PC Game development "models" and player satisfaction

[Jost Amman]

I've noticed recently, that the new A21 features announced by The Fun Pimps about water and magazines, have displeased a lot of players that feel like they've been targeted by the devs because of their specific play style.

One of the topics recently discussed on the A21 dev diary was that players that have roles in a Coop game, are not all treated equally (or balanced properly).

However, I noticed that some of those supposed "roles" are very specialized, meaning that they willfully ignore entire parts of the game, for the sake of producing the maximum effect for their specialization. Examples are: Miners, Builders and Farmers.

From my point of view, when you choose to heavily focus on something, it's just to be expected that you can run into any number of problems if you ignore other important things. In the case of multiplayer games, you then need to rely on the help of other members of your group, to compensate for your shortcomings in other areas. However, if members of your group are more interested in their own personal goals, or simply can't handle the extra work that is required to bring you home what you need, then you're in trouble!

How can the player solve this issue? Should he?

Or... should the devs change the game rules/mechanics to accommodate their play style?

The real issue here is, IMO, that some players choose a play-style which is clearly on the extreme end of the spectrum.

Imagine if I only liked digging, and decided to forego any other activity. Then I'd go on the devs forums and say I'm being punished because "diggers" aren't treated like other players.

The result, though, is that, like in real life, if you choose an unbalanced way of life (read gameplay), sooner or later you're going to pay for it. You're surely free to do that, but then you can't really complain that your free extreme choice caused you problems!

Usually, when I play a game, I learn the rules, and try to beat the game (or the other player if in PvP) by using the rules to my advantage.

However, what I often see in the forums, is people that want the devs to change the rules to accommodate for the way they want to play the game.

IMO, this stems from the fact that some developers (and more and more of them tend to do this) don't have a clear idea of what they want for their game, and use a "crowd driven" approach to development. Don't like something? Sure, we'll immediately change it, so the customer is happy!

Well, personally, I don't like that approach to game development. I prefer devs who know what they want and that use feedback just as a way to balance their game or improve what they've already implemented.

What's your take on the matter? 

 

[theFlu]

In short, entirely up to the dev. As such, the use of the word "control", would require me to vote "No control" - it's not control when someone can overrule your every decision.

If I swap "control" to "influence" and use the "should" as bridge to talk about "morals" or "optimal development" .. player input should probably have quite a bit of influence. If the players hate something, then fix it, etc. Of course.

But I don't think forum polls are all that descriptive of the player base. They can only catch players who read forums, AND are enthusiastic about the feature being polled (in good or bad) AND happen to be around for the discussion. The sampling is very different from the gen pop player base.

They're not useless, at least they're fun; but developing a game based on popular vote sounds like a ... hmm. It might be a great experiment in fun to run a "tiny indie studio" based on donations with the only dev goal of completing features from a discussion forum. The product would be complete nonsense in the end, but that wouldn't be the point ..

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

I mean, why would you want your game punishing certain playstyles, that were absolutly fine to use for 8 years now, instead of keeping it open for as many playstyles as possible and therefore for as many players as possible?

Many of the builders/miners/farmers out there only play this game because they can do only that and still have no shortcomings at all. They wouldn´t even have started to play if this wasn´t an option. It´s a great way to include people who don´t like the other aspects of the game but still want to play with their friends for example.

Why would any developer exclude people knowingly? I really don´t get the mindset of forcing playstyles. Especially after you could do just  fine as a miner/builder/farmer for such a long time already. That is imo the main problem here, that this is adressed so late in the development cycle. If they would have done this in 2015, there wouldn´t have been a discussion about it.

I am going out on a limb here and say that if it was absolutly necessary for every group member to go out and explore, loot/quest since 2015, the game wouldn´t be as popular as it is now.

 

[BFT2020]

At the end of the day, it's their game.  They can listen to suggestions from the player base as they develop the game; but it isn't up to us to have any influence in the development of the game.

Heck, they could have simply done the entire game closed (no early access) and we would get the final product when they released it.

 

[meganoth]

I mean, why would you want your game punishing certain playstyles instead of keeping it open for as many playstyles as possible and therefore for as many players as possible?

Many of the builders/miners/farmers out there only play this game because they can do only that and still have no shortcomings at all. They wouldn´t even have started to play if this wasn´t an option. It´s a great way to include people who don´t like the other aspects of the game but still want to play with their friends for example.

Why would any developer exclude people knowingly? I really don´t get the mindset of forcing playstyles. Especially after you could do just  fine as a miner/builder/farmer for such a long time already. That is imo the main problem here, that this is adressed so late in the development cycle.

If you are talking about the concrete case of the magazines, IMHO their reason for implementation was NOT to exlude any playstyles NOR was it to force people to do anything in the game. The central reason to make this change was to fix crafting.

That it could force people who did not do any looting to at least adapt in some way or quit the game is a side effect. One that doesn't seems to make them have sleepless nights, but also not their design principle either.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

@meganoth Tbh no one criticizing the changes cares if the main reason for this change is something totally different and excluding playstyles wasn´t their goal. To use an old saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[doughphunghus]

Having “crowdsourced control” isn’t really feasible. Two arguments:

- you end up with Boaty McBoatface

- (personal experience of mine, when trying this in a corporate environment, to try to get adoption of an in house built tool designed to help as many people as possible): group A demands it to be blue and use buttons, group B demands it be red and have no buttons. You try to explain that these are incompatible with coding, and not really the point of the tool. Surely buttons or no buttons isn’t a major deal? Management demands both groups are made whole or everyone refuses to use it. Oookay… so now we have to go back and put in a UI that morphs based on the person using it… oh wait now group C wants the tool to do the opposite of its intended purpose… sigh, the tool is now a garbage pile of conflicting requirements.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

Forgot to add that i think full crowd control is ofc a bad idea. But changes that heavily change the way you can play the game after such a long time should at least get a poll before they deceide to implement them. If they listen to it or not is again a totally different story.

 

[Jost Amman]

In short, entirely up to the dev. As such, the use of the word "control", would require me to vote "No control" - it's not control when someone can overrule your every decision.

Control there is intended "on the direction of the game", so, yes, in that case they can overrule, but you can still voice your opinion in an "official way" so that if they refuse it'll be visible to everyone that they went against the public sentiment.

 

[Diragor]

Why should they listen to people who have already bought the game and played hundreds/thousands of hours. They will just change the game and get some new people buying the game. New Customer (new Money)>>>old customer(no new money)

 

[doughphunghus]

Forgot to add that i think full crowd control is ofc a bad idea. But changes that heavily change the way you can play the game after such a long time should at least get a poll before they deceide to implement them. If they listen to it or not is again a totally different story.

I think that would be cool, and additionally it would be nice once devs did/did not use the results, there was a note as to why the the decision to go X direction was ultimately made. If all of the polls/decisions were in 1 place (or 1 locked forum thread, no comments allowed) at least it would be easy to link to the request, results, and dev reasoning, which might cut down on the same discussions popping up all the time and someone having to remember what or why the devs did something.

ypu wouldn’t want anyone to be able to make a poll, as it would be full of polls with no decisions.

Of course, as this game shows, the devs are kinda meandering as they test out things (I’m not being mean, just “things change” over time, and sometimes you go back on a previous decision) so I could see opinions of devs changing over time as the game evolves, and people being upset because “they said they would likely never get rid of X and they got rid of it!”

My understanding today is it seems the devs added some “tracking” to the game (gamesparks?) so they can see the entire player bases play styles and not rely on this forum or polls as much (full of horrible people like myself who have a strange obsession with the game, and i don’t know why. I probably have mental health issues…but that’s obviously just me).

 

[Jost Amman]

Why should they listen to people who have already bought the game and played hundreds/thousands of hours. They will just change the game and get some new people buying the game. New Customer (new Money)>>>old customer(no new money)

I'm not asking what THEY should do... I'm asking what YOU think it's the best development model (hoe much control the player base should have over development).

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

Why should they listen to people who have already bought the game and played hundreds/thousands of hours. They will just change the game and get some new people buying the game. New Customer (new Money)>>>old customer(no new money)

Because those old players are likely to buy a new game in early access aswell (if their new game will also be in early access ofc). And decisions like that rather make me lean towards buying it after it´s finished.

 

[meganoth]

@meganoth Tbh no one criticizing the changes cares if the main reason for this change is something totally different and excluding playstyles wasn´t their goal. To use an old saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You said "I really don´t get the mindset of forcing playstyles.". That is why I commented and doubted if that mindset even exists.

Furthermore the distinction is important. Because I am sure all game developers will fix a problem with their game as it is normally played even if it handicaps a smaller subset of players who just use a small part of the game. You can lament that but the priority is set in stone.

A few alphas ago someone complained his particular playstyle of how he fought zombies on horde night in the open street was made impossible by a change. That change was (presumably) not done to eliminate his playstyle but to balance combat for everyone else. End result was that he was the victim of a change that made the game better for everyone else. Call it hell for him that he can only play an older alpha now if he wants his playstyle. But just because someone finds some strange playstyle in some alpha of this game does not and can not create an obligation for the developer.

Would you as a developer have done it differently? If yes, then I can't see you ever doing a public EA in an open world game, except to promote a beta phase when everything is fixed already. To quote another saying: "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs"

 

[Melange]

Because those old players are likely to buy a new game in early access aswell (if their new game will also be in early access ofc). And decisions like that rather make me lean towards buying it after it´s finished.

I have a few early access games. Green Hell was stellar. Mist Survival I bought to support the one man dev team: it's a fun diversion to play and is still being worked on albeit slowly. Outlaws of the Old West ended up being a scam imo - they closed shop and never finished the game. I will carefully look to see if any future game offerings have even a remote connection to that house of b@$t@rds. Raft was an interesting and fun experiment to partake in.

Our 7DtD is kinda different. But I've been smacked in the face before by the devs. Wish they'd have put in the bandits long ago and moved on to their new project. The Devil wears Pravda? Nah, the Devil is a mild mannered well-dressed trader who's shop sits on stilts. Speaks kindly, but has a deathgrip on the game.

Don't think I'll be going the early access route again any time soon.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

@meganothYeah well, because i didn´t know that this was just a side effect is why i said that. There were several posts that indicated that TFP doesn´t want to have people not going out over the years. That was stated even by madmole himself i think (not regarding A21 changes, it was quite some time ago). And i can agree with that for SP where you can´t do that anyways. In MP however that option should definitly stay alive.

And it doesn´t change anything in the perception of the players how the devs see it, it´s the effect it has on their gameplay that is importnant for them. And one person complaining can hardly be compared to the complaints from a lot of people like it is now. 

 

[Matt115]

I have a few early access games. Green Hell was stellar. Mist Survival I bought to support the one man dev team: it's a fun diversion to play and is still being worked on albeit slowly. Outlaws of the Old West ended up being a scam imo - they closed shop and never finished the game. I will carefully look to see if any future game offerings have even a remote connection to that house of b@$t@rds. Raft was an interesting and fun experiment to partake in.

Our 7DtD is kinda different. But I've been smacked in the face before by the devs. Wish they'd have put in the bandits long ago and moved on to their new project. The Devil wears Pravda? Nah, the Devil is a mild mannered well-dressed trader who's shop sits on stilts. Speaks kindly, but has a deathgrip on the game.

Don't think I'll be going the early access route again any time soon.

Contagion is dead too.This is so deppresing

I'm not asking what THEY should do... I'm asking what YOU think it's the best development model (hoe much control the player base should have over development).

the best development model : Match in Heroes 3 -  let's say : 

Next TFP game should be:

sad and deppresing like no more room in hell2

fun in fortnite style

calming like animal horizon.

brutal in god of war style

Then are created teams on forum :

sad group

fun group

calming group

 gore group

First -- inner championship

then champions tournament - and let say - gore champion win then next game will be gore game.

And do this with every fundamental stuff

Let's the best win

 

[Melange]

Contagion is dead too.This is so deppresing

And I am sure there are more Matt. Early access...we take a chance. But I never regarded 7dtd to be really broken. Problems, exploits, well maybe. But broken gameplay that we have to get another change in gamestyle? I don't see that being the case.

 

[Mister Forgash]

-  group A demands it to be blue and use buttons, group B demands it be red and have no buttons. You try to explain that these are incompatible with coding, and not really the point of the tool. Surely buttons or no buttons isn’t a major deal? Management demands both groups are made whole or everyone refuses to use it. Oookay… so now we have to go back and put in a UI that morphs based on the person using it… oh wait now group C wants the tool to do the opposite of its intended purpose… sigh, the tool is now a garbage pile of conflicting requirements.

Actually, what we need to do is make the house yellow and use switches. - And I know I'm right because I an acquaintance of mine is an architect. ;D

 

[Melange]

Actually, what we need to do is make the house yellow and use switches. - And I know I'm right because I an acquaintance of mine is an architect. ;D

And your electrician agreed with that?