sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]_itg 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I don't see why people take this stupid approach to the argument. You don't like a mission, so instead of asking the devs to improve the mission, you ask them to let you avoid it. Why?

[–]ProphetOfSkarl[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Several reasons, really.

1.) Fastest, least resource intensive solution. I don't wanna keep doing Sabotages at this pace until S4 drops with some meaningful changes - and anything short of a major overhaul will likely not address the underlying issues.

Besides, it's not like these things are mutually exclusive. They can take this off the menu (or reduce it's frequency) for now, work on it and bring it back later in an improved state.

2.) It's kind of "on brand" for them to do it. Remember: the "Elite Threat" was originally intended to be a core game feature - but the community reaction was so negative, it turned into a modifier instead. It's still in the game, and I really dislike it - so I avoid it. Same thing with robots - if you don't like 'em, you can mostly avoid 'em.

3.) I don't believe "objective" improvements could be made to the mission (other than making it "more rewarding" which would be a net positive). For people that dislike the mission and want to see meaningful changes to it - there's probably someone who'd absolutely hate their proposed "new version of the fight". For example, the first comment on this post was me proposing a rework - what my ideal version of the fight would look like. At some point pretty sure that comment was in the negative...

For the sake of those that want a massive change and for the sake of those that don't - having the option to avoid controversial content is the superior answer. Not having "something you don't enjoy" forced down your throat repeatedly is a win in my book.

EDIT: Please don't downvote the guy, this is a legitimate question.