Development Philosophy and Community Servers

[Septipheran]

I want to start this post by saying how incredibly appreciative I am of the Homecoming team for their amazing efforts here. I've been here since the day Torchbearer went up, and I've played just about every day since. It's an absolute pleasure to be able to play the game again, particularly with such a large portion of the community intact. 

 

I guess the reason that I wanted to start this thread is to get a little clarity on the development philosophy. One of the biggest draws to City of Heroes for a lot of players is the sense of nostalgia. Many of us couldn't wait to get back on our Super Strength guys and go to town, and boy did we ever. I think it's very noble that the Homecoming team has stated clearly that the plan is for this to be a non-profit, community run server. I think that's an absolutely fantastic approach to follow, and one that I've happily donated to support multiple times. 

 

The issue that I'm seeing here is that some of the development efforts don't always seem to be aligned with that goal, and I'd like to share some examples of what exactly I mean by that. I'm willing to bet that if a community poll were taken on whether we'd like the bug (which persisted throughout the majority of the retail game) with Super Strength's rage crash being ignored when double-stacked, the vast majority of the community would've voted for it to be left alone. Similarly, I'm struggling to understand why another pure support set is being developed. We are already very limited in our options of viable end game support sets- It's pretty much Cold Domination or Radiation 90% of the time. Without a meaningful combination of -regen and -res, any new support set is ultimately going to be meaningless to the majority of endgame players. I would hate to see efforts of the development team go to waste, as I'm sure we would all love to have some viable new powersets to min/max and be able to enjoy past level 50. 

 

I think something that might be helpful is to move to a voting system of, "Hey guys, this is a community server. You're running the show. Do you want us to alter Super Strength? Do you want a new pure support set?" I know that we are given ample opportunity to provide feedback to changes on beta, but I think there's a real possibility that many of us don't engage in those conversations because we're not interested in what is being presented. I think there's a real possibility that many of us simply want to play City of Heroes. We don't want to have to worry about shelving alts because they got hit with the nerf hammer. 

 

I think this is a good opportunity to start a community dialogue about how you'd like to see development approached as members of the community, and I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts. 

[drbuzzard]

In terms of the new support set which you're questioning, I rather imagine one of the devs thought it would be a neat idea and pursued it. It's all well and good to say the community should make the decisions, but the community isn't writing the code. Ultimately it will come down to the people who do the work (voluntarily, keep in mind) doing the stuff which they have a desire to do. 

 

As for the issue with super strength, they inherited the code with the bug fixed as I understand it. An effort was made to fix the set during the tanker revisions, but there was so much tumult with no agreement, that they bailed on the effort and decided to come back to it, just getting the tanker revisions done separately. 

[Lines]

I think a lot of MMOs have gone south because they listened too much to what the players wanted.

[Apparition]

Design by committee either goes nowhere, or the end result is terrible for everyone.  Asking for and listening to feedback is great, but at the end executive decisions need to be made. 

[ScarySai]

5 minutes ago, Lines said:

I think a lot of MMOs have gone south because they listened too much to what the players wanted.

Can't speak for many others, but WoW is currently going downhill for exactly the opposite reason.

 

@ApparitionListening to every bit of feedback would be bad, I saw a handful of awful suggestions in the dark melee forum - but the deciding voice should be informed enough to sift through the garbage and understand the data being presented.

Edited March 4, 2020 by ScarySai

[Sif]

14 minutes ago, Septipheran said:

Without a meaningful combination of -regen and -res, any new support set is ultimately going to be meaningless to the majority of endgame players. I would hate to see efforts of the development team go to waste, as I'm sure we would all love to have some viable new powersets to min/max and be able to enjoy past level 50. 

IMO, instead of focusing on min/maxing anything new for the current endgame meta, it would be better to work on fixing the current endgame meta to not be "only X and Y matter, forget the rest of the game"

 

Also, a lot (if like live, the vast majority) of the playerbase doesn't spend much time on the endgame, so solely focusing on that is ignoring the rest of the playerbase.

16 minutes ago, Septipheran said:

I think something that might be helpful is to move to a voting system

Voting systems for steering the development of projects is a pretty horrible paradigm IME. Even worse for volunteer projects (massive burnout!).

 

End users/customers tend to be very short sided and lack a grasp of the big picture when it comes to projects, it quickly becomes a train-wreck that spirals out of control, as what they say they want is, in fact, not what they want. Add to that massive ADD as priorities will be constantly shifting around depending on who's currently being loudest on the forum (also, not all the players are active on the forum).

[Koopak]

I agree that a vote is a terrible idea.

On the surface it seems great, but using old school runescape as an example, multiple times a change was suggested, the community voted for it, a few people in the community claimed it would crash the game economy horribly or otherwise fuckup the game. The change was made, those few souls were correct, but it was to late.

Let the guys developing the game develop, and just provide feedback.

[Doomrider]

I know road-maps are a big ask from a volunteer dev team, but maybe some kind of regular polling to gauge interest for new development ideas or projects (new powersets, types of content, new or tweaked mechanics or systems) might not be such a bad idea.  Obviously the devs don't have to 100% adhere to community feedback and I don't think they necessarily should, but giving the active community here a way to vote on ideas wouldn't be a bad way to gauge popularity of said ideas before they hit the test server.

In regards to Shock Ther-- errr Electrical Affinity? I know if that was on a list of proposed development projects in a poll, it probably wouldn't have received my vote. Not because i'm judging the efforts already put into it now obviously, I just don't see the mechanics behind electrical sets as something worthwhile to build upon. There are some issues with end drain mechanics in general that are arguably much less useful than the vast number of other support offerings. I think it would be have been more imperative to take a look at end drain before building another electrical power set.

[Ironblade]

20 minutes ago, Septipheran said:

Similarly, I'm struggling to understand why another pure support set is being developed. We are already very limited in our options of viable end game support sets- It's pretty much Cold Domination or Radiation 90% of the time. Without a meaningful combination of -regen and -res, any new support set is ultimately going to be meaningless to the majority of endgame players.

You say that the viable support sets are limited and that only two are common in endgame content, yet the recent stats post shows that Empathy is BY FAR the most popular defender primary.  Radiation is 3rd and Cold Domination is TENTH.  I think the community disagrees with your analysis.  Yes, I recognize that those stats are not specifically level 50 or incarnate builds, but I still think those numbers are very telling.

 

20 minutes ago, Septipheran said:

I think something that might be helpful is to move to a voting system of, "Hey guys, this is a community server. You're running the show. Do you want us to alter Super Strength? Do you want a new pure support set?"

I strongly oppose this idea.  Management by committee is generally an absolute train wreck in any context, game development included.

 

We have suggestions threads - sometimes initiated by the devs to get our input.

Also, we have the beta server to evaluate new content and provide feedback.

These things work.  Letting the inmates run the asylum is a horrible idea.

 

 

 

 

[ScarySai]

9 minutes ago, Sif said:

it would be better to work on fixing the current endgame meta to not be "only X and Y matter, forget the rest of the game"

This would be a hard undertaking unless massive nerf-waves happened across the board, I for one don't care to see another Jack Emmert era for this game.

 

9 minutes ago, Sif said:

End users/customers tend to be very short sided and lack a grasp of the big picture when it comes to projects, it quickly becomes a train-wreck that spirals out of control, as what they say they want is, in fact, not what they want

I half agree - clients typically have no idea what they want in my industry and likewise, the majority of players aren't as well informed as some of us with how the game works, calculations, coding required and such - a voting system would have to be very carefully considered and more carefully implemented. 

 

Still, the call for transparency is something I agree with in the OP. A lot of decisions ranging from fantastic to questionablehave been made and I'd like some insight on how the developers are approaching this problem, so that I may offer feedback in a more...'digestible' way.

Edited March 4, 2020 by ScarySai

[OldestOne]

The servers belong to the Homecoming Team, it is their decision what happens on it.

[Doomrider]

3 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

This would be a hard undertaking unless massive nerf-waves happened across the board, I for one don't care to see another Jack Emmert era for this game.

 

Eh, not necessarily. It depends how they go about it. We have many sets that are under performing and in need of attention. They *could* start there...

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Doomrider

[ScarySai]

Just now, Doomrider said:

Eh, not necessarily. It depends how they go about it. We have many sets that are under performing and in need of attention.

I agree, it entirely depends on how they do it - but that's part of the problem, we have no idea how they would want to do it.

 

If it was making under-performers stronger, great.

 

If it was to hit top performers so that under-performers could be competitive, that's a bad call.

[Septipheran]

21 minutes ago, Sif said:

Also, a lot (if like live, the vast majority) of the playerbase doesn't spend much time on the endgame, so solely focusing on that is ignoring the rest of the playerbase.

Voting systems for steering the development of projects is a pretty horrible paradigm IME. Even worse for volunteer projects (massive burnout!).

 

Sif, what I was alluding to is that there is already an abundance of "RP" and "Concept" support sets, while there are only a couple that are viable for high-end gameplay. I'm not at all suggesting that we remove Sonic Resonance for instance, just that those of us who value performance should maybe have more than a couple of viable endgame options.

 

I'm seeing that people don't seem to like the voting idea, so maybe it could still have a place for contentious things like, "Should we touch Super Strength, one of the most popular sets in the game?" In general though, it would probably be in everyone's best interests to simply follow the cottage rule. Buff under performing things up, don't nerf the sets that people actually enjoy.

 

This is an old game, so we probably shouldn't be looking at it through the lens of typical MMO development. This MMO is already developed, and has been for some time. I'm all for adding new things, particularly ones that have a place in the current meta. But nerfing stuff that people like seems like a good way to alienate a portion of the playerbase. I don't want to see the community dwindle.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Septipheran

[Shred Monkey]

5 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

I half agree - clients typically have no idea what they want in my industry and likewise, the majority of players aren't as well informed as some of us with how the game works, calculations, coding required and such - a voting system would have to be very carefully considered.

The fundamental flaw with democracy is that the majority is dumb. 

[Septipheran]

15 minutes ago, Sif said:

IMO, instead of focusing on min/maxing anything new for the current endgame meta, it would be better to work on fixing the current endgame meta to not be "only X and Y matter, forget the rest of the game"

What you're asking for is for the way the game works to be fundamentally changed. So basically, you've taken the exact opposite stance as me. We're probably not going to get anywhere (at least constructively) so I'll just agree to disagree. 🙂

Edited March 4, 2020 by Septipheran

[ScarySai]

Just now, Shred Monkey said:

The fundamental flaw with democracy is that the majority is dumb. 

It could work if it wasn't so much "community gets final say" so much as what to prioritize.

 

Say the HC team wants to work on a bunch of things, but can only reasonably work on two. The community vote could let HC know what to prioritize.

 

 

[Doomrider]

42 minutes ago, Septipheran said:

 

I think something that might be helpful is to move to a voting system of, "Hey guys, this is a community server. You're running the show. Do you want us to alter Super Strength? Do you want a new pure support set?" I know that we are given ample opportunity to provide feedback to changes on beta, but I think there's a real possibility that many of us don't engage in those conversations because we're not interested in what is being presented.

 

A voting system to gauge interest for sure. What the devs do with  the results (if anything) is going to be hard to know.

The last bit about not being interested in what is being presented I can definitely relate to with this beta cycle. I realize that's always gonna happen, you're not going to like everything they push out but even if a set was being offered that I was not particularly interested in playing myself, I could see testing it cause I enjoy testing. I would have liked to have tested the Dark Melee changes but those got shelved rather quickly IMO and with really not a lot of consultation from those in the feedback channel at that time of shelving which I believe did have some rather sour reactions. 
 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Doomrider

[Yomo Kimyata]

I think, in general, I am grateful for what the devs have done, and that we have a stable server with a large user base.

 

Personally, I’d be fine if there were never any changes in content or sets.  I’m a prolific alter, but I’m nowhere near having played every set or every mission.

 

As for new sets, I’d much rather see a cool concept than power creep that takes all the best parts of other sets.  The skill level it takes to succeed with the worst combinations is so low, that a new overpowered set is to me a ludicrous idea.

 

as far as player input, I appreciate that they listen to us, but there is no way I’d sign off on letting the lunatics run the asylum!  If you want that much input, launch your own server and run it how you want!  I’m supportive of whatever HC does and if that changes I’ll go somewhere else or launch my own server.

[ScarySai]

1 minute ago, Doomrider said:

I would have liked to have tested the Dark Melee changes but those got shelved rather quickly IMO and with really not a lot of consultation from those in the feedback channel at that time of shelving which I believe did have some rather sour reactions. 

Preach.

[Sif]

Just now, Doomrider said:

A voting system to gauge interest for sure. What the devs do with  the results (if anything) is going to be hard to know.

And if the devs don't blindly follow what the votes say, there will be rioting. Regardless of any disclaimers made.

 

There's nothing worse than the people get something for free, and feel that you owe them for you giving them something for free.

 

2 minutes ago, Doomrider said:

I would have liked to have tested the Dark Melee changes but those got shelved rather quickly IMO and with really not a lot of consultation from those in the feedback channel at that time of shelving which I believe did have some rather sour reactions. 

Part was shelved because they were intended to be a quick fix, but instead ended up dominating time and discussion (just look at thread sizes). Scaling back to do what they could in the available time was a wise decision, which people voting would have tried to overrule and foam at the mouth assuming they were dictator and could decree that volunteers had to do whatever they wanted.

 

This is why most MMOs try to keep the player base as far removed from testing as they can, because they know people don't understand development nor planning.

[Doomrider]

Just now, Sif said:

And if the devs don't blindly follow what the votes say, there will be rioting. Regardless of any disclaimers made.

 

There's nothing worse than the people get something for free, and feel that you owe them for you giving them something for free.

 

Part was shelved because they were intended to be a quick fix, but instead ended up dominating time and discussion (just look at thread sizes). Scaling back to do what they could in the available time was a wise decision, which people voting would have tried to overrule and foam at the mouth assuming they were dictator and could decree that volunteers had to do whatever they wanted.

 

This is why most MMOs try to keep the player base as far removed from testing as they can, because they know people don't understand development nor planning.

Everyday I open the forums and everyday I have this unrealistic expectation that maybe, just maybe... we'll see less hyperbolic responses to discussions and more nuanced engagement... today is not that day though. I've got hoop dreams I suppose.

 

[Septipheran]

2 minutes ago, Sif said:

There's nothing worse than the people get something for free, and feel that you owe them for you giving them something for free.

 

 

This is just a little bit disingenuous, and it could be that you're only speaking on your own behalf. If so, that's fine and feel free to ignore me. But I know that myself and others in my SG donate every time the window goes up and if we don't, it's because we missed the window. The servers are funded by the players, ie: us. If it's free for you, great. But it is not free.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Septipheran

[Dynastyjay]

17 minutes ago, OldestOne said:

The servers belong to the Homecoming Team, it is their decision what happens on it.

Ignorant? Naive? I’m having a hard time deciding where this comment falls. If that was the case, why in the hell is the community donating every month to help cover the costs of keeping the servers up. You’re essentially saying despite the community playing such a large role in keeping the game alive, they should just shut their mouths and take what the HC team puts out. That’s flat out stupid. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Dynastyjay

[ScarySai]

Just now, Sif said:

And if the devs don't blindly follow what the votes say, there will be rioting. Regardless of any disclaimers made.

 

There's nothing worse than the people get something for free, and feel that you owe them for you giving them something for free.

/eyeroll

 

A lot of pretentious assumptions, here.

 

1 minute ago, Sif said:

Part was shelved because they were intended to be a quick fix, but instead ended up dominating time and discussion (just look at thread sizes). Scaling back to do what they could in the available time was a wise decision, which people voting would have tried to overrule and foam at the mouth assuming they were dictator and could decree that volunteers had to do whatever they wanted.

It was a quick fix, but the issue was vastly overcomplicated for whatever reason. The first round of changes was fine as it was, but if they had to nerf it, they could have scaled back the damage instead of two highly I'll advised reworks.