Lujo wrote:I'm done with it.
Lujo wrote:more textwall
The Avatar wrote:Kingdom of One's original point (as I understand it) was that it doesn't make sense to have to scum for veto (and locker too, I guess) items to put in slots. This is the classic why do we have to scum/can we have a vault argument. We've had this before and it comes to nothing but angry people. Seeing as no one appears to have changed their beliefs on this topic I fail to see how anything but more angry people can result from an effectively identical discussion.
Veto item slot population is not the same as locker slot limitations. Yes, at the moment they use the same system and yes, we're unlikely to change a system like that right now, but they're not fundamentally the same issue. Locker items are about increasing item value perception in players, everything about that system is designed to do that (including limiting slot numbers and hunting for items). Veto slots are about a perceived lack of gameplay relevance in specific items, unfortunately we don't have enough real stats on people using veto slots to be able to tell if people who do veto items are negatively affected by what that process is like.
A much smaller percentage of players even HAVE veto slots available and for those that do, veto slot churn tends to be related to very specific repeated dungeon attempts at harder dungeons - AND the number of runs that seem to be dedicated to item finding in that case are dwarfed by the number of runs that seem to be scumming for favorable starts and shop items. That makes sense, veto slots are supposed to ease the need for scumming in players that want to actually scum - it appears that they do achieve that, but I can't say for certain if the way players populate those slots is a good or a bad thing because I don't have massive numbers on that yet.
Players just starting out with vetoing do seem to have more locker churn during their item hunting runs and those runs are also longer (by an order of magnitude) than the veteran vetoers' hunting runs, suggesting that they are still playing the game instead of purely scumming.
To be honest, I don't see how pre-demonising us devs and saying that we won't listen when talking about player feedback is a useful strategy at all, that appears to be what Lujo keeps wanting to do to newly verbose players. We want MORE feedback, not the same feedback from the same players. Which is why I pointed out that Lujo's perspective isn't universal, is rather negative/dismissive and simply doesn't have the data that we do... For instance, Lujo's locker churn is far, far lower than the average and at the same time, his locker item usage spread is way below the average as well. We know why that is because he's told us how he feels about items, but that doesn't change the fact that his locker playstyle, even among veterans, isn't normal (nor does it seem to indicate a pattern of play that emerges after players gain experience either, it's an outlier). I'm not dismissing Lujo's feelings, I'm just saying that I can't justify making sweeping changes to the game because of them. Although I do wish he'd be a bit nicer about discussing them.
Does wanting more people's views/experiences and not hearing the same angry points from the same angry people make me inherently angry too? Or am I allowed a certain dose of perspective here?