What Happened to GM Led Weekly Discussions?

[BurtHutt]

4 minutes ago, Cobalt Arachne said:

That's valid. Honestly that same argument could probably be made against any number of communication applications.

Personally, I've used Discord for many years, since its earliest days and have never had any issues with it, but I will always respect an individual's decision on what they do or don't do with their own computers. There are always non-install options like browser Discord as well.

However, Discord is what we use on the development team here at Homecoming. It's what we prefer for our work, that's just the reality of it, if you opt out for your own security preferences, I understand and respect that, at least you're not opting out because we weren't open about inviting everyone to participate.

@Cobalt Arachne, I don't really use Discord much and I really appreciate how you, and other Devs, have replied on here. I think it's great that you're checking in here and getting involved. 

 

If you have any questions about the AE idea I keep pitching, I am all ears and happy to reply or even get involved. Thanks for your time.

[Number Six]

You can also use browser based discord in incognito mode with an account made on a throwaway email. The software install is absolutely not necessary -- I don't run it because I don't like it tracking what processes are running.

[Number Six]

2 minutes ago, Krimson said:

The last time I used the Homecoming Discord, the "Topic of the Day" was an account posting phishing links. Considering the average age of the player base, I would never recommend using Discord out of good conscience. 

 

When did this happen? Occasionally an account shows up and spams phishing or spam links, but they typically get banned and all the messages deleted within minutes, sometimes seconds if a moderator or admin happens to be reading when it happens.

[Cobalt Arachne]

1 minute ago, Krimson said:

The last time I used the Homecoming Discord, the "Topic of the Day" was an account posting phishing links. Considering the average age of the player base, I would never recommend using Discord out of good conscience. 

Which is totally valid; I'll echo my earlier reply, we respect everyone's decisions on what they're comfortable doing with their computers/smart devices, but we use Discord heavily for our development process and have for years, that's unlikely to change, unfortunately.

[Bionic_Flea]

1 hour ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

having the reasoning explained in the OP of these threads will go a long way towards derailing unfounded criticism and speculation, as well as reduce the need to even ask those questions.

 

While I think that might be true for some people, for many others that leads to an argument about the reasoning, which you acknowledge in your thread.  Almost all of the argument about the reasoning is armchair quarterbacking of how the reasons are wrong or invalid or not as good as some posters reason.  All without ever even logging into the test server to try out the changes.

 

So while I personally like additional transparency and communication, I can't really blame them.  It would be nice to have a dev summation at the end of testing that discusses their reasons and goals.

[Bionic_Flea]

10 minutes ago, CR Americas Angel said:

There's a few people I find annoying

It's me, isn't it? 

 

Fleas ruin everything.

[JasperStone]

3 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

It's me, isn't it? 

 

Fleas ruin everything.

No 

*scratch*

Not all

*scratch scratch*

Trust me

*scratch scratch scratch*

...

...

...

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Major_Decoy]

Lusca has recommended the following new trainer be introduced to Independence Port, Peregrine Island, Talso Island, Grandville, Sharkshead, and Mercy.

 

[Sovera]

1 hour ago, laudwic said:

(...)

If there is no intention to respond to feedback, state that in the onset.  For example: "This powerset represents the proliferation of the Illusion Control set from Controller to Dominator.  In doing so, we have replaced and reimagined some of the powers.  After internal testing, we are confident that the set is ready for the Live server and are solely seeking feedback for bugs or other difficulties related to the powers.  We are not seeking feedback for the functionality or design decisions in revising this set to make it appropriate for use with the Dominator class at this time.  Please limit your responses accordingly."

 

 

I'm not a dev and I have no influence on devs (other than threatening Cobalt to make elemental axes appear) so take this as someone not involved in the creative process of powermaking/tweaking.

 

Devs spend a couple months tweaking and sometimes inventing things from scratch before whatever appears in the beta server and people can respond to their request for feedback. Players then, instead of providing feedback on the topic proceed to re-invent the wheel and provide a full list on how to re-do everything from scratch. Sometimes just numbers, sometimes full blown new mechanics. Players get annoyed at their advice being ignored.

 

 

Now lets imagine the advice was -not- ignored.

 

Devs pull the whatever (FF rework for example) from the beta testing and get back to tweaking and inventing. Couple months later the new FF is out to be tested again. Player that offered the idea is happy. A different player now chimes with their own idea. Player B gets annoyed at their advice being ignored.

 

 

This can be repeat to eternity and back. No one is going to be happy every time all the time. There will always be someone discontent and feeling their idea is better.

 

How is this addressed? A popularity contest? The suggestion that has more Likes and Thumbs-up is the one that goes ahead? Aren't those that did not vote going to be annoyed? Is the already small % of the population of the game who goes to the forums, which is then further reduced by those who care enough to check the Beta forums, who is then further reduced by those who actually log into the beta server and actually test things, a representative of the population? Because out of average-ish 2k players we may get 20 that log into the test server.

 

And this does not even account for those who don't even log into the server to test the changes but just read the patch notes and start re-inventing the wheel from a cold start.

[Xiddo]

39 minutes ago, CR Americas Angel said:

Anyone prepared to test the game would be welcomed with open arms in Golden Testers Discord. We barely have any active testers.

Out of interest, what would constitute ‘active’ in terms of time spent testing per month in the Gold channel? Like one a month/week? I wonder if some people are less likely to consider signing up out of fear they wouldn’t have enough time. I tried to do beta testing this time round (after a faff getting the HC launcher working) and didn’t know what was enough/too little/too much time spent. I’d be interested but am also aware than I’m UK based (so time zones won’t match) and can go a couple of weeks without playing cos of work/life and would worry about being a dead weight.

[Bionic_Flea]

There's no set amount of time required or expected.  The testers are volunteers just like the devs are volunteers and as such have work, family, and life constraints that may vary.

 

Edited to add:  Testing is also very bipolar.  Months may go buy with nothing new to test and then other times it's non-stop new things being added everyday, sometimes several times a day.  Most people just focus on one thing or another because it's near impossible to test everything,

Edited October 27, 2022 by Bionic_Flea

[Ruin Mage]

Hm, this thread got interesting.

[Cobalt Arachne]

5 minutes ago, Shadeknight said:

Hm, this thread got interesting.

Literally right after your last post, you missed the party. 🎉

[TomatoPhalanges]

I also just wanna say, referring to multiple comments that I've seen in this and other threads using this specific word, it's highly highly unlikely that you're ever being 'ignored' when delivering feedback on the forums and receiving radio silence in return. A dev isn't about to look at a piece of feedback and go '...anyway', unless the feedback was so entirely unrealistic, poorly communicated, and/or missing the point that it's impossible to gain something constructive from it. Even then, bluntly, that's not 'ignoring', that's deciding your feedback was bad or too unhelpful to be utilized. There's plenty of great feedback on here that goes unanswered, and equally plenty of terrible feedback.

 

Honestly providing quality feedback is as much a skill as anything. In my personal opinion, here's some things to think about when constructing feedback for CoH specifically:

• Considering multiple perspectives, with as broad a consideration as possible, and factoring in a combination of data and anecdote
• Being realistic with what you know or don't know the team is capable of (I tend to base it on prior actions, or otherwise ask directly if something is possible, personally - and keep those questions as focused as I can to a specific Thing)
• Taking into consideration general game design values (based on whatever education you have in the subject) as well as the specific values of this team (and, importantly, how they differ from the original CoH team)
• Allowing your feedback to be unobstructed by a bad faith, cynical perspective. Maybe your own personal playstyle has been or is likely to be especially negatively impacted by a change (or even multiple stacking changes!). It's understanding why that would be upsetting, but try to express that you're upset with clarity and with a lack of hostility if you want to be helpful in your desire for change.
• Similarly, leaning too hard into excitement over something you're giving feedback on is unhelpful. It's worthwhile to express just how negative or positive you feel about a change, but try not to let it dominate your feedback. "This is great! I love it!" is feedback, and it's usable feedback, but it's not the most useful feedback, and only gets less useful the more characters are dedicated just to that sentiment without explaining the 'why', 'how', 'for', 'but', etc. of the Thing being Good. Same all applies to "This is bad! I hate it" feedback.
• Willingness to admit you're entirely wrong and misinformed on a situation, and taking the time to allow others to educate you, or double-down on research.
• Testing! Actually directly testing the changes, rather than making a take based on the patch notes. I'm guilty of this as much as anyone, but it's easily the most likely feedback to be ignored because often it's entirely incorrect and, if it isn't, has no evidence to prove it's not.
• Either keep it brief, or make it dense. When providing feedback, try to make each line of what you're saying helpful in some way. Give real data when you can, devs love data.
• Consider the information gap when making guesses about changes that have yet to be fully communicated on. Simply put, the devs have a lot more raw data and general information than a player will ever have access to. Similarly, some players are much more capable of testing specific things (farming efficiency, powersets, etc) than the average tester or player or even dev, so their perspectives should be viewed through a different lens than someone whose perspective is constructed on less effective methods.

This list ended up longer than I expected, but it's all things I actively try (and sometimes fail, admittedly) to consider when providing feedback.

 

Anyways:

3 hours ago, CR Americas Angel said:

There's a few people I find annoying,

:pensiveasstomato:

Edited October 28, 2022 by TomatoPhalanges

[Redletter]

On 10/26/2022 at 12:07 PM, Tyrannical said:

 

I don't mean to brag or anything but, several suggestions I've put forward have been introduced to the game in some form, some of which were part of the weekly discussions.

 

I mean, it was a joke. Based on a thread that was also a joke, that proposed the division between a hypothetical "Them" and "Us".

 

I linked the Focused Feedback thread, because it is direct evidence to the contrary that the devs don't listen, which was the core of the joke to begin with, because there's a plethora of threads one can look up off hand that bring up problems, that have been addressed by the devs through the patches (the Sentinel rework being the biggest one I can think of? I know a lot of people weren't satisfied with it mechanically) or some such.

 

I'm keenly aware they listen, because I popped off in a couple of focused feedback threads (which seem like "weekly discussion" threads but with tighter focus on elements being implemented presently).

 

I had considered making that more explicitly clear, but, just as funny to me as the thread I was referencing (not the thread I linked in my first post, totally different thread, ill link it below), is the fact that (so far) there are 5 people who don't GET the joke, and think I'm being serious, or something. 

 

I'm glad you made some choice suggestions and that they got implimented. I know I pratically live in the fashion threads, requesting NPC fashion bits, and every update seems to bring more and more of them to the game, so somebody there is listening. I would say the weekly suggestion threads just became different things, to maintain the focus of the suggestions.

 

Anyway, my joke was a reference to this thread.

I figured a Gm would find this thread (the one we're in now) and be able to more completely and accurately answer Troo, so making a joke was all I could really contribute, as my rapoire with Troo through our limited interractions seems to be a mutual understanding, and appreciation of, eachother's sense of humor, so while his question is a serious one and I respect that, I also had a very good sensation someone who could answer him explictly would come along to do so, and baseless speculation based on personal grievances wouldnt help.

 

But it would be funny to PRETEND to have them...

Edited October 28, 2022 by Redletter
Elaboration and spelling fixes

[lemming]

3 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

It's me, isn't it? 

 

Fleas ruin everything.

Monthly Revolution Plus works for me

[scottocamp]

9 hours ago, Cobalt Arachne said:

  

We use Discord for development because it is the superior choice for quick & efficient discussions and throwing ideas around, it has nothing to do with trying to exclude anybody. Forums are slow, and responses often out of context because of the way they work, it makes our job harder. We also can't ping our testers for focus testing on the forums, as that's just not a feature the forums have.

 

If the low bar of downloading a free app and joining a server that is open to everyone is too high a hurdle to participate in development discussions at the stage where direction can be influenced, than it feels more to me like the issue is that being involved isn't something that matters enough to the player to make that effort.

The minor effort check is just to ensure people who join are actually are interested in helping discuss and test, and not because they want to tell their friends we're working on <experimental unconfirmed feature> that we never promised anyone anywhere, and then have to deal with people getting upset later when it never comes.

I'm sorry if that reads bluntly, but I just finished explaining earlier in this thread how anybody who wants to have a seat at the table where things get discussed & decided can very easily have one with minimal effort. We've already seen a handful of forum regulars join the test server since I posted just last night, it's not an exclusive club in any capacity, it's a meet-in-the-middle collaboration.

If you want to be involved and influence what we're doing, get involved.

 

---

Most welcome!

We're not bad guys, I promise.

We're not trying to ruin your game, we aren't trying to force people into playing anything they don't want. We just want everyone to have a fair and fun experience in the game.
There's a common misconception that nerfs are because we don't want players who like X or Y being too strong, but that's wrong, it's entirely because we don't want players who dislike X or Y to feel pressured into something they don't like because of major balance gaps.

Balance is about ensuring all choices are relatively worthwhile choices so you can pick what you like without regrets.

I'm a member of over 20+ different CoH Discord servers (some anonymously others less anonymously) that play on Homecoming. I have City of Heroes friends who have disabilities, are roleplayers, farmers, PvPers, base builders, LGBTQ+, raid runners, AE arc makers... There's no one 'player type' that we favor, because we're trying to ensure everyone who loves this game can play it and find enjoyment in doing the activities they prefer.

Friends sometimes bring broken things to my attention, or mention suggestions that have resulted in very quick additions (Rogue Arachnos chest details on VEATs or the Hero Corps chest detail) but no matter how good a friend, they're never any kind of factor on deciding if I'm going to take on a major project that's going to be hundreds of hours of work; That would be an incredibly nonsensical way to prioritize feature development in a game that has thousands of players.

Most of the dev team rarely finds time to play regularly because we normally put that free time towards working on new things/improvements. We approach development work objectively (and it is work, not fun, scripting missions or FX is not 'fun') and our decisions are motivated entirely by what we think is best for everyone who plays our game.

We do this for free, as a service to the community. Our reward is the satisfaction/fulfillment that comes from doing high-quality work and seeing players enjoy things we add.

 

How do we get involved prior to any development work to influence what changes are made to the game?

 

I'll just throw this out as an example - I have seen lots of requests on the forums for new enhancement sets (i.e. a purple fear set) or improvements to existing enhancement sets (i.e. take the knockback out of the Stupefy set).  What I've never seen are requests for a whole bunch of new travel power enhancement sets.  And yet a whole bunch of new travel power sets get added to the game.  None of which seem to be actually used in builds.  How does that happen?  And how can we as volunteers steer that process better in the "conceptual" phase?  Or would the developers prefer not to open up that part of the process?

 

Just curious as I would happily be involved prior to the Discord stage. 

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by scottocamp
grammar

[lemming]

1 hour ago, scottocamp said:

And yet a whole bunch of new travel power sets get added to the game.  None of which seem to be actually used in builds.  How does that happen?

Anecdotally, I use the new fly & teleport, and so do many of my SG

[Doc_Scorpion]

3 hours ago, scottocamp said:

And yet a whole bunch of new travel power sets get added to the game.  None of which seem to be actually used in builds.  How does that happen?

You have no idea what's in any of my builds, nor I suspect what's in the vast majority of the builds out there.

As to how it happens...  Based on the discussions in the Beta threads by the various dev's, they identified some holes in what was available to the players and developed sets to help fill those holes and give players some flexibility and opportunities they previously didn't have.  (It's usually in the set bonuses or the uniques.)  They weren't chosen by random roll, they were specifically designed.  Are they for every player or for widespread use?  No, some of them are pretty niche.

 

 

3 hours ago, scottocamp said:

And how can we as volunteers steer that process better in the "conceptual" phase?  Or would the developers prefer not to open up that part of the process?

 

Just curious as I would happily be involved prior to the Discord stage. 

You're basically asking to be a dev...  Which I suspect means you need to demonstrate the as much as possible of the abilities and knowledge required to work at that level.  You'll need to participate in the existing (Closed and Open) Beta process and demonstrate an ability to do so usefully.

[Alchemystic]

8 hours ago, Redletter said:

 

I mean, it was a joke. Based on a thread that was also a joke, that proposed the division between a hypothetical "Them" and "Us".

 

I linked the Focused Feedback thread, because it is direct evidence to the contrary that the devs don't listen, which was the core of the joke to begin with, because there's a plethora of threads one can look up off hand that bring up problems, that have been addressed by the devs through the patches (the Sentinel rework being the biggest one I can think of? I know a lot of people weren't satisfied with it mechanically) or some such.

 

I'm keenly aware they listen, because I popped off in a couple of focused feedback threads (which seem like "weekly discussion" threads but with tighter focus on elements being implemented presently).

 

I had considered making that more explicitly clear, but, just as funny to me as the thread I was referencing (not the thread I linked in my first post, totally different thread, ill link it below), is the fact that (so far) there are 5 people who don't GET the joke, and think I'm being serious, or something. 

 

I suppose it says something about our given situation if people can believe it was a genuine reaction.

 

I'm glad you weren't being serious, though it's a shame that some people are.

[Ruin Mage]

https://discord.gg/DptUBzh

This is the Gold Standard Tester Discord. 

It is an unofficial-official Discord that serves as the place for the Alpha / "Closed Beta" section of testing. It also allows for those who WISH to test to engage with the Devs in a better format than the forums, but that's personal opinion. Either way, the point of me dropping the invite is this: Any one of you can help test the changes that MAY be coming or may just be experiments. What sort of stuff is coming is left into that Discord until it hits Brainstorm - where it is considered Open Beta. 

Notably, anything not openly posted on the Brainstorm section needs to stay within the Discord. Unless openly stated by the devs.

There are 20+ people on average testing each page or experimental changes. It would be nice for that to grow! However, as N6 has said in other threads, the process is opt-in. It's entirely optional if you want to test these things before the wider audience gets their hands on them. So it is on you at this point to join up or not.

 

6 hours ago, scottocamp said:

How do we get involved prior to any development work to influence what changes are made to the game?

Likely answer: Become a dev yourself.

[scottocamp]

3 hours ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

You have no idea what's in any of my builds, nor I suspect what's in the vast majority of the builds out there.

As to how it happens...  Based on the discussions in the Beta threads by the various dev's, they identified some holes in what was available to the players and developed sets to help fill those holes and give players some flexibility and opportunities they previously didn't have.  (It's usually in the set bonuses or the uniques.)  They weren't chosen by random roll, they were specifically designed.  Are they for every player or for widespread use?  No, some of them are pretty niche.

 

 

You're basically asking to be a dev...  Which I suspect means you need to demonstrate the as much as possible of the abilities and knowledge required to work at that level.  You'll need to participate in the existing (Closed and Open) Beta process and demonstrate an ability to do so usefully.

 

Fair enough.  I don't believe I have ever seen a build posted on this forum that incorporates any of these new travel sets but obviously that doesn't really mean anything.  I would be willing to wager however that very few builds make use of these sets despite the effort put into developing them.  I have 46 level 50 toons and none of them use any of these enhancements.  And I try fairly deliberately to make diverse builds.

 

My actual point is how does the list of possible game changes get assembled?  I completely understand responding to feedback from posts on the forum (i.e. make sentinels better, etc.) but why do something no one is asking for?  Is there no way to have input on such decisions prior to work being done without actually being a developer?  It seems like some of these decisions just get plucked out of thin air and somewhat blindside the community.  Obviously that is not true but wouldn't it make sense to involve the community much earlier in the process regarding what might be on the "list"?  Sure, there might be disappointments if items are necessarily removed from the list because they are not possible or worth the effort.  But most folks completely understand such restraints. 

 

Since this is no longer a for profit game and the intent is to make the game the best game possible - why not include the community earlier in the development process?  If the concern is lots of arguing and community angst, well - that seems to happen currently.  The situation might end up being less contentious if the process felt more inclusive.

[laudwic]

16 hours ago, Sovera said:

 

I'm not a dev and I have no influence on devs (other than threatening Cobalt to make elemental axes appear) so take this as someone not involved in the creative process of powermaking/tweaking.

 

Devs spend a couple months tweaking and sometimes inventing things from scratch before whatever appears in the beta server and people can respond to their request for feedback. Players then, instead of providing feedback on the topic proceed to re-invent the wheel and provide a full list on how to re-do everything from scratch. Sometimes just numbers, sometimes full blown new mechanics. Players get annoyed at their advice being ignored.

 

 

Now lets imagine the advice was -not- ignored.

 

Devs pull the whatever (FF rework for example) from the beta testing and get back to tweaking and inventing. Couple months later the new FF is out to be tested again. Player that offered the idea is happy. A different player now chimes with their own idea. Player B gets annoyed at their advice being ignored.

 

 

This can be repeat to eternity and back. No one is going to be happy every time all the time. There will always be someone discontent and feeling their idea is better.

 

How is this addressed? A popularity contest? The suggestion that has more Likes and Thumbs-up is the one that goes ahead? Aren't those that did not vote going to be annoyed? Is the already small % of the population of the game who goes to the forums, which is then further reduced by those who care enough to check the Beta forums, who is then further reduced by those who actually log into the beta server and actually test things, a representative of the population? Because out of average-ish 2k players we may get 20 that log into the test server.

 

And this does not even account for those who don't even log into the server to test the changes but just read the patch notes and start re-inventing the wheel from a cold start.

 

Your response has absolutely nothing to do with the complaint that was being made.  My point acknowledged that there was testing prior to beta and simple extended the idea to if you are not actually seeking feedback do not ask for it.  My request was only an occasional or blanket responses be made when feedback is received instead of five pages of feedback met by silence.  I did not suggest for removal or delay of updates or some mythical perfect system.  

 

If Devs ask for general feedback, they should be prepared to provide some measure of responses.  It is basic curtesy and builds community.  

 

If Devs only want feedback on a specific issue, state that on the onset.  Transparency is helpful and builds community.  

 

If Devs do not want feedback, do not ask for it.  Providing feedback when it does not appear to be desired is frustrating and destructive to community.

[golstat2003]

4 hours ago, scottocamp said:

 

Fair enough.  I don't believe I have ever seen a build posted on this forum that incorporates any of these new travel sets but obviously that doesn't really mean anything.  I would be willing to wager however that very few builds make use of these sets despite the effort put into developing them.  I have 46 level 50 toons and none of them use any of these enhancements.  And I try fairly deliberately to make diverse builds.

 

My actual point is how does the list of possible game changes get assembled?  I completely understand responding to feedback from posts on the forum (i.e. make sentinels better, etc.) but why do something no one is asking for?  Is there no way to have input on such decisions prior to work being done without actually being a developer?  It seems like some of these decisions just get plucked out of thin air and somewhat blindside the community.  Obviously that is not true but wouldn't it make sense to involve the community much earlier in the process regarding what might be on the "list"?  Sure, there might be disappointments if items are necessarily removed from the list because they are not possible or worth the effort.  But most folks completely understand such restraints. 

 

Since this is no longer a for profit game and the intent is to make the game the best game possible - why not include the community earlier in the development process?  If the concern is lots of arguing and community angst, well - that seems to happen currently.  The situation might end up being less contentious if the process felt more inclusive.

 

If you are saying that the community votes on what the devs actually code next: I would say no. This could easily become problematic on so many levels.

 

What I would suggest however is maybe a list of what the devs are thinking about next as a list on the forums maybe, with the cavaet that NONE of it is guaranteed to actually be IMPLEMENTED next.

[Doc_Scorpion]

4 hours ago, scottocamp said:

My actual point is how does the list of possible game changes get assembled?  I completely understand responding to feedback from posts on the forum (i.e. make sentinels better, etc.) but why do something no one is asking for? 

You haven't established there's a reason not to do what "no one is asking for"...  Of course, the answer to that is that there's absolutely no reason not to do so.  When you're working at that level you're looking at the larger game, and the playerbase as a whole.  Being in the top echelons of anything requires a very different outlook than being down in the trenches.
 

 

4 hours ago, scottocamp said:

Since this is no longer a for profit game and the intent is to make the game the best game possible - why not include the community earlier in the development process?  If the concern is lots of arguing and community angst, well - that seems to happen currently. 

As above, you haven't established that throwing sand in the gears of the process is in any way useful.