You and RB are doing this thing where you treat survival games as more worthy than exploration games. It's annoying, to say the least.
I'm sorry you read it that way. I can't speak for RB, but for my part, I'm saying that I personally prefer survival games, I personally prefer games that present a challenge, and I personally prefer games that offer replayability.
And exactly as I've said in (I think) every post I've contributed to this subject, I have no interest in taking away the easy mode from the people who want it. What I want is for extra difficulty levels to be added above the existing one. There's no reason everybody can't have their cake here.
I frankly don't care for more dangerous monsters or more punishing food/water experiences - if anything, I would rather have more building options, more resource types and more customization eg paintjobs for buildings. I've always played in Survival and always will, because I do like that little sense of tension in my gaming experience, but to say that I particularly want it any harder... really not.
See above.
(Also, totally agreed on more options. The game very much doesn't have enough to do in it.)
People are seriously up in arms over a med kit fabricator? If it's so offensive to you then just don't use it or build it. It's not like avoiding building the thing gives you so many extra resources the game is easier for it. It's also not like you have to worry about whether or not other players are using it, the game doesn't have multiplayer so balancing abilities like that doesn't come into play.
If the game is too easy for you, why not come up with your own ways of making it more difficult? Three heart runs in Zelda, One tank runs in Metroid, and nuzlocke runs in Pokemon all arose due to players much like yourselves.
Devs seem more focused on adding content to the game than balancing difficulty at the moment and if that's the case I agree with them. What's the point of balancing out energy usage to be in perfect balance when Ion batteries and power cells are going to be added later? What's the point in balancing out hunger and thirst when there's going to be new mechanics that interact with them later? What's the point balancing out how much damage creatures do and take when new ones are going to be added later, etc? You'll just have to redo all of that work fine tuning things because a recent update added space apples or coffee, every single time something new is added.
Energy and batteries are a prime example right now. There's not much point in trying to make their management more difficult because wrecks have a tendency to spawn multiple laser cutter doors on top of each other last I checked. This is obviously a bug and getting batteries to a point of perfect balance is kinda pointless when they're going to get a buff when its fixed later on.
I'm not worried about difficulty at the moment. Just get the game done and fix bugs/performance first, please.
That all said I don't mean to sound like I'm raining on your parade if you want to brainstorm changes to the game to affect difficulty and make it more fun for you, tone is hard to get across sometimes. I just don't see the need for the devs to be concerned with it yet. From what I hear some people over on Xbox can't even load saved games currently.
You should know better than using the "don't like, don't use" argument.
"Don't like the balance of the Cyclops? DON'T USE!" Because it totally isn't the Devs JOB to make a competent game right?
Also, "The game isn't multiplayer so you don't have to worry about balance" you don't seem aware about how balancing works.
The Forest would be no fun if the cannibals NEVER attacked you except once or twice. It would be frustrating if the cannibals attacked you ALL THE TIME RELENTLESSLY! Balance needs to be kept.
All I'm trying to say is that to make a competent game you gotta make the game first. This usually means focusing on the larger problems the game faces before smaller ones. Cannibal attack frequency in a game about surviving attacks from cannibals is a bigger concern than an optional appliance that generates health packs in a survival exploration game, but maybe that's just me. I just don't see the issue with the med kit fabricator. I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend it. Usage of the device is optional. Does its existence somehow make the game less "competent"?
And please don't paraphrase what I say to the point of losing its meaning. The game doesn't have multiplayer, therefore you don't have to worry about balancing another player using something you chose not to, therefore why not choose to avoid using it if you don't want to? I avoid using the seaglide altogether, but I don't think it should be removed from the game just because I don't want it.
People are seriously up in arms over a med kit fabricator? If it's so offensive to you then just don't use it or build it. It's not like avoiding building the thing gives you so many extra resources the game is easier for it. It's also not like you have to worry about whether or not other players are using it, the game doesn't have multiplayer so balancing abilities like that doesn't come into play.
If the game is too easy for you, why not come up with your own ways of making it more difficult? Three heart runs in Zelda, One tank runs in Metroid, and nuzlocke runs in Pokemon all arose due to players much like yourselves.
Devs seem more focused on adding content to the game than balancing difficulty at the moment and if that's the case I agree with them. What's the point of balancing out energy usage to be in perfect balance when Ion batteries and power cells are going to be added later? What's the point in balancing out hunger and thirst when there's going to be new mechanics that interact with them later? What's the point balancing out how much damage creatures do and take when new ones are going to be added later, etc? You'll just have to redo all of that work fine tuning things because a recent update added space apples or coffee, every single time something new is added.
Energy and batteries are a prime example right now. There's not much point in trying to make their management more difficult because wrecks have a tendency to spawn multiple laser cutter doors on top of each other last I checked. This is obviously a bug and getting batteries to a point of perfect balance is kinda pointless when they're going to get a buff when its fixed later on.
I'm not worried about difficulty at the moment. Just get the game done and fix bugs/performance first, please.
That all said I don't mean to sound like I'm raining on your parade if you want to brainstorm changes to the game to affect difficulty and make it more fun for you, tone is hard to get across sometimes. I just don't see the need for the devs to be concerned with it yet. From what I hear some people over on Xbox can't even load saved games currently.
You should know better than using the "don't like, don't use" argument.
"Don't like the balance of the Cyclops? DON'T USE!" Because it totally isn't the Devs JOB to make a competent game right?
Also, "The game isn't multiplayer so you don't have to worry about balance" you don't seem aware about how balancing works.
The Forest would be no fun if the cannibals NEVER attacked you except once or twice. It would be frustrating if the cannibals attacked you ALL THE TIME RELENTLESSLY! Balance needs to be kept.
All I'm trying to say is that to make a competent game you gotta make the game first. This usually means focusing on the larger problems the game faces before smaller ones. Cannibal attack frequency in a game about surviving attacks from cannibals is a bigger concern than an optional appliance that generates health packs in a survival exploration game, but maybe that's just me. I just don't see the issue with the med kit fabricator. I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend it. Usage of the device is optional. Does its existence somehow make the game less "competent"?
And please don't paraphrase what I say to the point of losing its meaning. The game doesn't have multiplayer, therefore you don't have to worry about balancing another player using something you chose not to, therefore why not choose to avoid using it if you don't want to? I avoid using the seaglide altogether, but I don't think it should be removed from the game just because I don't want it.
Again, it's the devs job to balance and fix a game.
"There's exploits in the game? Just don't use them."
No. You fix your damn game. It is player handholding. That should not be a consistent thing occurring in your game.
No. You fix your damn game. It is player handholding. That should not be a consistent thing occurring in your game.
Nah, the medkit fab is fine. We just need a higher difficulty that needs that much free healing. (And a higher one than that that needs the healing and doesn't have it, heh.)
People are seriously up in arms over a med kit fabricator? If it's so offensive to you then just don't use it or build it. It's not like avoiding building the thing gives you so many extra resources the game is easier for it. It's also not like you have to worry about whether or not other players are using it, the game doesn't have multiplayer so balancing abilities like that doesn't come into play.
If the game is too easy for you, why not come up with your own ways of making it more difficult? Three heart runs in Zelda, One tank runs in Metroid, and nuzlocke runs in Pokemon all arose due to players much like yourselves.
Devs seem more focused on adding content to the game than balancing difficulty at the moment and if that's the case I agree with them. What's the point of balancing out energy usage to be in perfect balance when Ion batteries and power cells are going to be added later? What's the point in balancing out hunger and thirst when there's going to be new mechanics that interact with them later? What's the point balancing out how much damage creatures do and take when new ones are going to be added later, etc? You'll just have to redo all of that work fine tuning things because a recent update added space apples or coffee, every single time something new is added.
Energy and batteries are a prime example right now. There's not much point in trying to make their management more difficult because wrecks have a tendency to spawn multiple laser cutter doors on top of each other last I checked. This is obviously a bug and getting batteries to a point of perfect balance is kinda pointless when they're going to get a buff when its fixed later on.
I'm not worried about difficulty at the moment. Just get the game done and fix bugs/performance first, please.
That all said I don't mean to sound like I'm raining on your parade if you want to brainstorm changes to the game to affect difficulty and make it more fun for you, tone is hard to get across sometimes. I just don't see the need for the devs to be concerned with it yet. From what I hear some people over on Xbox can't even load saved games currently.
You should know better than using the "don't like, don't use" argument.
"Don't like the balance of the Cyclops? DON'T USE!" Because it totally isn't the Devs JOB to make a competent game right?
Also, "The game isn't multiplayer so you don't have to worry about balance" you don't seem aware about how balancing works.
The Forest would be no fun if the cannibals NEVER attacked you except once or twice. It would be frustrating if the cannibals attacked you ALL THE TIME RELENTLESSLY! Balance needs to be kept.
All I'm trying to say is that to make a competent game you gotta make the game first. This usually means focusing on the larger problems the game faces before smaller ones. Cannibal attack frequency in a game about surviving attacks from cannibals is a bigger concern than an optional appliance that generates health packs in a survival exploration game, but maybe that's just me. I just don't see the issue with the med kit fabricator. I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend it. Usage of the device is optional. Does its existence somehow make the game less "competent"?
And please don't paraphrase what I say to the point of losing its meaning. The game doesn't have multiplayer, therefore you don't have to worry about balancing another player using something you chose not to, therefore why not choose to avoid using it if you don't want to? I avoid using the seaglide altogether, but I don't think it should be removed from the game just because I don't want it.
Again, it's the devs job to balance and fix a game.
"There's exploits in the game? Just don't use them."
No. You fix your damn game. It is player handholding. That should not be a consistent thing occurring in your game.
Ok, Blaze, we get it. You want the devs to balance things. Other people do not want them to. You've both made your points, now this is just a back - and - forth conversation along the lines of:
You're wrong!
No, You're wrong!
No, You're wrong!
you get the idea. Please, for the love of Larry, the ludicrous leviathan of lamentable loadings, make it stop.
The game needs a a more rewarding system based on Risk vs Reward, I got the game when it came out and back then there was a hint they were heading that direction with Stalker Teeth, you risk being attacked by them but in return you gain a tooth if you feed it metal, to compound this we have the crash fish, you risk death via explosion very early in the game , the reward is you get a repair tool, its baffling that they had these basic concepts down early on and then seem to have just forgotten about them.
Where is the risk to getting almost anything else in the game where the risk is not superficial, answer me that.
Its like they thought the deeper something is the more risk in reality the deeper something is just means we swim a bit longer to get it, Air isnt even an issue just grab some metals and make a long pipe, there is very little risk involved, its really strange that most of the risk in this game comes early on and then just gets easier, its like the devs gave up.
People are seriously up in arms over a med kit fabricator? If it's so offensive to you then just don't use it or build it. It's not like avoiding building the thing gives you so many extra resources the game is easier for it. It's also not like you have to worry about whether or not other players are using it, the game doesn't have multiplayer so balancing abilities like that doesn't come into play.
If the game is too easy for you, why not come up with your own ways of making it more difficult? Three heart runs in Zelda, One tank runs in Metroid, and nuzlocke runs in Pokemon all arose due to players much like yourselves.
Devs seem more focused on adding content to the game than balancing difficulty at the moment and if that's the case I agree with them. What's the point of balancing out energy usage to be in perfect balance when Ion batteries and power cells are going to be added later? What's the point in balancing out hunger and thirst when there's going to be new mechanics that interact with them later? What's the point balancing out how much damage creatures do and take when new ones are going to be added later, etc? You'll just have to redo all of that work fine tuning things because a recent update added space apples or coffee, every single time something new is added.
Energy and batteries are a prime example right now. There's not much point in trying to make their management more difficult because wrecks have a tendency to spawn multiple laser cutter doors on top of each other last I checked. This is obviously a bug and getting batteries to a point of perfect balance is kinda pointless when they're going to get a buff when its fixed later on.
I'm not worried about difficulty at the moment. Just get the game done and fix bugs/performance first, please.
That all said I don't mean to sound like I'm raining on your parade if you want to brainstorm changes to the game to affect difficulty and make it more fun for you, tone is hard to get across sometimes. I just don't see the need for the devs to be concerned with it yet. From what I hear some people over on Xbox can't even load saved games currently.
You should know better than using the "don't like, don't use" argument.
"Don't like the balance of the Cyclops? DON'T USE!" Because it totally isn't the Devs JOB to make a competent game right?
Also, "The game isn't multiplayer so you don't have to worry about balance" you don't seem aware about how balancing works.
The Forest would be no fun if the cannibals NEVER attacked you except once or twice. It would be frustrating if the cannibals attacked you ALL THE TIME RELENTLESSLY! Balance needs to be kept.
All I'm trying to say is that to make a competent game you gotta make the game first. This usually means focusing on the larger problems the game faces before smaller ones. Cannibal attack frequency in a game about surviving attacks from cannibals is a bigger concern than an optional appliance that generates health packs in a survival exploration game, but maybe that's just me. I just don't see the issue with the med kit fabricator. I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend it. Usage of the device is optional. Does its existence somehow make the game less "competent"?
And please don't paraphrase what I say to the point of losing its meaning. The game doesn't have multiplayer, therefore you don't have to worry about balancing another player using something you chose not to, therefore why not choose to avoid using it if you don't want to? I avoid using the seaglide altogether, but I don't think it should be removed from the game just because I don't want it.
Again, it's the devs job to balance and fix a game.
"There's exploits in the game? Just don't use them."
No. You fix your damn game. It is player handholding. That should not be a consistent thing occurring in your game.
Ok, Blaze, we get it. You want the devs to balance things. Other people do not want them to. You've both made your points, now this is just a back - and - forth conversation along the lines of:
You're wrong!
No, You're wrong!
No, You're wrong!
you get the idea. Please, for the love of Larry, the ludicrous leviathan of lamentable loadings, make it stop.
You don't want the Devs to balance a game?
Balance is a necessity for any polished game with gameplay mechanics.
All I'm trying to say is that to make a competent game you gotta make the game first. This usually means focusing on the larger problems the game faces before smaller ones. Cannibal attack frequency in a game about surviving attacks from cannibals is a bigger concern than an optional appliance that generates health packs in a survival exploration game,
They had a competent game and then destroyed it, both with plot devices which are a personal opinion issue (precursors, ridiculous and unoriginal concept, PRAWN, horrible, etc.) and also with performance, which was fine at one point and then has got steadily worse and worse with absolutely no reassurances from the devs that it will be improved or fixed.
"It's early access, what do you expect?"
Well, I expect some issues. But I also expect the devs to tell us what exactly they intend to do about fixing the issues, at the very least, and reassure us that our money has bought us something that will actually run well at some point.
"Focusing on larger problems before smaller ones"? I agree.
So why, in the name of all that's holy, do the devs of Subnautica not fix the performance? It's been freaking months of this. Ever since I've owned the game, for about 12 months, pop in and low FPS has been an issue.
And don't say "because it's best to make everything in the world first, then work on performance once it's all done" (which is the total BS argument I've seen thrown around these forums lately, absolute nonsense) because I've supported many, many early access games and performance is usually top priority, at every single step of development. It's the absolute only way to do it, fixing it at every step, because if you wait until you've made everything else, at that point you've created a huge ball of string with thousands of knots you'll never unpick. You have to unpick those knots as they appear, you can't leave it or it becomes impossible to unravel. An unstable mess. And that's exactly what I see happening with Subnautica. I've seen it before, and I'm sure I'll see it again.
As for the whole "Just because it's in the game, it doesn't mean you have to use it"... well sure, but that isn't the point. The whole med-kit fabrication discussion is a microcosm of the larger issue; the game doesn't know it's own identity.
It's fine to say "You don't want to use the fabricator, then don't build it, what's the problem?" but that's missing the entire point. Just because you don't have to do or use something, that doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
It's a bit like saying "we're allowed to own guns in the US of A, but you don't have to own one, so what's the problem?" The problem is that there's still people with guns all over the place, in the society you live in.
And just like there'd still be guns even if you choose to not own one, there's still med-kit fabrication in the game you're playing, even though you don't build one, which annoys certain people because it's one of many things that makes the game really, really easy in their opinion, and those things ruin the experience for them.
If it's a survival game then it should be balanced much, much better. Not just med-kits, but the hunger and thirst, damage, oxygen, inventory space. Pretty much everything is wrong for a survival game.
But if, on the other hand, it's an adventure/exploration game, then it also needs to be balanced much, much better. Don't make us spend freaking hours gathering resources in a boring chore of busywork. Don't make us fight for survival, always keeping our eyes on our thirst and hunger, if we're supposed to be exploring at our leisure.
And before anyone says "why can't it be both?" well, I'll tell you why. Because the two game styles are fundamentally opposed to each other. They don't work well together.
It would be nice if folks would at the very least, let the Dev's Actually Finish The Game, before starting to pizz all over it.
@DaveyNY, you've really got to start thinking about what you're writing before you hit that post button.
It's almost like you have absolutely no idea about what early access actually is as a concept.
There's no point in complaining about a game after it's finished, by then it's too late to do anything about any problems.
It's completely valid to worry about a game (especially when release is supposedly so close) or criticise a game before it's release. Especially if you've paid hard earned money for it and you're supposed to be part of the whole beta testing part of development.
That's the whole point of early access.
The time to "pizz all over it" is NOW, so it's not released as a steaming pile of crap. The time to criticise and complain is NOW, before release, so it's fixed and 1.0 is worth a damn.
I have to say, the fanboying and blind faith exhibited in these forums is sometimes really annoying. People are so irrational and defensive, unwilling to even consider any hint of a suggestion that their beloved game is less than perfect. It's becoming really quite annoying.
If someone dares suggest it has faults, "It's early access, what do you expect?"
It's getting to a point (approaching release, even though it will be delayed, a lot, many times, I'm sure of it) where that statement doesn't hold any water, I'm afraid.
"It's early access, what do you expect?"
We expect better, that's what. And we deserve better, at this stage. This is not early development, this is nearing the end of development. At least that's what we've been lead to believe. Some people are actually still expecting the May release, for crying out loud. And the game is absolutely nowhere anywhere near ready.
The saddest thing about all this blind faith is that it causes more damage than anything else possibly could.
Improvements can only be made once problems are identified, criticised and then fixed.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited March 2017
"There's no point in complaining about a game after it's finished, by then it's too late to do anything about any problems."
Nah man, a lot of games out there have a full dev support beyond v1.0 Gold. And it's not uncommon for a complete redesign for some games either. NS2 had a complete redesign, thought I mentioned it here since it hits close to home
Pre-alpha tends to be more open to this, but post release support, yep lots of example out there
"There's no point in complaining about a game after it's finished, by then it's too late to do anything about any problems."
Nah man, a lot of games out there have a full dev support beyond v1.0 Gold. And it's not uncommon for a complete redesign for some games either. NS2 had a complete redesign, thought I mentioned it here since it hits close to home
Pre-alpha tends to be more open to this, but post release support, yep lots of example out there
Don't make me clarify, you know exactly what I mean. Obviously it's not too late to fix some issues.
But we're not talking about patches or bug fixes here. Some things can be patched or fixed, but when you're talking about core gameplay elements it needs to be done before 1.0.
I mean, we're talking about something which is fundamental to the game. It's difficulty and it's entire identity is basic, basic stuff. The very foundations of the game.
Right now it feels like it's in limbo, having a serious identity crisis. And that can't be fixed after release.
Anyway, I'm going to bed. I've been awake for about a billion hours working and I'm mad as hell. So sorry if I seem salty, it's because I am salty.
I guess the TL;DR is that I'm concerned that I'm seeing genuinely fair criticisms being shot down more and more, and people defending Subnautica blindly, like religious zealots, and it's damaging.
Like with anything, you have to be able to take criticism and build from it. Make things better. When everyone kisses your arse you'll never realise your faults and never become better.
You can go all Hyper-Technical-Critical all you want, but when it comes down to it for me right now...,
I can play this Alpha-Game 95% of the time just fine with my rig, and I've got no problem with whatever direction the Makers of the Game choose to go with it.
(to get that other 5%, I have to occasionally delete a couple of files... big whoop)
After all, it IS Their Game... and for a reasonably small price (which helps Them out) They are being gracious enough to allow me to experience it, before it is completely finished.
And I have a feeling that there might be a whole bunch of folks out there who would probably agree with me.
We get it, you apparently aren't happy with your purchase at this point, but going whole-hog in and pretty much condemning an unfinished game is kinda-sorta silly.
Perhaps it's time to reevaluate this particular gaming choice and move on.
The entire point of early access is for the players to give feedback on the game while it's being iterated upon. This is not a funding model. We are not donating money to a company. We are paying for beta access. And as beta testers, it is incumbent upon us to tell the devs what does and doesn't work.
I understand that you don't want to be a beta tester, and that's fine. You can reevaluate this particular forum choice and move on. But you need to understand that criticism is not an insult. Feedback is not heresy. The game has problems, and now, while things are still fluid, is the time to talk about them.
People are seriously up in arms over a med kit fabricator? If it's so offensive to you then just don't use it or build it. It's not like avoiding building the thing gives you so many extra resources the game is easier for it. It's also not like you have to worry about whether or not other players are using it, the game doesn't have multiplayer so balancing abilities like that doesn't come into play.
If the game is too easy for you, why not come up with your own ways of making it more difficult? Three heart runs in Zelda, One tank runs in Metroid, and nuzlocke runs in Pokemon all arose due to players much like yourselves.
Devs seem more focused on adding content to the game than balancing difficulty at the moment and if that's the case I agree with them. What's the point of balancing out energy usage to be in perfect balance when Ion batteries and power cells are going to be added later? What's the point in balancing out hunger and thirst when there's going to be new mechanics that interact with them later? What's the point balancing out how much damage creatures do and take when new ones are going to be added later, etc? You'll just have to redo all of that work fine tuning things because a recent update added space apples or coffee, every single time something new is added.
Energy and batteries are a prime example right now. There's not much point in trying to make their management more difficult because wrecks have a tendency to spawn multiple laser cutter doors on top of each other last I checked. This is obviously a bug and getting batteries to a point of perfect balance is kinda pointless when they're going to get a buff when its fixed later on.
I'm not worried about difficulty at the moment. Just get the game done and fix bugs/performance first, please.
That all said I don't mean to sound like I'm raining on your parade if you want to brainstorm changes to the game to affect difficulty and make it more fun for you, tone is hard to get across sometimes. I just don't see the need for the devs to be concerned with it yet. From what I hear some people over on Xbox can't even load saved games currently.
You should know better than using the "don't like, don't use" argument.
"Don't like the balance of the Cyclops? DON'T USE!" Because it totally isn't the Devs JOB to make a competent game right?
Also, "The game isn't multiplayer so you don't have to worry about balance" you don't seem aware about how balancing works.
The Forest would be no fun if the cannibals NEVER attacked you except once or twice. It would be frustrating if the cannibals attacked you ALL THE TIME RELENTLESSLY! Balance needs to be kept.
All I'm trying to say is that to make a competent game you gotta make the game first. This usually means focusing on the larger problems the game faces before smaller ones. Cannibal attack frequency in a game about surviving attacks from cannibals is a bigger concern than an optional appliance that generates health packs in a survival exploration game, but maybe that's just me. I just don't see the issue with the med kit fabricator. I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend it. Usage of the device is optional. Does its existence somehow make the game less "competent"?
And please don't paraphrase what I say to the point of losing its meaning. The game doesn't have multiplayer, therefore you don't have to worry about balancing another player using something you chose not to, therefore why not choose to avoid using it if you don't want to? I avoid using the seaglide altogether, but I don't think it should be removed from the game just because I don't want it.
Again, it's the devs job to balance and fix a game.
"There's exploits in the game? Just don't use them."
No. You fix your damn game. It is player handholding. That should not be a consistent thing occurring in your game.
Ok, Blaze, we get it. You want the devs to balance things. Other people do not want them to. You've both made your points, now this is just a back - and - forth conversation along the lines of:
You're wrong!
No, You're wrong!
No, You're wrong!
you get the idea. Please, for the love of Larry, the ludicrous leviathan of lamentable loadings, make it stop.
You don't want the Devs to balance a game?
Balance is a necessity for any polished game with gameplay mechanics.
I'm not taking one side or another. I just want this madness to stop.
We get it, you apparently aren't happy with your purchase at this point, but going whole-hog in and pretty much condemning an unfinished game is kinda-sorta silly.
See what I mean? You're confusing legitimate and fair criticism with "going whole-hog" and "condemning an unfinished game". I literally just explained how it's fair to be worried and concerned about the state of the game, and why. Yet you're blinded by your faith.
This is an almost perfect example of "fanboying" and you're not helping, in any way what so ever. Either start helping, or get the hell out of the way.
Like @Wodenifferous has already told you, repeatedly, this is not a funding model. You seem to be under the impression that this is a GoFundMe or IndieGoGo campaign that you've donated to in the hope something might come out of it months later.
It isn't. It's an early access game and we're part of the beta testing.
So get used to having a lot of criticism hurled at the game, even more as release approaches, because that's the whole damned point and that's what happens with early access.
The Dev's have chosen a particular direction for this game to go in.
When you bought the game early on, you had little to no idea what that actual direction would be.
(none of us did)
Now that it is becoming apparent, you don't like it and want them to change direction.
That's called 'Buyers Remorse' and it's a bitch, but it doesn't give you the right to make vailed demands that they should conform to your ideals.
Nor should the rest of us have to agree with your comments or put up with your insults.
Many of us are fine with how the game is turning out.
Also, buying a PRE-RELEASE game on STEAM, is very much a form of IndieGoGo and/or GoFundMe campaigning.
Maybe you should try something new, like reading the words people say.
The game was sold as a survival game. In fact, it's still tagged as survival on Steam. I am one of the many people who like the survival genre and bought this game based on that description. (And the promise of multiplayer, but ha ha never mind on that.)
The game as it exists now is not a survival game. It is to the survival genre as Diablo is to the RPG genre. It has UI elements that suggest the survival genre, but it has no gameplay elements which support the UI's assertion.
So, to review: the game was sold as one thing. I bought it based on that thing. The devs have decided to appease the vocal minority, the people who registered for the forums to come here and complain about the game being too hard, and so now the game is no longer what I, and many other people, bought it for.
I, and others, have been suggesting a simple solution that lets everyone have what they want: add more difficulty levels. For some reason, you, and others, are hilariously upset by that idea, because you seem to be fantasizing that survival players want to steal your walking simulator, despite repeated, explicit statements that the goal is for everybody to have what they want. The goal is for everybody to have what they want. The goal is for everybody to have what they want. Maybe you'll read it if I repeat it enough. You know what the goal is? It's for everybody to have what they want.
To review: the game isn't what I paid money for. It is dramatically different than what I paid money for. I am entitled to be annoyed about that. I am entitled to make suggestions aimed at getting what I have wanted all along while also not pissing in the Cheerios of the people who requested the game become what it is. You are entitled to imagine conspiracies and nightmare scenarios targeting the game you like, but your imaginings have nothing to do with reality.
To review: the goal is for everybody to have what they want.
You assert that early access is a funding model, not a beta test. Then please, explain why this forum exists. Explain why we can give feedback in the game. Explain why Trello cards mention user feedback.
Wow, it sure seems like you're wrong. Or worse, knowingly lying in order to dismiss people's opinions out of hand! But you're a bigger person than that. I know you wouldn't engage in that kind of closed-minded behavior. I know you're just scared and lashing out in fear. But it'll be OK.
Because the goal is for everybody to have what they want.
First and foremost, in my opinion the game should not, NEVER, hide content behind a replay. To be clear: everything the game has to offer should be accessible on the first playthrough.
Secondly, having a fair amount of non-static world would very much help. Maybe not to the point of a fully procedurally generated world, but part of it should be random with each new game.
And last, don't forget about this piece of new High Tech: Options! The game could very much toe brilliantly the line between casual exploration and survival with a story (as some poster put it), and we as player could orient it more with an Option menu.. Yes it cost more to do and maintain, and should not be abused. But it might also help the game succeed, and if done right could reduce headaches for the developers.
All I'm trying to say is that to make a competent game you gotta make the game first. This usually means focusing on the larger problems the game faces before smaller ones. Cannibal attack frequency in a game about surviving attacks from cannibals is a bigger concern than an optional appliance that generates health packs in a survival exploration game,
They had a competent game and then destroyed it, both with plot devices which are a personal opinion issue (precursors, ridiculous and unoriginal concept, PRAWN, horrible, etc.) and also with performance, which was fine at one point and then has got steadily worse and worse with absolutely no reassurances from the devs that it will be improved or fixed.
"It's early access, what do you expect?"
Well, I expect some issues. But I also expect the devs to tell us what exactly they intend to do about fixing the issues, at the very least, and reassure us that our money has bought us something that will actually run well at some point.
"Focusing on larger problems before smaller ones"? I agree.
So why, in the name of all that's holy, do the devs of Subnautica not fix the performance? It's been freaking months of this. Ever since I've owned the game, for about 12 months, pop in and low FPS has been an issue.
And don't say "because it's best to make everything in the world first, then work on performance once it's all done" (which is the total BS argument I've seen thrown around these forums lately, absolute nonsense) because I've supported many, many early access games and performance is usually top priority, at every single step of development. It's the absolute only way to do it, fixing it at every step, because if you wait until you've made everything else, at that point you've created a huge ball of string with thousands of knots you'll never unpick. You have to unpick those knots as they appear, you can't leave it or it becomes impossible to unravel. An unstable mess. And that's exactly what I see happening with Subnautica. I've seen it before, and I'm sure I'll see it again.
Which is exactly why I'm saying that I think that bigger issues like performance should be taking precedence over fine tuning balance.
The current state of balance is not kosher. I agree with that. We need to work on that going forward. Yes. The med kit fabricator is currently overpowered and needs to be toned down. Definitely. Difficulty modes? I love them. What I disagree with is saying that balance is more important than performance and content and should be prioritized before those items. Balance means nothing if the game is unplayable and I am concerned Subnautica is getting too close to that.
How specifically do you want the difficulty increased, what is your definition of "smarter creatures," and if we had "smarter creatures" what tools are players going to have to be able to circumvent them?
Subnautica has an extremely narrow zone between "no difficulty" and "total frustration" for "satisfying challenge" to lie. Right now, it errs on the side of "no difficulty" and that's probably a good thing, I wouldn't trust anyone to get it right with how little the player can do and how rudimentary the AI is. Right now the only thing the Player can do to hostiles is flee. You don't interact with enemies, there's no cat and mouse style gameplay like Alien: Isolation where the player is able to stay close to hostiles and get passed them by sneaking, it's just turn around and run. Unfortunately, outside of a total overhaul of how hostiles behave and player detection, which doesn't appear to be happening, there just isn't a way to add meaningful challenge that isn't outright frustrating. The gameplay just doesn't have the depth.
As for the Warper which others have brought up, it already skates on the edge of more annoying than challenging. The only time players interact with it is when it decides to rip them out of vehicles without warning, and they just swim back to it, get in, and either try to run before the Warper pulls then out again or just wait for it to leave. In another game with combat or stealth mechanics, this might have been a good miniboss design, forcing the player to fight or hide outside of the comfort of vehicles they have grown used to, but here the Warper is just an annoyance that is treated the same as any other creature because "run" is the only move players have.
That's called 'Buyers Remorse' and it's a bitch, but it doesn't give you the right to make vailed demands that they should conform to your ideals.
Nor should the rest of us have to agree with your comments or put up with your insults.
Many of us are fine with how the game is turning out.
Also, buying a PRE-RELEASE game on STEAM, is very much a form of IndieGoGo and/or GoFundMe campaigning.
Firstly, nobody is making demands, they're making suggestions. That's what makes this an Early Access game and NOT a Gofundme.
Secondly, nobody has insulted you, so get a grip and don't try to play the victim.
Thirdly, again, buying a pre-release game on Steam is NOT a funding campaign. It's an early access/beta testing opt in where criticism, advice and even complaints are more than welcome. They are actively encouraged.
Go do some research on the differences, because your ignorance is showing and I simply cannot be bothered to educate you and waste any more time on you, I think you're a lost cause.
How specifically do you want the difficulty increased, what is your definition of "smarter creatures," and if we had "smarter creatures" what tools are players going to have to be able to circumvent them?
Subnautica has an extremely narrow zone between "no difficulty" and "total frustration" for "satisfying challenge" to lie. Right now, it errs on the side of "no difficulty" and that's probably a good thing, I wouldn't trust anyone to get it right with how little the player can do and how rudimentary the AI is. Right now the only thing the Player can do to hostiles is flee. You don't interact with enemies, there's no cat and mouse style gameplay like Alien: Isolation where the player is able to stay close to hostiles and get passed them by sneaking, it's just turn around and run. Unfortunately, outside of a total overhaul of how hostiles behave and player detection, which doesn't appear to be happening, there just isn't a way to add meaningful challenge that isn't outright frustrating. The gameplay just doesn't have the depth.
Those are good points. It's hard to imagine the devs making creatures more interesting. When I think about what I'd like out of the game, I tend to imagine "more challenge" coming from the survival side of things: more expensive recipes* and more demanding food and water requirements**. Creature attacks on the base would be excellent, but that, along with most other possible creature-based improvements, comes under the heading of "good luck getting that done before 2020."
*: which would require renewable sources of the only three resources actually used in the game: titanium, silver, and quartz.
**: which would require denser, harder to craft sources of food, unless the challenge in hard mode is coming exclusively from having half your inventory taken up by food and water, heh.
As for the Warper which others have brought up, it already skates on the edge of more annoying than challenging. The only time players interact with it is when it decides to rip them out of vehicles without warning, and they just swim back to it, get in, and either try to run before the Warper pulls then out again or just wait for it to leave. In another game with combat or stealth mechanics, this might have been a good miniboss design, forcing the player to fight or hide outside of the comfort of vehicles they have grown used to, but here the Warper is just an annoyance that is treated the same as any other creature because "run" is the only move players have.
Holy cow, is that what the Warper does? I had no idea, I've never been hit by one. You're right, that would be great in a game with either combat or stealth.
How specifically do you want the difficulty increased, what is your definition of "smarter creatures," and if we had "smarter creatures" what tools are players going to have to be able to circumvent them?
Subnautica has an extremely narrow zone between "no difficulty" and "total frustration" for "satisfying challenge" to lie. Right now, it errs on the side of "no difficulty" and that's probably a good thing, I wouldn't trust anyone to get it right with how little the player can do and how rudimentary the AI is. Right now the only thing the Player can do to hostiles is flee. You don't interact with enemies, there's no cat and mouse style gameplay like Alien: Isolation where the player is able to stay close to hostiles and get passed them by sneaking, it's just turn around and run. Unfortunately, outside of a total overhaul of how hostiles behave and player detection, which doesn't appear to be happening, there just isn't a way to add meaningful challenge that isn't outright frustrating. The gameplay just doesn't have the depth.
Those are good points. It's hard to imagine the devs making creatures more interesting. When I think about what I'd like out of the game, I tend to imagine "more challenge" coming from the survival side of things: more expensive recipes* and more demanding food and water requirements**. Creature attacks on the base would be excellent, but that, along with most other possible creature-based improvements, comes under the heading of "good luck getting that done before 2020."
*: which would require renewable sources of the only three resources actually used in the game: titanium, silver, and quartz.
**: which would require denser, harder to craft sources of food, unless the challenge in hard mode is coming exclusively from having half your inventory taken up by food and water, heh.
As for the Warper which others have brought up, it already skates on the edge of more annoying than challenging. The only time players interact with it is when it decides to rip them out of vehicles without warning, and they just swim back to it, get in, and either try to run before the Warper pulls then out again or just wait for it to leave. In another game with combat or stealth mechanics, this might have been a good miniboss design, forcing the player to fight or hide outside of the comfort of vehicles they have grown used to, but here the Warper is just an annoyance that is treated the same as any other creature because "run" is the only move players have.
Holy cow, is that what the Warper does? I had no idea, I've never been hit by one. You're right, that would be great in a game with either combat or stealth.
I do wish the warper could still TP you out of the prawn / seamoth.
I do wish the warper could still TP you out of the prawn / seamoth.
I can't imagine why. You don't have the means to make it go away outside of your vehicles, and you aren't going to leave them wherever you are at. Your only recourse was to get into them again and hope you can get away fast enough before it decides to do it again.
Maybe if it was a projectile attack you could dodge, but just having the Warper do it on a whim without warning is terrible design.
I do wish the warper could still TP you out of the prawn / seamoth.
I can't imagine why. You don't have the means to make it go away outside of your vehicles, and you aren't going to leave them wherever you are at. Your only recourse was to get into them again and hope you can get away fast enough before it decides to do it again.
Maybe if it was a projectile attack you could dodge, but just having the Warper do it on a whim without warning is terrible design.
It was a projectile attack if I remember correctly.
The Devs have chosen a particular direction for this game to go in.
When you bought the game early on, you had little to no idea what that actual direction would be. (none of us did)
When I first got Subnautica in July 2016, I was mesmerized by the game and what was possible in it. When they started adding stuff like the ILZ, Lava Castle, etc I was apprehensive at first about them focusing on 'deeper' progression as opposed to expanding further into the Void.
But after playing the Stable updates and focusing on 'what I want to do' instead of 'OMG this is what they should have done', I've been enjoying how everything is going.
Most of us are fine with how the game is turning out.
I can't speak for others, but I've been pleased by their direction and how they want the game to be made. I think the devs have been reasonable with requests (the ordeal with longer Fabricator craft times, removing O2 power consumption inside vehicles, making the Seaglide practical again). But ultimately it's their game, and therefore it's their decisions; I'm just glad I get to enjoy a fun gaming experience.
But ultimately it's their game, and therefore it's their decisions; I'm just glad I get to enjoy a fun gaming experience.
Agreed.
The fundamental problem this conversation is hitting - as has every game that's ever come before it - is that the concept of balance is subjective. These 50 people say the game is balanced, this 50 say it's too easy, and this 50 say it's too hard. This half say that Object A is OP, this half say it's nerfed. It's the same argument that's been had forever.
Hell, look at XCOM. For every person who says that their difficulty scaling is right on the money, there's another who will say Easy is harder than making a diamond out of cat crap. Which one is right? They both are, because difficulty is subjective. It's the exact same as one person saying calculus is impossible while the person next to them breezes through it. Everybody has a different view of what's difficult and at what point, and for every person, their view is correct insofar as their own experience is concerned. Trying to tell someone their point of view is invalid because it conflicts with yours is a never-win scenario.
Point being, there's never going to be a universal consensus on this. Ever. In any game. No amount of conversation, arguing, yelling, or dueling is going to fix that.
I do wish the warper could still TP you out of the prawn / seamoth.
I can't imagine why. You don't have the means to make it go away outside of your vehicles, and you aren't going to leave them wherever you are at. Your only recourse was to get into them again and hope you can get away fast enough before it decides to do it again.
Maybe if it was a projectile attack you could dodge, but just having the Warper do it on a whim without warning is terrible design.
It was a projectile attack if I remember correctly.
Yes, it was. Which was why people who were always on the move usually didn't get hit, while others almost always did (as they were a sitting duck).
More on topic... If it were harder (more killer fish, for example), I'd probably stop playing. As it is, I hate dealing with the Warpers and rarely go anywhere I know they are. Personally, I'd like a little more exploration, a bit more story, and a little less run for your life.
Comments
I'm sorry you read it that way. I can't speak for RB, but for my part, I'm saying that I personally prefer survival games, I personally prefer games that present a challenge, and I personally prefer games that offer replayability.
And exactly as I've said in (I think) every post I've contributed to this subject, I have no interest in taking away the easy mode from the people who want it. What I want is for extra difficulty levels to be added above the existing one. There's no reason everybody can't have their cake here.
See above.
(Also, totally agreed on more options. The game very much doesn't have enough to do in it.)
All I'm trying to say is that to make a competent game you gotta make the game first. This usually means focusing on the larger problems the game faces before smaller ones. Cannibal attack frequency in a game about surviving attacks from cannibals is a bigger concern than an optional appliance that generates health packs in a survival exploration game, but maybe that's just me. I just don't see the issue with the med kit fabricator. I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend it. Usage of the device is optional. Does its existence somehow make the game less "competent"?
And please don't paraphrase what I say to the point of losing its meaning. The game doesn't have multiplayer, therefore you don't have to worry about balancing another player using something you chose not to, therefore why not choose to avoid using it if you don't want to? I avoid using the seaglide altogether, but I don't think it should be removed from the game just because I don't want it.
Again, it's the devs job to balance and fix a game.
"There's exploits in the game? Just don't use them."
No. You fix your damn game. It is player handholding. That should not be a consistent thing occurring in your game.
Nah, the medkit fab is fine. We just need a higher difficulty that needs that much free healing. (And a higher one than that that needs the healing and doesn't have it, heh.)
Ok, Blaze, we get it. You want the devs to balance things. Other people do not want them to. You've both made your points, now this is just a back - and - forth conversation along the lines of:
You're wrong!
No, You're wrong!
No, You're wrong!
you get the idea. Please, for the love of Larry, the ludicrous leviathan of lamentable loadings, make it stop.
Where is the risk to getting almost anything else in the game where the risk is not superficial, answer me that.
Its like they thought the deeper something is the more risk in reality the deeper something is just means we swim a bit longer to get it, Air isnt even an issue just grab some metals and make a long pipe, there is very little risk involved, its really strange that most of the risk in this game comes early on and then just gets easier, its like the devs gave up.
You don't want the Devs to balance a game?
Balance is a necessity for any polished game with gameplay mechanics.
You finished game yet!?
No, we're still in pre-release...
Talk to me when you finished game!
"It's early access, what do you expect?"
Well, I expect some issues. But I also expect the devs to tell us what exactly they intend to do about fixing the issues, at the very least, and reassure us that our money has bought us something that will actually run well at some point.
"Focusing on larger problems before smaller ones"? I agree.
So why, in the name of all that's holy, do the devs of Subnautica not fix the performance? It's been freaking months of this. Ever since I've owned the game, for about 12 months, pop in and low FPS has been an issue.
And don't say "because it's best to make everything in the world first, then work on performance once it's all done" (which is the total BS argument I've seen thrown around these forums lately, absolute nonsense) because I've supported many, many early access games and performance is usually top priority, at every single step of development. It's the absolute only way to do it, fixing it at every step, because if you wait until you've made everything else, at that point you've created a huge ball of string with thousands of knots you'll never unpick. You have to unpick those knots as they appear, you can't leave it or it becomes impossible to unravel. An unstable mess. And that's exactly what I see happening with Subnautica. I've seen it before, and I'm sure I'll see it again.
As for the whole "Just because it's in the game, it doesn't mean you have to use it"... well sure, but that isn't the point. The whole med-kit fabrication discussion is a microcosm of the larger issue; the game doesn't know it's own identity.
It's fine to say "You don't want to use the fabricator, then don't build it, what's the problem?" but that's missing the entire point. Just because you don't have to do or use something, that doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
It's a bit like saying "we're allowed to own guns in the US of A, but you don't have to own one, so what's the problem?" The problem is that there's still people with guns all over the place, in the society you live in.
And just like there'd still be guns even if you choose to not own one, there's still med-kit fabrication in the game you're playing, even though you don't build one, which annoys certain people because it's one of many things that makes the game really, really easy in their opinion, and those things ruin the experience for them.
If it's a survival game then it should be balanced much, much better. Not just med-kits, but the hunger and thirst, damage, oxygen, inventory space. Pretty much everything is wrong for a survival game.
But if, on the other hand, it's an adventure/exploration game, then it also needs to be balanced much, much better. Don't make us spend freaking hours gathering resources in a boring chore of busywork. Don't make us fight for survival, always keeping our eyes on our thirst and hunger, if we're supposed to be exploring at our leisure.
And before anyone says "why can't it be both?" well, I'll tell you why. Because the two game styles are fundamentally opposed to each other. They don't work well together.
@DaveyNY, you've really got to start thinking about what you're writing before you hit that post button.
It's almost like you have absolutely no idea about what early access actually is as a concept.
There's no point in complaining about a game after it's finished, by then it's too late to do anything about any problems.
It's completely valid to worry about a game (especially when release is supposedly so close) or criticise a game before it's release. Especially if you've paid hard earned money for it and you're supposed to be part of the whole beta testing part of development.
That's the whole point of early access.
The time to "pizz all over it" is NOW, so it's not released as a steaming pile of crap. The time to criticise and complain is NOW, before release, so it's fixed and 1.0 is worth a damn.
I have to say, the fanboying and blind faith exhibited in these forums is sometimes really annoying. People are so irrational and defensive, unwilling to even consider any hint of a suggestion that their beloved game is less than perfect. It's becoming really quite annoying.
If someone dares suggest it has faults, "It's early access, what do you expect?"
It's getting to a point (approaching release, even though it will be delayed, a lot, many times, I'm sure of it) where that statement doesn't hold any water, I'm afraid.
"It's early access, what do you expect?"
We expect better, that's what. And we deserve better, at this stage. This is not early development, this is nearing the end of development. At least that's what we've been lead to believe. Some people are actually still expecting the May release, for crying out loud. And the game is absolutely nowhere anywhere near ready.
The saddest thing about all this blind faith is that it causes more damage than anything else possibly could.
Improvements can only be made once problems are identified, criticised and then fixed.
The end.
Nah man, a lot of games out there have a full dev support beyond v1.0 Gold. And it's not uncommon for a complete redesign for some games either. NS2 had a complete redesign, thought I mentioned it here since it hits close to home
Pre-alpha tends to be more open to this, but post release support, yep lots of example out there
Don't make me clarify, you know exactly what I mean. Obviously it's not too late to fix some issues.
But we're not talking about patches or bug fixes here. Some things can be patched or fixed, but when you're talking about core gameplay elements it needs to be done before 1.0.
I mean, we're talking about something which is fundamental to the game. It's difficulty and it's entire identity is basic, basic stuff. The very foundations of the game.
Right now it feels like it's in limbo, having a serious identity crisis. And that can't be fixed after release.
Anyway, I'm going to bed. I've been awake for about a billion hours working and I'm mad as hell. So sorry if I seem salty, it's because I am salty.
I guess the TL;DR is that I'm concerned that I'm seeing genuinely fair criticisms being shot down more and more, and people defending Subnautica blindly, like religious zealots, and it's damaging.
Like with anything, you have to be able to take criticism and build from it. Make things better. When everyone kisses your arse you'll never realise your faults and never become better.
G'night.
I can play this Alpha-Game 95% of the time just fine with my rig, and I've got no problem with whatever direction the Makers of the Game choose to go with it.
(to get that other 5%, I have to occasionally delete a couple of files... big whoop)
After all, it IS Their Game... and for a reasonably small price (which helps Them out) They are being gracious enough to allow me to experience it, before it is completely finished.
And I have a feeling that there might be a whole bunch of folks out there who would probably agree with me.
We get it, you apparently aren't happy with your purchase at this point, but going whole-hog in and pretty much condemning an unfinished game is kinda-sorta silly.
Perhaps it's time to reevaluate this particular gaming choice and move on.
The entire point of early access is for the players to give feedback on the game while it's being iterated upon. This is not a funding model. We are not donating money to a company. We are paying for beta access. And as beta testers, it is incumbent upon us to tell the devs what does and doesn't work.
I understand that you don't want to be a beta tester, and that's fine. You can reevaluate this particular forum choice and move on. But you need to understand that criticism is not an insult. Feedback is not heresy. The game has problems, and now, while things are still fluid, is the time to talk about them.
I'm not taking one side or another. I just want this madness to stop.
See what I mean? You're confusing legitimate and fair criticism with "going whole-hog" and "condemning an unfinished game". I literally just explained how it's fair to be worried and concerned about the state of the game, and why. Yet you're blinded by your faith.
This is an almost perfect example of "fanboying" and you're not helping, in any way what so ever. Either start helping, or get the hell out of the way.
Like @Wodenifferous has already told you, repeatedly, this is not a funding model. You seem to be under the impression that this is a GoFundMe or IndieGoGo campaign that you've donated to in the hope something might come out of it months later.
It isn't. It's an early access game and we're part of the beta testing.
So get used to having a lot of criticism hurled at the game, even more as release approaches, because that's the whole damned point and that's what happens with early access.
The Dev's have chosen a particular direction for this game to go in.
When you bought the game early on, you had little to no idea what that actual direction would be.
(none of us did)
Now that it is becoming apparent, you don't like it and want them to change direction.
That's called 'Buyers Remorse' and it's a bitch, but it doesn't give you the right to make vailed demands that they should conform to your ideals.
Nor should the rest of us have to agree with your comments or put up with your insults.
Many of us are fine with how the game is turning out.
Also, buying a PRE-RELEASE game on STEAM, is very much a form of IndieGoGo and/or GoFundMe campaigning.
Maybe you should try something new, like reading the words people say.
The game was sold as a survival game. In fact, it's still tagged as survival on Steam. I am one of the many people who like the survival genre and bought this game based on that description. (And the promise of multiplayer, but ha ha never mind on that.)
The game as it exists now is not a survival game. It is to the survival genre as Diablo is to the RPG genre. It has UI elements that suggest the survival genre, but it has no gameplay elements which support the UI's assertion.
So, to review: the game was sold as one thing. I bought it based on that thing. The devs have decided to appease the vocal minority, the people who registered for the forums to come here and complain about the game being too hard, and so now the game is no longer what I, and many other people, bought it for.
I, and others, have been suggesting a simple solution that lets everyone have what they want: add more difficulty levels. For some reason, you, and others, are hilariously upset by that idea, because you seem to be fantasizing that survival players want to steal your walking simulator, despite repeated, explicit statements that the goal is for everybody to have what they want. The goal is for everybody to have what they want. The goal is for everybody to have what they want. Maybe you'll read it if I repeat it enough. You know what the goal is? It's for everybody to have what they want.
To review: the game isn't what I paid money for. It is dramatically different than what I paid money for. I am entitled to be annoyed about that. I am entitled to make suggestions aimed at getting what I have wanted all along while also not pissing in the Cheerios of the people who requested the game become what it is. You are entitled to imagine conspiracies and nightmare scenarios targeting the game you like, but your imaginings have nothing to do with reality.
To review: the goal is for everybody to have what they want.
You assert that early access is a funding model, not a beta test. Then please, explain why this forum exists. Explain why we can give feedback in the game. Explain why Trello cards mention user feedback.
Wow, it sure seems like you're wrong. Or worse, knowingly lying in order to dismiss people's opinions out of hand! But you're a bigger person than that. I know you wouldn't engage in that kind of closed-minded behavior. I know you're just scared and lashing out in fear. But it'll be OK.
Because the goal is for everybody to have what they want.
First and foremost, in my opinion the game should not, NEVER, hide content behind a replay. To be clear: everything the game has to offer should be accessible on the first playthrough.
Secondly, having a fair amount of non-static world would very much help. Maybe not to the point of a fully procedurally generated world, but part of it should be random with each new game.
And last, don't forget about this piece of new High Tech: Options! The game could very much toe brilliantly the line between casual exploration and survival with a story (as some poster put it), and we as player could orient it more with an Option menu.. Yes it cost more to do and maintain, and should not be abused. But it might also help the game succeed, and if done right could reduce headaches for the developers.
Which is exactly why I'm saying that I think that bigger issues like performance should be taking precedence over fine tuning balance.
The current state of balance is not kosher. I agree with that. We need to work on that going forward. Yes. The med kit fabricator is currently overpowered and needs to be toned down. Definitely. Difficulty modes? I love them. What I disagree with is saying that balance is more important than performance and content and should be prioritized before those items. Balance means nothing if the game is unplayable and I am concerned Subnautica is getting too close to that.
Subnautica has an extremely narrow zone between "no difficulty" and "total frustration" for "satisfying challenge" to lie. Right now, it errs on the side of "no difficulty" and that's probably a good thing, I wouldn't trust anyone to get it right with how little the player can do and how rudimentary the AI is. Right now the only thing the Player can do to hostiles is flee. You don't interact with enemies, there's no cat and mouse style gameplay like Alien: Isolation where the player is able to stay close to hostiles and get passed them by sneaking, it's just turn around and run. Unfortunately, outside of a total overhaul of how hostiles behave and player detection, which doesn't appear to be happening, there just isn't a way to add meaningful challenge that isn't outright frustrating. The gameplay just doesn't have the depth.
As for the Warper which others have brought up, it already skates on the edge of more annoying than challenging. The only time players interact with it is when it decides to rip them out of vehicles without warning, and they just swim back to it, get in, and either try to run before the Warper pulls then out again or just wait for it to leave. In another game with combat or stealth mechanics, this might have been a good miniboss design, forcing the player to fight or hide outside of the comfort of vehicles they have grown used to, but here the Warper is just an annoyance that is treated the same as any other creature because "run" is the only move players have.
Firstly, nobody is making demands, they're making suggestions. That's what makes this an Early Access game and NOT a Gofundme.
Secondly, nobody has insulted you, so get a grip and don't try to play the victim.
Thirdly, again, buying a pre-release game on Steam is NOT a funding campaign. It's an early access/beta testing opt in where criticism, advice and even complaints are more than welcome. They are actively encouraged.
Go do some research on the differences, because your ignorance is showing and I simply cannot be bothered to educate you and waste any more time on you, I think you're a lost cause.
Those are good points. It's hard to imagine the devs making creatures more interesting. When I think about what I'd like out of the game, I tend to imagine "more challenge" coming from the survival side of things: more expensive recipes* and more demanding food and water requirements**. Creature attacks on the base would be excellent, but that, along with most other possible creature-based improvements, comes under the heading of "good luck getting that done before 2020."
*: which would require renewable sources of the only three resources actually used in the game: titanium, silver, and quartz.
**: which would require denser, harder to craft sources of food, unless the challenge in hard mode is coming exclusively from having half your inventory taken up by food and water, heh.
Holy cow, is that what the Warper does? I had no idea, I've never been hit by one. You're right, that would be great in a game with either combat or stealth.
I do wish the warper could still TP you out of the prawn / seamoth.
I can't imagine why. You don't have the means to make it go away outside of your vehicles, and you aren't going to leave them wherever you are at. Your only recourse was to get into them again and hope you can get away fast enough before it decides to do it again.
Maybe if it was a projectile attack you could dodge, but just having the Warper do it on a whim without warning is terrible design.
It was a projectile attack if I remember correctly.
When I first got Subnautica in July 2016, I was mesmerized by the game and what was possible in it. When they started adding stuff like the ILZ, Lava Castle, etc I was apprehensive at first about them focusing on 'deeper' progression as opposed to expanding further into the Void.
But after playing the Stable updates and focusing on 'what I want to do' instead of 'OMG this is what they should have done', I've been enjoying how everything is going.
I can't speak for others, but I've been pleased by their direction and how they want the game to be made. I think the devs have been reasonable with requests (the ordeal with longer Fabricator craft times, removing O2 power consumption inside vehicles, making the Seaglide practical again). But ultimately it's their game, and therefore it's their decisions; I'm just glad I get to enjoy a fun gaming experience.
Agreed.
The fundamental problem this conversation is hitting - as has every game that's ever come before it - is that the concept of balance is subjective. These 50 people say the game is balanced, this 50 say it's too easy, and this 50 say it's too hard. This half say that Object A is OP, this half say it's nerfed. It's the same argument that's been had forever.
Hell, look at XCOM. For every person who says that their difficulty scaling is right on the money, there's another who will say Easy is harder than making a diamond out of cat crap. Which one is right? They both are, because difficulty is subjective. It's the exact same as one person saying calculus is impossible while the person next to them breezes through it. Everybody has a different view of what's difficult and at what point, and for every person, their view is correct insofar as their own experience is concerned. Trying to tell someone their point of view is invalid because it conflicts with yours is a never-win scenario.
Point being, there's never going to be a universal consensus on this. Ever. In any game. No amount of conversation, arguing, yelling, or dueling is going to fix that.
Yes, it was. Which was why people who were always on the move usually didn't get hit, while others almost always did (as they were a sitting duck).
You mean... people don't already do this?
More on topic... If it were harder (more killer fish, for example), I'd probably stop playing. As it is, I hate dealing with the Warpers and rarely go anywhere I know they are. Personally, I'd like a little more exploration, a bit more story, and a little less run for your life.