Look how long the game has been around before they gave you a free one? I highly doubt they’re willing to give more. The community vote no on additional fires, yet it’s going to be implemented someway anyways is the issue.
2 Likes
Glad to see the results with a fairly split result will be getting another look later on. Hopefully next time we’ll have a dev server or other form of non-text-based demonstration before having a vote. :)
1 Like
Next time we don’t vote, they’ll make it as fact. It’s already happened.
Hopefully they fade to nothingness since the player-base voted no. Let them go the route of bomber cockpits.
because the vote wasnt fair?
-
stun mechanic lost because many jumped to conclusions of it beung like wot straight away instead of reading the post, with comprehension
-
those that did read it and voted no, most likely did not like the current concept
its not bad to revise a concept my guy, if most dont like the other one too, theyll just stop trying
3 Likes
We will make polls until we get the result we want energy, lol.
This feature is only a matter of time.
1 Like
Just as I’ve said to the other person screaming “But! But! Look at these six people on the subreddit!” That doesn’t speak for the entirety of the player base that voted. And you have no proof that’s the dominate mindset people had when they went to vote besides an outcome you don’t agree with. Absolute shame some people just can’t accept it and be happy that three of the four proposals are coming despite players only voting for two.
1 Like
Or they’ll just ram it down people’s throats like with the “severe damage” mechanic. Because that totally didn’t bring an unnecessary, overly complicated mechanic to the game.
1 Like
I think it’s your turn to read properly. This part of the statement is a direct contradiction to the area you highlighted.
Only the two mechanics with “yes” votes are coming as proposed. The random fire source is not arriving, instead it is now related to expanded modules due to player feedback.
1 Like
So it’s still coming, just in a form no one asked for, that we didn’t vote on, and despite the original proposal getting a “no” result in the first place.
There’s that monkey paw Gaijin loves so much.
The random fire source is not arriving.
Yet
1 Like
I would imagine other people did, I certainly did. I even voted “no” to it with the condition that the fires shouldn’t be random, but at least tied to a module. And I don’t know how much I need to repeat this, but the poll was to gauge interest in said proposal, with a Gaijin employee stating they also look at feedback in the forums when it comes to these polls. What your assumption seems to be is that no feedback is ever considered when, in this instance, it doesn’t seem to be the case.
1 Like
The feedback was “No, we are not interested in the implementation of this proposal”.
Which is being disregarded by saying “we will revisit these later” instead of just dropping it.
1 Like
You are, again, looking at only the yes or no portion and completely ignoring the forum feedback, which was explicitly told that they would be looking at that also. The poll is also not being ignored, the fires proposal is not being implemented as was originally planned. Modules causing fires is sensible considering feedback.
1 Like
they were talking about the system of a fire appearing, not how it looks
1 Like
The contradiction lies in relation to the modules. Before, they said the fires are unrelated to those of fuel tanks and engine fires. Now, it is similar to them as sources of fire, so I have reason to believe it requires FPE. I have already stated I could possibly be wrong about it, so it is mere speculation, but the information that the original proposal is not going to be used adds to my speculation that it will require FPE uses.