Author Topic: A cry for change  (Read 62682 times)

Offline Byron Cavendish

  • Member
  • Salutes: 89
    • [TB]
    • 21 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • The Brotherhood
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #45 on: January 17, 2017, 07:29:01 am »
The innocence of it all is kind of redeeming.

Offline Lord Rho of Sealand

  • Member
  • Salutes: 3
    • [DdCo]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Helenos y Latinos
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #46 on: January 17, 2017, 07:48:39 am »

Oh sweet summer child...

Was that post part of your CA responsability?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 07:51:57 am by Lord Rho of Sealand »

Offline Schwalbe

  • Member
  • Salutes: 177
    • [ψ꒜]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #47 on: January 17, 2017, 07:57:23 am »
By game dying we all mean something called retention - basically: new players mostly not staying, and old players slowly fading away.

How many of the already few that stay will become future veterans to uphold the life of this game?
How many currentt veterans will stay?

I've recently met some nice new players.
I can already see them appearing in game more and more rarely.

Sales bring less and less people everytime it occurs.


Rho, this entire topic was fused from the fact, that AWKM ignored (I wish not to discuss my choice of words here) feedback and suggestions countless times.

The same AWKM, that has never been present during Fireside Chat (at least since I am watching it)
The same AWKM, that was really arrogant back in the day of him being around on forums, acting like he always know better no matter the evidence shoved in front of his eyes.
The same AWKM that has been last online around the middle of 2015 I believe?
The same AWKM that wasn't seen playing for a LONG time.


The same AWKM that is in charge of all balance changes.


This, contrary to opinion of some, is a cold-hearted statement - not an opinion. Statement, because I've just described you what is bottled down in these 3 pages on forum Rho.

Offline The Mann

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 146
    • [Cake]
    • 40 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #48 on: January 17, 2017, 08:00:56 am »
Keep this thread constructive.

That does not includes taunting and mocking one another.
Keep the chat clean and constructive.

Offline Kira Wa Nai

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 19
    • [PLRS]
    • 29 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #49 on: January 17, 2017, 08:05:12 am »
Thanks for your feedback and opinions, everyone. I sincerely hope that this thread results in actions being taken to move the game in the right direction.

I understand a lot of rage and frustration expressed in this thread - I myself feel desperate and frustrated and believe that I should have written this post three years ago.

However, I have to ask everyone in this thread to keep the discussion relevant to the topic of player-developer relations, constructive, civil, and free of personal insults and witch hunts. This is the only way that we can accomplish anything here.

Offline Miki 'nEad

  • Member
  • Salutes: 3
    • [✦✦45]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 34 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #50 on: January 17, 2017, 08:26:12 am »
Hilo, Miki here. ^^

I also support this thread.
I have in fact completely quit GOIO in the past. Broke all ties with the community and uninstalled the game.
It took Spud Nick, offering me a gunner's spot on his ship (<3 spud) to bring me back, and I only play competetively now.

Watching all my favorite things get nerfed into oblivion was a big part of why I left.
For instance, I spend a long long time practicing and perfecting my heavy carronade snipes, and I can honestly say I mastered it. It was my favorite thing to do, fully disabling those pesky metamidions with nothing but a carronade, even more fun than mines, and I was unrivalled at it (arts/mercs still beat it, so did a heavy clip hwacha + some good piloting, so don't give me that "it was unbalanced" stuff, arts are the meta even NOW), and then they just destroyed it. Making the heavy carronade pretty much a short range, less effective and less powerful version of the LJ.., which we don't need as we already have the LJ. (even at close range, loch LJ outperforms heavy carro for raw damage)
Not to mention that the heavy clip nerf ALSO hit the hwacha, light carro and gat, even the banshee to some extend. The artemis is the ONLY reliable mid to long range disabler left to us, with the hwacha being the only short ranged one.

This is just one example, but one that hit me, personally, quite hard. But it does illustrate how Muse appears to conflate "balancing" with "nerfing".

P.S. Spire is my favorite ship ever, please make it viable without turning it into a weaker version of the galleon!
I remember when the spire got a buff to it's perma, speed and maneuvrability, and it was great fun! But then it got nerfed again. :(

P.P.S. I just realised that, seeing as muse doesn't play it's own game, they get their information from statistics. But these statistics don't include variables such as; "Oh hey, they changed this thing! Come on, other veteran players, let's play with this new thing and have some fun!" Which results in an insanely high win/loss ration for the new thing, as all the strongest and best players, with their own favorite crew, flock to the game together to try out the update. From a statistics perspective, this would LOOK like the update is overpowered, while in reality it isn't, it is just in the hands of all the people who would win the matches anyways. You can't include things, such as full competetive teams stomping new players in your statistics when desciding if something is balanced or not, those matches (which are MOST matches, to be frank) are inherently unbalanced because of it's participants, so they provide skewed results, the ships/weapons/ammo used is a negligible parameter.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 08:41:37 am by Miki 'nEad »

Offline BlackenedPies

  • Member
  • Salutes: 134
    • [Duck]
    • 30 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #51 on: January 17, 2017, 09:26:18 am »
This is the largest and most diverse response we've had on the forum in a long time. As a reminder, please email feedback@musegames.com. Regarding balances changes, specifically patch 1.4.5 and the new spire, they are based on player feedback - the wrong kind. For whatever reason, Muse doesn't filter or prioritize feedback well

Someone thought it would be a good idea to make loch periodically cause damage to make it useful on more guns. It doesn't work and now loch is broken - something most players could've figured out beforehand. Eric didn't propose this, a player did, and I bet the same thing happened with Mobula. The spire changes are word for word Richard's suggestion. Regardless of "how it's meant to be", the community doesn't want a slow, tanky spire with two front guns and insane vertical accel

It comes down to common sense for both Muse and players: don't make an ammo with higher dps than greased on some guns and useless on others while breaking it's previous use, Mobula is resistant to both kill and disable so one obvious answer is to increase vulnerability to kill (reducing armor/hull) - not disabling its ability to use non-meta guns and nerfing maneuverability (which make it less 'fun'), and if the spire needs a buff to survivability, buff it 20% or so max, not 200+%, and don't disable certain guns while adding an absurd vertical accel value
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 09:38:35 am by BlackenedPies »

Offline Lore De Spades

  • Member
  • Salutes: 4
    • [Moth]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2017, 10:10:49 am »
Lets throw in the first game Muse has made that was based on airships; Flight of the Icarus, which I believe used to be called Guns of Icarus.

In the 9 minutes that I have played their first game, I could tell it looked sort of like alliance, but worse.
I think that muse still holds on to this old dream that never came true, Instead they made skirmish version of it; Guns of Icarus Online, and truth be told, its better than the old game. Now that they have a community even though its a small one, they want to give their old dream another go, Alliance. But it left a sour taste by the overlords community. I can agree, I would love to see new content in Skirmish mode, actual new maps, Not maps that are recycled, Fix loch etc. etc.


In my opinion, I find Alliance enjoyable, to a certain point, I feel like it could be boring in the long run and a grind, unlike Skirmish.

dunno how to quote, this is from OP
"Skirmish mode is a competitive, cooperative PVP game with very high skill ceiling.
It also has a very steep learning curve, forcing new players into interaction with the older ones."

This is also a reason why the playerbase is small, and this is not because of Muse, Either the novice is not listening, or being a troll OR the high-level-whatever either telling them to fu-k off or refuse to teach them and have patience. I completely understand the latter, I think most people who play this game is to relax, not to teach, Muse understands this, that's why we have teachers, mods, C.A.'s, though the latter two is quite underwhelming. Oh well, that is for another discussion.

Offline nanoduckling

  • Member
  • Salutes: 116
    • [♫]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2017, 10:21:09 am »
This post is excellent and has clearly repeated what many of us have said for a while now, all be it in the context of yet another questionable set of balance changes. As another old player who doesn't play much anymore I'll add mine to the list of player who emphasize that the reason we don't play much anymore is the lack of new content, and the really bizarre way balance changes are handled.

Offline Skrimskraw

  • Member
  • Salutes: 160
    • [GwTh]
    • 21 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #54 on: January 17, 2017, 11:59:39 am »
January 2017

still the same topic and problem as January 2014 ;)

it's always been like this, no content, lack of communication and hopes that adventure mode wouldn't be bad.
I get the passion that comes out of this topic, but isn't it too late?
the game is 5 years old, and you can't expect muse to start adding content now.
it's all unfortunate and this topic is the exact reason why a lot of us forgotten players stopped playing the game.

The thing I find interesting here is that community ambassadors are voicing depressing opinions, that might be the real talk here. - That the game has lost it's run.

anyway just wanted to pop in and say hi.

p.s.
Goio is worth the 5 euros on sale, always was ;)


Offline Richard LeMoon

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 284
    • [Muse]
    • 33 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #55 on: January 17, 2017, 12:15:05 pm »
The spire changes are word for word Richard's suggestion. Regardless of "how it's meant to be", the community doesn't want a slow, tanky spire with two front guns and insane vertical accel

Not word for word. There was 800 HP left off that broke the test, which, if you noticed, is the trigger for this entire thread. 800 missing HP started this avalanche. With the 800 more HP, it actually was something a lot of people were interested in TESTING, if not seeing in the actual game. Without that hull, it was a test of something no one wanted, but presented in a way that people thought  A. it was Muse's idea. B. it was a player's idea.

It was a mutant mix of both, which is why it failed.

The Mobula gun fanning was not a player suggestion as far as I know. It was an attempt to bring the Mob back in line with win/loss stats in direct response to players complaining that the Mobula was a Spire hardcounter along with the Squid. So, the Squid and Mob both get bizarre nerfs instead of buffing the common element. Putting the guns further in than original and nerfing vert was player driven, and I think most people are OK with the Mob now. It requires more skill to fly now, and better strategies than "push W to win".

Changing Loch (never heard it was player suggested) was based directly on changing the Typhoon which was (even I will admit, though I hate it) needed for most players. However, changing Loch based on that one gun change was not needed, since no one even uses newLoch on the flak. So we ended up in a bizarre situation of changes that make no sense that went counter to what every tester I know was saying. Between the Mob gun fanning (all testers said it was awful) and the Lock changes that went into that 'balance' patch, testers felt betrayed. If you think the population has dropped here, you should see testing sessions in devapp. We can't even get a full 2v2 lobby during official dev tests. People have given up on testing because they don't feel like they are being listened to. Sure, little adjustments are made, but overall response was ignored. The overall response to Mob/Loch was a resounding "NONE OF IT!" "This won't work." "Players will ragequit." "it does not address the problems." In it went.

I am not trying to be insulting here, Blackenpies, but most people think clans are almost as out of touch as some devs with the general playerbase. You almost never see some clans playing with the general playerbase. The majority of the community does not consist of well-oiled crews buffing and cheming with unrivaled precision. I don't claim to represent what the community wants, so neither should you. As evident in this thread, parts of the community did want to see the results of an actual Spire Tank test. If you polled the entire playerbase, the result would likely be a resounding "Yes, let's test this even if it does not go in the game.". I wanted to test Tank Spire. Other people wanted to test Tank Spire. We are part of the community. So please, no assertions about what the community wants, when the community itself just proved the contrary.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 12:16:37 pm by Richard LeMoon »

Offline Keyvias

  • Member
  • Salutes: 83
    • [Muse]
    • 12 
    • 27
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #56 on: January 17, 2017, 12:20:05 pm »
Hello everyone,

I am stunned. This has been the most well constructed negative post I have ever read. As everyone here has spent time on the internet, we all know what a feat that is to talk about things everyone is passionate about while still conveying their idea effectively. While I may disagree with some conclusions, I only hope I can mirror the amount of respect you've all shown with your carefully crafted words. There are 4 pages on this thread as of writing, so if I miss anything, it's not a personal attack and please remind me of any point that I missed and I'll do my best to reply to it.


  • From #Spank to #Splunker
Eric's changes to the testing numbers that were proposed is not meant as an insult, but as a compliment. The reason he tweaked the numbers is he liked the idea, but felt like the changes to hull health would make it even better.
He was wrong.
This happens in testing and why we test. Even Richard's original idea had the side guns fanned out a little more, an idea disliked in play later.

  • Why send in the Community Managers to testing?
Players can be passionate about ideas and often times not as constructive as they are here. Organizing testing, taking feedback, and trying to explaining reasoning is time consuming, it's also something that (hopefully) we're better at handling than Eric himself. It is also easier for us since these are not our ideas so we can come back to Eric and say objectively, this idea failed in a way that he listens better to. Which is why the #Spank testing will happen again without the gun fanning and the with the higher hull health to build a true Tanky Spire.
I completely understand why you want to have Eric be the one in the testing room or responding to the emails, but if that was the style. A lot of communication would be lost in translation and a lot of your great feedback wouldn't even get a response email confirming it's been received (since there are many feedback emails.)


  • Where are we?
Let me start by listing what to expect from the Muse Offices:
-Alliance is released in Q1 of this year
-Alliance contains at least 3 game modes (probably 4,) 4 whole factions including 4 faction player ships and weapons
-Skirmish and Alliance are combined into one product the day of release (no one will be able to buy just skirmish or just alliance)
-On Alliance release day, some Alliance maps are made for Skirmish play.
-Continued #WildWeek testing with ideas from the community
-Continued #AdaptTheMaps

One month out from Alliance Release
-Alliance receives 4 more game modes
-Alliance receives 2 more factions with weapons and ships
-We investigate weapons and ships that have the opportunity to come back to PvP. Some weapons like Gas Mortar, just won't ever make it back due to super unfun to get hit by.

That is our next upcoming months. As a 4 year old product, content updates to skirmish don't earn us much attention or sales. When skirmish combines with Alliance, we get to call skirmish updates as alliance updates and then we get more featuring from Steam. With the last open session we were able to get featuring from Steam which earned us a bit of money to help us keep the doors open. If you say this isn't skirmish focused, you're right. We have to get a new product out, it's taken longer than we've expected and that is honestly our fault, but it's the reality we have to work with to get Alliance out to have a new product to promote and sell which still lets us work on Guns of Icarus. If the way this panned out is too much, you can definitely switch us off.

I want to do the best I can to explain the situation from our side. Tension is high on our side as well, Alliance has been a larger undertaking than we originally imagined, but it was something that has allowed us to continue to work and care about Guns of Icarus since it's an expansion. People are right and some games can release and continue to release content and get attention well after release. Team Fortress 2 and others are pulling this off amazingly, but that is not us and that's not our reality. Guns of Icarus Skirmish without Alliance gets no attention from Steam (who controls our featuring) and from Press (including youtubers.) Those two nozzles are the major power points that have driven any spikes and sales we've earned.

  • Where do we go from here?

We have tried to be more attentive with things like the player council and #wildweek, but I have some questions that would really help me focus in what we need to do better.
-How often and what do you expect in a content update for skirmish?
-How often and what do you expect for balance updates?
-If you could change one single thing tomorrow, what would that be?


This isn't me saying I will promise anything or that we're going to be able to change into something you fall in love with all over again.
Maybe we can improve our style into something that brings you back, but sometimes we're going to lose people to games that more fit their style.
Byron pointed out that he feels World's Adrift is the Open World Adventure he always wanted. We won't be making an open world game, so if Byron has found a game he finds fits his taste and likes the development style more. I wish him the best and I am humbled by the thousand hours he put into Icarus and the discussions we've had throughout the years.
---------------------------------

Again, I want to thank everyone for the discussion, it's a super intense topic and as people have mentioned "game is dead" is something we've fought for a long time. Our struggle is one of survival, but since we came out in 2012 and we get to have this talk again in 2017, at least we made it here.
I do want to do better though and I hope this discussion and my response is a step on that path. I will try to do my best to keep up with this thread as it evolves.

Offline Hoja Lateralus

  • Member
  • Salutes: 135
    • [ψ꒜]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #57 on: January 17, 2017, 12:35:58 pm »
Goio is worth the 5 euros on sale, always was ;)

More like 3,74 euros as of at least last 2 years.

OPtodaywasacoolguy.jpg
I salute to the OP because he repeats what most of vet community thinks in a calm manner. +1

Offline FisherEx

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 6
    • [PLRS]
    • 10 
    • 34
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #58 on: January 17, 2017, 01:01:26 pm »
Well, thank you for your response Keyvias. I'm glad to know that at least some maps from Alliance will find its way into Skirmish, but some questions still remain:
- Will you be porting Alliance ships and guns into Skirmish and if not then what stops you form reusing your own content?
- Why did Eric left the forum and the game in the first place while he remains "the hand of balance"(and though he is still active outside of the game)?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 01:03:34 pm by FisherEx »

Offline Solidusbucket

  • Member
  • Salutes: 93
    • [SkBo]
    • 29 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: A cry for change
« Reply #59 on: January 17, 2017, 01:16:07 pm »
Hello everyone,

 please remind me of any point that I missed and I'll do my best to reply to it.


-How often and what do you expect in a content update for skirmish?
-How often and what do you expect for balance updates?
-If you could change one single thing tomorrow, what would that be?



I feel like I should chime in here since I'm pretty awesome.

You didn't mention anything about more hats.

Now, to answer your questions:

I expect more maps. New ones, altered ones (different spawn points, drastic changes to clouds / dust storms, different time of day, other ideas), and ported ones from Alliance. (Also adapting them all for 2v2,3v3,and 4v4). I'd like alterations monthly and new or ported ones every quarter.

I don't have an opinion on balance.

My underwear.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 01:23:35 pm by Solidusbucket »