Plazek wrote:So if this game is so "market unpleasing" how come it has been so successful.
Devs pandering to marketing is just about the dumbest thing ever. I for one am glad they make the game they want to make instead of what the market tell them to do. If the market was king for these devs this game would not even exist.
Oh wow... don't even know where to begin with this...
1) A successful Kickstarter obviously points to a large interest in this game, something that you may also have alluded to.
2) The Devs don't have to listen to us, that is true. However, you are suggesting they ignore ALL feedback as 'pandering to marketing'. If you had a suggestion, and everyone just shot it down as 'pandering to marketing', what would you think of your comment now? And if you
don't have suggestions, that doesn't mean NO ONE ELSE is allowed to have one.
3) This game exists because of its potential, which was supported by crowd sourcing. If 'the market' (i.e. other players/customers) didn't support it, the game may still come out, but still fail due to lack of support.
What the people here, whom are against feedback/criticism, fail to realize is that games aren't created in a vacuum. Call it 'pandering to marketing' if you will, but I hope the Devs are open-minded to change, as opposed to shunning all criticism, which is an easy way to lose support.
With that said, I like the idea of having 'bad dicerolls' play out as scenarios. Someone mentioned that for the event involving Giant Spiders, have it play out as a boarding action against the station. It would add more gameplay, while using existing mechanics, and if you fail, it's not because of RNG, but because you got your crew killed.
Increases gameplay, personalization of crew/ship, and gives MORE CONTROL TO THE PLAYER
If I wanted to play a game based purely on luck, I would go rock-paper-scissors, or flip a coin.