Dev Communication

gradii · April 2017

I think it would be great for community morale if Kaiserin would have a monthly livestream where she tells us the intentions and reasoning behind the decisions being made for the game.

raighn · April 2017

That would be good... an open avanue of communication is a much needed thing here.

qawsada · April 2017

The forum isn't enough for you?

raighn · April 2017

qawsada said:
The forum isn't enough for you?

We don't ever get any open communication with the devs here. We get a bland patch note with no explanations behind any of the changes.

We'd like to have actual communication, explanations of the reasons behind certain changes. Plans for intended updates and information on how things are intended to function. If we can get this open communication then things can start to change for the better.

championshewolf · April 2017

I gues when the note states something was done to fix an issue or restore balance I guess isn't an explanation anymore.

raighn · April 2017

championshewolf said:
I gues when the note states something was done to fix an issue or restore balance I guess isn't an explanation anymore.

When the note simply says "fixed balance issue with ____" it explains nothing... good patch notes give details about the change and why. Why did they change it the way they did? Why was this power moved to Tier 3 when it had always been Tier 1 before? Why is it now weaker as Tier 3 than it was as Tier 1? Why was the power cost quadrupled?

A lot of the changes we've gotten lately have made no sense and everyone knows it. We want explinations as to why things are changed the way they are.

Something like "X and Y powers were being spammed for excessive damage, to fix this these powers now have a 5 second CD" is far more preferable than just "X and Y powers now have a 5 second CD". DO you see the difference? One gives a reason for the change, the other is just an arbitrary change for no clear reason.

also "Fixed a bug with___" is not an explanation either... a lot of the recent patch notes have been simply "fixed a bug with ___" or "changed ___ because of a bug"... what sort of bug? I don't even know what changes were actually made with a lot of the recent patch notes. They give NO REAL INFORMATION. Ok so you fixed a bug, what bug did you fix? What did this bug do? what should I be expecting from this fix? What did you do to fix it? What is the change that was made?

Honestly, the state of patch notes lately really isn't that much different than not even having patch notes at all. They arn't telling us anything.

theravenforce · April 2017

Whilst this would be an interesting thing...I don't think Kaiserin or the Dev team have the time to be doing a monthly live stream outlining every single change and why it was made.

I doubt there'd be much in the way of explanation aside from what we see on the patch notes or when Kaiserin posts in response to someone on the patch notes thread.

I DO agree that it would be nice for CO's current Dev Team at some point in the near future to have a live stream.

Also it is important to note that asking for explanations can lead you to your answer if asked in the right way: aka "ZOMG U Y NERF [Insert Power / Power set / Telepathy] SO HARD!??!?!?" <- not gonna get a response.

I've always figured that there's simply a desire to spare the masses of the in's and outs of every little change as well as bigger changes.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be great to understand the reasoning, I just think it would be a little unrealistic to expect everything to be explained at every point. (Unless you wanted Kaiserin to upload a vid instead of patch notes?

)

theravenforce · April 2017

gradii said:
Think of how great it would be to hear the explaination of why telepathy has to suck so much though! I'm sure it would be interesting.

Would also be gratifying to hear something like "Telepathy being a terrible set is unintended and will be fixed as soon as we get around to doing a telepathy pass"

I already understand why it has to not function in the way it was designed to initially.

I don't really need the Dev Team to reiterate that to me or tell me I am wrong because "you can DPS with Telepathy", that's what the community is for

.

From experience with the way the community (myself included) has reacted to promises in the past, I should think the current team would be wary of outlining promises for future power set reviews.

Also, things change, we could be on route to a cyberkinetic monster costume set with a melee TK / Telekinesis Power set review then again we might be on track for an Archery Set Review. Who knows?

raighn · April 2017

theravenforce said:
Whilst this would be an interesting thing...I don't think Kaiserin or the Dev team have the time to be doing a monthly live stream outlining every single change and why it was made.

I doubt there'd be much in the way of explanation aside from what we see on the patch notes or when Kaiserin posts in response to someone on the patch notes thread.

I DO agree that it would be nice for CO's current Dev Team at some point in the near future to have a live stream.

Also it is important to note that asking for explanations can lead you to your answer if asked in the right way: aka "ZOMG U Y NERF [Insert Power / Power set / Telepathy] SO HARD!??!?!?" <- not gonna get a response.

I've always figured that there's simply a desire to spare the masses of the in's and outs of every little change as well as bigger changes.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be great to understand the reasoning, I just think it would be a little unrealistic to expect everything to be explained at every point. (Unless you wanted Kaiserin to upload a vid instead of patch notes? )</p>

My reasoning behind wanting explanations is honestly 2 fold...

One: I want to know what changes are actually being made, as I stated already the current patch notes do a very poor job at giving any sort of information. I read through the patch notes and the vast majority of the stuff listed I find myself asking "Why?" or "What did you even do?" or "And that accomplishes what?"... They are so vague that it's impossible to know what is even being done.

Two: The devs have to think about each change a little more before implementing them if they actually have to explain the changes. Some of the more nonsensical changes we've gotten over the past few months may have never happened if they had to explain the reason behind the change. Some things are far easier to do when you don't have to justify it... Some may think it's better if they don't have to justify every change, but really it's not... When the reasons are put out in the open and explanations are given it leads to better quality of updates. A dev isn't going to make a change just for the sake of change if they can't explain why they are doing it. And when they take the time to explain something, they may find that "this change actually isn't good... we should rethink this one". It creates a level of accountability and revision that leads to an overall better quality to updates.

pallas0001 · April 2017

I'd rather her devote the time to the game itself.

As someone who has to wear a LOT of hats for her RL job, you can get stretched too thin very quickly and it dilutes your output.

theravenforce · April 2017

raighn said:

My reasoning behind wanting explanations is honestly 2 fold...

One: I want to know what changes are actually being made, as I stated already the current patch notes do a very poor job at giving any sort of information. I read through the patch notes and the vast majority of the stuff listed I find myself asking "Why?" or "What did you even do?" or "And that accomplishes what?"... They are so vague that it's impossible to know what is even being done.

Fair enough, do you post your questions though? Or ask the community? Granted, most of the time the community will have varied answers based on their opinion and how they've received the change but somewhere in there, a suitable answer can sometimes be found and better yet, sometimes Devs step in and set the record straight.

raighn said:
Two: The devs have to think about each change a little more before implementing them if they actually have to explain the changes.

Hrm, not necessarily. I don't know on what basis changes are meant to be made but it is possible to conclude that some changes have been made based on preference towards enforcing certain play styles to be more prevalent (more tanking options) or to add an impressive amount of powers to an existing power set (Bestial). Personal reasons for buffing or changing things does not necessarily have to be disclosed...and I doubt that if there WERE any personal motivations behind changes that this would be made known, they would likely only remain assumed.

Note: If you are allergic to salt, stop reading now.

raighn said:
Some of the more nonsensical changes we've gotten over the past few months may have never happened if they had to explain the reason behind the change.

Whilst this is a nice thought, this is unlikely to be the case. Changes made, when placed on PTS are subjected to player feedback. Even if the feedback is overwhelmingly negative or rather, several people are very vocal about how bad a change is...at the end of the day, it is up to the Development Team whether this is implemented or not.

An example of a bad change is the Manipulator Form change. To place it in a more positive light, it can be assumed that it was likely nerfed repeatedly to bring it in line with other stacking forms, in a bid to standardize it.

Unfortunately, standardizing a non standard element of combat has had irritating side effects, which were either considered and just shrugged off or not considered at all.

Whether Kaiserin had written an essay on why Manipulator Form needed to be nerfed repeatedly or recited one (making it less desirable in the process) or not, the change would have happened.

I do ask and will continue to ask why Telepathy related nerfs are so severe to the point that they significantly alter a power's function (i.e. SoD & ML nerfs), and all I get in response is members of the community telling me it was overpowered and no official response, despite this and my constant vigilance when it comes to Telepathy...those changes are going to happen no matter what, unless there is some miracle (this lil bit was all in relation to Telepathy mind you...back on topic now...).

raighn said:
Some things are far easier to do when you don't have to justify it... Some may think it's better if they don't have to justify every change, but really it's not... When the reasons are put out in the open and explanations are given it leads to better quality of updates. A dev isn't going to make a change just for the sake of change if they can't explain why they are doing it.

Wrong, there have been a string of nerfs which were either not documented and hit LIVE or were documented and hit LIVE and no explanation was given, so changes can happen for the sake of change.

Example: Congress of Selves, an already failing passive was further nerfed to only buff FOUR powers in Champions Online, three of which are on 8-15 second base cool downs whereas before, it buffed all Ego Damage (as it should have, despite the description error). This was not listed in patch notes and was simply nerfed. No explanation as to why, it just happened. So yes, Devs can make changes where they desire without having to explain.

^ That is only one example I can think of straight off the top of my head. I am sure others can provide more pressing ones if they think about it.

raighn said:
And when they take the time to explain something, they may find that "this change actually isn't good... we should rethink this one". It creates a level of accountability and revision that leads to an overall better quality to updates.

This is kind of what the PTS feedback is for, however, as we know, this is not always actively taken into account or acknowledged for a variety of reasons...here's two:

- Time. This is their job and they have deadlines to meet.
- Opinions clashing - A Developers opinion of a power/powers may be very different to that of the player base who are opposing a change and at the end of the day, it is a Developer who decides. (I could be wrong but that's what it seems like)

Sometimes, when you get an explanation as to why something was nerfed (i.e. when I asked about why INT was adjusted so heavily), the answer can surprise you.

You may not always get an answer but asking can get you somewhere.

riverocean · April 2017

That;s a Community Manager's job.. and PWI has seen fit not to give us one. I don't think it's fair to ask Kaiserin to do a second job... she's doing enough already. This game is understaffed and it looks like that's the way it's going be moving forward.

I'm just thankful we get notes explaining what's going on!

pantagruel01 · April 2017

gradii said:
Think of how great it would be to hear the explaination of why telepathy has to suck so much though! I'm sure it would be interesting.

That kind of attitude is exactly why no such livestream will happen.

aesica · April 2017

Didn't they try something like this with state-of-the-game posts, only to abandon that idea because people were so negative?

raighn · April 2017

theravenforce said:

raighn said:
Some things are far easier to do when you don't have to justify it... Some may think it's better if they don't have to justify every change, but really it's not... When the reasons are put out in the open and explanations are given it leads to better quality of updates. A dev isn't going to make a change just for the sake of change if they can't explain why they are doing it.
Wrong, there have been a string of nerfs which were either not documented and hit LIVE or were documented and hit LIVE and no explanation was given, so changes can happen for the sake of change.

Example: Congress of Selves, an already failing passive was further nerfed to only buff FOUR powers in Champions Online, three of which are on 8-15 second base cool downs whereas before, it buffed all Ego Damage (as it should have, despite the description error). This was not listed in patch notes and was simply nerfed. No explanation as to why, it just happened. So yes, Devs can make changes where they desire without having to explain.

^ That is only one example I can think of straight off the top of my head. I am sure others can provide more pressing ones if they think about it.

Context is important!

When devs have to explain changes things turn out differently. Its a mentality thing brought on by accountability. The change to CoS may not have even happened if they had to give an explanation. Currently there is no accountability, they make any changes they see fit and ignore nearly all feedback. If a change is made that they know wont be accepted quietly, such as what happened to CoS they wont even acknowledge the change even happened. But if they have to explain the changes then they are far less likely to make changes like those, as they reflect poorly on them. when you have to give explinations for changes your accepting accountability for them, and no one wants to be accountable for a bad change. Due to that accounrability, they would push for better changes.

raighn · April 2017

aesica said:
Didn't they try something like this with state-of-the-game posts, only to abandon that idea because people were so negative?

To be fair, the community was rather bitter with them at that time due to the game being practically abandoned for over 2 years... and the first bit of attention it got after all that time was a string of major nerfs...

avianos · April 2017

raighn wrote: »

Didn't they try something like this with state-of-the-game posts, only to abandon that idea because people were so negative?

To be fair, the community was rather bitter with them at that time due to the game being practically abandoned for over 2 years... and the first bit of attention it got after all that time was a string of major nerfs...

Ah... the Dark Period when CO was the unloved child of PWE, while STO & NWO were the spoiled sisters

I remember using Cinderella as a Metaphor

Of course people would be angry after 1 and a half year of DEV Hiatus
especially paired with NERFs and not BUFFs, just remembering that period makes me angry

themightyzenith · April 2017

avianos said:
Ah... the Dark Period when CO was the unloved child of PWE, while STO & NWO were the spoiled sisters

That's changed?

sterga · April 2017

I'd rather see our CM do these things... Oh, wait...

Wasn't the last SotG so generic / anemic that it was basically a bunch of stuff we all could have figured out ourselves? The manifesto before that was just as bad.

They look like fluff pieces written by someone who doesn't even play CO. It should be a surprise to no one when players get salty over generorama nonsense after constantly asking for actual information.

raighn · April 2017

sterga said:
I'd rather see our CM do these things... Oh, wait..

Wasn't the last SotG so generic / anemic that it was basically a bunch of stuff we all could have figured out ourselves? The manifesto before that was just as bad.

They look like fluff pieces written by someone who doesn't even play CO. It should be a surprise to no one when players get salty over generorama nonsense after constantly asking for actual information.

And even today with the patch notes they continue to not give any actual information...

aesica · April 2017

raighn wrote: »

To be fair, the community was rather bitter with them at that time due to the game being practically abandoned for over 2 years... and the first bit of attention it got after all that time was a string of major nerfs...

While I don't disagree (I'm still displeased with the SCR price hike) it's important to realize that too much negativity will discourage them from poking their heads into the community. It's something of a negative feedback loop we have going on and the only way to break it is for each side to meet each other halfway. The devs should listen a bit more to feedback on unpopular changes than they do, just as players should be sure to acknowledge positive changes when they happen. It's also important for players to take a step back from their favorite power and try to understand why it was nerfed. For example, the original 2-gun mojo (the OP tier 0 version) absolutely deserved its nerf because a tier 0 power shouldn't be outperforming higher tiers, but people still raged.

That said, if the player-developer relationship is able to improve, they might be more willing to interact a bit more. Whether that actually happens depends on both sides, though.

kamokami · April 2017

Given limited time, budget, etc...I would prefer that the devs keep up the awesome pace of updates and changes of the past year instead of spending more time talking to us.

I'm not sure what information they would get out of the livestream that they're not getting here to help with their development efforts.

If I have to choose between less updates+more communication vs. more updates+less communication, then I will choose more updates every time.

kamokami · April 2017

We have gotten more updates in the last year than in any other year I can recall after On-Alert was released/fixed/etc.

I think it'd be difficult to find a 2-person dev team that's both releasing way more updates and communicating way more with the playerbase of a 8 year old game. Given that, I'd rather have them focus more on the updates.

pallas0001 · April 2017

kamokami said:
We have gotten more updates in the last year than in any other year I can recall after On-Alert was released/fixed/etc.

I think it'd be difficult to find a 2-person dev team that's both releasing way more updates and communicating way more with the playerbase of a 8 year old game. Given that, I'd rather have them focus more on the updates.

Agreed 100%. I think the Dev team has done a fantastic job with tweaking old things and implementing new tbh.

raighn · April 2017

kamokami said:
We have gotten more updates in the last year than in any other year I can recall after On-Alert was released/fixed/etc.

I think it'd be difficult to find a 2-person dev team that's both releasing way more updates and communicating way more with the playerbase of a 8 year old game. Given that, I'd rather have them focus more on the updates.

I"d rather have better communication and fewer but better quality updates.

spinnytop · April 2017

Asking for monthly streams is plain ol' ridiculous. You need to realize that you're not entitled to dev communication, and certainly not to that degree. I'd love a Kaiserin live stream where she answers questions, but I sure as hell don't want her stressing about having to answer the same damn questions every month and having her reward being to watch as people cry like little babies when they don't get the answers they want. Also, if you think you're going to get her to debate you about game design during a live stream, be prepared to get completely ignored - hell I bet part of the reason devs prefer to communicate with players through private channels is so they can avoid certain players who they know would just try to argue with them for the sake of arguing.

aesica said:

The devs should listen a bit more to feedback on unpopular changes than they do

You're already messing up your own plan. You need to stop with the accusations that devs ignore feedback. They listen to your feedback, consider it, and make the determination that following your feedback is not the best course of action. Being mature and acknowledging that it's their decision to make, and acknowledging that they don't need to make a big song and dance out of every time they read your feedback is the thing you need to include in your plan.

aesica · April 2017

spinnytop wrote: »

You're already messing up your own plan. You need to stop with the accusations that devs ignore feedback. They listen to your feedback, consider it, and make the determination that following your feedback is not the best course of action.

What's my plan? O.o I didn't even know I had one!

I also never said they ignore feedback, because they don't. There's been plenty of signs that they listen. I'm just referring to things in particular that are, for the most part unpopular, but they go ahead with them anyway. Heavy grinds are a great example.

spinnytop wrote: »

acknowledging that they don't need to make a big song and dance out of every time they read your feedback is the thing you need to include in your plan.

I'd like to see them give everyone a big song and dance. Don't you like singing and dancing?

decorumfriends · April 2017

They don't do this because it never goes well. The only people really pushing for these detailed explanations are people with an axe to grind.

"I need to know!!!"

No, you don't. You need to adapt to what they give you. Deal with the product, not the perceived motivations that don't change anything if you know or not.

qawsada · April 2017

gradii said:
The customer does NOT need to simply accept whatever they are given, they are the CUSTOMER and are the ones paying for this game.

A customer here. I think they're doing a fine job with the game and the update threads are good enough for me.

shredmonkey · April 2017

"Energy cost of Abcpower increased from x to y to balance versus other teir 3 blast powers."

Or

"Energy costs of Abcpower adjusted for balance."

Neither sentence took long to type. Personally, I like the first one better.

raighn · April 2017

shredmonkey#6879 said:
"Energy cost of Abcpower increased from x to y to balance versus other teir 3 blast powers."

Or

"Energy costs of Abcpower adjusted for balance."

Neither sentence took long to type. Personally, I like the first one better.

Exactly... and the first one is more informative...

sterga · April 2017

Communicating with players regularly is part of customer service. It's also fanservice to the players who love the game. It's much easier to love a game where you feel like you are valued by the creators than one where you constantly get the cold shoulder.

aesica · April 2017

gradii wrote: »

Really now? When almost every other game has the devs actively speaking to the playerbase? I don't think so.

In fairness, those "devs" are in most cases community managers--employees who's dedicated role is to act as liaison between the players and the developers so that the developers can spend more time getting things done for their respective game. It's no secret by now that CO doesn't actually have a community manager of its own.

gradii wrote: »

The customer does NOT need to simply accept whatever they are given, they are the CUSTOMER and are the ones paying for this game.

You're right, they don't. However, since no two customers like exactly the same thing, what doesn't appeal to one person might still appeal to other customers. If something doesn't appeal to you, you don't have to pay for it.

decorumfriends · April 2017

gradii said:
Really now? When almost every other game has the devs actively speaking to the playerbase? I don't think so.

The customer does NOT need to simply accept whatever they are given, they are the CUSTOMER and are the ones paying for this game.

Overly entitled nonsense. You're the consumer. Your choice is to use the product or not. You have plenty of ability to provide feedback when things are on PTS. You're not "owed" any explanations at all in the aftermath. You especially, because everyone knows you're not really looking for information to understand anything, you're looking for data to formulate an argument that this thing you don't like is the worst thing ever in the world and they should change it to the way YOU want and everyone who disagrees with you is an evil disgusting troll.

legendarylycan · April 2017

when the ESO devs buff/nerf/alter the way a power works, they provide a brief explanation for why they made that change...just saying

of course, ZOS also has a dev staff that is probably 20x the staff working on CO, so they can afford to set aside the time to do that

darqaura2 · April 2017

gradii said:
Think of how great it would be to hear the explaination of why telepathy has to suck so much though! I'm sure it would be interesting.

Would also be gratifying to hear something like "Telepathy being a terrible set is unintended and will be fixed as soon as we get around to doing a telepathy pass"

I thought this was already assumed to be the case. What would be the actual point of any dev saying that as we already know that will eventually be the case. Eventually everything will get a pass. Be it 2017 or 2027 (if the game is still around).

To me them saying something like that would be pointless.

I'd rather the devs spend their VERY limited time actually coding.

darqaura2 · April 2017

pallas0001 said:
I'd rather her devote the time to the game itself.

As someone who has to wear a LOT of hats for her RL job, you can get stretched too thin very quickly and it dilutes your output.

raighn said:

kamokami said:
We have gotten more updates in the last year than in any other year I can recall after On-Alert was released/fixed/etc.

I think it'd be difficult to find a 2-person dev team that's both releasing way more updates and communicating way more with the playerbase of a 8 year old game. Given that, I'd rather have them focus more on the updates.
I"d rather have better communication and fewer but better quality updates.

Except with 2 devs that wouldn't be what you got. And how much fewer can this game actually get? One patch note/one change a week?

darqaura2 · April 2017

spinnytop said:
Asking for monthly streams is plain ol' ridiculous. You need to realize that you're not entitled to dev communication, and certainly not to that degree. I'd love a Kaiserin live stream where she answers questions, but I sure as hell don't want her stressing about having to answer the same damn questions every month and having her reward being to watch as people cry like little babies when they don't get the answers they want. Also, if you think you're going to get her to debate you about game design during a live stream, be prepared to get completely ignored - hell I bet part of the reason devs prefer to communicate with players through private channels is so they can avoid certain players who they know would just try to argue with them for the sake of arguing.

aesica said:

The devs should listen a bit more to feedback on unpopular changes than they do
You're already messing up your own plan. You need to stop with the accusations that devs ignore feedback. They listen to your feedback, consider it, and make the determination that following your feedback is not the best course of action. Being mature and acknowledging that it's their decision to make, and acknowledging that they don't need to make a big song and dance out of every time they read your feedback is the thing you need to include in your plan.

Pretty much this. For example as salty as it made SOME us, they DID listen to the feedback on the GCR/SCR grind. (Hell, they actually reduced it by like 5%, which is something I suggested!) But they went ahead with that grind anyway. Why? Because they did not want folks getting the best gear that fast. We may not like that explanation, but it is what it is.

Allowing feedback does not automatically mean they will do whatever the feedback says. Worse in this community feedback is usually all over the place. In my example there were a few folks that did like the gear grind. In other instances the split is 50/50 in terms of communication.

The devs having to explain every change to the fullest will no change a damn thing. They will still do what they see as best for the community or business.

For example they are doing an experiment with lockboxes related to costume pieces and taking out legion gear for the next box. I bet money no matter the feedback they are STILL going ahead with the experiment? Why? Because they are trying to see what will get folks to open more boxes. If they see folks open less of them, guess what? The next box will go back to the way it was.

On the bottom line I DO agree that batch notes could be a little bit better. Do I need paragraphs of explanation or the devs holding a live conference on changes. NO. That's a waste of development time.

jaazaniah1 · April 2017

The problem is that we players have no idea if what the devs do actually gets them the results they are seeking. Because there are so few resources things get implemented/nerfed that are failures but stay in the game because they don't have the time/interest to deal with the mistakes. It would actually be refreshing for devs to admit where they have made mistakes and what they have learned from them.

spinnytop said:

You're already messing up your own plan. You need to stop with the accusations that devs ignore feedback. They listen to your feedback, consider it, and make the determination that following your feedback is not the best course of action. Being mature and acknowledging that it's their decision to make, and acknowledging that they don't need to make a big song and dance out of every time they read your feedback is the thing you need to include in your plan.

markhawkman · April 2017

One thing I'd consider about getting Kais to answer questions is to not try to force her to answer specific questions. It's better to make a list of questions you'd like answers to, and then leave it for her to choose which ones she can/wants to answer.

themightyzenith · April 2017

spinnytop · April 2017

jaazaniah1 said:
The problem is that we players have no idea if what the devs do actually gets them the results they are seeking. Because there are so few resources things get implemented/nerfed that are failures but stay in the game because they don't have the time/interest to deal with the mistakes. It would actually be refreshing for devs to admit where they have made mistakes and what they have learned from them.

Why do we need to know that?

markhawkman said:
One thing I'd consider about getting Kais to answer questions is to not try to force her to answer specific questions. It's better to make a list of questions you'd like answers to, and then leave it for her to choose which ones she can/wants to answer.

That would be neat... tho I wonder how many of them would be answered with "Cryptic maybe?" >:T

I know one thing is for sure - the people demanding answers would not be satisfied with whatever they get unless it's "You are right, [insert name here]. You've been right all along and we should have listened to you."

aesica said:
I'd like to see them give everyone a big song and dance. Don't you like singing and dancing?

From what I've seen of Kaiserin... no... I don't want to see what sort of death ritual dance she would perform n_n

jaazaniah1 · April 2017

Well, there are lots of things we don't need to know, but which are still interesting to know.

spinnytop said:

jaazaniah1 said:
The problem is that we players have no idea if what the devs do actually gets them the results they are seeking. Because there are so few resources things get implemented/nerfed that are failures but stay in the game because they don't have the time/interest to deal with the mistakes. It would actually be refreshing for devs to admit where they have made mistakes and what they have learned from them.
Why do we need to know that?

kurgan · April 2017

Okay, so since I couldn't really find a good means of "Starting A New Topic". Plus being that this was about communication with Devs well because:

#TopicIsDeveloperCommunication

#TopicIsDeveloperCommunication.

See the WhatCulture.com reference, heh? Heh?

I couldn't help but feel there needs to be a more thorough discussion regarding one game that seems to get a lot of discussion but yeah.........little care.

Champions Online!

Long story short it seems that while Arc and Perfectworld love to promote or even improve on their existing products Champions Online gets little if to no attention. Just maybe some Lockboxes, new Archtypes, supposed improvements and that's it. It's pretty much the bastard child that Perfectworld/Arc/Cryptic doesn't want to discuss, bring up, or possibly admit too.

Nice one Perfectworld, nice one................

So without say more I thought I compile some suggestions and why? Well because I'm a player and well we pay into this game.

Power to the players, YEAH that's how it's done. With sarcasm there of course.

So here we go:

1: An Ever Evolving Story:

Yup it seems STO and many others get the face lift but never anything like this when it comes to Champions Online. Because again it's.............Champions Online.

Got to love that one........... :#

Pretty much when it comes to lvling sure there are interesting missions, and so forth. But it seems the same thing. Do missions, alerts, Onslaught Villians, Costume Contest.

Yeah you can tell where this is going.............

It's pretty much the same Amusement Park boredom that many people face over and over. Yet it's no wonder possibly this small SWG formula has caused this MMO to lose touch.

So just vamp up the continuity with something exciting and evolving? WHAMO! Awesome game then.

2: Factions, Factions, FACTIONS!

You know if one thing that gets me that might allow some well........"variety" to the palette of Champions Online it's the fact that hey you can create your own Nemesis and deal with players using Onslaught Tokens.......

Yeah X Men Fatal Attraction meets Onslaught reference, how original...............

Thing is there needs to be some use fresh material besides story to give it MORE kick to CO. That being?

FACTIONS

You know heroes, villains, rogues that sort. Like they did with City of Heroes. Sure you had to buy expansions to do this but hey.........business is business, gaming is gaming, and money is money right? :p

Thing is again if Star Trek Online can allow you options to choose what faction to be in, and have specific missions geared to those factions? It makes the game more vibrant. Plus it has something everybody loves.........

"Options"

Sure there are archetypes, and free forms that can choose what hero or powers so on. Thing is a broader spectrum create a better experience. While STO could use some work, the improvements give it character. Something that could give Champions Online some uplifting opportunity.

3: A Broader More Immersive World

Now I won't lie this can be left to Perfectworld to decide. But it is a well known fact that MMO's in recent years have become more interactive to a point, more open world, thus MORE IMMERSIVE! While the combat system is another topic for another day I'm talking pretty much about just the world of Champions Online. Look what we have here:

A: Millennium City

B: The Canadian Wilderness

C: Desert aka The Southwest Region

D: Monster Island

E: Space Station

Just to name a few for examples but again that's pretty much it. Hitch a ride on an UNTIL vehicle and boo yah! You're there! To me this just screams slothing, and lazy programming all the way. Very much like Hollywood rebooting movies!

Just not.....ugh not very effective in promoting a game Perfectworld, shame on you! ;)

Anyways think big, and I mean BIG, old game, could use some face lift at some point and well I think the players could be happy then.

Overall that's my thoughts I leave it to the community to give their call and hey............

That's just my two cents. :p

Dev Communication

Comments