I've Lost Some Trust

[Zoan]

PITCHFORKS

GET YER PITCHFORKS HEEYAH

[Kryos]

Zoan, you may find this thread a valuable read.  http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50811.0.html

As for the other two posts, I find myself having veered a bit and muddied the waters a tad myself.  Perhaps my initial post or subsequent repetition was not sufficiently capable of conveying my position clearly.  It really isn't about the constitution of the changes themselves, there is another thread or two for that.   I hoped to keep this thread purely about the exclusion of the player base as a stakeholder.

For Asamoth, I would say this position has yet to be addressed either.  To me, that makes it anything but futile.

[burble]

Jeesh, Malifaxis calm down.

To Kryos' original point about stakeholders. In this instance, I prefer the term consumer - now there is argument that consumers are the ultimate stakeholders. So we'll agree that there is a model of this situation consisting where we as players are consumers/stakeholders.

We diverge greatly after that.

Put simply, I have no concern whatsoever about the manner or substance of the changes.
I feel no need to be consulted. I feel no stake in the success or failure of the endeavor.
It doesn't change my life one bit.
Why is that? Because this is a game. It is a small part of my world (although it can be a time hog when I do play). I can't fathom why it would matter so much to anyone.

If the change doesn't work out, then the reasonable course would be to go back or make adjustments. That's what any organization would do.

[RogueGunslinger]

Malifaxis, I would urge you to read what I've repeatedly posted.  You are beating a dead horse that wasn't even there to begin with.  And I keep rubbing my chin watching people pile on to this non existent dead horse, asking why they are doing that.

Its not about this change.  I've condone, praised, and exalted the notion of change in the game, while critiquing or agreeing with the nature of specific changes, but tried to keep that to the thread it belongs in.  But this is not that thread.

This thread is about the half decade repeated process of surprise, and no apparent means of shaping the result.  And as I've said, if there's a way to impact changes for player stakeholders, demonstrate.

Demonstrate? You realize changing the guild system was a player idea long before a staffer ever took up the reins. Anyways here's some examples off the top of my head.

Dung buyer and clay kiln added to Luir's, thanks to player effort -- Nergal.

draw es was just put in after player feedback.

Sorc subguilds were altered after feedback.

Subguild rennovations were HEAVILY influenced by GDB discussion.

Banking changes were altered heavily after complaints on the GDB.

Climbing bonuses/detriments with items in hands were HEAVILY influenced by GDB discussion...


I could probably go on for a while.

[hyzhenhok]

I love that staff are taking risks and experimenting with major game systems.

[BadSkeelz]

This thread arises every time there's a change, when people don't feel like they've been "fully consulted on a change" i.e. something changed and they don't like it. It is kind of tiring to see.

[Armaddict]

This thread arises every time there's a change, when people don't feel like they've been "fully consulted on a change" i.e. something changed and they don't like it. It is kind of tiring to see.

Then stop looking at it?

[LauraMars]

Yeah, I get it. It's similar to other discussions. You don't have to read it if you don't enjoy doing so!

[BadSkeelz]

I try, though I don't like people passive-aggressively whinging at others I respect, or self-deluding themselves that they're some sort of oppressed martyr.

[LauraMars]

It is easy to interpret a wide variety of tones into paragraphs of text, especially off the cuff text written from an emotionally charged place.

Personally, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt when I read what they write, (or let's face it, I'd be a lot more heavy handed as a moderator).

Once again, though, not reading a thread that causes you to become irritated will help.  And the content of discussions doesn't change the rules of the board, the very first of which is: Please don't flame. While you can criticize the opinions of other people, do so with respect for them as a fellow human.

[Kryos]

Assuming you addressed my approach, Badskeelz. Ad hominem is rarely a useful means of discussion unless the point or claims are based on a person's individual merits.  I am not whining, nor do I view myself as a martyr.  I suspected during my initial post, which I had to fight back a lot of urge not to post it, that some degree of being made a pariah would come of it.  But I can say confidently I do not believe that it would come from staff, and still don't, and not being a martyr or whining is part of why.  The other part is I am not attacking, or spewing random unfounded hate/anger/so on at them or anyone else.  I am critiquing, and critiquing is nominally the action of someone who has a degree of investment or care in what they critique.  And I am attempting to critique in a constructive manner.  Most importantly, this thread's topic is not about these things in the slightest. 

RGS, I've observed those changes, but rather than chop them out I'll keep it concise and avoid derailing by saying that too isn't the point of this thread.  Big, planned, staff initiated changes that completely change the experience of the game come in out of the blue and bop players over the head.  That is the premise.  It is not a contestable premise.  It happens and has recently continued to.

We are not solicited for our opinions, perceptions, or enjoyment and instead have to offer up reactive input. It often devolves into muddied waters as partisan passions or person bias cloud the value of the discussion, and no anticipation and ability to discuss pre implementation creates a perception that our opinions are thus not valued and stokes a non reciprocal trust and vision.  That is the recognized problem, and certainly merits discussion for at least some.

This thread does demonstrate some of the negative aspects that may be alleviated by altering the approach though, which I do find to be icing on the cake and poignant.  Random ideas plucked with no rhyme or reason to be evaluated does not remedy this perception issue because there's no rubric for it, no consistent behavior, and it is player initiated.  No one's coming to us, we're always going to them(the other stakeholders).

[RogueGunslinger]

We are not solicited for our opinions, perceptions, or enjoyment and instead have to offer up reactive input. It often devolves into muddied waters as partisan passions or person bias cloud the value of the discussion, and no anticipation and ability to discuss pre implementation creates a perception that our opinions are thus not valued and stokes a non reciprocal trust and vision.  That is the recognized problem, and certainly merits discussion for at least some.

This thread does demonstrate some of the negative aspects that may be alleviated by altering the approach though, which I do find to be icing on the cake and poignant.  Random ideas plucked with no rhyme or reason to be evaluated does not remedy this perception issue because there's no rubric for it, no consistent behavior, and it is player initiated.  No one's coming to us, we're always going to them(the other stakeholders).

I listed at least once where they did come to us first before making changes. There are just some decisions that it doesn't make sense to directly solicit information for. I suppose all I'm saying is you're taking a very hard-lined stance here that I disagree with. But if it came down to specifics we'd probably agree. I like the idea of staff telling us what's coming up and what we think about it. I just also think that isn't something they need to come to us for with every major decision.

I'm curious why you're so against with the idea of reactionary changes. If you get what you want in the end why would it matter that you didn't have complete information before things got started.

[Kryos]

People are not getting what they want, but getting 'what you want' or not is a dangerous means of excusing isolation and exclusion.  As for major changes, yes, I think we should be having discussion about all major changes.  About minor changes, tweaks to balance, etc, no.  That's the sort of thing that staff can/should do on the fly as needed.  Just put up what you did and move on.  

Reactionary discussion is problematic because it is often dismissed by the other stakeholders as not valuable.  Reactionary is problematic because it is not them coming to us(on the whole, not some partitioned group, or cliques, or whatever).  And that is huge.  Reactionary is problematic because there's no stringent let alone rough guidelines as to what will be reaching and impacting and what will not.  Reactionary is dangerous because it encourages insider behavior and distrust of it, apathy, disingenuous undermining of other people's opinions/wants/desires and so on.  And that all seems to be demonstrated with some frequency.

Proactive discussions between stakeholders build trust.  Its pretty much as simple as that.

[RogueGunslinger]

I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.

[Armaddict]

I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.

It's not that uncommon in small indie games on Steam.

[RogueGunslinger]

I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.

It's not that uncommon in small indie games on Steam.

Maybe to a certain extent. But definitely not to the extent that every major change going into the game is discussed with and voted on by the consumers. It honestly sounds ludicrous just saying it.

Most games make reactionary changes and updates based on feedback.

[boog]

I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.

It's not that uncommon in small indie games on Steam.

Where money is to be made? Armageddon doesn't generate any moola, though, right? It's paid for by...?

[Asmoth]

I have never played a game where the staff did what you're suggesting.

It's not that uncommon in small indie games on Steam.

Comparing Armageddon to an Early Access, money grab is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Armaddict]

I wasn't making a statement.  He said he knew of no place where it happened, as if it was an unheard of idea.  It is not an unheard of idea, and is actually in practice.

Likewise...the fact that it's used by places that are for profit is completely irrelevant;  they put emphasis on developing a product that will retain the support of their users, and so it is a good practice.  Saying that such is because it's making money is, again, focusing on something that somehow makes the monetary involvement relevant.  The point is that they wanted the support of their players to continue.

That is not a statement as to what's here.  But your responses are not...in any way related to what my post was responding to.

[boog]

It's not really irrelevant if they're doing it to keep a profit going. :p They're not doing it necessarily for goodwill, they're doing it so more people are attracted into dumping money into the game.

[Armaddict]

It's not really irrelevant if they're doing it to keep a profit going. :p They're not doing it necessarily for goodwill, they're doing it so more people are attracted into dumping money into the game.

...so you're...demeaning...-satisfaction- by...it's motivation?

[Asmoth]

It's not really irrelevant if they're doing it to keep a profit going. :p They're not doing it necessarily for goodwill, they're doing it so more people are attracted into dumping money into the game.

...so you're...demeaning...-satisfaction- by...it's motivation?

Not everything is an affront to your view.  She was just saying there are different reasons for both.

[Armaddict]

It's not really irrelevant if they're doing it to keep a profit going. :p They're not doing it necessarily for goodwill, they're doing it so more people are attracted into dumping money into the game.

...so you're...demeaning...-satisfaction- by...it's motivation?

Not everything is an affront to your view.  She was just saying there are different reasons for both.

It's not really irrelevant if they're doing it to keep a profit going. :p

That is, actually, what was happening, though 'affront to your view' is not accurate.  But she was saying exactly that.

[boog]

I'm saying that if we were paying into this game, our satisfaction with the code changes might be more relevant, yes.

I don't think staff would willingly do something they would think would harm the game. That's just nonsense.

However, unless the changes are a complete wash, I don't think that there's an incentive to change them because a few people decided they really didn't like them.

[Armaddict]

Likewise, I'm not saying that we should definitely be on this platform.  However, the method of attack was that said platform was impossible, not used, or unrealistic based on resources.

I only came in to say 'Actually, it's already being used in places where satisfaction is a priority', which led down this derail.