Rename Suggestions Forum and/or Increase Developer Feedback

[lemming]

As someone who was a developer on another game (much smaller), the devs would take input from the players.  Sometimes it would be some offhand comment about something else that would morph into a different feature.   Sometimes it would just be the reinforcement of an idea that one already had, sometimes it would wind up as a modification.  Creativity takes a lot of different inputs.

[tidge]

I like this:

 

35 minutes ago, lemming said:

As someone who was a developer on another game (much smaller), the devs would take input from the players.  Sometimes it would be some offhand comment about something else that would morph into a different feature.   Sometimes it would just be the reinforcement of an idea that one already had, sometimes it would wind up as a modification.  Creativity takes a lot of different inputs.

 

I think there is some sort of cognitive disconnect when thinking:

(1) Eliminating/restricting other critical user feedback because critical feedback is bad for a suggestion, and

(2) A development team is more likely to implement a suggestion that gets no critical user feedback (maybe because the Devs would take feedback in Beta? *1). 

 

Unless somebody believes that the devs are going to (eventually) implement 100% of all suggestions that only have an absence of (negative) critical feedback, asking to restrict feedback on publicly shared ideas would be an example of narcissistic behavior.

 

(*1) We have had (on HC) a small number of cases where the HC team implemented something that generated a reaction of "Who asked for that?" and/or "How did that slip in?"... in other words: negative critical reactions. Some were rolled back, some were not. For the huge number of player-made suggestions, I'd prefer some discourse happen before anyone touches the code.

 

EDIT: The first example of a rolled-back change that comes to mind was the "rolling alignment tips" that would pour in. The obvious "problem" being solved was "what if a player doesn't want the morality tips they have?"... which on its face could be an issue for some players. In practice, players can of course buy any (level-restricted) morality mission they want... and the rolling solution was simply flooding players with notifications and eliminating morality missions that they may have wanted to keep. 

Edited July 21 by tidge

[Marine X]

I believe most suggestions get looked into more if they are not huge changes that not everyone wants. The forum is here to allow discussion of players ideas and is useful in vetting them to see if they are something that most want, or to evolve the idea into something that will. This game's population is made up with a lot of people that like things as they are for the most part and when someone with 20 posts to their name suggests sweeping changes to bring the game in line with their vision it usually ends poorly. I try to read through posts with an open mind and am not going to reply unless I have something constructive to add or an alternative to suggest. I support all the hard work that has gone into all the QOL changes that SCoRE / HC have added and am amazed by how much they have improved the backbone of the game. I believe that the Devs genuinely look at the player suggestions as a resource even if they do not pursue implementing them, and that is what this sub-forum is for, Ideas and Critiques not Demands.

[Ukase]

On 7/21/2025 at 6:40 AM, Starhammer said:

Block and move on with life.

I have considered doing this with more than a few players on these forums. But I never did. The reason why is because despite my distaste for their smug opinions, at least a few of them have shared facts about certain things I did not know, and probably would still not know if they hadn't shared them. So, I learned from them. One of them, I just couldn't stand. I hated his forum handle, I hated his forum icon/avatar, and I couldn't see where he was coming from with the opinions they had. But, as either I changed, or they changed, or the game changed, I began to see more of where they were coming from, and now I find myself in agreement with probably 30% of what they say now. Crazy, right? And even though I can't see myself being chummy with them, I do know that most of the folks that disagree with me aren't idiots. They have their reasons. I may disagree with their positions, but more often than not, they aren't crapping on me - just my idea. 

Several years ago, they proposed the change of not allowing vet levels in AE, and at the same time, they were going to remove the option to trade emp merits for reward merits. This was maddening to me, because I was burning through converters at the rate of about 3k a day. I needed all the darn merits I could get. And suffering through posi 1's to get them wasn't (still isn't) my idea of a good time. There were a lot of opposing views, and of course, many farmers were aligned with my position for their own reasons. 

Today, I see it more clearly. The change they made, even though vet levels are still allowed in AE, I no longer get them in AE, except on a farmer that PL's my characters from 30-35. It's just an awkward phase I don't want to play through. So, I don't. I tend to get my vet levels (and the emp merits from them) in the labyrinth. A lot more fun, and a lot faster, too. 
For me - that change, even though I hated it at the time, it forced/encouraged me to adapt. And the reason I bothered to adapt was due in no small part because the HC devs actually listened. It probably wasn't my post, but someone else more coherently summarizing it, but they still listened. It was the first illustration that they did take player feedback into account. They may not agree with 99 of my other opinions, but for whatever reason, they did make the choice to allow fools like me to get vet levels in AE if that's how we want to get them. 

But just feeling like I was heard was huge for me. 

I can't speak for Yomo. But for me, I recognize that the way I would change things would ruin the game because I'm just too short-sighted, and frankly too obtuse. Half the time when someone spells things out for me, I still don't see it. And given the fun I've been having lately with the labyrinth, (and this weird Psionic Armor on this tank I'm playing) I'm going to just trust in what they're doing. 

I don't need them to reply to anything on the forums. I'll see their responses, or lack of same on brainstorm. 

[ZeeHero]

On 7/17/2025 at 11:24 AM, lemming said:

I do know the devs pay some attention to the suggestion forums, and I've often noticed some glimmers of information, even among some of the more odd threads.

Maybe it's because I've dealt with flame wars in the 80s and been yelled at by a CEO more than once, I have a fairly thick skin most of the time.

The Flame wars, the 2nd most traumatic after the Clown Wars.

They just... keep sending them in.. pouring out of volkswagons...

[Starhammer]

On 7/27/2025 at 5:34 AM, Ukase said:

I have considered doing this with more than a few players on these forums. But I never did. The reason why is because despite my distaste for their smug opinions, at least a few of them have shared facts about certain things I did not know, and probably would still not know if they hadn't shared them.

I agree completely with your take on it. The only time I block people here is over tone rather than content. Folks can disagree with me vehemently to no end and it rarely bothers me... but when they start getting rude, abusive, or intentionally obtuse... trolling basically, it stops mattering what their opinion is because their delivery is more unpleasant that it's worth. Again, it's all about whether someone is making the use of the forums or game worse or better.