Are the Devs stubborn? - Page 3

Sturmhardt · 2012-11-05, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

We have 5 servers now, each capped at 2000 players afaik, so total capacity is 10K.

That was just a marketing number BEFORE the beta. Since then no dev went into detail how many players REALLY fit on one continent, so I guess they didn't reach this number. I guess it's closer to 1000, but that is just speculation as well.
I can just advise everyone to be very cautious about PR numbers like that, they don't really mean anything without real knowledge of their context.

GuyFawkes · 2012-11-05, 02:37 PM

I made a new char on each server last week when only 3 servers were up, and there were over 350k characters on the scoreboards so 300k isn't too much of a stretch to the imagination. According to figgys post elsewhere I think that makes it almost 4 times the population of subscribers of ps1 at its peak or thereabouts.
I recall when DCUO went ftp , and smedley tweeting a twenty fold increase in server numbers (from 50k to over 1 million) so I can see where they are making their guestimates.

Figment · 2012-11-05, 02:54 PM

Yeah, I don't think it's by any means a stretch of the imagination that they'd have hundreds of thousands of people. I'm just curious about retention rates.

It would be very nice if there'd be regular pollings tbh, good, thorough proper conducted surveys on login during a beta... And why not? People get to play for free, signed a NDA or beta document stating they are to provide feedback, I wouldn't find it weird to be obligated to fill in a 10-15 minute survey once a week or so by email to keep the account alive during the beta process.

Tamas · 2012-11-05, 03:08 PM

They must hold their ground and to their vision.

Of all the players, only a small fraction give feedback and it's usually the vocal lot, that we can't tell whether they represent all of the players or not.

So far PS2 devs have been EXTREMELY cooperative - few other titles do what they did until now - it surprises me that people take it for granted and don't appreciate anything. You could say that the devs that give the middle finger and the devs that really interact with the community are treated in the same way by players...

I do know that lots of good and interesting ideas come from fans, some come in good way explaining in detail the pros and cons, some are plain out biased towards a certain gameplay type.

You can't expect them to implement what one guy wants, but many people (here and official forums) think that they are somehow superior and that their ideas are good while others are idiots - self entitlement ftl.

I've seen so many games ruined simply because devs tried to please everyone and in the end everyone was unhappy. I hope they can balance out between what players want and what is actually good for them.

As a paradox - over a year (since launch) WoT forums have been filled with people unhappy about everything all the time, yet the number of active players is constantly rising.

Some gamers should realize it's not a game for them only. While I'm hoping that SOE won't go for mass appeal sacrificing what made it a good game (differentiation and innovation) - so many games recently fail to realize - they were popular because they were so unique. I've been disappointed by many new installments in series I loved simply because the devs got rid of "boring, tiresome, time consuming" mechanics - but that's was what made them different! I miss complex game that go into an insane level of management, that require time and investment, that are VERY long - that is what makes a game - yes, I miss the old days when it was required to think and it was a challenge - some of that is coming back from indie devs that are fans themselves and they want to have something like that not some huge publishers failcascade.

And I derailed from the main idea....

Rolfski · 2012-11-05, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by GuyFawkes

I made a new char on each server last week when only 3 servers were up, and there were over 350k characters on the scoreboards so 300k isn't too much of a stretch to the imagination. According to figgys post elsewhere I think that makes it almost 4 times the population of subscribers of ps1 at its peak or thereabouts.

So with PS2 already having more players in closed beta than PS1 subscriptions (75K) at it's peak (this was confirmed by SOE btw) and a forum like this only having 23K members, it's fair to say that the group that qualifies as "disappointed PS1 vets" is only a small minority, albeit a very vocal and passionate one.

Figment · 2012-11-05, 04:16 PM

PS1 players are a minority in general, but that doesn't mean they represent a minority opinion or don't voice majority problems and concerns, or that their concerns are less valid somehow. You should be a bit more careful with your assumptions and judgments there Rolfski, you skip to conclusions far too easily. :/

It's well possible that:

A. New players don't see the problems yet because their sensory systems are being overloaded with new information and are still figuring out how it is all connected.
B. New players agree with the problems and if they complain they get lumped in with a supposed veteran minority, simply because they share the opinion.
C. New players haven't discovered forumside yet to express their concerns.
D. New players don't care enough to report their issues with the game and just leave again due to widely perceived problems without ever sharing feedback.

It's waaaaaaaay too easy to state that they're all happy, etc.

Rolfski · 2012-11-05, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

PS1 players are a minority in general, but that doesn't mean they represent a minority opinion or don't voice majority problems and concerns, or that their concerns are less valid somehow. You should be a bit more careful with your assumptions and judgments there Rolfski, you skip to conclusions far too easily. :/

It's well possible that:

A. New players don't see the problems yet because their sensory systems are being overloaded with new information and are still figuring out how it is all connected.
B. New players agree with the problems and if they complain they get lumped in with a supposed veteran minority, simply because they share the opinion.
C. New players haven't discovered forumside yet to express their concerns.
D. New players don't care enough to report their issues with the game and just leave again due to widely perceived problems without ever sharing feedback.

It's waaaaaaaay too easy to state that they're all happy, etc.

I'm not saying that. I'm just arguing that your assumption "...First off, it's the majority of veterans...." is incorrect. Anyway, let's get away from this discussion and focus on the original issue, suggesting that the devs have become stubborn/arrogant. Of which I disagree.

Furber · 2012-11-05, 06:30 PM

On the topic of PS2 Anti-Air, I think it's important to note a certain balance that came out of the projectile speed of PS1 flak (and to some degree the missles). I suspect that the faster projectile speed of this AA could be creating some issues. However, I could be wrong about this, as I don't have a ton of experience with the current AA (before and after this recent AA nerf). I'll just throw out some ideas...

A certain popular style of using quick air craft is "hit and run". You typically run because if you hang around for too long, you're toast to AA. However, it seems to be that the AA can, rather easily, trace a fighter through the sky and bring it down. So the idea of balance becomes, "how much straight up power should AA have". If they have too little, Air craft, particularly libs, will dominate the battlefield. If AA is too strong, air craft is basically not a factor in the game.

I propose that instead of trying to find an ideal damage balance for AA (specifically flak), they should limit its functionality some. In PS1, if an air craft was flying at a decent speed away from your flak, it was basically home free. That meant the air craft was temporarily out of the picture, but not dead. This gave air craft a window of opportunity for a quick strike and then pulling out to avoid exposure to AA for too long. Some one manning the flak on a SG, or a Buster MAX, would have to predict incoming air craft (both by leading and over all awareness). You would have a chance to lead a lot of flak where the plane was going to be. All of your potential damage was built into the plane continuing it's approach, and if it chose not to retreat upon taking flak damage, it was screwed. But to the careful pilot, AA was merely a nuisance that had to be out maneuvered.

Let me know if I completely missed the mark with this, I don't want to come off as anything close to a know-it-all when it comes to air. Like I said, I'm just giving out a few ideas in relation to what I thought was a pretty balanced system (PS1).

Figment · 2012-11-05, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

I'm not saying that. I'm just arguing that your assumption "...First off, it's the majority of veterans...." is incorrect.

I'm basing that 95% of my Steam list is from PS1 and the fast majority of them share the same opinion and then see other PS1 vets have the same or similar opinions on various outfit forums and official forums and PSU. :/

It's not an assumption as much as it is a deduction from observation. You're right of course that in theory the sample size could be extremely skewed in terms of who is posting, but I don't see any reason to assume that given ForumSide's history.

Anyway, let's get away from this discussion and focus on the original issue, suggesting that the devs have become stubborn/arrogant. Of which I disagree.

I would agree with that. They're mostly stressed and preoccupied right now, but they're not trying to ignore us. They do seem to listen, not quite as much as we'd like to of course (they have their own opinion and probably some prejudices or idea babies), but I've seen a lot of little and some bigger things being implemented that I've seen mentioned on forums - many of which could be based in part on remarks from me, but you can never tell what their inspiration was and frankly I don't care as long as it happened.

Engi glue gun getting an overheating limitation to stall them from outrepairing HA. Quite a few bases have been given more walls. Changes in capture systems, generator usage, SCUs not being far away from spawns anymore, Sunderer has been given an AMS instead of the Galaxy and since the Amerish patch a deployment radius, clear deployment animations to intuitively indicate if you can spawn from and grab gear at it and which you should be targeting first and then some more things that I know I've remarked on. So if they took some of it into account and came up with the rest, that makes me glad.

All in all the game is moving forward, but yeah, still has a long way to go. Will it be ready for launch? It won't be bug free, it won't be perfect and regarding spawncamping I fear a bit for retention rates if vehicle spam isn't addressed, but it'll probably make quite a bit of money right of the bat anyway. With Amerish at least, infantry has some leeway to thrive before hey get camped in the spawnroom.

See, I'm not always negative.

I'm just very demanding.

psijaka · 2012-11-06, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Tamas

They must hold their ground and to their vision.

Of all the players, only a small fraction give feedback and it's usually the vocal lot, that we can't tell whether they represent all of the players or not.

So far PS2 devs have been EXTREMELY cooperative - few other titles do what they did until now - it surprises me that people take it for granted and don't appreciate anything. You could say that the devs that give the middle finger and the devs that really interact with the community are treated in the same way by players...

I do know that lots of good and interesting ideas come from fans, some come in good way explaining in detail the pros and cons, some are plain out biased towards a certain gameplay type.

You can't expect them to implement what one guy wants, but many people (here and official forums) think that they are somehow superior and that their ideas are good while others are idiots - self entitlement ftl.

I've seen so many games ruined simply because devs tried to please everyone and in the end everyone was unhappy. I hope they can balance out between what players want and what is actually good for them.

As a paradox - over a year (since launch) WoT forums have been filled with people unhappy about everything all the time, yet the number of active players is constantly rising.

Some gamers should realize it's not a game for them only. While I'm hoping that SOE won't go for mass appeal sacrificing what made it a good game (differentiation and innovation) - so many games recently fail to realize - they were popular because they were so unique. I've been disappointed by many new installments in series I loved simply because the devs got rid of "boring, tiresome, time consuming" mechanics - but that's was what made them different! I miss complex game that go into an insane level of management, that require time and investment, that are VERY long - that is what makes a game - yes, I miss the old days when it was required to think and it was a challenge - some of that is coming back from indie devs that are fans themselves and they want to have something like that not some huge publishers failcascade.

And I derailed from the main idea....

^ this. Totally agree.

maradine · 2012-11-06, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Furber

Let me know if I completely missed the mark with this, I don't want to come off as anything close to a know-it-all when it comes to air. Like I said, I'm just giving out a few ideas in relation to what I thought was a pretty balanced system (PS1).

Nah, that's reasonable. Specific mechanics aside, it should come down to a fundamental risk decision to the pilot - if I fly into an AAA umbrella, I am risking the bird.

What I'd prefer is that the balance issue is solved via better intelligence tools for the pilot rather than the never-ending nerf/buff cycle. In the real world, every military aircraft carries one or more variety of threat warning receiver, which is a passive device that identifies the direction and type of any hostile targeting apparatus currently turned on and being waved in the craft's direction. This could be implemented as an actual cockpit element, or just a simple "mark all the active skyguards and/or bursters within 2km as spotted". Maybe a buzzer, a flashing light. Maybe as a module.

The goal here is to have AAA with potent lethality but give pilots the ability to completely avoid it, or for the brave, terrain mask against it.

Shenyen · 2012-11-06, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

I don't want to play heavy assault all the time either, but the game forces me because it is the only infantry type with ranged missiles. You can blabla all you want about enforced teamwork, but in the end I can't play the game in any other way to support the team, let alone my way.

You can argue that if retention rates become known, there is an obligated poll held by SOE. Till then, you can only compare forum voices. And they outnumber your voice, on some subjects by 6:1. That isn't an indicator to you something might be wrong?

1. The need to use Heavy Assault to get rid of tanks in the vicinity disappeared, when i noticed that the Combat Medic is able to carry 2 C4 charges.

Life has been much easier since then.

2. Happy players don't play Forumside. They also don't play Forum Age of Camelot, ForumQuest and Forum of Warcraft.

This forum is used to ask questions, which means that guy was unhappy with a lack of information ingame, to complain about features or lack of certain features - again - unhappy person!

Seldom, there are threads about how great a certain battle was, how great a certain feature is or something like that.

But some moments in this game are awesome and i hear that also from other players.

If you were looking only at the forums, you would think this game was a horrible piece of s***, without any fun moments.

Counting forum requests for changes is totally worthless, because you would most likely poll a majority of unhappy players.

If you want a real poll, ask SOE to require the players to answer a "How much do you like this feature?"-poll during the loading times.

Originally Posted by Figment

Much of the casual community didn't even have broadband internet.

That doesn't mean that other casual gamers have distinctly other standards in terms of game play though.

The casual community didn't want to pay for a subscription - all those who paid for the game each month became instantly invested in the game and couldn't be counted as casual anymore.

Casuals never complained about sharing vehicles, because no casuals played a game with a monthly subscription, they played Counter-Strike, Battlefield 1942 or something else.
World of Warcraft was the game that transformed the "I would never pay monthly for a game"-crowd to subscribers.

Fear The Amish · 2012-11-06, 01:13 PM

Figment i don't disagree with what you are saying but how you are saying it. It honestly what ends up happening is that the way some other vet's like you come off is as entitled elitist whiners that want ps1.5 and most gamers don't want that. Plain and simple PS1 failed and failed hard because of hardware limitations at the time and an attempt at mixing FPS and RPG elements way to heavily. Personally i have made multiple posts critiquing and suggesting fixes to the game but in a way that isn't written purely to cause drama and hubbub. Also i know multiple vet's that refuse to come here because all it seems to be now a days is a group of angry bitter vets demanding things that A.) don't make any sense in a modern game, or B.) so doom and gloom about this game failing. They would much rather just play the game and report bugs in a constructive manner.

The problem with the angry vet post is that what it does is poison the waters of this game friends of mine that never played PS1 come to the official forums and all they see is "PS1 Vet angry about PS2" or "i am done with this game", and multiple other posts of this nature. How do you think a new player takes that? seeing the supposedly passionate and driven individuals that stuck with a broken game for years and refuse to give a game in beta a chance. Personally i played the ps1 beta i remember it being MUCH MUCH worse then its current incarnation at this time. We all need to remember that for this game to succeed at launch it just needs to be optimized and the bugs at a minimum, and the metagame to be added within the first 1-2 months.

sylphaen · 2012-11-06, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Fear The Amish

We all need to remember that for this game to succeed at launch it just needs to be optimized and the bugs at a minimum, and the metagame to be added within the first 1-2 months.

To be honest, you could stick to that. For PS2, the rest does not matter.

Figment · 2012-11-06, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Shenyen

1. The need to use Heavy Assault to get rid of tanks in the vicinity disappeared, when i noticed that the Combat Medic is able to carry 2 C4 charges.

I believe I said long distance missiles.

Got C4 on Light Assault. Can't figure out for the life of me why I'd have to cert the same damn thing on everything that's the same thing. It's not about balance clearly...

2. Happy players don't play Forumside. They also don't play Forum Age of Camelot, ForumQuest and Forum of Warcraft.

PS1 forums were full of happy players. From all sides. Forums are a reflection of a community, not just the upset, whiny or specific other part of a community. That's... preposterous. Gravitating to certain topics, sure.

Or are you saying you're only posting here because you're upset? :/ There are no other motivations for you to post here?

As for the remainder, disagree heavily with that. A casual player is someone who plays something on and off for no other reason than wasting some time and not thinking too much about it (though it doesn't mean you don't think at all, you just don't think it's the end of the world if you don't get a top score and you won't continue playing to get that top score) nor playing super-competitive. If you spend money on something it doesn't mean you stop being a casual, it means that you think it's worth the money. Nothing else.