal preference. Rest assured, I personally don't like alts myself, but the point here was that they're simply more effective (and there are not a lot of situations where I'd argue against that) and how that affects new players. The point wasn't that hybrids aren't viable, of course they are. But I believe that newbies fall on both sides of the argument, which would change my personal recommendation of whether to use them or not (granted, most of the time I advocate the "not" part - personal bias), which makes the hybrid-vs-alts discussion somewhat pointless in this context.
The pic is hilarious, though. Also the fact that you apparently effectively rp a smoker.
a shop checker alt are F*@$%ing serious.
That kind of illustrates the point. Shop checker alt may be ridiculous from your point of view, but try filling 210pp with capable companions on a hybrid. Obviously it is possible, if sanity is not a concern, but this is a clear cut case of alts being obviously more effective and I don't think there's room for an argument. And unless my reading comprehension is lacking, that was the whole point: the superior efficiency of alts from a pure mechanics standpoint and how that revelation affects new players who might expect an RPG in the style of Fallout.
