Branl
Member
|
quote:
I’m going to be the guy that says, “STOP asking devs to revise the released Warwolf items if they’re not bugged.”
And I’m going to be the guy that has to write an incredibly long winded reply to your post. I apologize in advance for my lack of brevity, but there’s a lot I want to cover here. Some of these things aren’t even directly related to your post, so please don’t view the post under purely confrontational lens.
quote:
We’ve always known that devs will have final say on how the items turn out, and they may not turn out exactly as intended by us (as designers, voters and/or donors). We submit long-winded, detailed descriptions during the suggestion period, in hopes of minimising such deviations, but those deviations do happen, and have happened for years. IMO what we have so far already fulfils the theme of the design, so why the need to request for revisions?
To explain my desire for “revisions”, I’d like to try to explain my thought process regarding how I engage with this game, the metrics by which I propose ideas, and why, in this specific instance, I’m okay with staff considering minor tweaks to items.
I have three major criteria that I consider when making proposals regarding the game or items:
1) Would this change be a good thing for the playerbase at large?
2) Would this change present major complications to development time for the game broadly?
3) Would this change positively or negatively impact the game itself?
Positive answers of varying degrees to these questions are responsible for the majority of the arguments or ideas I present to the staff or community. Note that I believe in adherence to positive responses to these three questions to varying degrees. For example:
The top 7 situation. Once everyone in the top 7 were contacted and informed that all of them would be receiving a Golden Developer Ticket, I, and everyone else in the top 5, were unified in the belief that Aegon and AANGZUKO, deserved it. However, If I were to adhere to the idea of your post (staff should adhere strictly under the original confines of the ideas/formats they laid out), then I should have been vehemently opposed to any extension of the golden tickets period. An additional two Golden Dev Tickets would unarguably cut into development time for the game at large. However, it’s much more important to me that staff make decisions that present the most good to the players and the game than to try to force them to commit to the original confines of their contests or ideas. I think even you are willing to make those allowances, considering you also supported the extension of the Golden Dev Tickets to Aegon and AANGZUKO in the Donation Contest Consolation Prize thread. My point is bringing this up isn’t to accuse you or hypocrisy, only that everyone has varying degrees of strictness to their ideas. You simply have a stricter view of the situation than I do, and that’s perfectly fine.
To more directly answer your question, I support the staff making/considering minor changes to items that have the potential to make the playerbase happy while contending there has to be limits to the changes they can consider, given any full on revisions to items or ideas would require an extraordinarily long period of time to work out. It’s also why the scope of my suggestions were very limited. The only things I floated were replacing the MC value of the shield embedded in the integration mode eleshield with Def Loss potency. If it wouldn’t cut into dev time too much, I would more strongly support Dardiel’s proposed revisions, as they encourage interacting with the unique aspects of his set, and makes the shield a better standalone item. The reason why I think the shield should be a better standalone item? Because I don’t want the pessimistic projections of players regarding these items to come to pass. I’m quite sick of repeatedly hearing how anyone who didn’t go for “Top X” reward got “screwed” by Dardiel’s suggestion. I’m also thoroughly uninterested in the people making those projections also accusing me of hypocrisy because I’m more interested in making the set better for more people in a way I think isn’t that demanding of development time than strict adherence to a standard nobody perfectly adheres to (see the aforementioned top 7 situation).
quote:
Further revision requests, when the items aren’t bugged, are IMO toeing the line of a “second design period”, to “compensate” for whatever is in the minds of those who requested said revisions. Sure, the pet isn’t the best Fire pet out there, the Shield is slow, the weapon lacks a 0-proc Ranged variant (I really like playing a Spearman, so I am slightly sad). But we should just take it in and leave it if it works as described in infosubs, use other items that fit our needs/desires, and let the devs look forward instead of backwards at already-released, not-bugged content.
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with this argument. If you want to argue that shifting an MC to an effect that was so desired some players went for the weapon primarily based on it (Def Loss Potency) is anywhere near as demanding of staff time as a second design period, then I invite you to do so. But, the staff have a very simple solution to this: Reject ideas that would push development time too far back, or reject ideas they don’t want to implement. Staff reserve the right to adjust or implement as much or as little of something as they think is healthy for the game. This is why there are changes to the items that weren’t initially brought up as issues in the dev notes. They will continue to do so, regardless of any player’s attempt to use precedent to force them to strict adherence to any idea. With this knowledge, I’d rather work with the staff in working out changes that would present the most good to players with the donation set, with the understanding that they can and will, draw the line where they think is necessary to avoid putting off designing for the maingame for an exorbitant amount of time. It’s why I voted despite thinking the popularity based system encouraged bad behavior within the community. It’s why I agreed with the extension of the Tickets to 6 and 7 despite the dev time it would take to make two additional dev tickets. I’m more interested in working under the framework the staff have set up to encourage good outcomes than self selecting myself out of impacting the process at all.
< Message edited by Branl -- 9/10/2024 3:16:51 >
_____________________________
IGN: Teryle
There's a method to my madness.
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
