List of things people don't like [From Reddit thread]

[ElCapitan]

The thing about listening to or soliciting random advice from Redditors is that they're not necessarily game designers. Maybe the devs designed the game in this specific way for a reason. Maybe they tried it longer and found it dragged. Maybe they thought that the project needed to fit within a certain scale and making each game last for days would stretch the mechanics beyond their ability to entertain. Maybe they had the RNG be nicer and realized that the game was easier than they wanted it to be.

Games can't be everything to everyone. If you don't like the way the game is, then you don't like the way the game is. Subset can change it to accommodate you or they can leave it how it is, but changing it is not an imperative and not changing it doesn't mean that they'll never find success.

For what it's worth I like the game how it is. I also liked ME3 exactly the way it was and was vehemently against changing that ending at all.

[Plazek]

I did not say that it sold good and thus is a good game did I? I said it commercial success surely implied that it is not so "market unpleasing" as people are stating.

Nor other guy who quoted me did I say that the game was perfect and that people should not critique it or make suggestions.

All I am doing is supporting the idea that game developers especially indie, niche developers should make the game they want to make. Not simply be a slave to market demands. Mostly as an objection to the ridiculous analogy in the OP.

---

However feel free to lack comprehension, it is not my loss.

[Eyjio]

The one thing I do really really want is a "long" mode added - not even more jumps per sector necessarily, just more sectors, maybe 10-12. Sometimes I lose because it's entirely my fault and I didn't plan properly. However, I find that quite a lot of the time it's uncontrollable factors. A few times it's been because the sectors has generated in a way that doesn't let me go to more than 6 places as the rebels block the connection; others it's been because I've not found weapons that fire enough to penetrate 4 layers of shield; infrequently it's also been the game giving me no crew events or stores. One particularly sad time was against a Mantis pirate in a Nebula. The random event was that they'd killed my oxygen, so when they boarded my engines all I could do was hope my 4 crew could kill them. I managed to beat the enemy ship but I couldn't jump away as I had no engines and my 3 remaining crew on half health hiding in the medical bay. Eventually I just let them step outside and die. There's nothing you can do to stop an attack like that if it happens too early in the game - if you haven't got level 2 oxygen and don't have enough crew to survive boarding, if that event occurs then you will almost certainly die. So yeah, I'd love to see a long mode, which could mitigate games where you just can't harm the final boss despite being practically invincible against normal ships.

Otherwise, I'd like to see the power surge toned down as, barring being very lucky or having cloak, it is almost always where I die now. It's particularly a problem on the federation cruiser which can't get cloak - even on Easy with 4 shields and 6 engine power I lost as if you lose your shields the beam drones never miss and usually create fires. I dunno, maybe I'm missing some tactic to stop them but it's annoying to lose otherwise perfect runs because you can't withstand 10 drones, 3 missiles, 3 heavy lasers and a beam.

[velz]

I did not say that it sold good and thus is a good game did I? I said it commercial success surely implied that it is not so "market unpleasing" as people are stating.

Nor other guy who quoted me did I say that the game was perfect and that people should not critique it or make suggestions.

All I am doing is supporting the idea that game developers especially indie, niche developers should make the game they want to make. Not simply be a slave to market demands. Mostly as an objection to the ridiculous analogy in the OP.

---

However feel free to lack comprehension, it is not my loss.

The game they wanted to make is made. It's now released to the masses. The masses give feedback. Games have the ability to be reshaped with patching. A developer can't possibly know everything about what the niche groups of people who will buy their game wants from a game beforehand. Disregarding what these players then say about what would make the game better and possibly even open up the game to more players is silly, especially with products that can be relatively easily remolded like games through patches. Hell practically every manufacturer of any product gets consumer feedback to help shape the next iterations of their products because they understand that to make something a success more people have to enjoy it vs less people. It's only common sense, good sir. At least Justin posted that they are listening to feedback and are open to decisions which shows me that they are on the right path to success.

[ElCapitan]

I did not say that it sold good and thus is a good game did I? I said it commercial success surely implied that it is not so "market unpleasing" as people are stating.

Nor other guy who quoted me did I say that the game was perfect and that people should not critique it or make suggestions.

All I am doing is supporting the idea that game developers especially indie, niche developers should make the game they want to make. Not simply be a slave to market demands. Mostly as an objection to the ridiculous analogy in the OP.

---

However feel free to lack comprehension, it is not my loss.

The game they wanted to make is made. It's now released to the masses. The masses give feedback. Games have the ability to be reshaped with patching. A developer can't possibly know everything about what the niche groups of people who will buy their game wants from a game beforehand. Disregarding what these players then say about what would make the game better and possibly even open up the game to more players is silly, especially with products that can be relatively easily remolded like games through patches. Hell practically every manufacturer of any product gets consumer feedback to help shape the next iterations of their products because they understand that to make something a success more people have to enjoy it vs less people. It's only common sense, good sir. At least Justin posted that they are listening to feedback and are open to decisions which shows me that they are on the right path to success.

I guess the important thing is that they're listening and they might change stuff, but the other important thing is that they are neither obligated nor is it stupid to not do exactly what people suggest.

The problem remains that just because people think it's a good idea to do x or y doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. Maybe it makes the game suck. Maybe they'll change it and a bigger crowd who's not complaining about the way the game already is will find the game unplayable and it will screw them out of more sales.

Everyone's an armchair developer/writer/director nowadays. Not everyone should be an actual developer nor should they make decisions about game mechanics.

[PhilBlunt]

Just add a few more jumps in each sector before the rebel fleet arrives.
Currently it is 5(?) jumps. Bump that up to 10 (arbitrary number) and you got more time to explore, get more chances to negate the randomness and don't feel as rushed. Perhaps even tie it to the difficulty. Easy 10 jumps and normal 5 jumps.

I believe I have seen a mods that customize when the rebel fleet starts, or stop them from one turn up to forever when you battle them and win.

[Cooper42]

In OPs post: Idiot redditors judging a game by what they want it to be, not what it is.

I would -like- the FTL mechanics in an open ended, sandbox, explorable world. But that's a different game. Don't judge and dismiss FTL based upon some imagined game that exists only in your fevered dreams.

[NoPantsBaby]

In OPs post: Idiot redditors judging a game by what they want it to be, not what it is.

I would -like- the FTL mechanics in an open ended, sandbox, explorable world. But that's a different game. Don't judge and dismiss FTL based upon some imagined game that exists only in your fevered dreams.

Well they didn't do that did they?

"Stupid FTL fanboy dismissing any criticism of his favourite game"

See it's not really that useful for anyone to make such an argument. Whilst FTL is a good game it has severe issues. Mainly that it is just a bit TOO random. That there is a lack of content. That certain combinations of weapons are overpowered (2 ion cannons and a heavy laser? Overkill). That it's a roguelike, with a timer, which sort of goes against the roguelike. We have 8 crew members... with only 4 stations. So balancing doesn't really come into play except for in the beginning.

So there are good points here that I myself also agree with. The game is fine as is, but it won't enter my top 10 any time soon.

[beef42]

I hate to be a netpick, but I remind you that every roguelike worth its salt has a timer, in the form of a hunger countdown, that continually pushes you deeper lest you run out of food and starve.

This game has the chasing rebels, a much more dramatic if slightly gimped mechanic. I'd like it if they just straight-up killed you if you were caught by them.

[mattimao]

I agree.
The game has serious problems, all of those have been mentioned.
Until it gets fixed, it will be a sideline game for me.
I have other better designed games to play.
I will keep an eye on the forums and rejoice if a patch fixes this game.