|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tiel Syysch
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
634
   |
Posted - 2013.01.15 18:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
There's a lot of examples like this, this just happens to be the most recent:
Quote:[FEEDBACK] Re-adjusting heavy dropsuits
Update: Balancing work on dropsuits are ongoing, and we will keep you posted with future updates on the results.
We don't know what this means. What are the perceived imbalances that you are addressing? In what ways are you thinking about approaching this imbalance?
We have no clue what you think is wrong with anything, and we don't know what direction you're trying to move with anything until it blindsides us in a new build. Many of us feel so out of the loop with it all, and it's as if we are unable to provide any kind of guidance on anything because we're left in the dark all the time. We have no details on what you're thinking, we have no idea what direction you're trying to go with the game's mechanics, and balance seems useless to propose because everything is done behind the scenes and the only thing we're allowed to see is the final product with no explanation of why changes are made.
This is the perfect example of why many of us are unhappy with the amount and type of dev communication we receive. All we get are these rare occurrences and they tell us hardly anything, if not leaving us with even more questions. I know I'm not alone in wanting more details into why changes are being made, and in advance what changes you're considering, because a lot of it seems like all we can expect is dartboard methodology with these vague balance considerations. |
Tiel Syysch
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
634
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tarquin Markel wrote:Agreed, but ... Considering that there is a group of people with a vested interest in every last aspect of gameplay, can we really blame them for not calling Jita Riots Round 2 down on their own heads until any changes are finalized? Quote:CCP: Okay, so we're thinking of modifying X.
Peeps: What! You can't change X! It'll nerf item Y! We love Y! We depend on Y! Y is our reason for playing this game!
CCP: Uh, okay, so we decided X wasn't the issue, and we're going to do some work on Z instead.
Other Peeps: Oh look, CCP giving in to pressure from whiners. What a surprise. BTW, we love Z and will now throw a massive online fit because you want to change it.
CCP: .... Edit: Have you ever noticed how CCP spokespeople always seem to say, "We love our fans," through gritted teeth, a grimace, or both?
Not every item has to be opened up as a democratic process for the community to decide. This isn't American Idol. What they do need, though, is to give us insight into what they're doing and why they're doing it. We have no idea what direction the game is trying to go, whether it's supposed to be tactical, or fast paced, or arcade-y, or whatever. We can't propose changes or ideas that fit the vision of Dust without knowing what that vision is.
Things just keep being balanced and tweaked, though, with no reasoning given to us. It's just a mess. I keep saying that they've got several dials for each item and with a new build they just crank a few of them in random directions, because that's what it feels like. There's no rhyme or reason to why things keep changing the way they are. Why are these weapons buffed/nerfed? Why did the redlines in ambush get pulled in severely? Where did these weird changes that nobody asked for come from, for example missile dispersion? Why does the SP system keep changing around? We don't know any of this.
We're supposed to be testing things, but in order to test, we have to have a vision of how the game is supposed to be in order to determine whether something fits that vision. That vision is something CCP has so far been unwilling to share with us (maybe they don't have one themselves?).
KalOfTheRathi wrote:Or a corp as big as the Imperfects gets all their members to give input and sound like a lot of input. When in reality it is one corp expressing how they want to twist the game to their benefit.
The closer a corp is to an Eve corp the more likely there input will be destructive to Dust514. Yet, CCP does not seem to realize that. With what they put up with on a constant loop with Eve I have no idea why not?
CCP should be able to distinguish between quality feedback and just a flood trying to pad the votes. They're big boys, they can determine what the best course of action is when presented with solutions the community has seen (I hope), or develop their own.
And lol at "a corp as big as the Imperfects," we're actually quite small compared to many of the big corps. |
Tiel Syysch
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
634
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 04:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Well it's not just the weekly update posts that are a point of frustration. It's pretty much all communication, that was just the most recent thing to grab as an example. There's hardly anything informative coming our way, spanning back several months at this point. There used to be a fair amount of activity on the forums and IRC, and lately all we get are "thread moved to appropriate section" posts for the most part.
The weekly update posts could stand to have more elaboration, though. Part of the reason is feedback to us that you see a given problem or suggestion the way that we intended. Otherwise, we feel like in the middle of all the chaos you overhear just "small missiles" and then it's off to the drawing board to mess with small missiles! More activity (from your end) on the forums could help out with this as well, participating in threads that you see a legitimate suggestions and discussions to help guide fleshing out an idea, because let's face it a lot of people are bad at fully proposing an idea. That way we don't feel like you just hear the topic and then go off to do your own thing to it.
New dev blogs are good and all, but so far I don't think I've seen one that has really told us, the closed beta testers, anything we didn't already know. They all seem like marketing material to get people out of the loop interested, and not a look at what's on the horizon. The rewards one was a little informative, but really only so far as you guys refused to tell us how it worked exactly before the dev blog, because it was being written at the time and "wait for it."
Many of us still don't know what kind of game you want Dust to be, though, and that's a huge problem for those of us that feel that way. It was always explained as tactical before I joined into the beta, but things have gone in a direction that is anything but tactical with each new build. We don't know how to tailor our feedback when not knowing what vision you have for Dust. If it's supposed to be an arcade shooter, that'll alter our perception of various mechanics (and how we provide feedback) differently than if it's supposed to be a tactical shooter.
One of the biggest issues is all the changes being made with no explanation, such as AR iron sights and ambush red line changes. They're just thrust upon us and we have to beat an explanation out of you as to why they were done, if we ever get one at all (I don't think we have about either of those). Most of the time we make up our own ideas for why they were done, and it just leads to all this speculation about the direction the game is heading.
I spoke to you in IRC (I'm Skytt in there) about communication a while back, and setting up some kind of organized feedback system to have better two-way communication, but I never heard anything since then. I'd still like to see that. You could choose a reasonable number of the more rational members of the community and have a weekly or bi-weekly feedback session (whatever fits your schedule) with them where their role is to simply relay the important matters the community has between you and everyone else. They can do all the typing it up to save you time to work on other stuff.
If we're supposed to have any role in the testing that isn't purely providing you with usage data, and instead actually having some kind of impact on the development of the game with our ideas and suggestions, then something really needs to be done to establish better two-way communication. |
Tiel Syysch
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
634
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 18:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Tiel Syysch wrote:
One of the biggest issues is all the changes being made with no explanation, such as AR iron sights and ambush red line changes. They're just thrust upon us and we have to beat an explanation out of you as to why they were done, if we ever get one at all (I don't think we have about either of those). Most of the time we make up our own ideas for why they were done, and it just leads to all this speculation about the direction the game is heading.
The Iron Sight for the AR was implemented because there was a lot of feedback in the Feedback/requests forums stating that the AR "mask" was odd. Was mostly because the gun wasn't lifted to the face to be sighted, the camera just moved to the sight on top of the AR itself and was rather unorthodox. I think another big thing to do with it was that CCP intends (at some point) to implement a weapon customization system.
Check out the last sentence of what you quoted, because that's exactly what you're doing. There were A LOT of people that were fine with the sight the AR had. SOME people wanted iron sights. The change to iron sights-only was just bonkers, and if it was done because of "weapon customization some day in the future," there was no reason they couldn't have both as options leading up to that instead of drastically altering the weapon without including a way to get the old sight back.
Naturi Riclenore wrote:crazy space 2100046106 wrote:Keep faith, your forum posters not professional game devs We may not be professional game devs, but many (probably most) of us are very avid gamers and this is not our first pony ride.
Not to mention there are some of us who are game devs, or have been in the past. |
|
|
| |
|