Development Philosophy and Community Servers

[ScarySai]

7 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:

To use your words, Feedback and Deserved Backlash are two very different things, combined with the Jack hate and the thought that the community fixed the game, does show some pretty aggressive dev hate to me.

 

Just sayiin'.

 

Negative feedback in response to a decision is the backlash I refer to. Both times, the issue was overcomplicated and dropped unceremoniously, which made many testers feel kind of cheated as the set would be shelved for an undetermined amount of time.

 

Jack was a clown, that does not mean I think all devs are clowns. What's your point?

 

The dev team worked with the playerbase to learn things they didn't even know at the time.

 

That's not dev hate, those are just the facts. Dev hate would be if we got personal with our feedback, rather than tackle the changes on their own merits.

 

Being hyperbolic and disingenuous doesn't do you any favors.

Edited March 4, 2020 by ScarySai
Spelling

[Septipheran]

26 minutes ago, The Philotic Knight said:

@Septipheran we DO have the ability to provide feedback. Here:

 

What we DON'T have is the ability to demand that we be obeyed. Even though we provide funds to the HC team, in the end, it's their servers, it IS their world. We're just lucky enough to be able to play on it. They could just as easily downscale the servers and run it the same way other community servers are run - with a much smaller fanbase, and pay for it themselves. They are big, because the majority of players, agree with what they are doing. The moment that's no longer true, you'll see player numbers dip substantially, and the monthly request for donations NOT be met within three hours of the request being made.

 

Actions speak louder than words. The HC team have shown that they are open to listening to player feedback, but the calls are ultimately theirs to make. They've shown this with their actions, accepting some feedback and not accepting others. And we've shown that we support this status quo, by our money and our time - our time on these forums, on Discord, and in-game.

 

If you don't like the status quo, you're free to speak your mind about it. However, I doubt that much will be changed from one person raising a ruckus. Those kinds of changes generally happen from a LOT of people raising a ruckus.

I feel like there has been an excessive amount of building up and knocking down straw men here, which is unfortunate. Please don't attribute positions to me that I didn't take, it's not really fair.

 

I never demanded anything. I started a thread to point out that it might be in the best interests of the community to a.) buff up, don't nerf down and b.) develop new sets that will be viable past level 50 for endgame players (rather than continuing to make new sets that are not going to perform to an adequate level. ) I didn't start this thread to 'make a ruckus,' I started it to give some players an opportunity to express a concern that I know is a pretty common one. 

 

I also want to address another mix up I keep seeing- Viability is not the same thing as popularity. This could easily become a rabbit hole-like situation that I'd like to avoid. Just because Empathy is popular at level 50, doesn't mean it's powerful at level 50. Obviously, the game has a decent amount of RP'ers and people who aren't concerned about performance as much as theme. That's perfectly fine, and again, I'm not advocating that we remove Empathy or Sonic Resonance. I'm simply saying that it would be nice if new support sets being developed had the propensity to be powerful options, so I don't have to keep rolling /Cold or /Rad every time I want to play top tier support.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Septipheran

[Dynastyjay]

5 minutes ago, Burnt Toast said:

They are already very transparent. Not sure why you think they aren't. What more do you want them to do... tell you every idea they are discussing? That would be an absolute trainwreck and a collosal waste of their time. What SPECIFICALLY do you think they should be communicating more? 

Our stances seem fundamentally different. So rather than continue a conversation that will lead nowhere let’s cut it here. I am extremely appreciative of the work that goes on behind the scenes, and to show that appreciation I voluntarily donate. We’ll leave it at that. 

[Sif]

4 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

Jack was a clown.

Quote

irrational balance fears before shitcanning the whole thing, deserved the backlash they got

4 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

Dev hate would be if we got personal with our feedback, rather than attack the changes on their own merits.

🤔

 

 

Moving on, how about some examples of transparency you think they should do? In your mind, what sorts of things do you think they should do to be more transparent?

Edited March 4, 2020 by Sif

[jubakumbi]

Just now, ScarySai said:

Being hyperbolic and disingenuous doesn't do you any favors.

But that's what you are doing when you say 'deserved backlash' is feedback, IMO.

 

IMO, all MMOs that are smart make the playerbase think they players helped fix it, it's just good PR.

I think there are those players that happen to be good at stuff that really help them now and then, Arcanaville exists.

 

But for the most part, the masses are in no way helpful, let's be real here.

 

You seem to take the idea/statement that that people in mass quantities make bad game design choices somehow means you, specifically, make bad choices, from what I can tell, when that's not what was meant.

 

They ask for feedback, give good feedback, not backlash, and move on, so they can keep doing what they like without having a bunch of minutae focused players tearing it apart.

[ScarySai]

11 minutes ago, Sif said:

🤔

 

 

Moving on, how about some examples of transparency you think they should do? In your mind, what sorts of things do you think they should do to be more transparent?

Jack doesn't work for HC, but I see what you confused there, disingenuously or otherwise.

 

As for your question? To start: A roadmap, insight on their design approach, what they consider to be problems so we can provide feedback that fit those parameters.

 

@jubakumbiYou can play word games all you want, but backlash is feedback. Getting hung up over the choice of word just makes this into some stupid semantic debate.

Edited March 4, 2020 by ScarySai

[jubakumbi]

10 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

Jack doesn't work for HC, but I see what you confused there, disingenuously or otherwise.

 

As for your question? To start: A roadmap, insight on their design approach, what they consider to be problems so we can provide feedback that fit those parameters.

 

@jubakumbiYou can play word games all you want, but backlash is feedback. Getting hung up over the choice of word just makes this into some stupid semantic debate.

The whole point has been made.

No matter what the server runners publish, you and players like you will tear it apart, so why should they write the book reports in the first place unless they feel like it?

It's a hobby.

I would not write them, I don't expect these guys to write them, with thier precious time on this earth, for a bunch of players that will just whine anyway.

Why should they put themselves through any of that?

I wouldn't.

 

They ask for feedback, give it when you have it, they take it as they like.

There is nothing else to be done, there is nothing to fix.

 

Asking for anything more is literally someone asking you to write a book report about how you spent your free time, just so they can critique it, IMO.

[ScarySai]

8 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:

The whole point has been made.

No matter what the server runners publish, you and players like you will tear it apart, so why should they write the book reports in the first place unless they feel like it?

What a shitty thing to say.

 

OP is REQUESTING transparency, not demanding it, first of all.

 

Second: Changes that are bad for demonstrably bad reasons getting negative feedback isn't due to the desire to tear down the HC staff, I love most of the work they have done, ripping into them doesn't serve any purpose. The fact you want to spin this as some hate campaign is a joke, and I won't humor further discussion with you if you keep it up.

 

Lastly: They don't have to do it, they can tell us all to piss off and do their own thing, why dogpile on the OP and misrepresent his post for being slightly critical? That's nonsense.

 

I get it, Homecoming essentially brought this game back in the most successful way, but that does not make every criticism an attack on the team. OP made valid points, yet his and other's words were twisted to fit some imaginary narrative.

Edited March 4, 2020 by ScarySai

[Dynastyjay]

3 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:

The whole point has been made.

No matter what the server runners publish, you and players like you will tear it apart, so why should they write the book reports in the first place unless they feel like it?

It's a hobby.

I would not write them, I don't expect these guys to write them, with thier precious time on this earth, for a bunch of players that will just whine anyway.

Why should they put themselves through any of that?

I wouldn't.

 

They ask for feedback, give it when you have it, they take it as they like.

There is nothing else to be done, there is nothing to fix.

 

Asking for anything more is literally someone asking you to write a book report about how you spent your free time, just so they can critique it, IMO.

Correct me if I’m wrong. Are you suggesting that unless we have GOOD feedback, it not be given at all? If that’s the case, explain what good that does? Perhaps the word “backlash” confuses you. It’s synonymous with negative feedback if you weren’t aware.

[Obus Form]

🍿

[Doomrider]

33 minutes ago, Septipheran said:

 

I also want to address another mix up I keep seeing- Viability is not the same thing as popularity. This could easily become a rabbit hole-like situation that I'd like to avoid. Just because Empathy is popular at level 50, doesn't mean it's powerful at level 50. Obviously, the game has a decent amount of RP'ers and people who aren't concerned about performance as much as theme. That's perfectly fine, and again, I'm not advocating that we remove Empathy or Sonic Resonance. I'm simply saying that it would be nice if new support sets being developed had the propensity to be powerful options, so I don't have to keep rolling /Cold or /Rad every time I want to play top tier support.

I'll take a stab at this one... Now, without trying to pick apart individual sentences or wording i'm going to attempt to extract the underlying message here... Lets see if I got this right:
You feel, that sets like Cold and Rad outshine much of the other support offerings? 
I can see that this has some merit. I think if the game boils down to whichever sets shorten the TTK the quickest, sets that have ready access to powerful aoe debuffs like these are sure to be top of the heap. I would certainly be in favor of the lower hanging fruit (Trick Arrow, Sonic Resonance, Force Fields, etc) be looked at in terms of what they offer in the sub-50 game AS WELL AS end game. Bring the bottom up if you will.
Maybe the question then becomes, is updating those sets a valuable use of dev time? I suppose that would be a good question to poll on, if nothing more then to see what kind of reception (positive or negative) an idea like that would have.
I would wager that it is useful. I like variety as much as the next person. I like playing lower level content, but I also don't like to feel like my performance is vastly outstripped by outliers. Maybe the power disparity between sets (specifically in this context, support sets) could be less so?

Edited March 4, 2020 by Doomrider

[jubakumbi]

12 minutes ago, Dynastyjay said:

Correct me if I’m wrong. Are you suggesting that unless we have GOOD feedback, it not be given at all? If that’s the case, explain what good that does? Perhaps the word “backlash” confuses you. It’s synonymous with negative feedback if you weren’t aware.

'Deserved backlash' was the phrase I was originally pointing out, to be clear, as it shows this underlying hate, IMO, of developer choices seen as stupid - just look at the Jack was a Clown bit, for example.

14 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

OP is REQUESTING transparency, not demanding it, first of all.

And IMO that request is asking too much.

 

Negative feedback is fine.

 

Asking anyone that is doing this on thier own time as a hobby to do anything more than what they feel like doing is, IMO, asking too much.

I have been in the position these people are in - creating stuff for people to have fun with as a hobby - and the moment the book reports started was the moment it became work and I walked away.

 

I say, give your feedback when asked, I am proof you don't even have to be polite, and move on, accept what gets changed and keep playing, or go make your own.

It's a labor of love, a hobby, play it or don't, but please don't ask people to write book reports about thier free time activities, they will when they feel like it, they already do.

 

If this outlook makes me the bad guy, I can live with that, I have for this long. 🙂 

Edited March 4, 2020 by jubakumbi
speeling

[_NOPE_]

5 minutes ago, Doomrider said:

TTK

*Googles "TTK"*

 

Alright, I'm out. If this is all about powergamers wanting to powergame the best? Not my conversation, and I'm sorry to have intervened in any way. I'm anti-powergaming, I believe that games should be for casual, relaxed fun. So, my opinion on what affects powergamers - shouldn't matter. I had thought that this was about the relationship between the general player populace and the HC development team. But if it's about the relationship between powergamers and the development team, and how the dev team should make decisions that either support or hinder powergaming?

 

[Doc_Scorpion]

2 hours 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?"

The basic problem with your plan is that it's based on a flawed premise - we don't run the show.

And I'm kinda glad we don't - wouldn't be long before we're unlocking Incarnate slots in DFB.  I'm only exaggerating a little bit - but that's the eventual endpoint of the "ever more powah, never no nerf" philosophy you're espousing.  You can't up the ante forever, something will eventually break.

As BaB said back in the day - "the best thing a dev can do is listen to the players, the worst thing a dev can do is listen to the players".

 

2 hours ago, Septipheran said:

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.

That won't change one iota under your proposed system.  Not every change is going to be of interest to everyone....  And the loudest voices often miss that because they choose to only listen to that which bolsters their foregone conclusion.
 

2 hours ago, Septipheran said:

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. 

The only way to avoid nerfs in any rationally run game is to not play the game in the first place.

 

[Dynastyjay]

13 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:

'Deserved backlash' was the phrase I was originally pointing out, to be clear, as it shows this underlying hate, IMO, of developer choices seen as stupid - just look at the Jack was a Clown bit, for example.

And IMO that request is asking too much.

So you’re against them using that time to provide a sort of road map to show what kind of changes they’re considering, in an effort to show a higher level of transparency, but it’s cool to see graphs showing the number of people playing what this month? 
 

Makes sense. 
 

(This post was meant as a reply to the second half where you spoke on a road map being too much to ask for. I simply deleted the wrong portions of the quoted message) 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Dynastyjay

[Apparition]

2 hours ago, ScarySai said:

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.

 

Eventually, top performers need to be hit.  The sooner, the better, IMO.  As it stands right now, in regards to pure, raw, power, they so over-perform in comparison to every other melee DPS combination that there is no reason at all to play a melee DPS toon other than a Titan Weapons/Bio Scrapper.  Same goes for damage procs.  Right now, most Defenders are straight up out-damaging Corruptors, thanks to damage procs.  It's so bad that there are very few Corruptors being played now in comparison to Issue 23.  These are things that need to be hit with the nerf bat.

[Sif]

2 minutes ago, Dynastyjay said:

So you’re against them using that time to provide a sort of road map to show what kind of changes they’re considering, in an effort to show a higher level of transparency, but it’s cool to see graphs showing the number of people playing what this month? 
 

Makes sense. 

Having a public roadmap will be seen as a public promise by some, resulting in a "deserved backlash" for their "unprofessional" and "irrational" decision if they ever deviate (including: not doing something on it, doing something not on it, changing the order, doing something on it differently than someone assumed). Plus, they'll also get flak if someone's pet change isn't on the list.

 

Alternatively, the list will have to be super vague (people will still decide that their interpretation is correct though), or be a very short term roadmap (in either of these cases, it's providing little information to anyone).

 

If HC wants to try to commit to a public roadmap, it's of course their decision. One they might regret greatly...

[...]

I think the devs are doing a pretty good job. I get the feeling they actually do listen to player feedback. Focused feedback threads, discord, etc. 

 

Sure, sometimes we may question certain changes. If there is a specific change you question, just ask though. Maybe you'll get an answer. 

 

We may have different priorities. For example, I'd rather see Khelds get a rework than Electrical Affinity. But I'm not going to tell someone else how to spend their free time. 

 

As to whether the game belongs to the players or the developers - this is kind of a pointless debate. Homecoming wouldn't be what it is without both players and developers. It's a community. Obviously the people working on this game care deeply about it - but I do think they get shit on a little more than they should (in fact I've recently been guilty of shitting on them myself). 

 

Anyway, if the OP was motivated to create this thread by a specific instance he was concerned about (DM?) - then maybe just ask about that one thing in particular.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Vooded

[ScarySai]

30 minutes ago, Apparition said:

Eventually, top performers need to be hit.

Debatable, TW is an outlier, when/if they hit that, are we going to go down the slippery slope and nerf top performers in every category? Does Cold need to be hit so pain dom can feel valuable? I don't think so.

 

PPM does have quite a few broken things going for it, but are we going to revert to pre-I24 rules so procs in short CD abilities are valuable again, or just a weirdly selective version of PPM that's only meant to nerf proc bombs and nothing else?

 

Lest we detract from the core point of the thread, keeping everyone on the same page regarding intention would make the entire implementation/feedback process in both instances a lot smoother.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by ScarySai

[Yomo Kimyata]

53 minutes ago, The Philotic Knight said:

*Googles "TTK"*

 

Alright, I'm out. If this is all about powergamers wanting to powergame the best? Not my conversation, and I'm sorry to have intervened in any way. I'm anti-powergaming, I believe that games should be for casual, relaxed fun. So, my opinion on what affects powergamers - shouldn't matter. I had thought that this was about the relationship between the general player populace and the HC development team. But if it's about the relationship between powergamers and the development team, and how the dev team should make decisions that either support or hinder powergaming?

 

Oh, this is about power gaming?  Maybe OP is playing the wrong game if squeezing out that last erg of power is necessary to them.  To me, power gaming in CoH is kind of like playing tic-tac-toe for Russian roulette.  It's really hard to lose.

[subbacultchas]

I dunno, I'm not sure I could come on board with this idea unless it was a choice suggested and made by the HC Devs, which I'd still think is good faith but bad idea. While we do applaud transparency in most matters, but I'll be honest most communities are not gamer communities. The type of negativity we can produce at volume can't be understated, and I think any type of roadmap is going to be an outlet for it. I'm also really leery of the term "deserved backlash" being thrown out. Makes me wanna Gandalf that a little bit 🙂

[Dynastyjay]

6 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

Oh, this is about power gaming?  Maybe OP is playing the wrong game if squeezing out that last erg of power is necessary to them.  To me, power gaming in CoH is kind of like playing tic-tac-toe for Russian roulette.  It's really hard to lose.

Literal definition of a sheep. Where did the OP ever state anything about power gaming? That assumption was simply made by someone who was incapable of providing an intelligent reply and instead decided to ignore the ENTIRE post which tried to steer this debate in a constructive direction. 

[MetaVileTerror]

I haven't sifted through this whole thread yet, but I noticed a few things here and there . . . and it's prompted a few thoughts.

 

The current volunteers certainly have a lot on their collective plates (between the game and their lives).

They are also not currently recruiting new members to their team.  The specific reason(s) are unclear (but some plausible assumptions exist).

Fair enough.  Not ideal . . . but it's reasonable.

 

However:  I think that one of their next "hires" should be an individual (or small team) with publisher/marketing experience AND (crucially) who is not interested in pursuing "Best Practices" established solely for commercial consumer games.  Someone who works/worked in the industry, and sees how terrible the working conditions and culture are in a lot of places, and wants to actively provide their experienced services as a volunteer in a capacity that will help mitigate that widespread industry toxicity.  Someone who is willing to explore new or retired methodologies for community engagement to see what works best in this volunteer environment.

 

That's at least my thoughts on that bit.  Maybe they already have such a person, but I'm uncertain of which CR(s) or GM(s) that might be.

 

And so that leads me to the next thought:  If they're willing and can find the time, little blurbs about the roles of each member of the Homecoming Team could be handy to be shared with the community.  Work experience would be nice to see too, BUT that contains potentially dangerous information which could be used to identify members of the Homecoming Team.  They deserve their privacy; if not only from ncsoft and legal backlash, but from some other bad actors.

 

Which brings us to expand on that:  Presently, no one's livelihood should be threatened by this volunteer endeavour, on any side of it.  Some players should perhaps try to keep in mind that Homecoming doesn't represent their only place for personal enjoyment, and should invest stakes that are suitably reserved.  I get it; we're passionate about this game.  I'm passionate.  The Homecoming Team are passionate.  You're passionate.  Don't EVER let passion overrule common sense or basic decency, though.  Please.

[subbacultchas]

6 minutes ago, Dynastyjay said:

Literal definition of a sheep. Where did the OP ever state anything about power gaming? That assumption was simply made by someone who was incapable of providing an intelligent reply and instead decided to ignore the ENTIRE post which tried to steer this debate in a constructive direction. 

Hmm, that hardly seems productive to be taking pot shots at another person's character, intelligence, or presumptive motive rather than the argument. Are you sure this is the route you want to take over this?

[SwitchFade]

They're doing a fine job as is.

 

Feedback is heard, involvement is there, transparency is great.

 

Decisions are ordered and thoughtful and by and large are spot on.

 

I would have to say, no more is necessary than is already being done.