Gepanzerberg wrote:As far as I'm aware, you haven't given any concrete suggestions besides "the way this game works is inherently flawed". This isn't a building, where having the wrong base can ruin it. This is a video game, where fun is subjective. Everyone on this website has their own way of having fun within the bounds of the parameters and rules. There's a difference between saying "here are some suggestions to improve fun" and "scrap everything and listen to how I want everyone to have fun". That's the purpose of them listening to criticism: so they can improve the game, not remake it to suit your whims.
I analyzed my observations and made a few very precise points what I think is wrong with it and why exactly. I actually also stated clearly how I would handle the stat changes, you obviously just didn't read it right, which is something I recommend that you do in the future before you make false allegations. No big deal, just saying. Anyway, even if I hadn't done that, it's absolutely legitimate to criticize something without giving an alternative solution. If my neighbour wants to propel a handcart with new year's eve rockets to get to the moon, I'll also tell him that this is a rather bad idea without having to tell him an alternative way to get to the moon. And I could give you a million more examples of that kind. Forget what they told you about "constructive criticism", it's a concept made up by people who actually want to immunize themselves against criticism or force people to be not adequately hard on them. If you have a solid point of criticism, make that point.
By the way, what do you even want me to do, present an alternative model of the entire game? I know roughly how I would do it, but if people don't even get my substantial point but instead throw red herrings, I see no point in presenting it. Why would I cast pearls before swine?