You can define by yourself where they install the game files, badly the saves are not there but in the user folders 
There is a important detail here. PP was at beta state when it launched at Epic. If they would go for steam like that, I canât imagine the backlash. So SG got the money and time to finish the game until steam launch. I expected that. They could make a great come back with good DLC support. LotA was the turning point as that DLC will become one with the base game with steam launch so they could make the base game much better with this chanceâŚ
LotA failed so bad⌠I mean, I did not see so missfired DLC for a game in my life. Good maps, good atmosphere, nice enemies BUT god awful design and rewardsâŚ
After that I joined to CC and people told me how they tried to point the problems of LotA to SG but they did not care, even a single one. We still have the enemy in the walls bugs at LotA maps, even CC showed the map tiles with captured videos. So the map designer will open the editor, will press to the tile and change some numbers⌠but they did not care⌠anywayâŚ
But I gave a chance for FS as they could learn from their mistakes⌠yeah they learned that they should hide everything as long as they can against CC so they could not have time to talk about their lazy and bad design choices.
I donât blame anyone as developer at SG. They are people who codes what they told. But if there is someone to blame the head of SG and probably Gollop who just goes full silent after his fancy kickstarter and Epic disaster⌠money for grandchildrenâŚ
IF SG will make another PP, they wonât able to use a kickstarter as they sold that card already for Epic. BUT they could just use that money and could create something great and get their fanbases heart. But SG did not care.
They could create a Dark Souls of Xcoms but they choose underwater ponies and God powers⌠they could still have easy difficult too for people who does not want headaches like me too. I am a veteran player, not legendary.
Bad management, bad decisions, bad designâŚ
If you are the one who invented Xcom genre and after years xcom fans donât care your new xcom game, there is nothing to talk about more. This is not what I just think I try to sayâŚ
4 Likes
Julian did but this company is fresh, with only one game bofore PP. For them this is milestone.He did not only invent Xcom and XCom Apocalypse but my 8-bit favourite Laser Squad back in 198x
I am harder, by some major bugs is still beta. But yes, YOE was in far better state then Epic release (that was also delayed)
Looking at how devs handle fixing and balacing - it reminds me of unwated child that has to be born and nurtured.
He was not alone at Apocalypse. Apocalypse got crazy promises again but they could not be done in the game. Same mistakes, same problems.
Julian ignored TFTD fully too as it got some nice additions to his UFO. He is mostly like modern warfare and he likes Judge Dread type of atmosphere as he said somewhere. So why did he try to make this? I canât understand. He could just make a Xcom Apocalypse 2.
Apocalypse even had real time combat, but I hated it.
But it had modular vehicle weapons, and many different weapons and I wish PP was as strong there. As well as really weird aliens.
He wasnt much involved, but as it uses Xcom engine, its also his half child.
To me it looks like he is more like paid PR, for name abuse, and that he was not much involved in game design, less in fixing it - even I believe he is ONLY Person that could properly balance this half baked mess, and take some strenght out of its very good engine. Bad AI, bad balancing, slow progression since mid game and repetitiveness of missions after some time are 4 apocalypse riders in PP.
But I might be wrong @JulianG please speak up. He was very active at early game presentations, but very silent since game is released.
1 Like
Then who the hell is making this bad decisions and design choices?
I begged to talk with the designer when I was at CC. I really begged, I wanted to know the mindset behind all those. So maybe I could see his point of view and talk over it. But no⌠we got someone who talks with us and dev team, one or two developer and a map editor to talk. They were all mostly unreachable and as I said, we could never able to talk with the important guy at all.
Itâs just sad.
3 Likes
I didnt but proposed a lot here, officially, supported others good ideas.
Very little got through âBulgarian celling wallâ.
Team here is great, knowledgable players, even HighVoltage that was a bit of ⌠and we initially clashed was good. But those people openly admit they could do ânadaâ (no thing).
Company separated players and advisers artifically, so I laugh at all questionnaires, knowing how its gonna roll. And I still fill it, for sake something will pass through.
Its like devs decided what can be done and just add more contents, not looking behind, like psycho fixated to a girl, not seeing he is victimizing her, but doesnt want to look at his past behavs. And pretends its still love.
4 Likes
There is the feedback tool. So I have a way of knowing what changes are actually brought and presented via the tool made by the devs to do so.
And its existence itself in my book, says the devs kind of care.
So I think I have good reasons to say the devs donât just ignore most of the player suggestions. But of course they canât attend everybodyâs suggestions. They got thousands of contradictory suggestions. Expecting someoneâs particular views would make it into the game is not realistic.
You propossing a lot of suggestions, as hundreds of others do (includding myself). And arguing that if your suggestions do not make into the game then the devs do not care about the players suggestions is not a valid way to argue.
Remember the devs have thousands of suggestions. And can only implement a small fraction of them, they need to see what suggestions can and should be added, according to their vision of the game.
However, many of the most voted suggestions on the feedback tool have been addressed. Including almost a hundred suggestions from players.
What this shows is that the devs actually care for the suggestions of the players. And the suggestions you made not being added to the game, means only that not all suggestions are being added to the game.
You dont know the reasons why some suggestions are not added, and still are assuming that you know is for the lack of care of the devs.
Why go back to the never ending argument that the game is for casuals or not? We discussed this nonstop in other post, and is a never ending walking pass through each other argument which does not help anybody. Many veterans think the game is trivial, many others think the game is frustratingly hard.
Many people like myself has argued that the issue should not be oversimplified. The game is very punishing for newcomers, and has features that are very punishing even for people that has a lot of experience in the game. And at the same time there are OP playstyles that trivialize the game for those who play using the meta of the game. Ignoring all the nuances and say âthe game is for casualsâ, or âany player can beat the game in legend regardless how they playâ (the actual claims that sometimes veteran make, and this one has really been made) does not help anybody.
Regarding to what you said. As I understand it, he meant that some changes are proposed to increase the difficulty in the game, and if the devs see the game is already too difficult or that the proposed changes would make the game too difficult they would not make these changes.
If you think devs thinking the game is too difficult is an admission of the game being designed for casuals. I donât know what to tell you.
Take a look into what confirmation bias means, cause you are making the facts fit your ideas. Not your ideas fit your facts. And you are implying again a black and white fallacy. The devs non wanting to alienate casuals players does not imply the game was designed for casuals.
Hardcore players are not people that just wants the game to be more difficult, casual players are not just people that wants the game to be more easy. And there are many views in between.
PS:
I see a lot of mind reading and mind projection fallacies, and it is not cool to have to clarify this once and again. You cannot assume the way you see the world reflects the way the world really is to the point of assuming what is in other peoples minds.
3 Likes
No, it does not. Accept that I have been there longer and always look what are top proposals and what has been done so far.
Very few - beatufied UI, look, cover destructability.
My top likes:
- Once they improved AI
- They made civilians at terror ekhm ⌠defence mission more active
- They have balanced some acid stuff etc.
- They squashed few serious bugs like nest fog, too little too late
Overal judgement
by me: too little too late, DLC milking instead of real improvements first
Devs care for us as source of revenue, not other way around. Its not the game we exist for, game exists for us to enjoy, seen?
I do care for @JulianG good name here and PP having good engine but bad game.
Its simple chant: reduce and simplify rookie campaign for learning. Improve player freedom at harders. Reward more per action then stupid math SP and super power systems: all soldiers start blank if I snipe, it becames sniper skilled etc.
If you are smart, you can satisfy both.
This you should self reflect first, then tell it to the world.
Your dear social worker and Laser Squad fun.
Seriously, sometimes I think Laser Squad is more enjoyable game on Speccy emu, and if serious bugs continue on last DLC I will switch to retro love.
46 feature requests Completed (almost all are minor UI tweaks with like three exceptions, few balance issues and two obvious vote dumps: âmore enemiesâ, âmore missionsâ, at least one false positive like. AI) with just few having 100+ vote counts. It is impossible to say how many of these were in-line with development and would be done regardless of Canny input anyway, but it is safe to assume at least some of them would. There are also bugs and balance issues, but it would be insane to think that fixing their own product is a favour done to us for pointing it on Canny. I wouldnât call it almost hundred and I woudnât say many of them were the most voted requests. 
I donât think, this is true assumption. Just because something in decision making process is considered beneficial doesnât imply they care about suggestions. Devs (short for Snapshot Games developer and publisher) are not our friends, this is normal business to customer relation. They respond to some complaints (like every company should) but with their own, often debatable quality (acidgate, buff spiral), solution while actual suggestions were often quite different.
I would dare to say that most of current balance issues are because they actually did ackowledged balance issues exists, but instead of fixing these issues according to initial suggestions, or at least talk to us about the issues and what could be done, they have took oposite own solution and finally made things worse as it escalated quickly to something we struggle with till now.
1 Like
So you are saying that the devs making a feedback tool and implementing more than a hundred of players suggestions, does not show any care from the dev team to listen to the players, but instead you argue the opposite is true.
Also you are making an argument from authority, which is another fallacy.
Also why? I care only about facts and when I see the feedback tool I see that the vast majority of suggestions with hundreds of votes addressed or under review. Are you just saying this is not true?
Yet, it heavly points on the direction of the devs caring. As most game companies dont do even something remotely similar on that direction. Regardless certainly does not show in any ways they dont care. You are the one making the claim, and so far, the evidence points to the opposite conclussion.
It is more like 140, actually. How many do you require to think they care? do I need to remind you how many user requested features are added to other games? You would be lucky to find many games with 1/10th of this number of suggestions even looked into.
Not true at all. See below. Also your personal opinion of what suggestions are valuable is irrelevant. They reviewing, planning and implementing tons of user request features show they care.
So they care about at least some of them. And how many do you require to think they care?
These are some addressed suggestions:
- Successful Base Defense Should Reveal Attacking Base Location
- Sirenâs mind control not ended after disabled head
- Rage Burst is Overpowered
- Rally the Troops needs some limits
- Neural Disruption does not work on Sirens and Scylla
- Improve Enemy Variety
- Improving the enemy AI
- Remove Dash being stopped on enemy sighting
- Mind Controlling Siren Should Remove Its Mind Control
- FoW in Nests
- Remove the âendlessâ panic/paralysis locks
- Virus is too weak
- Add Defenders for Friendly Havens
- Reduce Acid damage
- Spider Drones and Turrets Should Be Controllable Units
- ⌠around 100 suggestions more.
Planned, in progress or under review
- Improve Map Variety
- Attacking faction havens should have worse consequences
- Buff Player Melee Damage
- Juggernaut torso should allow the attachment of weapon mounts or technicianâs arms
- Better Overwatch
- Remove dynamic difficulty from Legend / Hero
- Make Maps Larger
- Transporting soldiers between bases
- âŚ
⌠And you tell me you see this analyze it and conclude: They clearly only care about UI, look and cover destructability?
Are you really serious about this?
You know what confirmation bias is?
Is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports oneâs prior beliefs or values
Cause oh man, if you have to ignore most of the data for your conclussions to have any sense, I dont know what to tell you. Really,
Please dont psych I, psyche yourself first. Or try it on your momma. End of comm.
All thing you mentioned as done would be expected from 1st Epic game release.
Relax,nobody is paying for your private practice.
And when the arguments fail to convince, you go into personal attacks.
Ignoring the arguments to attack the person who makes them, does very little but showing the weakness of your reasons.
It is called using reasons and counter examples to argue a position. This is what honest arguments do.
I dont need to be paid to argue honestly, I do it for free, thank you very much.
1 Like
I kind of counted them you know?. Its more than 140. Do you want me to post all of them?
This is really easy, start from the botton, count 46, and you would not be on the half top of the list.
Yes, please. Or at least set Complete and Feature Request filter and send me the first and the last item to be sure weâre talking about the same list of items.
Why?
Balance changes, bugs, and other categories are still requests of the users that have been addressed.
What is your actual point? What number of new features requested by the users would you consider show any care from the dev team?
Clearly 50 feature requests, 30 balance requests, 60 bug request and and 3 requests in others being addressed, and probably many more reviewed and considered; show to you that they not care. How many do you need?
How is your claim anything but: â50 new features requested by the users are not enough for me, therefore they dont care at allâ?
Do you understand your reasoning is so biased to favor your apriory position that is completely pointless and even a deeply dishonest one?
I am kindly requesting admins to tell Corto this is not psyche evaluation forum.
Thank you admins.
1 Like
If you think logic arguments have no place in an honest conversation, is up to you.
I could kindly tell them to not allow people to use the mother of others in their posts, But im not going to. I address arguments, I dont discualify people, and Im not rude or take offense when others are, and I dont ask others to remove the arguments that disagree with mine. I call that honesty.
Oh Ok. Praise the Snapshot, as we are merly a testers and we should be glad they donât punish us for lazyness but they fix the product we actually paid for with petty money yet we could with our blood and lives. Makes sense. 