Examples: Death Penalty, Diffculty Slider, Carrier, Mini Carrier I mean escort, Respec Token, new crafting system and etc. Each one of these were whined about for months before something was finally done.
I'm kind of tempted to retitle the whole thread as "Why Impassioned Feedback Works".
I'll resist that temptation, but I'm surprised the topic hasn't attracted more trolling.
There is a difference between strenuously demanding positive action and whining about what you don't like or can't have.
One is about specific changes needed for customer satisfaction. The Difficulty Slider is a good example of that. So's Shooter Mode and Ground Combat 2.x, a direct result of dissatisfaction with ground combat and requests for improvements. Remember how KDF scanning wasn't even functional? I hope that kind of feedback keeps working, strongly worded or otherwise.
The other is about unrealistic demands put in an annoying way. The near-constant clamor for a T-5 Connie despite being told no and why not... that's an example of whining. So's the demand for more Fed ships that can cloak.
Fight the battles that need to be fought and have a reasonably good outlook for success. Stay away from the trivial, the nitpicky, and the gimme syndrome and you'll probably never be accused of whining by most people.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
With all due respect, whining does not work. It is annoying, and is more likely to get you ignored.
Well reasoned, civil discussions, are a much better way.
And if you really feel we aren't listening, vote with your wallet, and tell us why (in the above mentioned, civil, polite format)
Perfect World/Cryptic will rise and fall according to the quality of their products and services. Regardless about how Cryptic's employees feel about a specific product, the consumer's reaction towards it will be the deciding factor. Even though I have voiced concern over certain aspects of "Star Trek: Online", I do not really expect anyone to respond or listen.
While looking at this with hindsight, your post was a whine about other people whining.
My beef is when someone says that my work is going to look like #*@!.
No, it won't match the concept perfectly, but I'm at least 23.45% sure my work isn't @*!#.
Art is subjective. If you got your degree from Mass College of Art or Rhode Island School of Design, the first thing you are taught is that you need thicker skin. Both schools represent the country's best and brightest in design, art, digital imaging, game development, and 3D animation. When students put their artwork on the wall or screen for critique, the professor and their peers would give intense feedback. Regardless about the tone of the feedback they are given, the reason for it is to make them a better artist. Critiques teach students that art is subjective and communication is paramount. Visual and verbal communication is extremely important. If you are worried about how a person feels about your art, I suggest you go into an entirely different industry. Game development, graphic design, 3D animation, fine art, and web design is a cut throat industry, which will devour the weakest of heart.
Finally, if I had a set of employees confronting customers, while ignoring the importance of practicing strong customer service, I would immediately ask them for their resignation. Companies and corporations are bigger than one employee.
And ya'll wonder why half a dozen out of 45 employees post on the forums, and why those who do are the ones most likely to leave Cryptic...
Maybe that is their problem. Unless they learn better customer service skills and grow a thicker skin, they will not make it within this or any other industry.
Art and entertainment has been and will forever shall be subjective.
Maybe that is their problem. Unless they learn better customer service skills and grow a thicker skin, they will not make it within this industry.
Art and entertainment has been and will forever shall be subjective.
Communication is also paramount.
The problem is, communication != impertinent demands and soap-boxing. Communication implies a bilateral discussion, not who can yell the loudest. Add to that all the threads with titles asking the devs to read about "THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM EVER" or "Why haven't we seen an Ambassador Class yet?!?" and it would get very tiring quickly (see my previous post).
Personally, if I were a software dev, artist, etc., I'd just pay attention to bug reports and assignments from my manager; the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low on the forums (less signal, tons of noise).
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I don't care how long you've been playing. I only care about how you play.
And remember to follow the rules.
The problem is, communication != impertinent demands and soap-boxing. Communication implies a bilateral discussion, not who can yell the loudest. Add to that all the threads with titles asking the devs to read about "THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM EVER" or "Why haven't we seen an Ambassador Class yet?!?" and it would get very tiring quickly (see my previous post).
That is why I changed it to 'good communication'. When an employee communicates with consumers, the individual has to respond without being on the defense. Cryptic's customer service employees have a better handling of this technique than the developers, moderators, and artists.
Personally, if I were a software dev, artist, etc., I'd just pay attention to bug reports and assignments from my manager; the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low on the forums (less signal, tons of noise).
I agree. Solving the game's defects will simmer some of the anger.
I see a twofold problem in this thread and online in general.
On one hand, you have people who don't phrase their issues in a meaningful way. The force of the emotion or inflexibility of the idea breaks off negotiation. The problem here is that anything mediocre becomes "FAILURE." These people abort their own chance at dialogue.
On the other hand, there's a "suck it up" crowd that either wants to constantly reassure developers/artists/writers or just has no tolerance for negative feedback. Difficulty becomes "learn to play." Inconvenience becomes "learn to read." Distaste for something becomes "can I have your stuff?" This attitude also aborts dialogue, turning players into goalies.
Looking at a few supplied examples of "whining working":
- Death Penalty: Game design is a subset of economics. Game designers are trained to balance risk vs. reward as an engagement strategy. There are other engagement strategies for a product (customer service, community, narrative) but they aren't necessarily ones game designers are trained in. Present enough game designers with this and they will latch onto it because it fits into the kind of product they were trained to make.
- Diffculty Slider: See above. Also, seemed like a doable task since Cryptic had done it in prior games. If it boosts retention without making the bar raise mandatory in a way that alienates players, it seems fairly feasible as a suggestion. Challenge is a customer engagement strategy that game designers understand.
- Carrier/Mini Carrier I mean escort: Are we talking the Atrox and the Akira? Both were demanded. The latter didn't necessarily require all new art. The big thing here is that you have a game mechanic (carriers) played by a small percentage of people, a group too small to adequately support. By sharing their mechanic (carriers) with a larger group, it becomes easier to budget support to carriers as a mechanic.
- Respec Token: Fairness issue. The game changes and players need to be able to change. The oddity here is that the game launched without respec tokens and that boils down to Cryptic disliking respecs but recognizing them as a necessity if they're going to be tweaking numbers, powers, and doing balance passes.
- new crafting system: Crafting is an engagement mechanic developers understand and, in general, one that can be quantitatively shown to expand the life of content/maps. Crafting nodes keep old maps from becoming ghost towns and create a more immersive form of gear purchasing than simple currency. Now, one problem with every crafting system Cryptic has pursued (in particular in STO) is that the crafting is far too transparently a currency exchange. MMO crafting will always BE a currency exchange from a database standpoint but the more you mask that, the more you get players spending more freely, which adds value to the game.
Like I said, game design is a subset of economics and the health of the game boils down to spending, rational people demonstrating through choices (labor or currency) what they ascribe value to. The goal is to abstract value judgements in a way that causes players not to think about themselves as economic agents.
Game design is also very predicated in neoliberal economic theory, John Lock by way of Milton Friedman kinda stuff. Which also means, from my own critical perspective, that devoid of judgement calls and community feedback, game design is a discipline which matches Oscar Wilde on cynicism. A game designer is someone "who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
Neoliberal economics (I should clarify; it's almost the opposite of political leftism and I'm not trying to start a political discussion but a philosophical one) claims that value is entirely the price (in money, in sweat, in tradeoff) that someone is willing to pay. People in arts and academic criticism tend to dispute this, claiming that while price MAY indicate value, there are a variety of counter-arguments. Including that people are generally uninformed, frequently misled, and often irrational, disrupting the relationship between price and value.
So game designers tend to supplement raw economic analysis with things like personal artistic tastes, aesthetic training (Cryptic used to offer guitar lessons), limited pampering of creative employees via retreats and parties, and soliciting player feedback. In a raw sense, these things are NOT purely economic evaluation models but are there to offset perceived limitations in pure, classical game design's raw, economic model of evaluation.
As such, the value of a game mechanic is the price (in time, effort, training, skill, collaborative organizing, or real money) that a player is willing to pay... but there is also a sense that this is an imperfect measure of value or potential value and so player feedback and developer artistic impulses are leveraged as a counterweight. How much they're a counterweight and which counterweights get used depend on the studio.
Comments
Examples: Death Penalty, Diffculty Slider, Carrier, Mini Carrier I mean escort, Respec Token, new crafting system and etc. Each one of these were whined about for months before something was finally done.
So from my point of view whining seems to work.
man, that's a lot of whining about whining...
and that is the other problem, some people see whining behind every critic while some other would swear that they never seen any whining here.
I'll resist that temptation, but I'm surprised the topic hasn't attracted more trolling.
There is a difference between strenuously demanding positive action and whining about what you don't like or can't have.
One is about specific changes needed for customer satisfaction. The Difficulty Slider is a good example of that. So's Shooter Mode and Ground Combat 2.x, a direct result of dissatisfaction with ground combat and requests for improvements. Remember how KDF scanning wasn't even functional? I hope that kind of feedback keeps working, strongly worded or otherwise.
The other is about unrealistic demands put in an annoying way. The near-constant clamor for a T-5 Connie despite being told no and why not... that's an example of whining. So's the demand for more Fed ships that can cloak.
Fight the battles that need to be fought and have a reasonably good outlook for success. Stay away from the trivial, the nitpicky, and the gimme syndrome and you'll probably never be accused of whining by most people.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
R.I.P
While looking at this with hindsight, your post was a whine about other people whining.
On a similar subject -- Link: Your Own Words Art is subjective. If you got your degree from Mass College of Art or Rhode Island School of Design, the first thing you are taught is that you need thicker skin. Both schools represent the country's best and brightest in design, art, digital imaging, game development, and 3D animation. When students put their artwork on the wall or screen for critique, the professor and their peers would give intense feedback. Regardless about the tone of the feedback they are given, the reason for it is to make them a better artist. Critiques teach students that art is subjective and communication is paramount. Visual and verbal communication is extremely important. If you are worried about how a person feels about your art, I suggest you go into an entirely different industry. Game development, graphic design, 3D animation, fine art, and web design is a cut throat industry, which will devour the weakest of heart.
Finally, if I had a set of employees confronting customers, while ignoring the importance of practicing strong customer service, I would immediately ask them for their resignation. Companies and corporations are bigger than one employee.
Art and entertainment has been and will forever shall be subjective.
Good communication is also paramount.
... say, where's CapnLogan? Oh right, he got brow-beat to and criticized death
#spocksfuneral
I don't care how long you've been playing. I only care about how you play.
And remember to follow the rules.
Personally, if I were a software dev, artist, etc., I'd just pay attention to bug reports and assignments from my manager; the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low on the forums (less signal, tons of noise).
I don't care how long you've been playing. I only care about how you play.
And remember to follow the rules.
I agree. Solving the game's defects will simmer some of the anger.
I see a twofold problem in this thread and online in general.
On one hand, you have people who don't phrase their issues in a meaningful way. The force of the emotion or inflexibility of the idea breaks off negotiation. The problem here is that anything mediocre becomes "FAILURE." These people abort their own chance at dialogue.
On the other hand, there's a "suck it up" crowd that either wants to constantly reassure developers/artists/writers or just has no tolerance for negative feedback. Difficulty becomes "learn to play." Inconvenience becomes "learn to read." Distaste for something becomes "can I have your stuff?" This attitude also aborts dialogue, turning players into goalies.
Looking at a few supplied examples of "whining working":
- Death Penalty: Game design is a subset of economics. Game designers are trained to balance risk vs. reward as an engagement strategy. There are other engagement strategies for a product (customer service, community, narrative) but they aren't necessarily ones game designers are trained in. Present enough game designers with this and they will latch onto it because it fits into the kind of product they were trained to make.
- Diffculty Slider: See above. Also, seemed like a doable task since Cryptic had done it in prior games. If it boosts retention without making the bar raise mandatory in a way that alienates players, it seems fairly feasible as a suggestion. Challenge is a customer engagement strategy that game designers understand.
- Carrier/Mini Carrier I mean escort: Are we talking the Atrox and the Akira? Both were demanded. The latter didn't necessarily require all new art. The big thing here is that you have a game mechanic (carriers) played by a small percentage of people, a group too small to adequately support. By sharing their mechanic (carriers) with a larger group, it becomes easier to budget support to carriers as a mechanic.
- Respec Token: Fairness issue. The game changes and players need to be able to change. The oddity here is that the game launched without respec tokens and that boils down to Cryptic disliking respecs but recognizing them as a necessity if they're going to be tweaking numbers, powers, and doing balance passes.
- new crafting system: Crafting is an engagement mechanic developers understand and, in general, one that can be quantitatively shown to expand the life of content/maps. Crafting nodes keep old maps from becoming ghost towns and create a more immersive form of gear purchasing than simple currency. Now, one problem with every crafting system Cryptic has pursued (in particular in STO) is that the crafting is far too transparently a currency exchange. MMO crafting will always BE a currency exchange from a database standpoint but the more you mask that, the more you get players spending more freely, which adds value to the game.
Game design is also very predicated in neoliberal economic theory, John Lock by way of Milton Friedman kinda stuff. Which also means, from my own critical perspective, that devoid of judgement calls and community feedback, game design is a discipline which matches Oscar Wilde on cynicism. A game designer is someone "who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
Neoliberal economics (I should clarify; it's almost the opposite of political leftism and I'm not trying to start a political discussion but a philosophical one) claims that value is entirely the price (in money, in sweat, in tradeoff) that someone is willing to pay. People in arts and academic criticism tend to dispute this, claiming that while price MAY indicate value, there are a variety of counter-arguments. Including that people are generally uninformed, frequently misled, and often irrational, disrupting the relationship between price and value.
So game designers tend to supplement raw economic analysis with things like personal artistic tastes, aesthetic training (Cryptic used to offer guitar lessons), limited pampering of creative employees via retreats and parties, and soliciting player feedback. In a raw sense, these things are NOT purely economic evaluation models but are there to offset perceived limitations in pure, classical game design's raw, economic model of evaluation.
As such, the value of a game mechanic is the price (in time, effort, training, skill, collaborative organizing, or real money) that a player is willing to pay... but there is also a sense that this is an imperfect measure of value or potential value and so player feedback and developer artistic impulses are leveraged as a counterweight. How much they're a counterweight and which counterweights get used depend on the studio.
Make sense?
I think this goes hand-in-hand with the guidelines in my signature
I don't care how long you've been playing. I only care about how you play.
And remember to follow the rules.