Yeah, this update pissed me off a bit. Not for the lack of big changes in the patch (I already said more than once that minor hotfixes are all I'm expecting on the long term) but because the official post that accompanied the patch spent most of its length throwing useless factoids at us without even PRETENDING to acknowledge (let alone address) the most recurring points of criticism.
You know aside from a few people this place is nearly an echo chamber and the population is quite small; you have the same 5-6 retards bitching about 5e not being RAW, you have a bunch of people requesting for X or Y class, a bunch of bugs that are probably going to be addressed first, and a handful of QoL.
Even some of the most communicative devs (GGG for example) will not acknowledge what people think are major concerns unless it actually is. They have a ton more data than we do and we have no idea what their internal state is.
At the end of the day we represent a very small portion of the user base and most of the missing content isn't even released so the weight of our feedback is a bit diminished.
It's whatever though, if you want them to listen you'll need to get a nice tidal wave of criticism going and I think their focus is going to be more on the narrative side of things at the end of the day.
All true, what it bothers me tho it's that they incentives us, the "small player base", to report our feedback here in the forum and on steam. If they ask us to do so and then completely ignore our feedback then we should be rightfully pissed off.
I don't demand anything, they are not required to implement all the feedback just because, I'm just asking for them to consider and respond to our concerns (since we paid 60€). Why should we care how many times the dog was petted? It's cute and all but this isn't what updates should be about.
What bothers me is that you - and others! - seem to mistake the fact Larian asks for our feedback for the power to decide. It is one thing to listen and quite another to fully adopt whatever might be suggested. Which, I might add, is contradictory at the best of times. Some people may pretend their point of view is universally shared, but the truth is that we, as a group, tend to disagree with one another. Furthermore, has any of you considered that it might take a bit more time to implement various suggestions IF they are deemed worthwhile? Changes aren't trivial. Quite apart from possible balance concerns, anything that is changed may require new dialogue to be recorded, after said dialogue has been written in the first place, cinematics, plot changes, map changes and the list goes on.
Did you read the part where I say "I don't demand anything, they are not required to implement all the feedback just because"?
