This object is in archive! 

Survial Update and Uranium, We need to talk about it.

Blackbomber shared this feedback 7 months ago
Declined

(Attempt #2 of writing this ticket.)

With the Beta testing of the new survival update has revealed one of the most dumbest decisions since Missile Impulse. We're going to talk about the ore that has become the red headed step child or ugly ducking for Keen in the newest update. We're going to talk about the elephant in the closet, and that is Uranium. With the new survival update has brought the completely ridiculous move to remove Uranium from Planets. And I am here to explain to you why this move is counter productive and foolish, along with what Keen should do instead. If you use Space Engineers official Discord, you can save yourself some time because I've already talked about it there.


So for whatever reason Keen decided to remove uranium from planets, I don't know what triggered this move, perhaps the guys at Keen have been watching too many Uranium-less challenge playthroughts on YouTube and thinks the Majority of the player base hates Nuclear Energy OR maybe Keen is Anti-Nuclear Energy. (I'm not being serious about that second part before you say something) Now then let's begin, there will be five points and lastly followed up by what Keen should do instead.


1. Keen should not be forcing players to use their new power sources

It should sound simple enough, but Keen shouldn't be forcing players to use Solar, Wind, or Hydrogen Engines if the players don't want too. Keen should give people reasons to WANT to use the new power sources, removing uranium is just taking away a more efficient power source and trying to force players to use less efficient power sources. I shouldn't be forced to have to use Solar panels, Wind Turbines or Hydrogen Engines if I don't want to, I already have 72 Solar Panels powering my base so Keen should not be trying to force me to use Solar and Wind. I had already planned on using the Wind Turbines, but I would rather not be forced to use them. A Game company should not be trying to force people to play a certain way, when their Game is a Sandbox game. However I use Nuclear Reactors to power my ships and vehicles, because Solar Power is not practical for ships and especially not for combat built vehicles such as jets or tanks. (Nobody is gonna want to strap Solar Panels to a tank) And I don't think anyone realistically is going to try to build a practical ship with Wind Energy (Not that people wont, but it's not practical)

2. Nuclear Power is more Efficient than Solar, Wind, and Hydrogen Energy.

The title really says it all and I touched on it a little bit in the first point, but Nuclear Power is far more efficient than Solar, Wind, and Hydrogen. Most vehicles and crafts simply can not run on anything but Nuclear Energy, just because Wind, Hydrogen, and Solar just aren't practical for some builds and will not be able to produce enough energy for ships to function. I have a Mining ship and Welder ship for atmospheric use, that run on small Large Nuclear Reactors, simply because Solar panels and batteries can not provide enough energy for them to function. Sure maybe solar power could if you strapped some batteries onto, and then proceeded to wait several days for them to charge enough for you to even use them. Yeah cause everyone wants to wait several days just to use a Mining ship. Obviously you can't power them with Wind Turbines. From what I've heard Hydrogen isn't that efficient, but I've also heard that might be fixed. Still none of these energy sources provide enough energy for them to function. I have a Large small grid rover and the batteries require 5 days just for them to get a full charge with 2 solar panels, now sure I can still use it, but with little battery life. I'm also one of the few players who plays on a 24 hour survival world, so that means half the day I got sunlight and the rest of the day is night time. It pays off to have back up power as well, since you know Solar panels and wind turbines are large targets, and maybe if they get shot up you'd want to have Nuclear Power as a back up several layers beneath ground. So Nuclear Power is more efficient for all of these uses, and it always will be the most efficient energy source.

3. Removing Uranium from Planets just isn't realistic.

Title should explain it all, but I'll make it brief. Uranium forms naturally on Earth so removing it from Planets is simply just not realistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Supplies

We currently have enough Uranium on Earth to last us for 85 years, but by then we should have already switched over to Nuclear Fusion. Assuming best case scenario, where we master Nuclear Fusion and don't try to still rely on inefficient power sources when we have the best one at our disposal. So removing it from planets is completely unrealistic and while Space Engineers isn't trying to be the most realistic game, that has been one of their goals to make SE as realistic as possible while not sacrificing fun. (Which by the way removing Uranium is sacrificing fun)

4. Removing Uranium from planets, makes them useless.

Several people have argued that Planets have no value, other than being a voxel with ores. Kreeg and I have had this discussion on the Space Engineers Discord, and planets have no value right now and by the looks of things this update will make them even more worthless. Well Keen removing Uranium just makes Planets even more useless. If Keen is trying to make planets have more value, then removing Uranium certainly is not a step in the right direction, its more like turning around and stepping on a rake so said rake hits you in the face. Removing Uranium from planets will essentially derive Planets of the most valuable resources they have and make them worthless. Putting Uranium only in Space will only drive people away from planets to Space, because nobody will want to stay on planets, because why should they? All the valuable ores are up in space along with every other ore. So if you want to make Planets even more useless with nobody using them Keen, then I guess this is certainly a step in the right direction. You'll only drive everyone into space including myself.

5. Destroying people's work.

The best way I can describe this is the following: Imagine you're at the top and you have all these amazing creations and cool builds you've made, most of them probably run on Nuclear Power, because we've already went over, it's the most efficient power source (Unless of course you're running mods) So you've got all these great and cool builds and then the Survival update comes along and Keen pushes you off your tower. BAM all of your builds no longer work in Survival, because you've had them running on Nuclear Reactors and when they run out of Uranium, you're forced to go to space or even worse, you literally have to completely rebuild them to try and accommodate Hydrogen, batteries, or Solar panels. Cause that's fun right? Even if you don't rebuild and you follow route 1, you'll be up in space wondering "Why should I even bother staying on planets at all, when Space has everything I need?" So removing Uranium from planets will destroy thousands of builds that people have and make them no longer function without refits or doing constant runs to space (But like we already said, why not just live in space then?) That's a really good way to piss of your playerbase Keen, and if you've ever read the SE Reddit or Steam Reviews, I don't think I need to say more. You really want to throw fuel onto that fire Keen, so it would be smarter to take the following advice instead.


So what should Keen do instead?

Well it's pretty bloody simple: Don't remove Uranium from planets.

Instead Keen should remove Uranium from Space entirely and keep them on planets (Giving planets some actual value) and make Uranium spawns even more rare on planets, but not too rare that players can't find anything. OR alternatively give players the option to toggle whether or not they want uranium to generate when players start up a new world/solar system/scenario while those who do want it to generate on worlds, still make it where its rare to find. That way you make both parties happy and don't piss off/screw over 75% of your players builds including mine.


So Keen please make the right decision and just remove Uranium from space and keep it on planets. Because Keen...

2e5aecabd9a4721d63d02d8eefd0d621

Best Answer
photo

Hello BB. I like most of your fuel ideas and Im glad you are playing on 24h world. However, let's get the negative shit out of the way first.

"With the new survival update has brought the completely ridiculous move to remove Uranium from Planets."

  • The way fuel was in the test is not set in stone. You are talking like the update's already out and this is it.

That isn't the case. We were told by Xoc and Jesse that these things are all subject to change, but you could argue that what community managers say isn't really relevant to this, and I wouldn't disagree. However, remember Aragath both on official stream and on Xoc's afterparty stream. He was taking plenty of suggestions and asking plenty of questions about fuel, and how he is trying to come up with a proper fuel system. One thing is PR guys saying "All is subject to change." another thing is Aragath actively taking feedback and suggestions directly from the community.

  • You are wastefully covering your good suggestion with shitty insults

Whatever change you wish your post to bring, the way you have written the 1st paragraph will only make it more frustrating on the employee who will read through it. It only serves you to vent your emotions (understandably), but at a cost. You can claim a professional reader should stay objective and only listen to the main argument you are making, but you cannot escape your unconcious bias and the last thing I would want to see (as an employee) in upcoming major release tension is more salt. Im not asking you to be welcoming, but to stay neutral at worst.

  • With all that said, lets get to the positives

As you said, planets are useless in the 1st test version. Space gives you large grid at start + easy access to all the ores in 0g environment and there is no reason to go to planets. I think that the root of a problem was "How do we make it so that you can start and play entirely in space?" while at the same time having Space AND Planet worlds. I think to solve this you would need 2 sets of ores for 2 game worlds - Space only and Space+Planets.

  • Space players should have a need to get late game comfort resource on Planets

Getting to top tier space blocks should require Space players to visit planets, mainly for the purposes of engineering a problem around planetary gravity and feeling good, getting a valuable resource that is beyond this obstacle. I would suggest needing to visit atleast 2 planets, or a planet and some moon for exploration of most environments. I had some conversations with Mikeangel about which ores would be good for this: Uranium and Gold. Uranium for unlocking top tier comfortable fuel source and gold for unlocking production of ion thrusters, best refinery modules (yield modules now cost 20 superconductors, which I like a lot) and gravity components - no jumping without conquering planetary gravity first. This would require players to spawn somewhere close to planets (could be randomized for each of the 3 planets or by selection), so that they wouldnt have to fly 6 hours to get there.

  • Planet players should have a need to get late game comfort resource in Space

Getting to space is a great goal for SE and looking up is great for inspiration and motivation especially for new players, because it feels like a worth goal. At the same time, space should offer late game resource too, not just "Pride&Accompishment". Platinum is already a good resource for space-only, because of T3 tools needing it. Safety and 0g mining is another good reward, though there could be some ore that would be well ballanced for space, however I haven't done too much research of what might the next resource be.

  • The fuel problem...

I think the fuel problem is extremely complicated for many different branches of gameplay and should be discussed at length in a forum post or a discord room dedicated specifically only for this problem.

  • Disrupting current player's worlds and blueprints

I feel this a lot. Single hotfix broke my little convoy escort scenario in ways that required me to spend 4 hours just troubleshooting, with people waving torches and pitchforks at my gates to fix it, like I was in debt to them. Im afraid to publish anything slightly complicated, fearing I will have to stay vigilant every hotfix to spend hours just fixing the stuff back to original state. However, both extremes are wrong:

  1. Not updating anything of bigger importance in fear of disrupting player's worlds and blueprints in any way.
  2. Updating major things in such drastic way and so often that it will significantly break worlds and render most blueprints and mods unusable.

From this its obvious the good approach is somewhere between those 2 - upgrading survival significantly at as little cost to players as possible. Since this is a survival update which has been needed for a long time, personally I would let it disrupt my stuff on workshop and worlds much more than other updates, since it has a big potential to make the game better in a significant way.


  • Verdict

I agree with all major arguments you made, but try not to shit on Keen so much, especially when the things are still in testing stage. Upvote is yours.

My experience: 3k hours, most in 1-1-1 vanilla (with stability and skybox mods) survival, creating automated factories.

Comments (31)

photo
2

#uranium_did_nothing_wrong

photo
2

I don't think Uranium needs to be planetside only (though that'd give them reason to exist) but only space is a really counterproductive decision.


If people arent using other options, improve those options. Don't just remove the better one.

photo
2

I been waiting for Keen to do this since planets came out so sorry i can not vote for this.

photo
1

I'd like to see high value ores (like Ur and Pt) available, but deep within planet. I'm thinking how Diamond is in Minecraft. But then, I'd also want to see Ur last longer (Ur burns up very quickly, and it leaves no nuclear waste to deal with in SE).

I had always hoped that Keen was going to add heat into the game -- and that was how they were going to balance nuclear reactors -vs- batteries as power supplies. Also, making nuclear leak heat *and* human life damaging radiation whenever they are damaged (keep them helmet's closed) would make it another risky proposition which would push players to consider batteries a safer alternative, but if you want more power with less weight, but higher risk of radiation, overheating, and explosive, radioactive death, then you go with nuclear and Ur.

The game is changing. I'm okay with that. I'm up for the new challenges. If Ur gets removed from the stock solar system planets, I'm sure it will be modded in soon after, or new planets will be hand crafted which include Ur again.

photo
1

I personally don't disagree with having uranium remove from planet but I guess what would be better, is to have the choice in the world setting to decide what is where, which ore is find in "asteroid / planet / moon", simple selection box grid, so player can actually set they world their way without having to use mod. Have it a default that is "reasonable" in Keen way for those not configuring world setting further. This way player can manage their own challenge as what is where and "create" value for planet and moon and space having to do mining excursion on those to get what they lack.

photo
3

Hello BB. I like most of your fuel ideas and Im glad you are playing on 24h world. However, let's get the negative shit out of the way first.

"With the new survival update has brought the completely ridiculous move to remove Uranium from Planets."

  • The way fuel was in the test is not set in stone. You are talking like the update's already out and this is it.

That isn't the case. We were told by Xoc and Jesse that these things are all subject to change, but you could argue that what community managers say isn't really relevant to this, and I wouldn't disagree. However, remember Aragath both on official stream and on Xoc's afterparty stream. He was taking plenty of suggestions and asking plenty of questions about fuel, and how he is trying to come up with a proper fuel system. One thing is PR guys saying "All is subject to change." another thing is Aragath actively taking feedback and suggestions directly from the community.

  • You are wastefully covering your good suggestion with shitty insults

Whatever change you wish your post to bring, the way you have written the 1st paragraph will only make it more frustrating on the employee who will read through it. It only serves you to vent your emotions (understandably), but at a cost. You can claim a professional reader should stay objective and only listen to the main argument you are making, but you cannot escape your unconcious bias and the last thing I would want to see (as an employee) in upcoming major release tension is more salt. Im not asking you to be welcoming, but to stay neutral at worst.

  • With all that said, lets get to the positives

As you said, planets are useless in the 1st test version. Space gives you large grid at start + easy access to all the ores in 0g environment and there is no reason to go to planets. I think that the root of a problem was "How do we make it so that you can start and play entirely in space?" while at the same time having Space AND Planet worlds. I think to solve this you would need 2 sets of ores for 2 game worlds - Space only and Space+Planets.

  • Space players should have a need to get late game comfort resource on Planets

Getting to top tier space blocks should require Space players to visit planets, mainly for the purposes of engineering a problem around planetary gravity and feeling good, getting a valuable resource that is beyond this obstacle. I would suggest needing to visit atleast 2 planets, or a planet and some moon for exploration of most environments. I had some conversations with Mikeangel about which ores would be good for this: Uranium and Gold. Uranium for unlocking top tier comfortable fuel source and gold for unlocking production of ion thrusters, best refinery modules (yield modules now cost 20 superconductors, which I like a lot) and gravity components - no jumping without conquering planetary gravity first. This would require players to spawn somewhere close to planets (could be randomized for each of the 3 planets or by selection), so that they wouldnt have to fly 6 hours to get there.

  • Planet players should have a need to get late game comfort resource in Space

Getting to space is a great goal for SE and looking up is great for inspiration and motivation especially for new players, because it feels like a worth goal. At the same time, space should offer late game resource too, not just "Pride&Accompishment". Platinum is already a good resource for space-only, because of T3 tools needing it. Safety and 0g mining is another good reward, though there could be some ore that would be well ballanced for space, however I haven't done too much research of what might the next resource be.

  • The fuel problem...

I think the fuel problem is extremely complicated for many different branches of gameplay and should be discussed at length in a forum post or a discord room dedicated specifically only for this problem.

  • Disrupting current player's worlds and blueprints

I feel this a lot. Single hotfix broke my little convoy escort scenario in ways that required me to spend 4 hours just troubleshooting, with people waving torches and pitchforks at my gates to fix it, like I was in debt to them. Im afraid to publish anything slightly complicated, fearing I will have to stay vigilant every hotfix to spend hours just fixing the stuff back to original state. However, both extremes are wrong:

  1. Not updating anything of bigger importance in fear of disrupting player's worlds and blueprints in any way.
  2. Updating major things in such drastic way and so often that it will significantly break worlds and render most blueprints and mods unusable.

From this its obvious the good approach is somewhere between those 2 - upgrading survival significantly at as little cost to players as possible. Since this is a survival update which has been needed for a long time, personally I would let it disrupt my stuff on workshop and worlds much more than other updates, since it has a big potential to make the game better in a significant way.


  • Verdict

I agree with all major arguments you made, but try not to shit on Keen so much, especially when the things are still in testing stage. Upvote is yours.

My experience: 3k hours, most in 1-1-1 vanilla (with stability and skybox mods) survival, creating automated factories.

photo
1

The way I read it, the point of the new survival experience is to say you are an engineer who has the capability to learn, design, and build things in the game, but not start knowing everything. When you first build anything it is crap. Build a table in your garage for the first time, it will have a wobbly leg, uneven stain, and probably have issues being square where it needs to be. In other words inefficient. In order to build things that are more efficient, you need to repeat and adjust your design iterations, just as the developers do. Theoretically, moving Uranium to asteroids makes players have to leave planets and go in search of rich deposits in space. Remember this game is the prodigy of MinerWars. I agree however that it doesn't make sense on a lot of levels. The primary being that most of the materials in SE are Hydrologically based and therefore require a liquid water system that strips an element out of rock and deposits in in high amounts, e.g. rich ores. Really, Earthlike, Mars and maybe Titan should be the only places where Uranium, Gold, Silver, and Platinum should occur. The problem is there aren't enough materials left to be able to start anyplace else. SE would need to add about 10-20 more alternate ore types for that to be doable. So while I agree, on principal, I don't see any viable options that could actually be added at this point.

photo
3

Uranium being only in space will make planet people more inclined to go there, sure, but thats not the issue discussed. Problem is that there are no gameplay/progression incentives for space players to visit planets and overcome the engineering obstacle of gravity to get a reward.

photo
2

Sorry, this wasn't meant to be a reply to Geneticus0. My reply was intended to the topic in general, but I misclicked.

I end up with infinite power immediately after finding the smallest trace of Uranium.

The reason for that is because I use Hydrogen thrusters most of the time, and only Atmospheric and Ion thrusters when I really have to. I write my own script to prevent thrusters from yielding more thrust than necessary, to reduce the amount of hydrogen or power they consume. I only really use 2 refineries, and at most 2 assemblers. I've calculated what combination of modules yield the most in terms of energy and that's: 1 yield + 3 power saver, or 1 speed + 3 power saver.

Due to how zero gravity space acts as a more flexible work environment, and I use the least amount of hydrogen and power in space when building, space is where I prefer to be most of the time. I mean, oxygen should be more of an issue in space, acting as the negative side of being in space, but it's not. Finding Uranium on asteroids is even more game breaking, because it means that I don't have to go anywhere.

The best idea I've yet come across on custom servers is where they only have Fe and Ni on asteroids (and perhaps small traces of Ice on asteroids), and either don't have Uranium in the game at all, or shove Uranium deep underground, preferably on a planet that you don't start on, so you need to dig deep and/or travel to another planet to get it. Some try to add spiders to these planets to make it even more challenging, but the A.I. and animations for spiders (and wolves) are so poorly made that it ends up being a bad experience.

photo
photo
1

The game is still in beta. It's still in active development. That means things can change and be fine tuned. And it's not as though KSH didn't tell you that when you bought the game. I think the phrase they use is "Everything is subject to change". Worst case scenario here is you'll need to build a little hydrogen rocket and get to orbit to mine some uranium. It's not as though your current stock in your saved game is going to go away. It'll be no different than going to space to get platinum.

I also noticed you don't seem to have actually used a hydrogen engine. I flew the new starter ship around for 4 hours in space without refuelling. It can run from either hydrogen tanks or directly from the O2/H2 generator. You should easily be able to power a small grid with them.

Given that you claim to be playing survival, one would think you'd actually want some survival mechanics in the game. Some form of technology progression. Nuclear reactors represent the top of the tech tree for power. Currently "survival mode" is little more than "inconvenient creative mode".

Many players have commented KSH haven't gone far enough with this update. So brace yourself for more disruption to your playing style.

Now while uranium may convent efficiently to power. There's also a limited supply on planets. The further you need to travel to get that uranium, the more it's costing you in time and energy to get it. Which means it provides you with diminishing returns. Sooner or later you will need to get your uranium from space. Will you just stop playing the game if that happens? Wind btw is always available and never runs out. And solar? Never really runs out either.

photo
1

I agree that uranium should not be removed from planets. In fact I believe a use for biomass should be added to the game and of course the easiest place to acquire biomass would be the worlds. I am ok with leaving platinum as a space only resource.

photo
2

One thing is for sure, we Space Engineers players need good reasons to explore (as it's the core vision of the game) and mine/settle/exploit various locations in the game. If one can reasonably build anything just from one or two locations, what's the point? The game badly need to force us to explore other things, boldly go into the unknown and/or the dangerous to get things we need but could not get before.

If that starts with removing some resources from some location, I'm fine with it as long as it's done in a smart way. And yes, maybe doing it the other way around by removing Uranium from space and putting it on planets, maybe some planets, would be a smarter way to do it.

PS: the realism argument falls flat in my opinion, in a game that incredibly small for a solar system, with no escape velocity for a space game, and so on. But, it should take 5 minutes to replace the "Uranium" resource in the game with some rare or even fictitious isotope that will do the exact same thing, and do not offend the verisimilitude sensibilities (which I usually agree with).

photo
2

Hello, Engineer!


Thank you very much for you feedback.


We really appreciate all of the suggestions, ideas, and bug reports we receive from our amazing community, as we truly believe that this feedback combined with our own design philosophies help us to create better games for everyone.


While we can’t always implement all of the ideas we receive, we’d like to let you know that your feedback and passion for Space Engineers hasn’t gone unnoticed.


Kind regards,


The Space Engineers Team

photo
4

You may have won the first Round Keen, but my fight to preserve Uranium isn't over.

photo
3

Cookie cutter response...

photo
photo
3

while im personally ok with the removal of uranium from planets, i think just making it super rare on planets, would have sufficed, to cover all the players, maybe revisit this after we have all had a chance to try the new power generating methods.

photo
2

If you are trying to directly power your rover with solar, you are doing it wrong. Your rover doesn't have 2 solar panels, it has 72. Put batteries on it, charge it with your base's arrays.

photo
1

I am ok with removing uranium from planets, tho i must admit progression without uranium is slow, because we have to charge batteries with wind turbines or hydrogen engines or solar panels. This is a slow process. Also early game PVP on planets isn't possible without uranium. Unless you make a super efficient battery powered fight / gunship. Also we can't use missiles without uranium, so there's that.

I would like for uranium to be really rare on planets. And if possible maybe add encounters where uranium wells are, so we have to fight for this valuable resource. This would be really interesting, like all planets should have 5-7 uranium wells, defended by ai / sprat pirates whatever. This should be a sort of encounter.

photo
1

TBH creating a new ore for warheads (low yieldie: rockets) would be best for survival. I doubt keen will do this, lets hope for a decent modder

photo
photo
1

What would you think about having uranium only on planets but very rare (maybe with only like 1% spots having it) and then adding an ore scanner block that works only in space and shows you ore distribution on the planet? (the way Kerbal Space Program does it) So this way you'd need to reach space to find uranium but land on the planet to mine it.

photo
1

I've already suggested that Uranium should be made more rare, however I doubt Keen would be willing to implement your suggestion.

photo
photo
1

Nah I don't like your Idea, also Nuclear Energy doesn't matter.

photo
1

AlllllALLALALalkfhlkafhjlkafglkjagfkjlasdfkhjljkhlfhjklfdfjkhlsdfkhjldsfafahjkldasfhjksfdahjkdsafahjksfdahjksfdaahjklhuiwiqeifqwcnjkads erufq4wh

photo
1

Hi all. My issue is that I cant create a ship on aplanet capeable of getting off the planet, mining uranium and returning. WTF am I supposed to do? Am I missing something?

photo
1

Discover hydrogen thrusters and build a rocket with them. One large thruster and 2 hydro tanks should be enough to lift even a fairly large ship.

photo
1

I have done Bute i want to create something that can be used as a miner up there

photo
1

Then put some drills on the front. I always build a rocket this way: a large thruster and smaller thrusters in all directions, one hydrogen tank, a refinery, assembler, O2/H2 generator and batteries, a cockpit with a survival kit and then I top it all with 9 drills. It's fairly simple to mine ice to refuel, get platinum and uranium and then get back to the planet (although it may be beneficial to just stay in space).

photo
1

By the logic of the game, the use of uranium should be a progression.

I agree that removing it was radical (could have left quite limited and deep amount).

But skipping hydro technology is not the idea.

Instead, we need the most efficient hydrogen engine (generate more energy for what it already consumes) and without the troublesome internal tank (which only fills if the engine is turned on).

photo
1

i quit SE bc of the new ore system. Waiting for SB to be accessable ^^They finally added economy but ruined everything else (FOR ME!!!)

photo
1

In what way is "everything" ruined? The only real difference in the ore system is uranium is now only available in space. Which is less of a change to the ore system and more of a change to the planet definitions. So unless you're on a public server. This is a feature that is entirely configurable by you if that is what you want. If you'd rather not get into modding planet config files, download a modded planet.

photo
1

I mean the updates since the whole last year. I've reallife and just won't spend half a day to find something valuable in a game :D It's just the boring attempt from keen reducing people from building huge things which would fuck up their poorly optimized servers/netcode.


To be more exact, since this Blitzzz guy joined they stopped to listen to the people and just decline everything. Or mark it as solved while it's the same problem since 3 years which is still not solved. But hey, it slowly get's "finished"

photo