There are PvP lovers concerned about the Corruption system and there are PvP haters concerned about the Corruption system.
Vast majority of people interested in Ashes are waiting to see how the system actually works.
It's easy to fabricate scenarios and speculate how people will hate them... with no evidence whatsoever.
But, at this point it's like trying to imagine why people will hate self-driving cars.
There are PvP lovers concerned about the Corruption system and there are PvP haters concerned about the Corruption system.
This is why I personally think it's probably going to be about right.
You know you're on target when you are getting complaints from both sides.
These two posts pretty much sum up my feelings on the whole subject. Wait and see when we get to use the system and with both sides complaining its about where it needs to be.
Close your eyes spread your arms and always trust your cape.
1
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Folks sometimes miss the point that backers concerns help give feedback to Intrepid. Assuming it's hate speech by MMOers or PVPers, is mind reading and de-legitimizing of those concerns. @BCG l LordofSalt put it wisely in paraphrasing that 'IF we don't give input into the PVP MMO called Ashes of Creation - then we get what we deserve.' Remember when I was called 'nuts' over a year ago on discord for saying this was a PVP game? Steven invited kickstarters into his Intrepid house as guests. Ratcheting up rhetoric to make a point doesn't help kind and thoughtful discussion or input. The PVP corruption system probably needs some flushing out - or am I nuts again? Cheers!
Yes, voicing concerns and delivering feedback is important, nobody is denying that. The problem is that right now we are voicing concerns on a system that we haven't yet experienced first hand, or have much information about.
One thing that I'd like to remind anyone giving feedback on Ashes is to not just look at the individual system. For a game as complex as an mmorpg you need to look at the bigger picture, not just at the individual system but in how it interacts with the rest of the game.
@noaani - It's the chicken or the egg. By our discussion I trust they will address noobs and greifing. Then you can say - told you so. Hope we're both right. Thumbs up.
What is your code or point? Speak plain English. What are you talking about? 'This is literally not the point at all.' Please elucidate the rest of us. Many love rainbows.
We have not seen the system functioning.
We know we do not have all the details of the system
Even if we had all the details of the system, we do not know how they interact with other systems, which we have not seen functioning and know that we do not have the details of.
We know that the system is being designed in a manner where Intrepid have easily adjusted controls in order to impact player decisions.
Because of this, there is nothing at all to talk about in terms of how well the system will function.
When we see the system in action in a state where players are acting as they would act on live servers (which in all honesty, doesn't happen until the game is live), that is when we "may" have worthwhile input for Intrepid.
Right now, nothing we may want to say can be said with any sense of understanding of the topic at hand - and if you don't understand the topic at hand (as none of us understand the corruption system), then the best thing to do is not talk about it.
A conversation on whether or not corruption is working can only be had when players can answer the following three questions...
1, How many equal level character kills does a player need to make before their corruption level is enough for them to drop items?
2, How many more kills does it take before multiple items will drop?
3, How many equal level kills is one kill of a character 25 levels below you worth?
If you don't have an answer to these questions, you have no grasp as to how effective the corruption system will be, and thus have no place discussing how effective the corruption system will be.
2
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
2
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I think we've all gone back and forth on the information we currently have and have our own opinions on it. I'd agree we need more info, or the system in our hands to produce more actually usable feedback. It's a well worn bone at this point. And more important than any of their iterations, and setting up prior to launch, how long till someone breaks the system, and how promptly and effectively does IS respond. That'll make or break it.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I disagree personally, especially since the people they brought in for the summit were people who had been playing for a long time and (more importantly) had been very open in their criticism with WoW.
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I disagree personally, especially since the people they brought in for the summit were people who had been playing for a long time and (more importantly) had been very open in their criticism with WoW.
I've never played an MMO where creators are the most knowledgeable players - or even among the top 50 most knowledgeable.
They are usually the most influential, which in itself is an issue, but not the most knowledgeable.
I will concede, however, that WoW may well be different in this regard (I could go in to why I think this is the case, but will shorten it to; WoW is not a game for smart people).
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I disagree personally, especially since the people they brought in for the summit were people who had been playing for a long time and (more importantly) had been very open in their criticism with WoW.
I've never played an MMO where creators are the most knowledgeable players - or even among the top 50 most knowledgeable.
They are usually the most influential, which in itself is an issue, but not the most knowledgeable.
I will concede, however, that WoW may well be different in this regard (I could go in to why I think this is the case, but will shorten it to; WoW is not a game for smart people).
It is when said content creators also happen to be in the top 100 WoW raiding guilds, plus they brought along a few guys who used to run Vanilla WoW private servers to get their opinion on how to do WoW Classic.
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I disagree personally, especially since the people they brought in for the summit were people who had been playing for a long time and (more importantly) had been very open in their criticism with WoW.
I've never played an MMO where creators are the most knowledgeable players - or even among the top 50 most knowledgeable.
They are usually the most influential, which in itself is an issue, but not the most knowledgeable.
I will concede, however, that WoW may well be different in this regard (I could go in to why I think this is the case, but will shorten it to; WoW is not a game for smart people).
It is when said content creators also happen to be in the top 100 WoW raiding guilds, plus they brought along a few guys who used to run Vanilla WoW private servers to get their opinion on how to do WoW Classic.
Even in WoW, top 100 isn't anything to brag about - especially in the last few years.
Top 10 may well be, but top 100 really isn't.
Seems more to me like Blizzard were working this from a PR/marketing angle than anything.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I disagree personally, especially since the people they brought in for the summit were people who had been playing for a long time and (more importantly) had been very open in their criticism with WoW.
I've never played an MMO where creators are the most knowledgeable players - or even among the top 50 most knowledgeable.
They are usually the most influential, which in itself is an issue, but not the most knowledgeable.
I will concede, however, that WoW may well be different in this regard (I could go in to why I think this is the case, but will shorten it to; WoW is not a game for smart people).
It is when said content creators also happen to be in the top 100 WoW raiding guilds, plus they brought along a few guys who used to run Vanilla WoW private servers to get their opinion on how to do WoW Classic.
Even in WoW, top 100 isn't anything to brag about - especially in the last few years.
Top 10 may well be, but top 100 really isn't.
Seems more to me like Blizzard were working this from a PR/marketing angle than anything.
Top 100 is still the top 0.01% of players, and I definitely wouldn't call this a PR stunt. After all, Blizzard didn't officially announce the summit and had all the participants under NDA until about a week before it happened. If this were about PR and marketing I would expect Blizzard to shout about it from the rooftops.
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I disagree personally, especially since the people they brought in for the summit were people who had been playing for a long time and (more importantly) had been very open in their criticism with WoW.
I've never played an MMO where creators are the most knowledgeable players - or even among the top 50 most knowledgeable.
They are usually the most influential, which in itself is an issue, but not the most knowledgeable.
I will concede, however, that WoW may well be different in this regard (I could go in to why I think this is the case, but will shorten it to; WoW is not a game for smart people).
It is when said content creators also happen to be in the top 100 WoW raiding guilds, plus they brought along a few guys who used to run Vanilla WoW private servers to get their opinion on how to do WoW Classic.
Even in WoW, top 100 isn't anything to brag about - especially in the last few years.
Top 10 may well be, but top 100 really isn't.
Seems more to me like Blizzard were working this from a PR/marketing angle than anything.
Top 100 is still the top 0.01% of players, and I definitely wouldn't call this a PR stunt. After all, Blizzard didn't officially announce the summit and had all the participants under NDA until about a week before it happened. If this were about PR and marketing I would expect Blizzard to shout about it from the rooftops.
The emphasis there is on the word *in* a top 100 guild.
Just because someone is in such a guild, doesn't mean they are in the top 0.01% of players. All it means is they are in a guild with a good strategist and a good leader, and are able to follow directions.
This applies to any game, not just WoW.
I've never been in any guild where the creative types are the ones that people in the guild turn to if they have a question about a build or an encounter, because they are not the type of people - generally speaking - to figure that kind of thing out. Thats what the people who work as engineers or scientists (or military or police, in my experience) are great at - and these people generally have a similar attitude to content creators as I have.
I am not saying Blizzard held this thing to let as many people as possible know about it - Blizzard don't need more people to know about the game. What Blizzard need are more "influencers" saying good things about them, to detract from some of the issues with the game, but also with the company as a whole.
Content creators are not journalists, and do not have the same basic set of rules that they should follow. A trip paid for by a company a journalist is writing about is something that any journalist should and would turn down - but some random guy making videos at home has no need to turn it down. I mean, most influencers are just in it to get free shit from the company anyway.
Despite this, many people look to influencers more than anyone else, and most companies wouldn't - and don't - think twice about influincing the influencers.
Edit to add; while I hold them slightly higher than influencers, I do not place much faith in the word of a gaming journalist - I've yet to come across one that is both able to write something worth reading, and has an agreeable ethic.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I disagree personally, especially since the people they brought in for the summit were people who had been playing for a long time and (more importantly) had been very open in their criticism with WoW.
I've never played an MMO where creators are the most knowledgeable players - or even among the top 50 most knowledgeable.
They are usually the most influential, which in itself is an issue, but not the most knowledgeable.
I will concede, however, that WoW may well be different in this regard (I could go in to why I think this is the case, but will shorten it to; WoW is not a game for smart people).
It is when said content creators also happen to be in the top 100 WoW raiding guilds, plus they brought along a few guys who used to run Vanilla WoW private servers to get their opinion on how to do WoW Classic.
Even in WoW, top 100 isn't anything to brag about - especially in the last few years.
Top 10 may well be, but top 100 really isn't.
Seems more to me like Blizzard were working this from a PR/marketing angle than anything.
Top 100 is still the top 0.01% of players, and I definitely wouldn't call this a PR stunt. After all, Blizzard didn't officially announce the summit and had all the participants under NDA until about a week before it happened. If this were about PR and marketing I would expect Blizzard to shout about it from the rooftops.
The emphasis there is on the word *in* a top 100 guild.
Just because someone is in such a guild, doesn't mean they are in the top 0.01% of players. All it means is they are in a guild with a good strategist and a good leader, and are able to follow directions.
This applies to any game, not just WoW.
I've never been in any guild where the creative types are the ones that people in the guild turn to if they have a question about a build or an encounter, because they are not the type of people - generally speaking - to figure that kind of thing out. Thats what the people who work as engineers or scientists (or military or police, in my experience) are great at - and these people generally have a similar attitude to content creators as I have.
I am not saying Blizzard held this thing to let as many people as possible know about it - Blizzard don't need more people to know about the game. What Blizzard need are more "influencers" saying good things about them, to detract from some of the issues with the game, but also with the company as a whole.
Content creators are not journalists, and do not have the same basic set of rules that they should follow. A trip paid for by a company a journalist is writing about is something that any journalist should and would turn down - but some random guy making videos at home has no need to turn it down. I mean, most influencers are just in it to get free shit from the company anyway.
Despite this, many people look to influencers more than anyone else, and most companies wouldn't - and don't - think twice about influincing the influencers.
Edit to add; while I hold them slightly higher than influencers, I do not place much faith in the word of a gaming journalist - I've yet to come across one that is both able to write something worth reading, and has an agreeable ethic.
We'll gaming journalists are a whole different story. Right now there are only 2 gaming journalists I listen to and they are Yongyea and Jim Sterling.
1
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I disagree personally, especially since the people they brought in for the summit were people who had been playing for a long time and (more importantly) had been very open in their criticism with WoW.
I've never played an MMO where creators are the most knowledgeable players - or even among the top 50 most knowledgeable.
They are usually the most influential, which in itself is an issue, but not the most knowledgeable.
I will concede, however, that WoW may well be different in this regard (I could go in to why I think this is the case, but will shorten it to; WoW is not a game for smart people).
It is when said content creators also happen to be in the top 100 WoW raiding guilds, plus they brought along a few guys who used to run Vanilla WoW private servers to get their opinion on how to do WoW Classic.
Even in WoW, top 100 isn't anything to brag about - especially in the last few years.
Top 10 may well be, but top 100 really isn't.
Seems more to me like Blizzard were working this from a PR/marketing angle than anything.
Top 100 is still the top 0.01% of players, and I definitely wouldn't call this a PR stunt. After all, Blizzard didn't officially announce the summit and had all the participants under NDA until about a week before it happened. If this were about PR and marketing I would expect Blizzard to shout about it from the rooftops.
The emphasis there is on the word *in* a top 100 guild.
Just because someone is in such a guild, doesn't mean they are in the top 0.01% of players. All it means is they are in a guild with a good strategist and a good leader, and are able to follow directions.
This applies to any game, not just WoW.
I've never been in any guild where the creative types are the ones that people in the guild turn to if they have a question about a build or an encounter, because they are not the type of people - generally speaking - to figure that kind of thing out. Thats what the people who work as engineers or scientists (or military or police, in my experience) are great at - and these people generally have a similar attitude to content creators as I have.
I am not saying Blizzard held this thing to let as many people as possible know about it - Blizzard don't need more people to know about the game. What Blizzard need are more "influencers" saying good things about them, to detract from some of the issues with the game, but also with the company as a whole.
Content creators are not journalists, and do not have the same basic set of rules that they should follow. A trip paid for by a company a journalist is writing about is something that any journalist should and would turn down - but some random guy making videos at home has no need to turn it down. I mean, most influencers are just in it to get free shit from the company anyway.
Despite this, many people look to influencers more than anyone else, and most companies wouldn't - and don't - think twice about influincing the influencers.
Edit to add; while I hold them slightly higher than influencers, I do not place much faith in the word of a gaming journalist - I've yet to come across one that is both able to write something worth reading, and has an agreeable ethic.
We'll gaming journalists are a whole different story. Right now there are only 2 gaming journalists I listen to and they are Yongyea and Jim Sterling.
you have good taste then
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I disagree personally, especially since the people they brought in for the summit were people who had been playing for a long time and (more importantly) had been very open in their criticism with WoW.
I've never played an MMO where creators are the most knowledgeable players - or even among the top 50 most knowledgeable.
They are usually the most influential, which in itself is an issue, but not the most knowledgeable.
I will concede, however, that WoW may well be different in this regard (I could go in to why I think this is the case, but will shorten it to; WoW is not a game for smart people).
It is when said content creators also happen to be in the top 100 WoW raiding guilds, plus they brought along a few guys who used to run Vanilla WoW private servers to get their opinion on how to do WoW Classic.
Even in WoW, top 100 isn't anything to brag about - especially in the last few years.
Top 10 may well be, but top 100 really isn't.
Seems more to me like Blizzard were working this from a PR/marketing angle than anything.
Top 100 is still the top 0.01% of players, and I definitely wouldn't call this a PR stunt. After all, Blizzard didn't officially announce the summit and had all the participants under NDA until about a week before it happened. If this were about PR and marketing I would expect Blizzard to shout about it from the rooftops.
The emphasis there is on the word *in* a top 100 guild.
Just because someone is in such a guild, doesn't mean they are in the top 0.01% of players. All it means is they are in a guild with a good strategist and a good leader, and are able to follow directions.
This applies to any game, not just WoW.
I've never been in any guild where the creative types are the ones that people in the guild turn to if they have a question about a build or an encounter, because they are not the type of people - generally speaking - to figure that kind of thing out. Thats what the people who work as engineers or scientists (or military or police, in my experience) are great at - and these people generally have a similar attitude to content creators as I have.
I am not saying Blizzard held this thing to let as many people as possible know about it - Blizzard don't need more people to know about the game. What Blizzard need are more "influencers" saying good things about them, to detract from some of the issues with the game, but also with the company as a whole.
Content creators are not journalists, and do not have the same basic set of rules that they should follow. A trip paid for by a company a journalist is writing about is something that any journalist should and would turn down - but some random guy making videos at home has no need to turn it down. I mean, most influencers are just in it to get free shit from the company anyway.
Despite this, many people look to influencers more than anyone else, and most companies wouldn't - and don't - think twice about influincing the influencers.
Edit to add; while I hold them slightly higher than influencers, I do not place much faith in the word of a gaming journalist - I've yet to come across one that is both able to write something worth reading, and has an agreeable ethic.
We'll gaming journalists are a whole different story. Right now there are only 2 gaming journalists I listen to and they are Yongyea and Jim Sterling.
Taste aside, neither of those could be considered journalists.
At best, Jim Sterling could be considered the equivlent of a newspapers opinion column, and Yonyea could be considered a news agrigator.
The sources Yongyea uses (Kotaku, Polygon, IGN, Gamespot et al) could be considered journalistic websites, but all people like Yongyea do is take their content and repackage it.
I'm not saying there isn't a place for both of these (unlike game streamers, which I find to be the most idiotic trend of the last 10 years). I'm just saying they are not journalists. Sometimes it is easier getting news of a particular type from one place that will agrigate all the stories others have assembled on the topic and present them all to you at once.
Thing is, if you were Bethesda and wanted to put out a press release regarding how shit Fallout 76 is, neither of these people would be on that list.
as a heavy pvp'er in multiple games i understand that there has to be balance between players that dont care about pvp and like pve/questing/exploring in a mmo VS people that wanna get rewarded for being a skilled pvp'er
A pvp game with no rules and let you kill people on sight with no consequences will not work..
This bounty system that we know of is a good concept and i think will work very well..
i think the penalties on corruptions players is too severe... like losing stats/gear and such.
but ye comes to this question: what system you want in place when 2 players meet each other in the world and this 3 way player status could work if it cant be exploited..( and usually it will)
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani I actually think there is nothing really wrong with us discussing the corruption system right now, but I agree that there isn't much constructive feedback we can give until we have all the details and have tested the system ourselves.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I disagree personally, especially since the people they brought in for the summit were people who had been playing for a long time and (more importantly) had been very open in their criticism with WoW.
I've never played an MMO where creators are the most knowledgeable players - or even among the top 50 most knowledgeable.
They are usually the most influential, which in itself is an issue, but not the most knowledgeable.
I will concede, however, that WoW may well be different in this regard (I could go in to why I think this is the case, but will shorten it to; WoW is not a game for smart people).
It is when said content creators also happen to be in the top 100 WoW raiding guilds, plus they brought along a few guys who used to run Vanilla WoW private servers to get their opinion on how to do WoW Classic.
Even in WoW, top 100 isn't anything to brag about - especially in the last few years.
Top 10 may well be, but top 100 really isn't.
Seems more to me like Blizzard were working this from a PR/marketing angle than anything.
Top 100 is still the top 0.01% of players, and I definitely wouldn't call this a PR stunt. After all, Blizzard didn't officially announce the summit and had all the participants under NDA until about a week before it happened. If this were about PR and marketing I would expect Blizzard to shout about it from the rooftops.
The emphasis there is on the word *in* a top 100 guild.
Just because someone is in such a guild, doesn't mean they are in the top 0.01% of players. All it means is they are in a guild with a good strategist and a good leader, and are able to follow directions.
This applies to any game, not just WoW.
I've never been in any guild where the creative types are the ones that people in the guild turn to if they have a question about a build or an encounter, because they are not the type of people - generally speaking - to figure that kind of thing out. Thats what the people who work as engineers or scientists (or military or police, in my experience) are great at - and these people generally have a similar attitude to content creators as I have.
I am not saying Blizzard held this thing to let as many people as possible know about it - Blizzard don't need more people to know about the game. What Blizzard need are more "influencers" saying good things about them, to detract from some of the issues with the game, but also with the company as a whole.
Content creators are not journalists, and do not have the same basic set of rules that they should follow. A trip paid for by a company a journalist is writing about is something that any journalist should and would turn down - but some random guy making videos at home has no need to turn it down. I mean, most influencers are just in it to get free shit from the company anyway.
Despite this, many people look to influencers more than anyone else, and most companies wouldn't - and don't - think twice about influincing the influencers.
Edit to add; while I hold them slightly higher than influencers, I do not place much faith in the word of a gaming journalist - I've yet to come across one that is both able to write something worth reading, and has an agreeable ethic.
We'll gaming journalists are a whole different story. Right now there are only 2 gaming journalists I listen to and they are Yongyea and Jim Sterling.
Taste aside, neither of those could be considered journalists.
At best, Jim Sterling could be considered the equivlent of a newspapers opinion column, and Yonyea could be considered a news agrigator.
The sources Yongyea uses (Kotaku, Polygon, IGN, Gamespot et al) could be considered journalistic websites, but all people like Yongyea do is take their content and repackage it.
I'm not saying there isn't a place for both of these (unlike game streamers, which I find to be the most idiotic trend of the last 10 years). I'm just saying they are not journalists. Sometimes it is easier getting news of a particular type from one place that will agrigate all the stories others have assembled on the topic and present them all to you at once.
Thing is, if you were Bethesda and wanted to put out a press release regarding how shit Fallout 76 is, neither of these people would be on that list.
Fine, call them news commentators then :P
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
as a heavy pvp'er in multiple games i understand that there has to be balance between players that dont care about pvp and like pve/questing/exploring in a mmo VS people that wanna get rewarded for being a skilled pvp'er
A pvp game with no rules and let you kill people on sight with no consequences will not work..
This bounty system that we know of is a good concept and i think will work very well..
i think the penalties on corruptions players is too severe... like losing stats/gear and such.
but ye comes to this question: what system you want in place when 2 players meet each other in the world and this 3 way player status could work if it cant be exploited..( and usually it will)
One thing to bare in mind is that the Bounty Hunter system is only available to citizens of a level 4 military node, so the amount of available PvP will depend a little on which nodes get built up in each server.
I have a feeling that the dedicated PvPers will all congregate to a single server, making it the unofficial "PvP" server even though the game won't have dedicated PvP and PvE servers.
as a heavy pvp'er in multiple games i understand that there has to be balance between players that dont care about pvp and like pve/questing/exploring in a mmo VS people that wanna get rewarded for being a skilled pvp'er
A pvp game with no rules and let you kill people on sight with no consequences will not work..
This bounty system that we know of is a good concept and i think will work very well..
i think the penalties on corruptions players is too severe... like losing stats/gear and such.
but ye comes to this question: what system you want in place when 2 players meet each other in the world and this 3 way player status could work if it cant be exploited..( and usually it will)
One thing to bare in mind is that the Bounty Hunter system is only available to citizens of a level 4 military node, so the amount of available PvP will depend a little on which nodes get built up in each server.
I have a feeling that the dedicated PvPers will all congregate to a single server, making it the unofficial "PvP" server even though the game won't have dedicated PvP and PvE servers.
The problem with the bounty system is... if there no corruption players.. there is basically no bounty system.
So the question : why would a player go corruption mode when there only severe penalties and no rewards?
Comments
These two posts pretty much sum up my feelings on the whole subject. Wait and see when we get to use the system and with both sides complaining its about where it needs to be.
Yes, voicing concerns and delivering feedback is important, nobody is denying that. The problem is that right now we are voicing concerns on a system that we haven't yet experienced first hand, or have much information about.
One thing that I'd like to remind anyone giving feedback on Ashes is to not just look at the individual system. For a game as complex as an mmorpg you need to look at the bigger picture, not just at the individual system but in how it interacts with the rest of the game.
That's what the PvP system needs.
This is literally not the point at all.
We have not seen the system functioning.
We know we do not have all the details of the system
Even if we had all the details of the system, we do not know how they interact with other systems, which we have not seen functioning and know that we do not have the details of.
We know that the system is being designed in a manner where Intrepid have easily adjusted controls in order to impact player decisions.
Because of this, there is nothing at all to talk about in terms of how well the system will function.
When we see the system in action in a state where players are acting as they would act on live servers (which in all honesty, doesn't happen until the game is live), that is when we "may" have worthwhile input for Intrepid.
Right now, nothing we may want to say can be said with any sense of understanding of the topic at hand - and if you don't understand the topic at hand (as none of us understand the corruption system), then the best thing to do is not talk about it.
A conversation on whether or not corruption is working can only be had when players can answer the following three questions...
1, How many equal level character kills does a player need to make before their corruption level is enough for them to drop items?
2, How many more kills does it take before multiple items will drop?
3, How many equal level kills is one kill of a character 25 levels below you worth?
If you don't have an answer to these questions, you have no grasp as to how effective the corruption system will be, and thus have no place discussing how effective the corruption system will be.
Oh for sure, we can talk about it.
But Skaff is specifically talking about giving feedback on a system we effectively know nothing about.
---
I get a lot of pointless/uninformed feedback in my job, and that makes it really easy to just ignore all feedback. You either ignore all feedback, you take on all feedback, or you spend far more time than you should sifting through piles of feedback looking for that one piece that you feel is valid.
Clearly, this is a bad situation to be in.
People giving feedback should consider it as much of a resposibility as people taking that feedback. If you don't know what you are actually talking about, you should not be giving feedback, as that feedback will just add to the pointless white noise that the people you think you are trying to help will eventually and inevitably block out.
Separating the constructive feedback from the mindless whining is something that every company needs to deal with, and unfortunately a lot of games companies choose to bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible when things go wrong. It doesn't help that there are far too many people on the internet who flat out don't know how to give constructive criticism and it makes it harder for the actual feedback to be heard through all the hate.
When people start throwing personal insults around, let along racist hate, etc can you really blame a company for ignoring it all? At the end of the day we (the players/customers) are just as much at fault here. If we want companies to listen to us we need to learn how to give feedback in an acceptable manner, because right now all the hate speech and insults just hurts us as much as it hurts the company.
Completely agree.
The value of player feedback in something as complex as an MMO is minimal. If you then have to put a few people working full time to try and find that single occasional gem, it just isn't worth it.
Occasionally, random people hit upon a totally great idea, but generally speaking, if your clients are regularly coming up with to make your product better, you need to seriously look at hiring better people to make that product.
I've played a few games now that have had invitation only programs where developers invite around two dozen players to participate in a more refined discussions on specific topics (usually a hidden section of the official forums).
This kind of thing is usually done to gain an insight in to specific player viewpoints (ie, what a specific change to a combat mechanic would mean to people that solo, group or raid). As it is invitation only, and the invites only go out to those that demonstrate a knowledge of the game from their perspective, this kind of thing does have "some" merit, but even then it is only useful when developers want player perspective on a change.
Blizzard actually did this last year with their Content Creators Summit where they invited a bunch of WoW content creators to their headquarters to test some things and talk with the devs. I don't know if any of the feedback given during that summit actually impacted anything though so....."shrugs".
Content creators are rarely the best people to offer feedback.
It's kind of like asking your marketing team to offer up some QA testing.
I disagree personally, especially since the people they brought in for the summit were people who had been playing for a long time and (more importantly) had been very open in their criticism with WoW.
I've never played an MMO where creators are the most knowledgeable players - or even among the top 50 most knowledgeable.
They are usually the most influential, which in itself is an issue, but not the most knowledgeable.
I will concede, however, that WoW may well be different in this regard (I could go in to why I think this is the case, but will shorten it to; WoW is not a game for smart people).
It is when said content creators also happen to be in the top 100 WoW raiding guilds, plus they brought along a few guys who used to run Vanilla WoW private servers to get their opinion on how to do WoW Classic.
Top 10 may well be, but top 100 really isn't.
Seems more to me like Blizzard were working this from a PR/marketing angle than anything.
Top 100 is still the top 0.01% of players, and I definitely wouldn't call this a PR stunt. After all, Blizzard didn't officially announce the summit and had all the participants under NDA until about a week before it happened. If this were about PR and marketing I would expect Blizzard to shout about it from the rooftops.
Just because someone is in such a guild, doesn't mean they are in the top 0.01% of players. All it means is they are in a guild with a good strategist and a good leader, and are able to follow directions.
This applies to any game, not just WoW.
I've never been in any guild where the creative types are the ones that people in the guild turn to if they have a question about a build or an encounter, because they are not the type of people - generally speaking - to figure that kind of thing out. Thats what the people who work as engineers or scientists (or military or police, in my experience) are great at - and these people generally have a similar attitude to content creators as I have.
I am not saying Blizzard held this thing to let as many people as possible know about it - Blizzard don't need more people to know about the game. What Blizzard need are more "influencers" saying good things about them, to detract from some of the issues with the game, but also with the company as a whole.
Content creators are not journalists, and do not have the same basic set of rules that they should follow. A trip paid for by a company a journalist is writing about is something that any journalist should and would turn down - but some random guy making videos at home has no need to turn it down. I mean, most influencers are just in it to get free shit from the company anyway.
Despite this, many people look to influencers more than anyone else, and most companies wouldn't - and don't - think twice about influincing the influencers.
Edit to add; while I hold them slightly higher than influencers, I do not place much faith in the word of a gaming journalist - I've yet to come across one that is both able to write something worth reading, and has an agreeable ethic.
We'll gaming journalists are a whole different story. Right now there are only 2 gaming journalists I listen to and they are Yongyea and Jim Sterling.
you have good taste then
Taste aside, neither of those could be considered journalists.
At best, Jim Sterling could be considered the equivlent of a newspapers opinion column, and Yonyea could be considered a news agrigator.
The sources Yongyea uses (Kotaku, Polygon, IGN, Gamespot et al) could be considered journalistic websites, but all people like Yongyea do is take their content and repackage it.
I'm not saying there isn't a place for both of these (unlike game streamers, which I find to be the most idiotic trend of the last 10 years). I'm just saying they are not journalists. Sometimes it is easier getting news of a particular type from one place that will agrigate all the stories others have assembled on the topic and present them all to you at once.
Thing is, if you were Bethesda and wanted to put out a press release regarding how shit Fallout 76 is, neither of these people would be on that list.
A pvp game with no rules and let you kill people on sight with no consequences will not work..
This bounty system that we know of is a good concept and i think will work very well..
i think the penalties on corruptions players is too severe... like losing stats/gear and such.
but ye comes to this question: what system you want in place when 2 players meet each other in the world and this 3 way player status could work if it cant be exploited..( and usually it will)
Fine, call them news commentators then :P
One thing to bare in mind is that the Bounty Hunter system is only available to citizens of a level 4 military node, so the amount of available PvP will depend a little on which nodes get built up in each server.
I have a feeling that the dedicated PvPers will all congregate to a single server, making it the unofficial "PvP" server even though the game won't have dedicated PvP and PvE servers.
The problem with the bounty system is... if there no corruption players.. there is basically no bounty system.
So the question : why would a player go corruption mode when there only severe penalties and no rewards?