The meta suggestion

Suggestions Social
1

I have this tiny little idea about communication between the devs and the players.

 

So far, with some very minor exceptions, suggestions have worked like this: players have an idea, they make a thread on it, argue the pros and cons of the new suggestion and/or make a poll to gather sufficient feedback in order to push it through. There often is some feedback from the staff, but that’s about it - the staff are rather passive in the discussion, as in they either agree to something or they do not. Which I understand, since it IS their game that we all play, but in my opinion it slightly inhibits the growth of the playerbase, as this is one of those games where the staff simply need to actively participate in the game’s discussion.

 

What I propose is very simple. Could you, devs, make official discussion threads on updates before you release them? There are many very experienced pilots in this game that could tell you right away if an idea is bad or good long before you implement it into the game.

 

I honestly mean no disrespect here, mistakes happen, and the vets usually learn to forgive them easily; it’s the newcomers whose go-to solution to a problem (like e.g. the current mixed tier thing) is to quit the game. Because they haven’t invested their time and money in it, because they haven’t discovered how things work here, because they haven’t explored the gameplay enough.

 

 

To clarify how in my opinion it would work best:

You don’t need to give us all the details of the new update/system/whatever - let supertesters handle the details - but you should give us some general overview of what the problem you currently focus on is, what you would like the end result to be, and what your planned solution is.

 

It’s great that you guys extended your care over the newbies, but the solution is just bad. Instead of having us all beta test solutions to problems in a released game, you should’ve just told us that your next focus would be this and that and that you need some feedback on it, because you do need our feedback.

We would have told you that a CovOp weapon that deals massive amounts of white damage would be a bad idea; we would have told you (and I hear some actually did) that mixed tiers would be a bad idea; we would have told you that A1MA being an aimbot would be a bad idea. It took us months to convince you that doomsday missiles in T2 were in fact a bad idea.

 

 

To simplify - whenever there’s an update featuring some changes you deem controversial (especially new weapons, modes or changes to the system), please let us know beforehand: make a thread on what you focus on next, give us a possible solution, gather some feedback from us, and if you’re still uncertain what should be done, make a poll after a few days, once everyone’s opinion has been established.

 

 

In the end, although it may not seem like it - for which I sincerely apologise - the purpose of this thread is not to accuse you of anything at all. It’s an attempt at creating a dialogue between you and us, instead of us just reporting bugs, glitches, OP guns and bad system, and you telling us in return what can and what cannot be done about it. That would still be the main purpose of this forum of course, but we would also have some common ground to keep this game interesting to both veterans and greenies.

2

I could not agree with you more, so many troubles could’ve ended before they even started.

 

Especially the doomsdays and the scatter gun in the holiday was by far the worst imo

At some point, we had more squads/wings/entire teams quitting then staying in the game.

 

Sorry Lux, do know that I love you <3 : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbRfam2SBuE&index=5&list=PL4_Lf5ag0_6renOj2xBidKyAOalKpjvaz

3

I fully agree with this. My hope was that the open test servers would serve this purpose. But it seems a bit of a complicated solution that not many people used profitably.

4

I fully support this idea. The devs haven’t exactly proven that they listen to us (especially with this latest ninja patch).

5

I agree with you completely. +1

I mean, we got the public test server, but they are only available now and then for only 2 hours or so.

There is no more discussion in that section, except for 1, when it all started.

 

I may go a bit off-topic, so forgive me.

 

 

Developers develop games.

They have an idea, that some of the game changes, for better or worse, must be suitable for newcomers, even if they aren’t appropriate by experienced veteran or elite players.

Most of the developers spend very little or no time in a game. There are some good exceptions. It is one thing, to have a good theory and the other, when you put it into practice.

This game reminds me of one thing.

 

Current situation on how the rookies see this thing.

 

Game stages:

Stage 1: Experience a game (try it out)

Stage 2: Invest in a game (convinced that P2W model will work)

Stage 3: Rage quit, since investment didn’t pay off (game gets some quick earned cash, but it will die in the end)

 

 

How old beta or current players view this game and how it should work to make it more appealing.

 

Game stages:

Stage 1: Experience a game (try it out - each first trial should provide you with 7 days of free license and 1000GS at a start! - rookie feels good about some free reward to test this game)

Stage 2: Provide a proper incentive to keep and invest in a game (more friendly and quicker/less grindy upgrade and progression system - rookie will stay, if the game grind is reduced by 50%)

Stage 3: Profit from our investment (happy customer - provides continuous flow of money, if they can - game can live to evolve)

 

 

Let’s face it.

I think that developers are aware of such situation, but since they are probably provided with a minimal or slightly above minimal funding. People don’t invest into this game or investment isn’t going, where it’s supposed to go.

Everything needs to be financed these days. This is the Capitalism. If you lack money, even the simplest and easiest of changes cannot happen.

 

Opinion stated here is my own.

 

Star Conflict for me is an unwanted child by Gaijin. Cute to look at, but it quickly becomes irritating and boring, because it isn’t happening in the World War 2. At least, that’s how Gaijin views it. And they will never admit that to us.

Star Conflict development costs are unknown to me. However, with all the time I have spent on the forums, the internet and in the game, I am absolutely certain of one thing. My conclusion is (almost) valid.

Developer’s hands are tied behind their backs. I do not know a solution to this problem. It might be too late already. Update 1.2.0 is our last hope.

Yes, we will get more of the same, since no major updates or changes will happen, but at least some of the old players (like completely inactive ESB) will return back from World of Warships, which has over 30k players.

Full and paid advertisement campaign must start with the release of 1.2.0 or at least shortly after , to address some balance issues.

If there won’t be enough funding from Gaijin in this particular department, it will not work. It will be invain.

I will closely monitor all official channels, e-magazines, reviews, video providers, etc., just to see, if they fulfilled their promised end of the bargain.

 

I am patient and reasonable and I am also civil and diplomatic, when necessary. I am also honest and straightforward.

 

Summary:

 

Step 1: Get more money for this game.

Step 2: Communicate more with Veteran and Elite experienced players base and base statistics from them and not by all in general.

Step 3: Address current issues (look at step 2)

Step 4: Advertise a game, whenever possible (hugely dependant on step 1)

Step 5: Be proud of your success

 

 

Goal of this game must not be, to ensure its survival, but on popularity and successful business. You’re holding an unique yewel, which still has much better potential, than you realize.

6

Have to play the devils advocat here. While I completely agree that it would be wonderful for me as a gamer to be able to influence directly the game, for developers this is a nightmare. I’m following a few Indi games, some very very succesfull and also watch GDC speeches of said developers. They all tell the same story: Getting involved with the community is a two-edged sword. Because on the forums, twitter and facebook the ones who play the game the most are the loudest and usually the once making suggestions, but they are not the money bringing majority. I don’t know the numbers in SC but in another game hold very dear only about 0.1% of all players have even registered in the forum and those tend to be the hardcore players who are constantly nagging at the devs. But let’s not forget that the devs are making the game and they have their own vision of how it should be, also they have statistics of the whole player base and not only those 0.1% in the forum. They need feedback from the players, bug reports and the likes but it is extremely difficult for them to stay on the right path and not getting carried away from their vision by following every suggestion that is made by a small minority in contrast to the whole player base. That’s not to say that everything they introduce is golden and cannot be touched. What I’m trying to say is that if something needs to be changed, most likely they will do it because analyzing their logs suggested so and not because a handfull or two of players demanded it.

 

In regards of the recent changes: it’s just too early to complain already. Let it play out for a while, see if the vets come back to T4/5 and maybe in the end we can live happily ever after. I surely hope so :wink:

 

[EDIT] here’s a link to a very good GDC speech from Raphael Van Lierop, CEO of the company who develops The Long Dark, probably one of the games that is being developed closest to the community I’ve ever seen:

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022333/There-Be-Monsters-Harnessing-the

 

Watch it and reflect, you might understand then why - seemingly - “we are being unheard”

7

init0, you bring up some good points, but some of the points you bring up are invalid for different reasons that you missed.

 

Yes, listening to the player base is a double edged sword. But here is where you are wrong, the players who are speaking up and playing the game a lot usually have done one of two things.

  1. Already put a sizeable chunk of money into the game, but now limit how much they contribute for w/e reason. I consider myself one of these players. In the 2.5 years I have been playing, I have contributed probably clsoe to $750 to this game. That is a lot of money, especially for someone in college. Now, most of the money I have contributed to the game was done in the first 1.5-2 years. In the last 6 months, I have probably only contributed $75-100 towards this game. Why? Because in the past 5-6 months, I haven’t felt that the devs deserve much more of my money. I donated a lot so early because I wanted to see good changes in the game that resulted in more fun and better content. I also contributed because I understood that this game does not have a P2W mechanic, only pay to progress and pay for additional content. Koromac brought this up, and this is a sentiment shared by most of the veteran community. The newer community doesn’t seem to understand the monetization mechanics of this game. They either think that buying their way to T5 will make them win, or that buying their way to T5 will result in them getting better. Neither of those two things is true in the slightest, and that is an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

  1. Provide a consistent flow of money for renewable features. A lot of the pilots in this game don’t spend much money on DLC or ships, but they will regularly spend money to renew their license. These players greatly understand how the license reduces the grind significantly, but again, it is knowledge not well-understood by the newer community.

 

I am well aware that the devs have a hard job, I’m not saying they don’t. But you have to understand (and they do too), developing a game with the goal of success in mind requires the support of the players, and the players will not want to support a game that is being developed in ways they don’t like, or if they feel like the devs are not listening to them. Now, this is a two-way street. We as the players also need to understand that not every idea is a viable suggestion for the game, so we can’t get butthurt if our every idea isn’t implemented. But what the player base CAN do, is unite on common issues, issues that are extremely pressing and important to the player base as a whole. If the devs ignore suggestions that a majority of the player base wants, or ignores the cries from the majority of the player base who want a change to be reverted, they are shooting themselves in the proverbial foot, as a game will not have much success if it can’t keep it’s players enjoying the game.

 

Now, I also understand that the people who use the forums to communicate with the devs, bring up suggestions, critique the games flaws, and interact with the community, are in a minority of the game’s population, but they can’t be ignored because they are a minority. These are the players who care about the game, and most of them have been playing for a long time. Out of the entire player base, these are the ones who understand the game the best, and who are the best qualified to make suggestions and tell the devs what will/won’t work (compared to the rest of the player base). The silent masses who don’t use the forums, in my opinion, don’t deserve to have their opinions heard, as they won’t make them heard themselves. If you look at any successful movement (take the Civil Rights movement in the US in the 1960’s), they had their voices heard. They didn’t sit back saying nothing, they stood up, spoke out, and made a difference. And in the end, it is these people that are heard. All of the silent masses who don’t speak up on the forums (whether it be because they don’t care, don’t have an account, or are content with the game as it is), shouldn’t be counted in the devs polls of who wants what, as nobody knows what they want. I know this sounds mean, but it is the truth. If the devs don’t know what you want/if you are enjoying the game, why should they listen to you?

 

Regarding the changes, you are right to some degree. With some of the changes, it is too early to complain. The new weapons and Wanted missions need some time to grow and show what they are. But mixed tiers on the other hand. Mixed tiers is something that has been tried several times in the past, every time it has failed miserably. Those of us who are complaining about mixed tiers have been around long enough to have experienced them before, and we understand that they don’t last and are a horrible idea.

 

init0, you are still a fairly new player in comparison to a lot of the players here on the forum. Many of us who make these outcries have been playing for over 2 years. So in comparison, you have seen very little from what this game has been, and what has been successful or not. So please keep that in mind when you make these posts, you seem to have the mindset that you are as experienced as us, and you seem to think you know more than a lot of us. I don’t mean any disrespect, but I wish you could have seen how far this game has come since I started playing it, and seen all the changes that didn’t work, especially the 2 or 3 times they tried mixing tiers and failed.

8

That is not a good idea. They already have a bunch of Super testers. If they give these people their ideas first, they should recieve a decent feedback-or get new super testers. A feedback of like 10 experienced users is way way better than the feedback of some random internet forum guys-no disrespect intended.

9

@Dirk: Well first off, I’m playing this game since the official release, in a week I’ll have my first birthday :smiley: Yes I didn’t play the beta because I haven’t heard of it then but that does not matter much, because my comments in this thread were rather of a general meaning about how developement works and how they incorporate player feedback. You brought up the mixed-tier thing, for starters I’m not sure they have tried it the way they are doing it now - only putting high ELO players on higher tiers (that’s where my experience lacks as you so kindly pointed out) but in several threads that are made about this I don’t see a uniform opinion, especially the more experienced players seem to be fine with this for various reasons, I’ve stated my own several times. And while I have “only” put somewhere around 3-400€ into the game I think I’m eligiable to an opinion that gets heard by your standards. Only that, as I said before, I understand that the most important tool in the decisionmaking process of a dev studio are the logs they have of all players and we don’t, second the core/official-testers, then maybe the ingame polls and lastly the forums. That’s all my post was about.

 

If you feel entitled to be heard than better say goodbye to this idea, as long as you don’t get a monthly pay check from the devs the only thing you’re entitled to is to play the game. It really doesn’t matter how much money you have thrown at the game, especialy if it was in the past because that money has long been spent, now they need fresh money and they don’t get it from the vets but from new players. And as I already said in another thread, vets camping in T3 hunting down newbs is not in the best interest for the devs, because the newbs will quit the game after two evenings of constantly loosing. So forcing the vets to higher tiers seems to me the logical point to do.

 

Funny thing is, in TLD I am somewhat in a similar position than you claim to be here. I count myself to the rather hardcore player that invested alot of time and effort into the game, my guides and videos are among the most popular for TLD, my stream has constantly 10-20 viewers watching (on steam notabene) and the game has become a joke for me because I know it in an out and can survive for how long my patience allows. I’ve filled books with complaints that they should make the game harder (it’s a survival game if you don’t know it) and alot of other fellow streamers and very active players did the same in the forum. But update after update we have to watch how the game gets easier and easier, because only 10-15% play on the hardest setting anyway, most struggle to survive on medium or even easy, many players quit after a few deaths because it’s to hard for them to use their brains and so on. Sure given all I’ve done in and with the game I kinda felt entitled to be heard to, but in the end I had to come to terms with reality, which is: the devs have a vision for their game and know better how to make it successful than I do. It may not suit me and I will have to take the consequences like playing SC instead of TLD but in the end I already had a great time with the game and if it’s time to move on, so be it. That’s the best advice I can give you :wink:

10

“vets camping in T3 hunting down newbs is not in the best interest for the devs, because the newbs will quit the game after two evenings of constantly loosing. So forcing the vets to higher tiers seems to me the logical point to do.”

 

Really? So what you’ll basically do, is make us pull out our full purple T4 builds with even more mk5’s then T3 has.

I’ve played against newbie T3 players while sitting on my T4.

Either give us T5 games in dreadnought, sector sweep or something

Or get us more players for the higher tier games.

I’m not going to wait 10+ minutes for a 12 minute max match that’s probably going to end a lot sooner then that.

And no, the solution is not going soloQ. Forget it

 

If you get more hanger then conflict, this game should be renamed to Hanger Conflict

 

Also, did you ever consider that the higher tier you make us fly, the more distance there is between newer players to the tier and the vets?

All you would create, is a new T3 generation that will farm the newer players.

Since farming a shitload of PvE to get four T4 ships that are equipped decent enough to compete at that time will be horrific

11

Hello. The Idea is pretty good, but there are a lot of issues. Just imagine HBO creating a poll in which they ask how they should continue their shows, there will be one thousand opinions (even in yes/no questions). Also, how to measure these opinions, just choose the one which has more votes(?), I’m not sure that this is the best option.

Every game element, which we want to change, subjected to rigorous criticism, at first in the internal communication in the company, then, with super-testers, and after, the feedback from average players, feedback based on the  actual game experience,  not just on ideas. It is impossible to criticise the thing which you have not tried yet, don’t you agree with me?

However, It’s cool that you have your own decisions about how to evolve the game, that’s why we have the suggestions section on our forum and every reasonable suggestion will be considered. If you think we missed the good one (suggestion) you are welcomed to write me via PM.

12

Sorry, I haven’t been able to respond until now.

 

I didn’t mean to focus on mixed tiers specifically, there are/were other threads for that.

 

@Doombot

I appreciate your input, but maybe I should’ve put more emphasis on the part that I only meant particularly delicate aspects of the game - new game modes, new modules, new weapons, new system features, etc. So, technically, not minor tweaks but game-changers.

 

For an up-to-date example, the most recent pre-patch thread ([http://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/topic/28206-testing-1909-2009-from-1500-to-1900-utc/](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/28206-testing-1909-2009-from-1500-to-1900-utc/)), featuring “game-changers”: a nerf on a weapon that makes it virtually useless, reworked passive modules, a complete change of gameplay that so far has been by and large all about the right implants.

 

Now, I’m not sure if that specific thread got simply locked or if I don’t have the clearance to post in it, but what I would very much like is that such thread be made every single time an update like this is being worked on, not just once in a blue moon - and possibly stay open as long as possible. I’d like the discussion to be completely transparent, while it would be up to you who the participants would be.

 

Since forum and game accounts are usually linked, you could simply set some threshold stats in order to be able to post in such threads. Or you could allow only supertesters in the main thread and then create additional threads on specific parts of the update that everyone could post in (e.g. in the case of the linked topic, one thread for the talk on implants, another one for passive modules, another one for supernova ammo nerf, etc.). You can have a combination of both…

 

As much as I would like to agree that you can’t criticise things you haven’t tried out… I don’t. Your next patch features things that I really, honestly don’t see working well, and as far as that thread goes, I can see others sharing my point of view on this. However, the fact that you guys have actually posted it in the first place means a great lot, and I hope the minimal feedback that managed to be posted there so far has drawn your attention enough to keep the discussions open every time there’s an update in the works.

 

13

Destroyers, rank-up rewards, grind wall, rank based system, removal of squadplay, leagues, new resources to grind… I think it’s enough for a bump?

14

Since this has popped up, I’d like to respond to something Doomb0t said…
 

 

Hello. The Idea is pretty good, but there are a lot of issues. Just imagine HBO creating a poll in which they ask how they should continue their shows, there will be one thousand opinions (even in yes/no questions). Also, how to measure these opinions, just choose the one which has more votes(?), I’m not sure that this is the best option.

Every game element, which we want to change, subjected to rigorous criticism, at first in the internal communication in the company, then, with super-testers, and after, the feedback from average players, feedback based on the  actual game experience,  not just on ideas. It is impossible to criticise the thing which you have not tried yet, don’t you agree with me?

However, It’s cool that you have your own decisions about how to evolve the game, that’s why we have the suggestions section on our forum and every reasonable suggestion will be considered. If you think we missed the good one (suggestion) you are welcomed to write me via PM.

Quite a few successful games, especially the eSports games, make a point of working very closely with the top players. Blizzard don’t just make huge balance changes, then shrug and say “deal with it!”.

 

While you can’t ever get a 100% accurate view just going off paper, the fact is we have seen time and again that the community knows far more than the Devs do. For a prime example, we saw how the initial iteration of Sector Conflict would result in everyone jumping to Empire to avoid ESB, and thus kill the game mode. We told the dev team this. The dev team didn’t listen, Sector Conflict was dead within 24 hours of launch.

 

When there’s a thousand different opinions, I can understand just shrugging and carrying on. But when everyone is saying the same thing, and all of them say what you are doing is wrong, that’s a sign you need to go back to the drawing board, rather than wasting countless hours coding an update you’ll just have to totally redo two weeks later.

15

 

Buddy, you and your community (which is just a small sample of most mouthful and loud people) were wrong so many times on lots of topics, changes and points i lost count by now, and if devs would listen to every single thing you were trying to lobbying for, that be a disaster. 

16

Buddy, you and your community (which is just a small sample of most mouthful and loud people) were wrong so many times on lots of topics, changes and points i lost count by now, and if devs would listen to every single thing you were trying to lobbying for, that be a disaster. 

It’s not about us - or anyone else for that matter, including you - dictating new game order, it’s about there being a dialogue between the players and the devs. There isn’t one, and there needs to be. Obviously supertesters alone are not enough.

17

It’s not about us - or anyone else for that matter, including you - dictating new game order, it’s about there being a dialogue between the players and the devs. There isn’t one, and there needs to be. Obviously supertesters alone are not enough.

Obviously super testers are not the only ones.

I see so many posts implying something of this sorts:“i know so much, i know better, i wanna help the game from the bottom of my heart”.

Wanna help? Sign up to super test, prove that you actually know stuff about the game and not only big talk, like ArcTic or Fox or even Koromac, get accepted and help the game.

Imho spending much time talking to “community” is a huge waste - there are hardly a one or two truly good playrs per 20 mouthfull averages, and i am not speaking about ability to fly 230+ rotation interceptors, i am talking about ability to observe and comprehend the complexity and interactions of the game mechanics. Sadly even devs sometimes arent fitting this profile, but it is even more important to not have such communication links in cases like this, when both parties are clueless of a consecuenses you are in for a ride…

Ofcorse there are some topics that are not related to such thing and getting some 3rd party opinion not gonna hurt, and i think devs doing oretty good job on that already.

18

Good observations, I agree, +1.

 

But to relate them to the topic at hand, what exactly is your opinion on this? I mean, I get that ‘more action, less talk’, but… it is all about communication after all. What would you suggest, increase the pool of supertesters? 

19

I don’t remember the last time the Devs showed any interest in taking on new Super Testers. Even if they were recruiting them, I fail to see that it would change anything since either A) they aren’t listening to Super Testers when they bring up the glaringly obvious problems (see my earlier example), B) the sort of people they recruit for Super Tester status are unforgivably stupid and can’t see the glaringly obvious design flaws, or C) they recruit people to make sure the content is mechanically sound, not whether it’s a good idea or not, and so ignore feedback that isn’t bug reporting.

 

All of these fail to address the issues raised here.

20

I don’t remember the last time the Devs showed any interest in taking on new Super Testers. Even if they were recruiting them, I fail to see that it would change anything since either A) they aren’t listening to Super Testers when they bring up the glaringly obvious problems (see my earlier example), B) the sort of people they recruit for Super Tester status are unforgivably stupid and can’t see the glaringly obvious design flaws, or C) they recruit people to make sure the content is mechanically sound, not whether it’s a good idea or not, and so ignore feedback that isn’t bug reporting.

 

All of these fail to address the issues raised here.

Are you constantly monitoring all the channels that may or may not get recruit for super test? You hardly play the game at all, please don’t act like you’re some kind of information broker.

A) I have been on Super test for about 2 years now, with some breaks here and there, and you could not be more wrong about this, they may or may not listen partially or fully and it is a case by case scenarios, and yet Super Testers have the most influence on the game out of all playing community that is not a development team.

B) And yet that sort of people are leagues ahead of you in understanding the game

C) Direct responsibility of ST is checking integrity and feature completion, but those are not the only responsibilities.

 

I’d recommend you start backing up your big words with some data, it has been years and all you do spew nonsense based on rumors, false presumptions, or out of a simple greed and “I want” type of thoughts.