PC This forum needs a meta board. And some serious moderating reconsiderations.

[Roland]

Let the mods do what they want. They were cool back in experimental when they said everything was fine and nothing mattered because everything would be ironed out in the public release. And even though everyone warned them that this build would not go over well with the public they took the bet and held strong, and then it was released and it got a 50% on the steam store, but it doesn't matter because the mods still know what's best for everyone. They have foresight. They're not living in a bubble or anything. They're not YES MEN. They understand this game and community more than you can possibly imagine.

Well...a revision of history for the sake of humor can be forgiven.

But, just for accuracy and speaking for myself:

I said nothing could be determined until probably February once TFP made adjustments and we could see whether the numbers of players would maintain at high levels or drop off. We mods actually have no control over what gets released or when it gets released when it comes to game version updates. You're giving us way more power than we actually have. Surely you understand that 50% of reviews is NOT the same thing as 50% of players and I know you understand that negative reviews are always over represented since people tend to complain publicly but be satisfied privately. So far Alpha 17 seems to be doing way better than Alpha 16 did. Alpha 16 peaked sharply and then dropped back down within a single month and diminished slowly over it's year long tenure. Already A17 has a nice plateau up at the 20k mark that spans the last two months and shows greater interest than A16 had over the same amount of time. So I'm still taking the bet and holding strong in my belief that A17 is the best version of the game yet and that the majority also feel the same. I could end up being wrong but I don't think I've been proven so yet.

Performance and RWG are by far the two biggest complaints and those two things are exactly what the developers are working on.

 

[Fox]

Well...a revision of history for the sake of humor can be forgiven.
But, just for accuracy and speaking for myself:

I said nothing could be determined until probably February once TFP made adjustments and we could see whether the numbers of players would maintain at high levels or drop off. We mods actually have no control over what gets released or when it gets released when it comes to game version updates. You're giving us way more power than we actually have. Surely you understand that 50% of reviews is NOT the same thing as 50% of players and I know you understand that negative reviews are always over represented since people tend to complain publicly but be satisfied privately. So far Alpha 17 seems to be doing way better than Alpha 16 did. Alpha 16 peaked sharply and then dropped back down within a single month and diminished slowly over it's year long tenure. Already A17 has a nice plateau up at the 20k mark that spans the last two months and shows greater interest than A16 had over the same amount of time. So I'm still taking the bet and holding strong in my belief that A17 is the best version of the game yet and that the majority also feel the same. I could end up being wrong but I don't think I've been proven so yet.

Performance and RWG are by far the two biggest complaints and those two things are exactly what the developers are working on.

The only complaint I've ever had with this game since Alpha 1 (other than the stutters and nudity) was the sponginess of the zombies when playing on hardest difficulty settings. The amount of boring kiting zeds around is just ridiculous at higher difficulty settings. As far as performance and RWG, couldn't care less cuz I know those are constantly being adjusted with pretty much every update.

 

[DaVegaNL]

Well...a revision of history for the sake of humor can be forgiven.
But, just for accuracy and speaking for myself:

I said nothing could be determined until probably February once TFP made adjustments and we could see whether the numbers of players would maintain at high levels or drop off. We mods actually have no control over what gets released or when it gets released when it comes to game version updates. You're giving us way more power than we actually have. Surely you understand that 50% of reviews is NOT the same thing as 50% of players and I know you understand that negative reviews are always over represented since people tend to complain publicly but be satisfied privately. So far Alpha 17 seems to be doing way better than Alpha 16 did. Alpha 16 peaked sharply and then dropped back down within a single month and diminished slowly over it's year long tenure. Already A17 has a nice plateau up at the 20k mark that spans the last two months and shows greater interest than A16 had over the same amount of time. So I'm still taking the bet and holding strong in my belief that A17 is the best version of the game yet and that the majority also feel the same. I could end up being wrong but I don't think I've been proven so yet.

Performance and RWG are by far the two biggest complaints and those two things are exactly what the developers are working on.

Well.. Statistic being statistics; have you compared player numbers with the amount of people owning the game? I don't want to come across as a know-it-all, but a statement saying that "A17 seems to be doing way better than A16 did" seems to be cherry-picking the available numbers. Especially after dismissing the abysmal review-ratings on Steam.

Yeah, the peak in player numbers is more spread-out as compared with A16, but one has to keep in mind that A17 (stable) came out during Xmas break, hence more people having the time to play.

Edit: Actually, if one takes a closer look at the numbers (https://steamcharts.com/app/251570), one can see that the average and peak amount of players during the release of A16 is actually higher (~15%).

All I'm saying is that it's a slippery slope once one starts to look for numbers for the justification of saying that version A.x is better than A.y.

 

[Fox]

Well.. Statistic being statistics; have you compared player numbers with the amount of people owning the game? I don't want to come across as a know-it-all, but a statement saying that "A17 seems to be doing way better than A16 did" seems to be cherry-picking the available numbers. Especially after dismissing the abysmal review-ratings on Steam.Yeah, the peak in player numbers is more spread-out as compared with A16, but one has to keep in mind that A17 (stable) came out during Xmas break, hence more people having the time to play.

Edit: Actually, if one takes a closer look at the numbers (https://steamcharts.com/app/251570), one can see that the average and peak amount of players during the release of A16 is actually higher (~15%).

All I'm saying is that it's a slippery slope once one starts to look for numbers for the justification of saying that version A.x is better than A.y.

I think short term statistics are overrated. If this game was in really bad shape, there'd be a lot more ppl raging about it like we saw with the console section.

Also, every single massive update has always received majority negative feedback because they're always an unpolished build. But every patch afterwards cleans it up and everyone becomes satisfied again (for the most part), until the next massive update gets released and the negativity starts all over again. Unfortunately, everyone seems to be goldfish with their 3 seconds of memory and forget that little bit of information.

Also, most ppl have less time to play during the xmas holidays... unless you're a kid, in which case, you shouldn't be playing this game anyways.

And... this game is getting older and older... so naturally, the player-base would get a bit lower and lower over the years, even though the numbers right now are defying that logic... lol

 

[DaVegaNL]

I think short term statistics are overrated. If this game was in really bad shape, there'd be a lot more ppl raging about it like we saw with the console section.Also, every single massive update has always received majority negative feedback because they're always an unpolished build. But every patch afterwards cleans it up and everyone becomes satisfied again (for the most part), until the next massive update gets released and the negativity starts all over again. Unfortunately, everyone seems to be goldfish with their 3 seconds of memory and forget that little bit of information.

Also, most ppl have less time to play during the xmas holidays... unless you're a kid, in which case, you shouldn't be playing this game anyways.

And... this game is getting older and older... so naturally, the player-base would get a bit lower and lower over the years, even though the numbers right now are defying that logic... lol

Yeah I mostly agree with you. I think A17 is the best version of the game up to today, by far. However, that's just a feeling, my personal opinion.

What I did not agree with, what Roland did, was saying that A17 is way better than A16 based on cherry-picked statistics. That comes across as trying to find arguments to justify your feelings on the game. Yes, one can say that A17 is better, because the player-number graph shows more of a smeared-out peak.. But does that mean anything? That was what I'm trying to say.

 

[Bifferd]

Well...a revision of history for the sake of humor can be forgiven.
But, just for accuracy and speaking for myself:

I said nothing could be determined until probably February once TFP made adjustments and we could see whether the numbers of players would maintain at high levels or drop off. We mods actually have no control over what gets released or when it gets released when it comes to game version updates. You're giving us way more power than we actually have. Surely you understand that 50% of reviews is NOT the same thing as 50% of players and I know you understand that negative reviews are always over represented since people tend to complain publicly but be satisfied privately. So far Alpha 17 seems to be doing way better than Alpha 16 did. Alpha 16 peaked sharply and then dropped back down within a single month and diminished slowly over it's year long tenure. Already A17 has a nice plateau up at the 20k mark that spans the last two months and shows greater interest than A16 had over the same amount of time. So I'm still taking the bet and holding strong in my belief that A17 is the best version of the game yet and that the majority also feel the same. I could end up being wrong but I don't think I've been proven so yet.

Performance and RWG are by far the two biggest complaints and those two things are exactly what the developers are working on.

I can't help be agree with this statement TFPs have done a great job with A17. I love the fact that each time they release a new alpha it's almost like a new game because of all of the changes. As far as the number of people playing we are just waiting on a RWG to get overhauled and from what I understand reading the forums many are doing the same thing. So I expect a big boost to the number of players once that is changed to something better.

I am just curious do you know what all is coming with this new RWG. MM showed a nice continent on his Twitter feed and I am hoping we get the option for more world types with either this release or future ones. Thanks in advance for any info you can share on this. Maybe you could get MM to do a video on the new way RWG will work.

 

[Fox]

Yeah I mostly agree with you. I think A17 is the best version of the game up to today, by far. However, that's just a feeling, my personal opinion.What I did not agree with, what Roland did, was saying that A17 is way better than A16 based on cherry-picked statistics. That comes across as trying to find arguments to justify your feelings on the game. Yes, one can say that A17 is better, because the player-number graph shows more of a smeared-out peak.. But does that mean anything? That was what I'm trying to say.

I'll always think A10.4 was the best version, at least until my 3 complaints are fixed / modded out, but that's just me. But yes, A17 is definitely better / more interesting than A16 so far (I've only put in a few hours though). A17 actually feels like a massive update, changing layouts, game strategies, though I'm not sure how I feel about the limited map sizes.

 

[Guppycur]

Oooh, since we are playing "fun with conclusions" based on statistics, since I've seen a 6000% increase of mods, *I* assume the uptick in players is due to mods, and is further indication that vanilla a17 is NOT well received.

...I mean, and yeh, we absolutely SHOULD ignore stats that don't support our desired conclusions, like negative steam reviews, because /obviously/, the types of people who write reviews has changed since a16 and prior.

Pfft.

 

[Roland]

Yes, I am aware of interpretation bias of statistics and acknowledge that everything I stated is my opinion and I could be wrong. If I turn out to be then I’m sure there are many who will be overjoyed to let me know it.

I’m not discounting the negative reviews. It’s obvious that a lot of people are upset. Now read through them and you’ll see why they are predominately upset:

1) RWG is messed up

2) Performance is bad

3) The game is still in early access

These are what I see over and over again with a small smattering of other complaints based on personal preferences but with no consistency.

I would have been overjoyed if we could have smashed our record and am disappointed that we didn’t get up past 32k players. On the other hand it is heartening to see so many playing and continuing to play at the current level. If 17.2 addresses issues 1 & 2 above I’m hopeful that February and March will maintain at those high levels.

But it could very well not go that way.

 

[Roland]

Oooh, since we are playing "fun with conclusions" based on statistics, since I've seen a 6000% increase of mods, *I* assume the uptick in players is due to mods, and is further indication that vanilla a17 is NOT well received.
...I mean, and yeh, we absolutely SHOULD ignore stats that don't support our desired conclusions, like negative steam reviews, because /obviously/, the types of people who write reviews has changed since a16 and prior.

Pfft.

First of all that is awesome that so many more are playing with mods and secondly, yes, that is certainly a possibility as to why.

 

[Guppycur]

The consistency in the "personal preference" complaints has been consistent since a12? 13?; the game is being dumbed down and gameplay is being streamlined, even if most fail at articulating that properly.

I too, hope that 17.2 addresses these issues.

 

[Fox]

The consistency in the "personal preference" complaints has been consistent since a12? 13?; the game is being dumbed down and gameplay is being streamlined, even if most fail at articulating that properly.
I too, hope that 17.2 addresses these issues.

Dumbed down is an understatement, but ya...

If I turn out to be then I’m sure there are many who will be overjoyed to let me know it.

Sad but true. ppl always seem to take great pleasure in proving a moderator wrong.

 

[Roland]

The consistency in the "personal preference" complaints has been consistent since a12? 13?; the game is being dumbed down and gameplay is being streamlined, even if most fail at articulating that properly.
I too, hope that 17.2 addresses these issues.

That may be true about the streamlining that has been happening.

What I meant was that you'll read one negative review that says I really hate the digging zombies but I love the new mod system for the weapons. The next negative review says I love the digging zombies but I hate the new perks system and then the third one you read says I love the new perk system but I hate the way they implemented weapons. That is three negative reviews based on personal preference complaints but they all contradict each other on why they don't like A17.

But most negative reviews agree about RWG and performance being the reason for their down vote.

 

[Crater Creator]

The thread moving issue was better solved by merging the 50 threads on the same topic I'm this thread.

That may be nicer for users, but hopefully you can appreciate that it requires the moderator to identify and have an idea of the content of those threads (not just merge threads with similar titles), while moving to another forum only requires the moderator to have an idea of the different sections of the forum.

If the majority does not use a feature in a system, it is not the majority's fault. It is obviously the system that is badly designed.

No, that doesn't indicate a badly designed system. The system merely separates data into categories. If the majority not using a particular category meant the system was badly designed, then the allocation of radio and TV frequencies is badly designed, since less than a majority use certain stations or channels. The Dewey Decimal System is badly designed, since the majority of library patrons don't visit certain sections. And so on. Your assertion implies the majority of users should use every category, and it's pretty ridiculous to assume most users are interested in news AND video channels AND servers AND bug reports AND modding AND consoles...

You can't force ppl to be interested in something they're not.
No one is claiming that the "system" as you call it, is perfect. It has flaws, just like any other forum site out there. But sometimes, things are just best left alone as often times, you just end up doing more harm than good. I think the Rules page is a perfect example of that.

I would guess I'm more interested in refining the rules page than other moderators. I see a lot of room for improvement, mostly in standardizing the language and penalties to be easier to read, instead of a list you can tell was added to ad hoc as things came up. But even so, I've deliberately only called for incremental changes once there's a large body of evidence to support that a change would improve things. So I don't necessarily think it's best to not make changes, but I do think changes should only happen after ample deliberation.

Yeah I'm a bit disappointed that Videos get tossed to the bottom of the pile.
Some of those videos takes dozens of hours to create and they get no views while some off-the-cuff remark in General gets seen by all.

I dunno.... people who put the time and effort to make cool videos should get a little more attention.

Those videos can often create advertising for the game.

They get shared and passed around social media.

I just makes sense they should be highlighted a little more.

Popularity can't be forced. I mean, it can be if you're the CEO of a tech giant, but the organization we have now should be clear: people that want to watch videos know where to go. If things were re-organized for videos to get more views, the added popularity would be artificial: the result of the organization being more misleading or confusing than it is now.

I mean, people may joke about it, but it's not like users literally can't read. If they couldn't, the entire forum would be useless to them. So relying on users' ability to read that one section is named "General Discussion" and a different section is named "Images & Video" and so on really is the most logical way to organize a website as text-heavy as a forum. If I were to gripe about anything, it would be about sections that are not clearly named, too general, or too specific.