PC Voting system 7 days

K

KrashYT22

Refugee
There was a huge post from the developers that they read reviews of thousands of players, and did as they asked. But then in each social network it turned out that the players asked in most cases the opposite.

I think, a very long time ago it was necessary to implement an interactive voting system on the site. And also enter a similar one into the game. So that people can go to the polls and participate in polls, as well as observe the opinions of other players.

Just a commonplace script for voices. You click on the big button, and people see the question in capital letters. For example, “Is there too much loot (average complexity is acceptable) in the game?” And answer options. 1. Make less, 2. It suits me. 3. Make more.

And then everyone will see the interest, 30% to 40% to 30%.

So trite, but there will be no more messages that one person speaks for everyone.

Also in the main menu, in the line between the new game, settings, exit the game. Somehow it’s authentic to add a button, like development, development of the game. And so on. And there, the moderators will insert the most discussed polls from the forum in order to increase the coverage of the poll already in the game.

So trite. But thanks to this it will be possible to objectively know what the players want. And already listen to objective statistics.

Because one of the highlights of alpha 18 was that. What the developers said they listened to reviews, and went to meet the players. Reducing the number of street zombies. BUT, there was always a million that players complain that there are very few of these wandering zombies. Something like this.

He wrote through a translator, so that meaninglessness is possible.

Visually write `` + '' in the comments under the post to vote for the idea, if you read of course up to this point.

 
No. As much as I ask them for things I want and tell them what I dislike, making it like you say would probably be the dawnfall of the game. They need to read the forums and what people think and want, but at the end it's better if they take the decitions instead of leaving them to an online poll.
EDIT: well a poll would be good so they gather information, not denying that. But they dont NEED to do whatever choice wins.
Click to expand...
Nobody cancels the forum, and all these detailed discussions. I mean, the polls will be clear statistics.

For example, 10 negative players can write their posts on the forum, and developers will appreciate them. But in fact there are 100 players, of which 90 did not give their feedback, but for example they had their own opinion, and would easily put their vote in the poll window.

I proposed a voting system solely to see everything in cold numbers.

 
I proposed a voting system solely to see everything in cold numbers.
Click to expand...
A17 hater here.

They don't care about numbers. When steam reviews plumeted to 33% first they said it was normal and they are just haters, then they said it was only because of performance and then because A17 was just so unfinished/rwg sucked.

About 75% of all the comments I read were people complaining about the leveling system/progression.

And even now after 11 months and .4 beeing out for the longest time steam reviews are still at 66%. That is about 20% lower than what A16 had and ~10% lower from what the lowest ratings had ever been before A17.

So don't worry that they will change the game based on feedback. If they dislike the feedback, they will ignore it, no matter how loud.

Huge rant incoming, just skip.

Which, granted, can be a huge plus... but also its an EA title where fans have only minimal say if any.

I remember the backlash for the burning zombie... which got changed... and the bear... which everyone applauded them for.

But when we tell them that a more instance based progression (from 1->100 in steps of 1 to 1->10 and 1->600 in steps of 50 to 1->6) is less rewarding and that forcing a player to chose instead of giving him the freedom to "train/farm/min-max" is limiting a sandbox, then suddenly its "dying on that hill".

I get it... they worked hard on A17... Sadly it was bad work by the gamedesigner and they just doubled down.

Long story short:

TFPs have one major problem. They rather scrap/rework something instead of tweaking it.

LBD? Only needed some tweaks to be balanced (like damage from environment not giving xp and small changes like that)

Traders? Only needed some slight changes to pricing just so that certain items cant be masssold. Instead they rework how guns and tools are crafted and MASSIVELY inflated trader prices to a point where going to the trader feels like a punishment. An unnatural one. Who would ever buy/sell anything to that guy at those prices?

Log spikes? Make them a falldamage multiplier and a 50% damage recoil on hit (on walls for example) and they are golden.

And so much more.

But they often have this mentality "we don't like it, remove it! Who cares if players liked it!"

A poll wouldn't change their opinions. Not on the stuff that matters. They implement electric doors and drawbridges... which is awesome... but they won't change features just bc a majority likes/dislikes it. With the argument "this forum is only a super small subset and not representative of the whole playerbase!" Even when steamreviews are literally the most diverse feedbacksource you could have.

 
A17 hater here.They don't care about numbers. When steam reviews plumeted to 33% first they said it was normal and they are just haters, then they said it was only because of performance and then because A17 was just so unfinished/rwg sucked.

About 75% of all the comments I read were people complaining about the leveling system/progression.

And even now after 11 months and .4 beeing out for the longest time steam reviews are still at 66%. That is about 20% lower than what A16 had and ~10% lower from what the lowest ratings had ever been before A17.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree about not likeing the direction a17 took, but I still felt they listened bc a18 changed several things about it. Not all, and some of the complains were "too fixed" by far (making looting useful), but all in all, I think they listened.

 
Well, I agree about not likeing the direction a17 took, but I still felt they listened bc a18 changed several things about it. Not all, and some of the complains were "too fixed" by far (making looting useful), but all in all, I think they listened.
Click to expand...
True... still not played A18. But they only did it their way is what I wanted to say.

Instead of making a reasonable change to an existing feature that is small and doesnt upset anyone, they changed EVERYTHING again (how guns are crafted, how trader works) and with that open up 10 more problems.

 
Polls aren't always a good way to get feedback. I'd even say the are most often a bad way for good feedback. It's better to get feedback from a forum, where people can explain and discuss their feedback. An ingame poll, even with a commentary function probably wouldn't work well for most topics, since (almost) nobody wants to write long texts, when he/she already is in the game.

 
Polls aren't always a good way to get feedback. I'd even say the are most often a bad way for good feedback. It's better to get feedback from a forum, where people can explain and discuss their feedback. An ingame poll, even with a commentary function probably wouldn't work well for most topics, since (almost) nobody wants to write long texts, when he/she already is in the game.
Click to expand...
Trust me. From my 4 years experience on this forum... they don't care about good arguments. They think they have the best and complainers are only haters and a small subset and everyone who doesnt leave a comment on the forums or steam reviews loves what they are doing.

I'm not making this up.

 
So assuming you are right and they don't care at all, what could a poll do that the forum can't? Worse feedback won't lead to better decisions, just because more people participate in it.

 
14, 15 alpha were ideal. The mechanic herself of the objects and skills was good. It's just that everything was raw for some moments. But the game felt good. And when no one complained about the old pumping system and objects, they decided not to improve it, but simply change it to something else. Make some other game in the literal sense.

 
14, 15 alpha were ideal. The mechanic herself of the objects and skills was good. It's just that everything was raw for some moments. But the game felt good. And when no one complained about the old pumping system and objects, they decided not to improve it, but simply change it to something else. Make some other game in the literal sense.
Click to expand...
If your referring to the old crafting system a TON of people complained about it. The old way while logical was highly unfriendly. It was a horrible experience to craft tool after tool only to turn around and re-smelt it and repeat over and over just to raise crafting. People would spend entire days doing nothing but sitting in their base queing up dozens of workbences with crafting high cost items and going into each one as it finished for the xp and then turn around and destroy what they made.

For combat skills on the other hand it was great, but skills like medicine were next to impossible to level without having to engage in grinding.

 
If your referring to the old crafting system a TON of people complained about it. The old way while logical was highly unfriendly. It was a horrible experience to craft tool after tool only to turn around and re-smelt it and repeat over and over just to raise crafting. People would spend entire days doing nothing but sitting in their base queing up dozens of workbences with crafting high cost items and going into each one as it finished for the xp and then turn around and destroy what they made.
For combat skills on the other hand it was great, but skills like medicine were next to impossible to level without having to engage in grinding.
Click to expand...
Even weapons got grindy when thousands of rounds needed to be fired to advance a level. I remember switching exclusively to fire arrows at one point just because it was the best way to level archery - far, far better than steel arrows or exploding bolts. Then you had things like mining and gunsmithing (I think that was the name. Whichever skill making gunpowder contributed to) that advanced probably too fast. I still had plenty of fun, but the spam crafting and beating on wood blocks with a club because 'natural' game play would never level some of these skills at a decent clip was not fun.

 
Even weapons got grindy when thousands of rounds needed to be fired to advance a level. I remember switching exclusively to fire arrows at one point just because it was the best way to level archery - far, far better than steel arrows or exploding bolts. Then you had things like mining and gunsmithing (I think that was the name. Whichever skill making gunpowder contributed to) that advanced probably too fast. I still had plenty of fun, but the spam crafting and beating on wood blocks with a club because 'natural' game play would never level some of these skills at a decent clip was not fun.
Click to expand...
Or the old trick of filling workbench output with items and crafting high value items on it and then going around and collecting the xp.

 
I don't know how else to put this -

Anyone working in the gaming industry could make more money elsewhere in private sector with the same skills.

Significantly more.

There isn't anyone in the INDY gaming industry who's there for the paycheck. Not true with EA/Blizzard/Activision/Sony etc but in an indy game development it's a work of passion.

Of course you want feedback from players and you want people to enjoy what you're creating but there is no question or issue or even moral facet to 'yes but they should make what the players want'.

No. Absolutely and unequestionably no. They should make the game they want to make. As a consumer you buy what you like.

Beyond which most players don't really know what they want, aside from they want to win and feel like they're special, etc. If game developers just made what the majority want you'd have nothing but Halo/Battlefield/CoD clones. 7DTD would look like Overwatch because more people like Overwatch than the game as it is.

Good tools for feedback is always great. However questions in the games startup will only get self-selected results and it's going to be from people who often don't really even understand the issue or relative tradeoffs; any changes, every second of work takes those seconds from other things. Only so many zots to spend and all.

TFP will make the game they want to make. If you want a different game, get the education, gather the people, fund it and build it. If that game isn't an Overwatch clone the majority of gamers in the world won't like it. Does that mean you should give up or change? What segment of the gaming population do you make happy, what segment do you piss off? Do you just go by population which, again, leads back to simple shooters?

No, you pick a niche, you build an idea you yourself are excited about and enjoy, and you make that and see who else does to.

That's good indy game development.

 
That's good indy game development.
Click to expand...
I usually like that there is no upvote system in this forum, but I'd like to give you one.

But I'll have to say that Overwatch actually is a fun game (or at least was until rolequeue was introduced due to players who want a competitive environment without the hassle of looking for a group).

 
TFP is a company, not a democracy. Create your own business and a voting system to help you choose the decisions to make. I'll be there to buy your assets when you close.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know how else to put this -
Anyone working in the gaming industry could make more money elsewhere in private sector with the same skills.

Significantly more.
Click to expand...
With 5-10 ppl (maybe 25 at most) and at 2.5 million copies sold (pc only not including consoles and in 2013) at a minimum price of 8$ and 30% for steam, that is still 10.000.000 /25 which is still 400.000 in about 1 1/2 years + kickstarter + most ppl have paid more than reduced prices on 3rd party websites I highly doubt you are correct.

MOST indy games... sure... but 7d2d is definatly profitable.

 
I don't know how else to put this -
Anyone working in the gaming industry could make more money elsewhere in private sector with the same skills.

Significantly more.

There isn't anyone in the INDY gaming industry who's there for the paycheck. Not true with EA/Blizzard/Activision/Sony etc but in an indy game development it's a work of passion.

Of course you want feedback from players and you want people to enjoy what you're creating but there is no question or issue or even moral facet to 'yes but they should make what the players want'.

No. Absolutely and unequestionably no. They should make the game they want to make. As a consumer you buy what you like.

Beyond which most players don't really know what they want, aside from they want to win and feel like they're special, etc. If game developers just made what the majority want you'd have nothing but Halo/Battlefield/CoD clones. 7DTD would look like Overwatch because more people like Overwatch than the game as it is.

Good tools for feedback is always great. However questions in the games startup will only get self-selected results and it's going to be from people who often don't really even understand the issue or relative tradeoffs; any changes, every second of work takes those seconds from other things. Only so many zots to spend and all.

TFP will make the game they want to make. If you want a different game, get the education, gather the people, fund it and build it. If that game isn't an Overwatch clone the majority of gamers in the world won't like it. Does that mean you should give up or change? What segment of the gaming population do you make happy, what segment do you piss off? Do you just go by population which, again, leads back to simple shooters?

No, you pick a niche, you build an idea you yourself are excited about and enjoy, and you make that and see who else does to.

That's good indy game development.
Click to expand...
I just offered an additional tool for monitoring reviews. For it was embarrassing that the developers themselves said that the community asked to do so. But the community for a long time asked the exact opposite. I did not put forward any obligations

About consumers and products. The game is in alpha version. The essence of the alpha version is that the player buys a raw game, verbally agreeing that he is ready to use the raw product, while supporting the developer so that the developer will improve this product. Using consumer money.

I am a consumer. I bought the game in alpha version. I liked her, I paid money. Waited for improvements and improvements. But the bottom line is that the game went the wrong way. The game went the way of changing the game itself. That is, a good part of the mechanic has become a completely different game. This is the point that consumers buy a raw product to be completed. But in the end, you get not an improved product, but another. It's just the way that you wrote about consumers. p.s. I wrote everything through a translator, so somewhere it may make sense

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top