Removal of Chat in Solo Feast Makes the Game Mode Not Fun

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

So then what you're saying, if I'm understanding it right, is that SE is willfully choosing to ignore all the problems it's caused for the one thing it didn't even manage to fix? I know it's not YOU saying it, I'm merely interpreting your interpretation here. I'd like to point out a large part of the frustration here was that SE was completely silent on the matter for the longest time, thus popping up and asking for suggestions was, yet again, further insult to the community. I'd like to also point out that others have actually suggested using quick chat as a light punishment for people that actually do break the rules. That too, was ignored.

However back to my main point. Are you saying that Square Enix feels Quick Chat should be improved, inflexibly overlooking the fact that:

-Players are still toxic, if not more so now because of the frustration at not being able to communicate properly
-Players are using Quick Chat TO be toxic
-The overall gameplay experience has taken a huge nosedive considering many don't know what to do, can't ask, nor can be told
-Deaf players have no effective means of communication at all, considering VoIPs are not an option for them
-Many of the new players attracted by the change now see the issues it's caused - the very same issues we said would happen
-People are starting to send/receive nasty tells to each other after/between matches - Another issue we said might happen
-Playstation 4 players, who are already at a loss for hotbar space are even further burdened by this, and the "improvements" (in the way of additional commands) will only compound the problem

Well? Are you saying SE is intent on pushing this after it's been so thoroughly proven that it's a bigger problem than a solution? Because if so, now we're dealing with a complete lack of understanding of the community, and a failure to listen to good ideas that could have prevented the situation we now have. Look at the forums. So many threads complaining about this (with only a few misguided ones applauding it). How could anyone at this point be foolish enough to continue trying to push and fix something they know was so bad? Yes we're making demands now. The suggestions and feedback went ignored for months. Then again, there was never much discussion to be had on the matter. Simply, "We're going to make this controversially terrible change to the Feast. The end."

Oh right, "Please give us your feedback on the official forums!" There's always that.

[Zojha]

So then what you're saying, if I'm understanding it right, is that SE is willfully choosing to ignore all the problems it's caused for the one thing it didn't even manage to fix?

Basically. Though I wouldn't say they are ignoring it, they simply think it's the lesser of two evils. What transpired to make them think that, I do not know. Why they keep thinking that, I do not know. I'm not an SE employee, I have no insight in their internal situation before nor after. All I know is that what little they have said and done on the matter can only mean this - They heard you, they know what you think, but they think differently and act accordingly. That's all.

As for the suggestions: I read them. In almost all cases, the format was X + Y, with X being "Keep Free Chat" and Y being anything from "Nothing" over "Automated Systems" to "Up your GM staff". The Y was negotiable and varied. The X was not. That's the opposite of SE's apparent position: Restricting Chat is not negotiable, but the rest is. I repeat: They didn't go and say that explicitly. But it's apparent from the fact that they never asked for feedback on that in the first place and their intent to not take it back, but rather improve on quick chat instead, even after hearing all your feedback.

That this results in similar issues as when a socialist and a capitalist argue is not really surprising. What I'm trying to get across is that the conflict in all likelihood is caused by disagreement, not communication issues. And I'm not precluding the possibility that their stance will change. But as of now, in my opinion, that is the status quo, the reasoning for this conclusion being stated above.