Why did this thread about a hitman gamemode devolve into an argument about whether someone should pay for a steak if it wasn’t cooked to their liking. Ignoring the fact that someone not paying a hitman because they didn’t assassinate someone in a particular way id ludicrous, why are we still debating it?
You’ve already said you don’t agree with it, so what is the point in trying to justify it using logic that you’ve imposed on IOI, when the answer could be as simple as them trying to reward gameplay, and not realizing that people would also want base pay alongside that. Devs make mistakes and oversights all the time, not everything has deeper intentions.
You’re thinking of the Chameleon ET where it has to be an accident as part of the contract, whereas it’s actually the Collector, where you get a bonus and a five star rating if you steal the painting, even though you don’t have to.
You’re thinking of A Gilded Cage, where the client wants the targets killed before the coup takes place, otherwise there’s no point to the contract, when it’s really more like the Author, where the viral weapon can change hands before the targets are killed, and you can still complete the contract correctly.
You’re confusing optional objectives with strict stipulations to the contracts. Why would 47 and Diana even accept such work if they weren’t going to get paid if they couldn’t fulfill the objectives? They would be requirements, not optional objectives. That’s why IOI needs to make the layout from those objectives bonuses, and establish a base pay regardless of what objectives are completed or failed. Better yet, make it so that you have to select the optional objectives from your safehouse, just like the prestige objectives, rather than make them inherent to the missions to begin with.
They don’t need to do anything. They’ve made the mode what they wanted it to be, they’ve said that this is what the mode will be - it is actually you that needs to do something: decide if you can get over it and play the mode regardless, or not play it.
No matter what your thoughts are on the matter, that is the true situation you are in. Everything else you’ve been discussing for weeks has actually been completely pointless because you’re not even talking about it with anyone that could even make a change to it.
Talk to the electrocution phone, the molotov, and the way Arcade mode adds complications, then get back to me. Until then, you’ll just have to cope with my comments.
Sounds like someone isn’t paying attention to the fact that I am not the only one with these complaints. This is stuff brought up, not just by people on this forum, but by actual published reviewers who brought up these concerns during the CTT. The general gaming public who gets in on Freelancer is going to encounter these issues and IOI is going to receive tickets and complaints about it, irrespective of anything said here. My complaints are a preview of what is to come; IOI moving on them would not be about me, but heading off controversy and criticism that is coming their way.
For someone that hasn’t even played the damn mode, not even on the CTT, you seem to think you know so much. The reality is that yes this will happen occasionally, but very rarely. I’ve played through entire campaigns and not had it happen once during that campaign.
You think that it is a way bigger deal than it is. The reality is that it is actually quite a rare occurrence that isn’t going to cause a massive outrage like you think. It will cause a minor annoyance at most, but people aren’t going to be flooding IO with complaints.
Dude, you’re talking about last week’s argument. We’re not even on that now; we’re talking about there not being a base pay to a contract in Freelancer and that the payout is tied to the optional objectives, which will happen every time because that’s literally how it’s been made.
And yes, IOI is going to get more complaints about all the things we’ve talked about here than you think. Maybe not at first, during the novelty months. But once they’ve gotten used to how it works, and have come up against conflicting objectives enough times and get aggravated that they managed to get full completion on every other contract in the campaign except this last one because the damn game put two conflicting objectives together, and that that means lower pay because the base pay isn’t there, when that happens enough times, yeah, people are going to be asking IOI if they can do something about it. IOI already know about this and just can’t do anything about it before launch and want to wait and see what people say during this first quarter or so. But there’s gonna be more about this brought up.
And again, dude, why are you even responding to me? Didn’t you block me?
I fundamentally disagree with most things @Heisenberg says, but providing feedback is a very reasonable and expected thing from most games that wants to please their community. Telling someone to suck it up or ignore it is not a healthy mentality to have, irrespective of gaming.
There’s a difference between providing feedback and acting like a demanding brat that doesn’t like to be told no and going on and on about the same thing, saying the exact same thing for weeks/months on end.
I agree that he is being very abrasive, entitled, and close-minded a majority of the time, but feedback is feedback as far as I’m confirmed, especially if it’s coming from someone this passionate about the issue. He wouldn’t be rattling all day about it if he didn’t care, so clearly it’s an important issue.
Ya and I am in agreement that a base pay should be part of it to make better gameplay. I’m just playing devils advocate and speaking through the other perspective. Not just mine (or ours).
So I think perhaps you got confused with what I said. No big deal.
