UNfocused Feedback

[Ruin Mage]

1 hour ago, Zhym said:

The actual Page 5 changes mostly look good to me at first glance, FWIW.  But it would be nice if the dev process were more, "Here's what we're thinking of doing, what does everyone think?" and less, "This is what we're going to do."

That would not get anywhere good, as the forums proved with last page.

I am sorry, but community consultation is not a standard (not that it is a standard anywhere of worth) I'd want implemented here. As it stands, the devs put out their ideas/their spins on requested ideas and allow us to give feedback on what's there. If testing became bogged down by higher consultation, I could imagine even slower Pages / Updates. Given as well that the community is split on what powersets "need" work and what they feel the devs should work on? It would be a loss to change the process at this point.

 

 

1 hour ago, Zhym said:

It would be great if the process of making changes to the game involved the players more.  Beta seems lately to be purely testing to see whether anything breaks; maybe it's only my impression, but feedback about planned changes seems more likely to lead to minor tweaks than big changes.  Maybe we need an Alpha server where the devs can have players try things out and see what we think before committing to them. 

It does involve the players enough as is.

There's a "Closed Beta" server (where things cannot be shared outside of it, like any Alpha/NDA-y place might) -> Several patches on said server -> Open Beta/Brainstorm -> 1 or more patches to reach Release Candidate -> Live. During this process, feedback from testers (and not patch note reactors, usually) is taken in to shape the changes to be in a better place. The closed beta even has a Discord somewhere around here, but I lost the invite.

That process is the most involved it should ever be. 

[JasperStone]

2 hours ago, Tachstar said:

 

Maybe it IS him! Maybe he's the proverbial man behind the curtain!

/e sings "It was Jack Emmert ALL ALONG!"

Maybe he nerfed Sparky, too...

Jack is Nemesis

[Neiska]

Here's my unfocused feedback. I too was once a staff member for a private server for nearly 10 years for another game. (Neverwinter nights 2 if anyone is wondering.)

 

Long story short - Over time our Dev team grew an "inner circle" of friends/acquaintances/special people who would form the unofficial "development team." In a sense, it was a group of people they personally knew apart from the unwashed masses whose input on changes carried more weight than anyone else's, simply because they "knew" those making the changes. But what this led to is a small handful of people who were not a part of the staff, having far more influence on server changes. But not just game mechanic changes, but server policies as well.

 

The point to all this is such an environment contributed to my decision to leave. And I believe if we aren't in a similar situation, then it is growing into one. Because if you go back and look through all the changes that have come to pass over 3 years recorded here in the forums, you might notice a pattern. I won't elaborate more than that due to forum policy. But people are certainly free to look for themselves.

 

I do want to highlight that I am not claiming this is the actual situation. Only similarities that I have noticed after spending quite a bit of time after this last Beta and spending a few hours combing the forums and looking for "trends" in "feedback" and the actual changes that have been implemented.

 

TLDR - Not a provable claim, but it is certainly beginning to feel like not everyone's feedback is equally weighed and valued, which can lead to people assuming some very bad things, even if they are utterly untrue. I am not saying this IS the case here, but it certainly is beginning to have the same atmosphere and vibe.

[VinceBlood]

5 hours ago, Yaliw said:

It was used by forumgoers, not actual developers so I'm not putting any weight into it. It was a poor analogy for a reason and it is continuously being used as some sort of Holy grail to shut down any attempt at change (for better or worse).

 

It's not an argument. It's a philosophical stance- and an extremely weak one- 'let's cling on to what exists now because we have no proof something new could be better'.

 

The cottage rule isn't a rule and it should be dropped from our discussions on... anything.

 

I'm... pretty sure we're making the same argument, just on different avenues, lol

 

(I had a 3 page standoff during Live with a certain user about how Dual Pistols apparently didn't need damage improvements because of the cottage rule (him against the change, me for the change) and it made me want to microwave my own head.)

Edited October 7, 2022 by VinceBlood

[Ruin Mage]

55 minutes ago, Neiska said:

TLDR - Not a provable claim, but it is certainly beginning to feel like not everyone's feedback is equally weighed and valued, which can lead to people assuming some very bad things, even if they are utterly untrue. I am not saying this IS the case here, but it certainly is beginning to have the same atmosphere and vibe.

As pointed out before somewhere, the valid feedback they look for is from testers. Actual testers. Not people who grab a change from the Patch Notes and ride or die it until they've given devs a reason to not engage. If you cannot put the effort into testing because of limited space, that's...one thing I guess? However, if you willfully choose not to put minutes (or more) into testing out the changes and making clear feedback based on experience? Well, that isn't valid feedback - not in the sense that it gets anything major done.

Patch Note Reactors is what made the forums 10x worse during Page 4 and a shadow of it has reoccurred for Page 5. People need to realize that feedback NEEDS evidence in numbers and actual testing rather than "I don't like this." or "I feel like this is bad." because that tells the developers nothing. It makes sense that if your only feedback is from reading the patch notes? You're not actively aware of how it plays out or what it's done to the gameplay of whatever has been changed.

Experience speaks more than feelings in other words.

[High_Beam]

Speaking of unfocused feedback, ever since McDonalds started to allow people to actually choose to have or not have certain things on the food they ordered, their service has gone to shit.  And what's the deal with ham being more expensive than sausage at Dunkin Donuts to where they remove it as a breakfast sandwich option . . . on a croissant.  I mean really ham and cheese croissant is the standard, not sausage and cheese.

[Yaliw]

I vote High_Beam as having the worst opinion on this forum. He has hurt my feelings and philosophical outlook on life in a video game forum! 

 

It's sausage and cheese! It's superior in every way, powercreep be damned!

[High_Beam]

Ham or extra steps ham (aka sausage)  How can extra steps cost less.  Plus its all the same animal

[Luminara]

I like that thing.

 

I don't like that other thing.

 

The rest of the things, I don't think I'll notice, or feel particularly positive or negative if I do notice them.

[Coyotedancer]

All the Things!

 

*rabble*

*rabble* *rabble*

[Luminara]

Just now, Coyotedancer said:

*rabble*

*rabble* *rabble*

 

*is roused*

[Neiska]

1 hour ago, Shadeknight said:

As pointed out before somewhere, the valid feedback they look for is from testers. Actual testers. Not people who grab a change from the Patch Notes and ride or die it until they've given devs a reason to not engage. If you cannot put the effort into testing because of limited space, that's...one thing I guess? However, if you willfully choose not to put minutes (or more) into testing out the changes and making clear feedback based on experience? Well, that isn't valid feedback - not in the sense that it gets anything major done.

Patch Note Reactors is what made the forums 10x worse during Page 4 and a shadow of it has reoccurred for Page 5. People need to realize that feedback NEEDS evidence in numbers and actual testing rather than "I don't like this." or "I feel like this is bad." because that tells the developers nothing. It makes sense that if your only feedback is from reading the patch notes? You're not actively aware of how it plays out or what it's done to the gameplay of whatever has been changed.

Experience speaks more than feelings in other words.

 

Whoever said we don't need testers? Certainly not I. But you see, what companies do in the real world, is they swap out or change "testers", just to prevent bias from personal acquaintance and regularity.

 

Being experienced doesn't mean you have good ideas. Or that your math can favor one thing or another. 

[Coyotedancer]

*hands out the torches and farm tools* 

[Yomo Kimyata]

1 hour ago, High_Beam said:

Ham or extra steps ham (aka sausage)  How can extra steps cost less.  Plus its all the same animal

 

Yeah High_Beam, some *magical* animal.  rolls eyes.

[Ruin Mage]

11 minutes ago, Neiska said:

Whoever said we don't need testers? Certainly not I. But you see, what companies do in the real world, is they swap out or change "testers", just to prevent bias from personal acquaintance and regularity.

 

Being experienced doesn't mean you have good ideas. Or that your math can favor one thing or another. 

If only that worked in this setting.

The closed beta isn't a "you must be invited" sort of deal like it is with other studio-backed games. Otherwise the discord with the channel for access wouldn't exist. You still need to go through a hoop. However, the fact it doesn't swap out testers is not a detriment. Not in this case - for what Homecoming is, it is better that people familiar with what HC is looking for get their hands on the changes. Knowing these things allows testers like myself, Veracor, America's Angel, and many more to offer our different perspectives - through either experiencing them or through experiencing them and comparing them to Live.

Or both.

Comparing it to real world companies such as Bungie, Blizzard, Ubisoft, or others is disingenous to the fact those have way more manpower and way more time to dedicate to their games. This has a dev team with small but coordinated teams within the dev team. You have maybe two or three devs for content, two or three for powers, and then floating devs who do things that don't have a team - like LUA coding or making base objects. Where as an actual company will have 10+ people per section, several meetings to discuss the game, investors to answer to, and more. You can't make a good comparison between HC and those.

Bias is a weird thing to bring up. We all have our biases even in testing. We all have our own views of how the game should be. What we want to see. All we can really do is outmatch bias with hard evidence of testing and looking into numbers. Numbers which are accessible by stuff like City of Data. Mids. Playing the game and checking combat logs. Making comparisons.

Patch Note Reactors can't do that and generally don't have the foresight to make the evidence-backed comparisons that is sought after. Don't get me wrong: If all you can do or are willing to do is read patch notes and react? Cool. Do that. Don't expect your feedback to be weighed as equal to those actually testing and giving posts based on their experience. That is how things work.

Say for example they change Dark Melee or Shield Defense. I cannot expect them to take my feedback into the equation of those changes without me testing and comparing Brainstorm to Live. If I don't do that, then my feedback means nothing. If I am going off the patch notes only, then I am being unfair to the developers and to other players if I go and say 'this change is bad'. 

Edited October 7, 2022 by Shadeknight

[Neiska]

7 minutes ago, Shadeknight said:

Don't expect your feedback to be weighed as equal to those actually testing and giving posts based on their experience. That is how things work.

 

Overall your response is a fair and respectful one, so thank you for that. But this part right here is the crux of the issue. It doesn't matter if they take my "personal" feedback the same as others or not in the grand scheme of things or not. My point is that they have been giving more weight to the same group of people - the alpha testers - I suspect without ever changing such alpha testers. And I think the reaction to the notion of perhaps they change up some of the alpha testers will say far more about them than the alpha/beta process itself. Personally? I expect the pitchforks and torches to be lit. Which is sort of amusing when you think of it, the idea that perhaps they could use other peoples thoughts, views, and opinions instead of the same people they have for several years now would indicate they might care more about their status/inner circle than any notion of free, unbiased testing or ideas.

[Ruin Mage]

Anyone can become an alpha tester, that's the thing. It isn't a closed group. We're getting about 2, 000 people as a general max across all shards combined. That's not a lot of people compared to the 100k+ games that probably have way more room to cycle out testers. If it was a better set-up and better environment to changing who tests and who doesn't, I'd find myself more along the lines of agreeing with you potentially.

There is no real inner circle. Otherwise the Gold Standard discord (which has 200+ people in it, mind you) wouldn't be as large as it is. Does everyone in it give their feedback or test things out? Absolutely not. They all have the same opportunity to - closed beta being more like an Alpha Testing that has a minor "Don't share this outside the Discord, things can get dropped/changed." caveat. I know its popular to call out some inner cabal, circle, or Illuminati-esque set-up but there isn't. It's literally just average joes like me who give our feedback and try to either get a change to be better or express through experience why the change may need more work.

If they didn't want people's thoughts/views, there wouldn't be any form of Beta. I genuinely don't understand where the idea comes from that they don't want anyone's input except some inner circle's input. I don't think an inner circle is triple digits in size, but I am willing to accept being wrong. My whole thing is this: Anyone can test these changes. Anyone. You only need to join the Discord and request access + agree with the caveat that Alpha things cannot be shared in publicly accessible Discords (like HC's) or forums (HC's forums).

I could list off a number of people well beyond ten or twenty who have had some form of feedback/input, but I don't quite know if that'd be convincing?

[SeraphimKensai]

3 hours ago, Neiska said:

Here's my unfocused feedback. I too was once a staff member for a private server for nearly 10 years for another game. (Neverwinter nights 2 if anyone is wondering.)

 

Long story short - Over time our Dev team grew an "inner circle" of friends/acquaintances/special people who would form the unofficial "development team." In a sense, it was a group of people they personally knew apart from the unwashed masses whose input on changes carried more weight than anyone else's, simply because they "knew" those making the changes. But what this led to is a small handful of people who were not a part of the staff, having far more influence on server changes. But not just game mechanic changes, but server policies as well.

That seems to be fairly common my experience as I saw similar collusion on private servers where I served as a GM for in  Lineage 2 and WoW.

 

Mind you it varies based on server policy but I'm just glad this hasn't turned into the wild west where people with elevated rights spawn a Hamidon on top of the Atlas globe in AP and make it rain Hamidon Buds, turn up the xp gains to 1000x and make each kill give a crafted IO.

[Ruin Mage]

brb spawning ten lanaruus on top of miss liberty.

[Astralock]

1 minute ago, SeraphimKensai said:

where people with elevated rights spawn a Hamidon on top of the Atlas globe in AP and make it rain Hamidon Buds

 

I wish. 😛

[Yomo Kimyata]

3 minutes ago, SeraphimKensai said:

and make each kill give a crafted IO.

 

I've got a bunch of Trap of the Hunters to give away!

[Neiska]

12 minutes ago, Shadeknight said:

There is no real inner circle.

 

I have to respectfully but whole heartedly disagree. My associates and I even have a name for them. "The Council." If you think I am the only one who believes and feels this way, you are sorely mistaken.

[Luminara]

14 minutes ago, Neiska said:

My point is that they have been giving more weight to the same group of people - the alpha testers

 

I'm on the closed forum, have been since the TA changes were a whisper in the distant breeze.  Patches and updates sent to the closed test server aren't being revised to satisfy the players there, it's only used to isolate critical bugs and ensure that nothing causes the magical smoke to be released from the hardware before it's published on the beta server.  The HC team doesn't pay any more or less attention to the beta testers than they do the closed testers.  You can request access and verify that yourself.

[Ruin Mage]

2 minutes ago, Neiska said:

I have to respectfully but whole heartedly disagree. My associates and I even have a name for them. "The Council." If you think I am the only one who believes and feels this way, you are sorely mistaken.

I guess I am one of the Council members then.

I know very well that you're not the only one who believes the developers only listen to a select group. I just tend to play ball with them a little too hard when I engage.

[Neiska]

Just now, Luminara said:

You can request access and verify that yourself.

 

With respect, if I was held at gunpoint to my head and was forced to choose, I would sooner have a yeast infection. But not because of anything related to HC, the staff, or any of the testers. But because I have been in a similar circumstance before. Another game, another time, etc. On more than one game I might add. And I am quite well aware of the shenanigans, tom-foolery, drama, and absolute buck-wild "What in Sam Hill" things can run amok there. Seriously, its absolutely nuts what can go on, makes the Wild Wild West look like Mr rogers by comparison. And I want absolutely no part in any of that. If I wanted to be a tester personally, I would have asked about such.