View Single Post
Unread 28 Dec 2009, 02:03   #24
ellonweb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 401
ellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant future
Re: Changes for next round

Why the **** is this being discussed with those brainless faggots in #alliances? What is the point in that dev forum and the group of people that you know actually have a clue?

I blame this directly on Cin. I'm sure he's a nice enough bloke, and yeh he does a lot of good work for the game, but he doesn't have a clue about game design, and time after time he panders to the vocal minority with the game design changes he implements. Not to take away from the good work he's done on drastically improving the side aspects of the game (bcalc, alliance tools etc), but I don't think he should be making these kind of decisions.

That all said, I await to see the justification PATeam make for these changes, as in, why are these changes good for the game? How will this increase the playerbase, add more strategy to the game, and ultimately make the game more fun? If they can't answer these questions, then it's clear they are yet again just removing what have proven to be successful and legitimate strategies, yet again without any reason. This lack of communication and string of awful decisions is pathetic.

Let me reiterate: it is not the changes themselves I have issue with (I do dislike them, but I'm biased and more importantly I'm not one of those people that are actually good with game design), what I dislike is the lack of communication on behalf of PATeam, the method of that limited communication and the willingness to react to that communication.

Last edited by ellonweb; 28 Dec 2009 at 04:51.
ellonweb is offline   Reply With Quote