Are the Devs stubborn?

Gaalsien · 2012-11-03, 12:49 PM

I've only been on the beta for a few weeks, but the more I look at the forums, reddit, and the dev twitter posts, the more I start to feel like the relationship between the playerbase and the devs is distinctly one way.

In many cases it seems like the players know exactly what they want. Sometimes the devs acknowledge their wants, but usually only to the effect of saying 'no, we're not including it', seemingly because they feel they know better. They refuse to even trial concepts, despite this being beta.

It annoys me because the entire point of a beta is to get the community's input, find out what they want, what they find fun. It also makes me worried for the future. SEO seem to believe in future they'll be able to use the playerbase as a source of player-made (free) content, like what Valve managed. This worked for Valve because they have such a healthy relationship with their fans, but it will only work for SEO if the players feel like they're being listened to and their opinions taken into consideration. Otherwise they'll be disenfranchised and unwilling to contribute.

Do the devs have their own vision for the game that they're stubbornly sticking to, even if fans disagree with it? Would reworking some game mechanics require too much programming? Do they just have a better, fuller conception of what the final, released game will look like, and are confident that people will love it?

One of the few positive responses I've seen is their stated commitment to the metagame, but I've yet to see anything concrete actually implemented.

tl;dr: Are the devs too stubborn to listen to fans? Arrogant? Lazy?

Tooterfish · 2012-11-03, 12:59 PM

Higby, one of the developers you mentioned, has stated several times that they listen to the concerns and suggestions from us, but obviously can't include everything at launch. PS2 is a long term development process, and the key focus now should be a polished release, not a feature packed mess.

What you said about Valve is true, because Valve is one of the earliest known digital distributors, and TF2's F2P model was intended to entice people to use and commit to the service.

Ultimately, I haven't found many games in the extended past that have been as receptive to fans as the PS2 dev team. So, in short, I disagree.

Rat · 2012-11-03, 01:05 PM

I also disagree, I dont think you can find a group of devs more involved with the community, as you said you have only been around here for a few weeks, right now they are just balls to the walls trying to get this next patch ready. after that I am sure it will just be debugging and optamizations to get ready for launch....More candy will be coming later.

VelRa · 2012-11-03, 01:10 PM

They aren't stubborn, but they do have to stand their ground. In many cases, they do know better, especially when it comes to back-end issues which are not immediately visible to loud forum mobs, such as the whole issue with square continents turning out to be a performance issue, not a design issue.

Bear · 2012-11-03, 01:29 PM

Many times what the players want isn't what's best for the game. For every 1000 players that want "X" added to the game, there's another thousand that want "Y" added which might be entirely opposite. Just because the player base has a suggestion, that doesn't mean it integrates well with what the development plan is. The player suggestions are almost always done in a vacuum. We can only make them based on the game as we're currently playing it. What's missing is the reality that the dev's are already 2-3 builds ahead of what's being played.

What bugs me is that there seems to be a "rose colored glasses" phenomenon when you see players talk about PS1. PS1 was a good game but it wasn't the most amazing gaming experience ever. Yet when you hear "vets" talk about it you'd think it was the most incredible fps ever made. If you put the current number of PS2 players into a PS1 lattice system you'd have a 5 fps clusterfrick that was unplayable.

My best advice, play the game, report the bugs, offer your suggestions for game improvement and if they're not accepted don't cry that that the devs don't listen.

Rolfski · 2012-11-03, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Gaalsien

In many cases it seems like the players know exactly what they want.

There's only a small minority that thinks they know "exactly" what they want and these are the few vets that want to make this a PS1 with better graphics.
And even they don't know what they want because if the devs would do this they would start complaining that this would only be a "PS 1.5".

The rest of is open to the ideas the devs come up with and so far these devs have done a pretty good job of taking our feedback on these ideas into account. So no, the devs have not become more arrogant. It's just that with the release coming some people start whining louder.

peekaboo · 2012-11-03, 01:57 PM

This is SOE.... I don't know where most of you been for the past decade to blindly put faith where it isn't warranted, but the large volume of die hard fanboys shutting down all criticism in regards to this game when its in beta and benefits most from it, is extremely disapointing. I guess people really don't learn from past mistakes, few companies have disapointed their customers as much as SOE has, time and time again showing the almighty $$ is the only thing they care from you.

The devs are not your idols, nor leaders. They are your employees as you are paying them money for a ongoing service. they don't need you to defend them or their product, they need you to tell them how to make it better. Of course it gets confusing when handling SOE since they thrive on hype not on facts or on actual products that realize their potential. And in the age of kickstart and other such projects that put the devs in direct contact with their customers the kind of elitist behaviour displayed by this dev team is really jaw dropping.

Keep expecting that things will get better, that all that was promised will be delivered. After all what is life without pipe dreams. And in 3 to 6 months when you are looking for the next adrenaline/social fix, try to remember those days when you still naively belived everything that someone who is wanting to make money out of you told you.

Tl: DR: Don't trust SOE, review its track history. A games potential is irrelevant if the DEV team has no intention of developing on it and sees the game only as a cash cow with the associated disregard for its player base

Figment · 2012-11-03, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

There's only a small minority that thinks they know "exactly" what they want and these are the few vets that want to make this a PS1 with better graphics.
And even they don't know what they want because if the devs would do this they would start complaining that this would only be a "PS 1.5".

This is not true. First off, it's the majority of veterans. Second, there's a lot of concensus on what needs improving, what's fine and what isn't. It's about a very specific group of topics : driver/gunner, class system, base layout and capture/meta game mechanics. AMS has already been adressed partially (split of transport and AMS roles is expected in time). On these topics there's a lot of concensus among veterans, or at the very least the impression it needs work. I'd even say that on at least half these topics, the same can be said for new players that discuss issues.

Third, there's only a very, VERY small minority that wants an exact copy of PS1 and then we're talking 0.5% and even they feel there's room for improvement with respect to PS1 and would accept change, just not a "dumbing-down-revolution", which btw, is only supported by the fanboys. The new peops seem to be down with whatever works best and that includes a lot of PS1 concepts that have been reintroduced or mentioned. Sometimes they even bring it up themselves without knowing that they were PS1 ideas. These vets would also not be the ones complaining it'd be PS1.5, in fact, you're the first to bring this up. The ones I'd see complain about "PS1.5" are the fanboys who at the start of the alpha decided that "everything must go with whatever the devs decide".

The rest of is open to the ideas the devs come up with and so far these devs have done a pretty good job of taking our feedback on these ideas into account. So no, the devs have not become more arrogant. It's just that with the release coming some people start whining louder.

I'm sorry, but the "rest" doesn't exist. Plus, there's quite a few of those that aren't open to every alternative, particularly not if they've been done in PS1 because they argue PS1 failed thus every concept that was in PS1 failed (and often suggest we should use other popular game's concepts, just because they don't believe in originality or that popular games must have good stuff in it, even if those concepts are not designed for a MMO context). Those are the most silly and narrowminded people around, tbh. They claim to be innovators, but they're simply copy cats.

As for the devs, I agree they've not become more arrogant no. They - or in some cases Smedley :P - are sometimes a bit stubborn, but most of the time simply didn't really know how things would work out, think they have a good idea (and sometimes they do) and they just need the experience of testing something for themselves before realising it has to change. They readily admit it at times if something didn't work and you have to give them credit for that. Unfortunately, we're all rather impatient (it's our baby too after all) and with a deadline this close it's rather scary if there'll be sufficient room to change or tweak mechanics afterwards (without ending up with SWG's NGE-experience) and if the launch isn't going to end up as a premature birth. I think most people on all sides would have prefered to let the beta take a bit more time.

I do hope that they'll continue with a test server that's open almost 24/7 for continuously testing new concepts.

sylphaen · 2012-11-03, 02:29 PM

Let's put it another way: you are creating a game with a specific vision and someone points out you should try this or that. How is saying "no" arrogance or trying the initial vision stubborness?

With all due respect, you should ask these questions about yourself first. If people do things a certain way, and whether it's a mistake or not, they usually have a reason to do so.

There is a difference between wishing and demanding. Irrespective of whether they are stubborn, crazy, arrogant or not, there is also a way to ask about and say things.

For instance, while I'm disappointed about some aspects of PS2 at release, I'm confident the game may evolve in interesting ways.

I also doubt devs decided to get on social networks to demonstrate how stubborn they are and wail on players. Check Jimmy's answer in Hamma's thread: i see an awesome post full of support and hardly any evidence of arrogance or stubborness.

Rolfski · 2012-11-03, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

This is not true. First off, it's the majority of veterans.

Incorrect. Based on what T-Ray said, hundreds of thousands seem to be playing beta now, more then ever in PS1. Only a very small percentage checks these forums. And among these are a relatively high number of disappointed vets, because we all know that satisfied players tend to be less vocal. So what to you may seem like a majority, it is really not.

Originally Posted by Figment

Second, there's a lot of concensus on what needs improving, what's fine and what isn't. It's about a very specific group of topics : driver/gunner, class system, base layout and capture/meta game mechanics.

Incorrect again for the reasons above. If they would get rid of driver/gunner and class system you would probably see a lot more complaining compared to what you see now, especially from the newcomers with a COD/BF background. So there is no reason to assume there is a general "consensus" on this.

Figment · 2012-11-04, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Incorrect. Based on what T-Ray said, hundreds of thousands seem to be playing beta now, more then ever in PS1. Only a very small percentage checks these forums. And among these are a relatively high number of disappointed vets, because we all know that satisfied players tend to be less vocal. So what to you may seem like a majority, it is really not.

Nice assumption, but you have no indicators of that whatsoever. You have no idea if people who don't go to the forums won't just leave if camping continues or they hate particular aspects. I've got around 12+ new people from BF/CoD in my outfit and they all comment in the same way on the same issues we do. The big difference? They're still impressed with the first impression of the sheer scale of the game, veterans look well beyond that.

Also funny is that they pretty much all independently said they wished they had discovered the PS franchise before.

Incorrect again for the reasons above. If they would get rid of driver/gunner and class system you would probably see a lot more complaining compared to what you see now, especially from the newcomers with a COD/BF background. So there is no reason to assume there is a general "consensus" on this.

Again, bullox and based on nothing substantial. Prove it. As in, show that players would be unhappy. Don't assume based on other game's management decisions to milk status quo formula games for a decade without innovation ("playing it save") and living off their name without ever making a game that's truly unique, improves or does anything but upgrade graphics. Can you really tell there's a massive difference between CoD: MW, MW2 and MW3? I'd be impressed if you can see major differences in game play.

Speaking of innovation, you do realise that the new CoD: BO2 is only now changing their inventory system to allow you to carry more stuff at once (ten point system)? So I presume you conclude that game will have 60.000 sales tops all of a sudden? Or shall we say 10 million based on name and awareness alone because it's not doing what all other games have been doing?

In fact, I've seen many, MANY BF players complain about driver/gunner complain in the same way as veterans and when they do, they want a PS1 Prowler setup, while PS1 players tend to favour a PS1 Vanguard setup. They want a bigger split. I mean, really? They don't want solo-man tanks if it means they get camped by zergs. There's no massive "MUST HAVE SOLO TANKS"-crowd. In general infantry FPS players are ultimately unhappy with tank spam. So really, what are you basing this claim on? Initial dev suggestion that they had to? They assumed Rolfski, as are you. I don't know if you actually talk to people, but I never hear anyone new complain about the idea of split controls, in fact, they love the idea because it's true teamwork.

Base layout is complained about a lot in being not defensible enough. I've even seen a thread filled with non-PS1 players, started by an ex-BF3 player, who looked at an AMP station from PS1 in a tutorial vid and the lot went "wow". Seriously? They'd all hate it? Suuuuuure. I suppose we were PS1 nerds before we started playing PS1. Right. We're not normal people, right? We're a special breed...

Why do you assume BF players who never heard of PS1 or are young would hate PS1 tank design and inventory design? Are you making assumptions or do you have actual evidence of this? And don't come here stating sales numbers, we all know that companies like EA pay IGN and other gaming sites heavily and even have weekly TV adds to push the awareness of their console shooters. On top of that, those games have always been dominantly displayed in stores and those games had a one time purchase system. Those are far bigger reasons that they sold well than that PS1 systems would somehow not mix with the players.

This has never been the case for PS1.

texico · 2012-11-04, 09:02 AM

I think Smedley is stubborn. He said in his very very first post on Planetside 2 that he didn't want Sanctuaries and its 3 years later and I can't help but think a big reason why they're not in/have no current plan to put them in is he doesn't want them in. I also found this the other day:

That won't change.

As for the devs, I don't believe they're "stubborn", more like, just having to make active decisions and rolling with them. They don't come across as politicians to me, they seem much more relaxed and down to Earth. However, it seems they have either created or been given a vision they're trying to achieve and so won't change their guns on certain issues. Then again, they've also stated a number of times that nothing is untouchable during Beta.

I actually haven't seen a quoted reason from them as to why they really don't want to change to driver/gunner setups or implement an inventory system. I saw Hamma's q@a but Higby just stated "We've talked about it, but ultimately we have no plans to" and not why. Does anybody have that quote? (there are a lot of interviews these days and I haven't seen every single one >_>).

Hamma · 2012-11-04, 09:04 AM

It's possible they are holding their ground on some items.

But the entire death screen was created DIRECTLY because of player feedback. In alpha builds it was a cheesy FPS deathcam and now its a awesome screen with stats on who killed you how much health they had etc.

Fear The Amish · 2012-11-04, 05:28 PM

been in since tech test and must say the Dev's do listen to the players and if it is feasible and matches up with their vision of PS2 they change it. i Also agree that it isn't the majority of Vets that are bitter but a vocal minority and its a fact if you work in the business world that it takes 10 good experiences to wipe out 1 bad one. Also the people that have a good experience don't come to a forum and gush usually its the people that are negative that do. i am a PS1 Vet that likes ALOT of the things in PS2 and from the lists of meta game updates like the way its moving currently. Personally i HATE the lattice and think hex is a better system. I am ambivalent about 1/2 seater tanks and since they are adding ability to cert into driver/gunner combo i don't know why people are still complaining about it, Also Figment PLEASE dear GOD stop grouping me as a PS1 vet with toxin spewers like yourself. I played PS1 loved it and i am enjoying PS2 now also, and see it going far. In my outfit are plenty of other vets just like me so stop generalizing us with you.

Figment · 2012-11-04, 07:33 PM

Toxin spewer? I'm sorry, but you haven't seen toxic. I know ps1 players that have already given up on PS2 on all kinds of levels. You should hear them for a change.

I may be blunt, but very constructive in my posting, I just don't like it when a forum minority claims to be the silent majority without any evidence to back that up. I hate it even more when someone claims a superior argument on "want", without being able to argue why it is good for the game.

We see the results of tank interface and cert design in the form of tank spam in game daily. It is not healthy for the game at all, certainly not in combination with the base design that invites vehicle camping.

If you havn't noticed due to rose teinted glasses, that isn't liked by new players at all.

Maybe you should ask people in game what they feel about all the camping. Tried that before? No? But hey, let us not give our feedback and all sing kumbaya while people leave the game, whether it is disappointed veterans, or frustrated new players.

Let us pretend that the devs are telepaths. Probably why they ask us to share our experiences.

No. They are nice guys, but they do this for the first time and they need help to improve their product. I'm not spewing toxin at all, I just don't waste time on compliments as long as there are big fish to fry.

If you havn't noticed Amish, they did take some of my feedback to heart and those are among the best loved changes so far. Sure, I'm pretty blunt in debates with other players, but only those who think they can make due with either half arsed non-solutions or seem to live in a world without critique. I'm not quite sure what you are in a beta for if all one does is say "it is fine", especially when it is not. I also take issue with people that pretend to speak for others when they havn't actually researched it, interviewed or otherwise tried to at least verify their claims. I'd rather take anecdotal evidence from someone who disagrees, then someone who just goes "they are bittervets don't listen to them" or "BF players are used to something, THUS they want that, screw if it fits in, just shoehorn it in even at the cost of balance".

And yeah, if you don't think about the cert for driver gunner split much and are a zergling, so usualy in the numerical advantage or at least with cover from tons of people, you won't realise easily how poor the cert suggestion is. It doesn't solve the perceived problems of numerical spam, enough reason to not consider it on its own (!), but it also suggests teamplayers are worth less than solists because they have to invest heavily while solists don't at all, that's against the game's team spirit, it doesn't undo the balance issue where the MBT is seen as a Lightning plus, meaning the Lightning remains seen as the subpar solo tank, it doesn't change the fact that solists would be more powerful and even when you make the guns more powerful on the crew version, that creates new issues, like unit balance with other units and on many targets won't actually provide any advantages, since you can't outperform one hit kills.

That is a lot of good reasons not to go with the token cert. Meanwhile the only shortsighted and self interest reason someone supports it is "well then I can still drive alone while it is an option for you, so everyone is happy?". No! If you actually would listen to all the arguments and maybe play the game too, you would understand it is not an option when you constantly face groups of 20+ tanks to come in with 7 to ten tanks that die equaly fast, even if they have a meager firepower advantage. To compete, you are forced to ignore the crewed option, even if you want it.

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.

These sort of restrictions are bad on units that are weak and have to be flexible to have a chance of survival, but to not have restrictions in strong units that can only be justified as having the power of a team behind it, is just the world upside down.

The main argument I keep hearing for solo-MBTs is "I just want it and I'll justify it by saying millions of people that aren't playing yet and aren't posting at all all want it". Can you imagine that to me sounds like a child in a candy store going "but mommy I want it!" after mommy just explained that the child would get sick from eating too much candy? And the justification would be like the pro-BFR at release crowd going "oh but the majority does like it, only the whiners come here and that is why there are hundreds more that dislike it than like it: only the critics will post". I'll listen to any reasonable argument about how the game benefits and it doesn't impact the viability of other units or otherwise renders them obsolete, or how you would want to solve the issues above - even how they wouldn't be issues if there is a reasonable solution that isn't pulling back forever or playing in kind. However, random, unsupported assumptions and selfishness don't score you any points with me and I'll let you know.

Reality update: people that don't like something will eventually stop playing that game. You can't argue that tanks are fine based on hundreds of thousands are playing now. That isn't evidence of anything and likely they came in for the promote of the largely fight ever. 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? Hey here is a thought? Why have a beta if only whiners will ever post feedback? I'm sure BFRs never drove people off over time en mass either... How long do you think players will be able to stomach camping or get frustrated by standing no chance in outnumbered situations, which occur every hour if not more?

I'm sorry, but I find that attitude of yours just incredibly biased, narrowminded, shortsighted, at times egocentric and naive and ultimately self-destructive since we are all here to get the best out of the game for all of us, aren't we? Yeah that is negative, but it isn't bashing. If you come over that way, that is your fault. That isn't meant as an insult, that's just my opinion and critique. I'm sure you find me rude and right now unlikable, but I'm rather straightforward with the risk of coming of as rude than hide my opinion of your stance, get nowhere and make you think you have a solid position. I dared you before to really argue why the cert thing would be good and how it would solve things. Afaik, you flat out refuse. Now that would be rude: you are asked and given the opportunity to make an argument for yourself and you just go "I just want it and it solves everything", without ever stating why or how. That is just arrogant, obnoxious and plain rude. And then to expect to be taken serious or even try to take some sort of moral high ground is just laughable. So yeah, I'm harsh. But you do that to yourself by not providing yourself with any credence (extensive arguments) and resorting to namecalling, dismissing and worst of all, lies.

I'm not the kind of person who starts using terms like "bittervets" and I'm certainly not one who then expects any person targeted as part of that group to go and respect you. Look for the real vile in those who use the term "bittervets" and try to create a split in the community.l instead of simply debating and discussing various alternatives.

And yeah, no respect for those people from me if they don't drop that attitude.

You can say a lot about me, but at least I'm fair and give the devs credit where it is due. I'm just not easily satisfied, I'm certainly demanding and even more critical, but I will always, always back up any strong opinion with indepth reasoning. Since when is that a bad thing?