Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Mark Zima wrote:

"bonus EP cost by spark selection" means back to attributes again.

Exactly that, whats wrong with you people?

The ones saying "impossible" shall not disturb the ones already doing it

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Segreto wrote:

But my confusion aside, I cannot abide by a developer’s surprise attack on a player created character.  Finding out about this idea in a side remark in an ‘idea’ thread is unacceptable.

This caught my eye.

*scratches head*

*takes deep breath*

A lot of players are complaining that the level of information flow from us has decreased lately. One of the many reasons for this is exactly the topics like this one.

When we don't say anything, it's bad.

When Alf hints some work-in-progress and subject to change infos, everyone starts theorycrafting based on that, and then even more people come complaining that we should post specifics of something that we don't even know because it's still work in progress. So that's bad too.

I'm open for any suggestions, other than "work faster goddammit!".

On a brighter note, we're close to wrapping up the concept of the account reset and attribute system changes, and will post the results in the devblog very soon.

103

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Just like finding the cure for aids, sourcing ideas to gamers can be a good idea.

This doesn't mean that you use the feedback or even respond to every post. And while some players will go off the handle and provide less than constructive feedback, those can simply be ignored.

You 'sort of' asked the question months ago about how the community felt about alliance tools. We gave you a lot of feed back to work with.

For this suggestion specifically, the positive feedback has been mostly that doing away with attributes is a good thing, but that we are sensitve to how that is going to effect out character progression.

In general, it 'feels' like Alex's description of an Iron curtain.

Where are more posts like the toaster blowing up? Not everything has to be serious, 'playful' zoom posts have also been squashed.

I totally agree with you, Bad information is worse then No information.

But its also possible to have a level of feedback with the community that can guide our feedback to something that you can use. Yes you'll get trolled on your own forums for somthings, but they are OUR forums (devs and players) and your lack of participation is showing.

Check the posts by the Eve vets, to the point they said that developer feedback was one of the best things about the game.

Even if your not posting on the forums, a WEEKLY blog or article about the game will help keep our attention focused in a postive direction.

Ask us questions too. Every company does this, they usually have to pay research firms a lot of money to do customer satisfaction surveys and feedback calls. You simply have to post "What do you think about _this_", your 'wasting' a valuable resource as well as alienting players that are going to be here for YEARS playing a game that you built.

104 (edited by Alexander 2011-09-20 19:53:31)

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

DEV Zoom wrote:
Segreto wrote:

But my confusion aside, I cannot abide by a developer’s surprise attack on a player created character.  Finding out about this idea in a side remark in an ‘idea’ thread is unacceptable.

This caught my eye.

*scratches head*

*takes deep breath*

A lot of players are complaining that the level of information flow from us has decreased lately. One of the many reasons for this is exactly the topics like this one.

When we don't say anything, it's bad.

When Alf hints some work-in-progress and subject to change infos, everyone starts theorycrafting based on that, and then even more people come complaining that we should post specifics of something that we don't even know because it's still work in progress. So that's bad too.

I'm open for any suggestions, other than "work faster goddammit!".

On a brighter note, we're close to wrapping up the concept of the account reset and attribute system changes, and will post the results in the devblog very soon.

That's a very good post Zoom.

I think the issue stems from specifics. Alf didn't mention it was in the works.. he said what was so far planned. This closes the ability to discuss the change. If it has or has not been decided is beyond the point and honestly you're damned if you do talk about changes and damned if you don't.

Not talking about changes is probably the worse of the two. If you don't talk about changes you not onlyupset the people who would be upset anyway but you also give a royal slap to the face of anyone that, had they been informed, wouldn't have flown off the handle and could have helped shape the idea.

As said the issue is specifics. Don't be so specific. If you have changes in mind then talk about them, then make a decision and then makes minor or major changes as feedback and loopholes are found.

E.g.
Thread:
   Person 1: Do we need attributes? It limits player choice and locks a player inter a career too soon.
   Person 2: [Argument against]
   Person 3: [whining and no content]
   Person 4: [Arguments fore]

Dev meeting: Point discussed, player feedback analysed. Idea supported, rejected or modified.

Back to the thread:
   Person 34: [More whining and nothing more being added]
   Developer: Having reviewed this idea we agree/disagree with this idea and would like to take it further with/without modification.
   Person 1: [More ideas, discussion]
   Person 3: [Threats to leave game forever but never leaves]
   Person 2: [Intelligent argument as possible exploit found]
   Person 1: [Exploit guards thought about without major changes]
   Developer: [Response to possible exploits in system and safeguards]

Result:
Many happy and sad players but everyone is informed. This way only ideas that the developers believe to be supporting to the game (Not the players) will be accepted. Because ideas are not for the players to benefit from, they're for the game to grow and move forwards instead of stagnating.

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

In all honesty there was a point recently where I realized that I was spending too much time with reading the forums and moderating them, while neglecting my real duties of developing the game. I'll try to balance it out in the future, since obviously I am needed here as well.

And sorry for being off-topic.

106

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Ack! 2 dev posts in 20 mins. SPAM SPAM

tongue

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Alexander wrote:

That's a very good post Zoom.

I think the issue stems from specifics. Alf didn't mention it was in the works.. he said what was so far planned. This closes the ability to discuss the change. If it has or has not been decided is beyond the point and honestly you're damned if you do talk about changes and damned if you don't.

Not talking about changes is probably the worse of the two. If you don't talk about changes you not onlyupset the people who would be upset anyway but you also give a royal slap to the face of anyone that, had they been informed, wouldn't have flown off the handle and could have helped shape the idea.

As said the issue is specifics. Don't be so specific. If you have changes in mind then talk about them, then make a decision and then makes minor or major changes as feedback and loopholes are found.

E.g.
Thread:
   Person 1: Do we need attributes? It limits player choice and locks a player inter a career too soon.
   Person 2: [Argument against]
   Person 3: [whining and no content]
   Person 4: [Arguments fore]

Dev meeting: Point discussed, player feedback analysed. Idea supported, rejected or modified.

Back to the thread:
   Person 34: [More whining and nothing more being added]
   Developer: Having reviewed this idea we agree/disagree with this idea and would like to take it further with/without modification.
   Person 1: [More ideas, discussion]
   Person 3: [Threats to leave game forever but never leaves]
   Person 2: [Intelligent argument as possible exploit found]
   Person 1: [Exploit guards thought about without major changes]
   Developer: [Response to possible exploits in system and safeguards]

Result:
Many happy and sad players but everyone is informed. This way only ideas that the developers believe to be supporting to the game (Not the players) will be accepted. Because ideas are not for the players to benefit from, they're for the game to grow and move forwards instead of stagnating.



This should be an in-game mechanics called "the petitions system".

It would work like this:
-player (or dev) writes a petition
-every paying account can vote on it, accept or reject, and their votes are weighted by their extension points (i.e. player age)
-those petitions accepted by the majority are filtered to the devs who then decide if it's going to be implemented or not

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

This topic should be close do to devspam.
On a serious note, time managements is the worst thing to... manage wink

<GargajCNS> we maim to please

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

You make a choice at the start on what you want your character to develop, then there is a chance of 1 'real' reset once you have experience and more apt to make the best choice. Now you want to to dumb it all down so choices does not matter by taking attributes away. I would like for my choices to matter it adds immersion and consequences, please take that into account with any new changes.

RIP PERPETUUM

110

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Alexander wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:
Segreto wrote:

But my confusion aside, I cannot abide by a developer’s surprise attack on a player created character.  Finding out about this idea in a side remark in an ‘idea’ thread is unacceptable.

This caught my eye.

*scratches head*

*takes deep breath*

A lot of players are complaining that the level of information flow from us has decreased lately. One of the many reasons for this is exactly the topics like this one.

When we don't say anything, it's bad.

When Alf hints some work-in-progress and subject to change infos, everyone starts theorycrafting based on that, and then even more people come complaining that we should post specifics of something that we don't even know because it's still work in progress. So that's bad too.

I'm open for any suggestions, other than "work faster goddammit!".

On a brighter note, we're close to wrapping up the concept of the account reset and attribute system changes, and will post the results in the devblog very soon.

That's a very good post Zoom.

I think the issue stems from specifics. Alf didn't mention it was in the works.. he said what was so far planned. This closes the ability to discuss the change. If it has or has not been decided is beyond the point and honestly you're damned if you do talk about changes and damned if you don't.

Not talking about changes is probably the worse of the two. If you don't talk about changes you not onlyupset the people who would be upset anyway but you also give a royal slap to the face of anyone that, had they been informed, wouldn't have flown off the handle and could have helped shape the idea.

As said the issue is specifics. Don't be so specific. If you have changes in mind then talk about them, then make a decision and then makes minor or major changes as feedback and loopholes are found.

E.g.
Thread:
   Person 1: Do we need attributes? It limits player choice and locks a player inter a career too soon.
   Person 2: [Argument against]
   Person 3: [whining and no content]
   Person 4: [Arguments fore]

Dev meeting: Point discussed, player feedback analysed. Idea supported, rejected or modified.

Back to the thread:
   Person 34: [More whining and nothing more being added]
   Developer: Having reviewed this idea we agree/disagree with this idea and would like to take it further with/without modification.
   Person 1: [More ideas, discussion]
   Person 3: [Threats to leave game forever but never leaves]
   Person 2: [Intelligent argument as possible exploit found]
   Person 1: [Exploit guards thought about without major changes]
   Developer: [Response to possible exploits in system and safeguards]

Result:
Many happy and sad players but everyone is informed. This way only ideas that the developers believe to be supporting to the game (Not the players) will be accepted. Because ideas are not for the players to benefit from, they're for the game to grow and move forwards instead of stagnating.

That would be great if it was SEPARATE topic...

Great to read that DEVs are near the finish line with new Spark system

Our robots are made by Jesus himself with the help of MacGyver and blessed by Chuck Noris

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Mark Zima wrote:

"bonus EP cost by spark selection" means back to attributes again.

actualy not ... since you are picking a spark at the moment that is focused on some areas that just means class selection (or similar) it has nothing to do with attributes.

112 (edited by Scyylla 2011-09-21 05:41:15)

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

DEV Zoom wrote:
Segreto wrote:

But my confusion aside, I cannot abide by a developer’s surprise attack on a player created character.  Finding out about this idea in a side remark in an ‘idea’ thread is unacceptable.

This caught my eye.

*scratches head*

*takes deep breath*

A lot of players are complaining that the level of information flow from us has decreased lately. One of the many reasons for this is exactly the topics like this one.

When we don't say anything, it's bad.

When Alf hints some work-in-progress and subject to change infos, everyone starts theorycrafting based on that, and then even more people come complaining that we should post specifics of something that we don't even know because it's still work in progress. So that's bad too.

I'm open for any suggestions, other than "work faster goddammit!".

On a brighter note, we're close to wrapping up the concept of the account reset and attribute system changes, and will post the results in the devblog very soon.

Communication with content is never bad!

With that said, I would recommend some limits on the things communicated. It would reduce the theory-crafting and some of the forum whining. I think the flaw in Dev Alf's statements were partially due to some very specific numbers thrown out on the subject (makes the decision look alot more concrete then it may be) and alot of missing info. At first read what you see is EP being taken away... Never a good thing to drop in chat then bolt.

Lack of communication, lack of interest in player feedback, removal of functionality and the expansions later that reintroduced the functionality they took 6 months earlier (billed as content) are some of the reasons I left Eve after 7 years. The team working on Perpetuum were a welcome breath of fresh air. NEVER STOP COMMUNICATING!!!!!!!!

Inappropriate signature.

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

DEV Zoom wrote:

In all honesty there was a point recently where I realized that I was spending too much time with reading the forums and moderating them, while neglecting my real duties of developing the game. I'll try to balance it out in the future, since obviously I am needed here as well.

And sorry for being off-topic.

Perhaps time for some community manager that helps you guys gather the ideas and info about these topics. As reading through all the replies and filtering the useful and constructive ones out takes a lot of time as you sate.

Does this mean we don't want Devs being active on the forum? No it doesn't, you won't get a free ticket that easy big_smile
As information given about these types of changes is always better to come from a dev then from a community manager.

And we are looking forward to the devblog on this topic, as it is indeed boiled down to theorycrafting as we only got a very small bit of information about the topic here at hand.

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Ydyp Ieva wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

In all honesty there was a point recently where I realized that I was spending too much time with reading the forums and moderating them, while neglecting my real duties of developing the game. I'll try to balance it out in the future, since obviously I am needed here as well.

And sorry for being off-topic.

Perhaps time for some community manager that helps you guys gather the ideas and info about these topics. As reading through all the replies and filtering the useful and constructive ones out takes a lot of time as you sate.

Does this mean we don't want Devs being active on the forum? No it doesn't, you won't get a free ticket that easy big_smile
As information given about these types of changes is always better to come from a dev then from a community manager.

And we are looking forward to the devblog on this topic, as it is indeed boiled down to theorycrafting as we only got a very small bit of information about the topic here at hand.

I agree completely :-)

I suggested this to CCP Devs and I think it could work here. If you want player feedback, have a Dev start a thread with the basic outline of the topic discussed. The Dev should also moderate the thread heavily to avoid drifting off topic. The opening post has to reflect the current state of discussion so one does not have to go through all the posts (even ideas REJECTED should be listed).

This way we have a working 2-way communication channel and everybody is happy. If the thread is no longer needed (either the idea was dropped completely or a sufficient feedback was collected), the thread is locked and the header is modified with the relevant outcome (REJECTED, SOLVED, etc...).

It does need effort from the Devs, but I think it would help.

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

As I believe was mentioned above by someone else, I would love to see an "Official Topic for Discussion" thread started by the devs on a maybe bi-weekly basis.

First off this would allow the devs to inform us players about ideas they are considering.  However as it is a discussion thread and not a "this is in the works" thread it would help to avoid the whole "Well Dev so and so promised this or that" problem.  It would also limit the amount of wild speculation that always occurs when we hear just brief bits of information outta context and without knowing any related specifics.

Snowman did have a good point in that opening ideas for discussion amongst the players can help to highlight problems or concerns that the devs may not have thought of before a patch is deployed and problems discovered the hard way.

While we know the devs are working hard in the background and want the game to succeed as much or more than us players do, lack of information from them for any lengthy period of time gives the impression that they either don't care or are not doing anything. 

While Arga is right that rants are usually an ineffective and maybe even detrimental method of communicating one's feelings, it should also be understood that those same rants show that the player has some deep feelings for this game.  If they are willing to rant about something it shows they care.

116

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Robophiliac wrote:

While Arga is right that rants are usually an ineffective and maybe even detrimental method of communicating one's feelings, it should also be understood that those same rants show that the player has some deep feelings for this game.  If they are willing to rant about something it shows they care.

Anyone that posts feedback shows they care, ranting doesn't impy greater emotional attachment and is less constructive then a well formulated response.

I would argue they care less than someone who takes the time to create well thought out posts.

117 (edited by Lemon 2011-09-22 20:50:12)

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Alexander wrote:

The devs aren't hiding they're intentions as far as I see it but I can see why they might want to when CIR goes on the full attack (See, generalizing hurts. Your opinions are not mine so don't include me when you say 'We').

CIR on the attack, Well lets have some fun with this since apparently we are.

@Snowmans Post: Good analogy but the length turned off most readers and was to complicated for a majority to comprehend the meaning behind it. Not to mention you lost all credibility when insulting the Dev's

@Intentions: Yes the devs could relay there intentions but again, this isnt specifc enough for the players. Now if you want specifics its important to understand how development works and know one key thing. "Software Development IS NOT a exact science"

What can be relayed is the end goal and projected time lines as well as periodic teasers or updates on these timeline.
                Key fact: The most exact a Dev team can get for a projected finish date is generally a quarter, and most of the time those arn't even met.

@Feedback: Yes players will always give good/bad/useless feedback but thats what you get from any feedback everywhere. We have all seen the notes left in comment box's

4cOmmunity: Devs can give the community a understanding in the direction and goals they are trying to work towards, but its the players job to understand that these are not exact or specifics and to hope the dev's keep them updated as best as possible. The end goal if it changes.

@Zoom: We both know communication form the players to the devs could be better but you know as well that the communication from the devs could be much better as well. You can easily ignore players, Players cant ignore whats already just silence and whispers.

TL:DR Lets get professional YEA!

Undefeated 2013
"Even alone you probably are one of the best" - Khader Khan
"Lemon the 1 man army .... also know as: THE TERMINATOR!" - Obi Wan
"There are people who are just better then you at doing many things at one time, some are far better then myself, far better." -Merkle

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Good post lemon

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Alexander wrote:

The devs aren't hiding they're intentions as far as I see it but I can see why they might want to when CIR goes on the full attack (See, generalizing hurts. Your opinions are not mine so don't include me when you say 'We').

Honestly anyone talking to another person, let alone a dev, like that should be taken down a few notches. But we can't talk about that here. smile

"Hello, we are Menace to Society, and we care about YOU, the society. even though we are completely innocent and ignorant of what our former CEO did we nevertheless will hold entire corporations responsible for their individual members say and vice versa, we do however expect other corporations and people not to treat us the same way as we are totally innocent of any previous misdeeds by misguided individuals."

Generalizations are a wonderful thing. lol

However, there is nothing insulting or demeaning in Snowman's post.

He is quite right in what he says, there is no known plan or discussion of said plan even in it's most basic vague form. There are vague snippets of information on the horizon, so far we've gone from minefields and artillery, to the energy credit system with a paintjob RMT feature, to alliance systems, to outpost HQ's and NEXUS auras, blah blah blah...

One could say there have been plans put forward, but so far very little has been realized from that and actually the track record would suggest most of it has been forgotten after it was posted - as it has been ~8 months since we talked about artillery and minefields as the new "thing" coming in.

To return to my point, no there really isn't insulting in what Snowman said. It's one of the most constructive and polite rant-venting posts I've seen compared to other games, and I suspect that's what's really insulting because the truth people don't like always hurts. smile

Thus no need to get on the defensive and crusade for your beloved Devs that make your "fanboyaka" knees tremble by their mere presence, keep in perspective that the players are paying them X per month per account, not the other way around. It's just a game, nothing more nothing less. wink

Yes, customers can be perceptive and mouthy in their complaints; welcome to the world of customer support. Now, first lesson and the golden rule of customer support... The customer is always right and you are very sorry for his troubles with your product, because if he isn't right and you aren't sorry then he just might realize there's other places where he could be spending his money. lol

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

120

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

damn customers!

take your time devs.

121

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Syndic wrote:

Yes, customers can be perceptive and mouthy in their complaints; welcome to the world of customer support. Now, first lesson and the golden rule of customer support... The customer is always right and you are very sorry for his troubles with your product, because if he isn't right and you aren't sorry then he just might realize there's other places where he could be spending his money. lol

Actually, the customer is not always right. Case in point, airliner passengers being removed from planes for yelling at the steward(ess).

Any product that involves multiple customers can't operate on that principle. Not even if a majority of customers feel that way. If 99 out of 100 airline passengers decided the plane should go to Hawaii instead of Chicago, the plane is still going to Chicago.

Every player has the individual right to choose if they want to play the game as presented, just like the passengers can choose which airline to fly. Once you commit to playing the game, or the flight, your just along for the ride.

If while commited to playing the game, it changes, the customer is still not right. The plane intended to go to Chicago, but due to mecahnical failure, weather, dead guy in row 7, it was diverted to Tampa. Your going to Tampa regardless of the money you paid thinking you were going to Chigaco.

In an MMO, the only thing the monthly fee entitles you is access to the game. Customer satisfaction is limited to providing you access to that game. It doesn't ensure that you'll have fun playing the game or that you can have any influence in the development of the game.

Players get commited to playing games that DO take thier suggestions into account, and it's good strategy to try to get your plane to land in Chicago if that's where you intended it to go, as well as give those passengers that extra packet of peanuts. But there is no OBLIGATION for them to do so.

122

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Arga you forget they get you to Chicago once the issue is resolved.

Undefeated 2013
"Even alone you probably are one of the best" - Khader Khan
"Lemon the 1 man army .... also know as: THE TERMINATOR!" - Obi Wan
"There are people who are just better then you at doing many things at one time, some are far better then myself, far better." -Merkle

123

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

I didn't forget, analogies can only go so far smile

But, if it was no longer possible to get to Chicago that is it's not just a temporary issue and Chicago had another incident with a cow, then they would do what they could, but you still wouldn't end up in Chicago.

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Syndic wrote:

However, there is nothing insulting or demeaning in Snowman's post.

:

Syndic, you must be blind in one eye and can't see out of the other........ You sir are truely daft and need to deflate your ego a bit......

Snowman wrote:

you ***

Snowman wrote:

the product needs protecting from you disturbing intentions

Inappropriate signature.

Re: Balance Attributes, character creation and progression.

Lemon wrote:

@Snowmans Post: Good analogy but the length turned off most readers and was to complicated for a majority to comprehend the meaning behind it. Not to mention you lost all credibility when insulting the Dev's

Since DEV Zoom ranted at us first, my post was aimed at him.  So I dont concern myself with how other readers interpret it.   

However,  Im rather suprised at how well the readers did understand it.

Apart from those "readers" who dont seem to realise how insulting and dis-respectfull DEV Zoom was to warrant my response in the first place,  If you look at the replys from the readers compared to DEV Zooms reply.. I think you've properly under-estimated the readers ability to comprehend a simple analogy.

I've way more respect for this community than this DEV appears to have.