Info > Feedback and Suggestions

A cry for change

<< < (14/29) > >>

Keyvias:
@Byron,

Damned isn't making a second game's size worth of content at the same time. This is the reason I would say we rate pretty low for content.
As for quarterly content updates
Like one full gun every quarter or what size of content would be your expectation? I want to zero in on it so I can talk to the team and see, after we get through getting alliance out if we can make a new roadmap and what player expectations vs our reality is and how they can mesh.

Shas'ui:

--- Quote from: Keyvias on January 17, 2017, 12:20:05 pm ----How often and what do you expect in a content update for skirmish?
--- End quote ---
Something new each month would be lovely, if a bit optimistic given the current timesink of alliance. The amount of content doesn't need to be huge; a new map isn't as game-changing as a new ship or weapon, but still helps keep the game feeling fresh and new, rather then flying in the same few places again and again. Another plus to doing it monthly: it gives you a great headline for the monthly newsletter!
   

--- Quote from: Keyvias on January 17, 2017, 12:20:05 pm ----How often and what do you expect for balance updates?
--- End quote ---
Balance updates are, in my mind, something that is done as needed rather then on a set timeline. If everything is running smoothly, then no balance updates are needed. On the other hand, if something becomes an issue, or a recently enacted change goes bad, a fix is needed as soon as possible. For example, the recent map additions which had badly placed spawns: as soon as the issue is mentioned, an investigation should be started, and, within a reasonable timeframe, either take action to correct the issue, or explain why no action was taken.


--- Quote from: Keyvias on January 17, 2017, 12:20:05 pm ----If you could change one single thing tomorrow, what would that be?
--- End quote ---
The way that the devapp tests are run: allow for more frequent changes, over the course of the test; rapid prototyping. If the numbers initially proposed are not working, the ability to have someone who can adjust to newly proposed numbers, such that multiple sets of numbers can be tested in succession, rather then spending the entire session on one set, even after a conclusion has been reached.

BlackenedPies:
@Keyvias

Players feel that feedback is ignored. For example, in the testing for 1.4.5, from my eyes the overwhelming feedback was that lochnagar and mobula were broken and that these changes wouldn't work. Testing continued for another two weeks on the exact same changes, with the same feedback. Players became disheartened and stopped sending emails because it felt pointless. When 1.4.5 was released it caused a unanimous negative response from the community. Many players quit as a direct result. How will this be addressed in the future?

Players would like a hand in balance, and ideally IMO a direct vote on what (spire, loch etc.) and how (hull, dmg etc.) things are changed. Right now it feels like we have little or no say in either. For example, many feel the recent squid nerf went too far and needs toned down a bit - maybe +100 hull or at least extra turning accel. That seems far more pressing than testing an imaginary spire which might take months to tone out, if at all. If these spire changes take priority, and if squid doesn't need tweaked, we want to know why

Kira Wa Nai:
@Keyvias
First of all, thanks a lot for your reply. Seeing that the dev team takes this matter seriously is a great relief for me.

However, I think that your replies don't address the main point regarding the balance process: it takes two to tango.

Right now, the community sends a lot of feedback and only gets back occasional changes. The decision making process that leads to those changes in completely opaque. The community therefore has to try and figure out how a black box works, and so far it doesn't seem to had succeeded.

The community needs to get some communication back. What lead to the modifications to the "Tank Spire" proposal?
I'm sure that there is certain logic behind them, but I can't figure it out by myself. Eric probably doesn't make those decisions on a whim and gut feeling - I'm sure that he knows better than doing that to a competitive game's balance. Please, give those reasons back to us. We want to know how our feedback is processed and how the balance decisions are made.

While I appreciate the job that the CM team does, my personal opinion is that it is not enough. The community needs to hear back from Eric - be it through his own forum posts or community managers.

P.S. Not entirely related to the thread's topic: in my opinion, Corsair would fit the role of "Tank Spire" pretty well. Hence we want a healthy and constructive discussion between the devs and the community on matters like this.

Keyvias:
Tank-Spire was a player made suggestion for #Wildweek, where players got to send in numbers and things they wanted to try. Due to Eric taking an interesting in the numbers, the players numbers were then adjusted by Eric at the last moment and we didn't communicate that well.
This isn't a like serious suggestion where it'll be in the game next week, but we wanted to do as you said and listen to the community better, which one of the ways we did was opening up #wildweek.

We started with a trifecta squid, which failed (horribly balanced) but was super fun just to try.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page