Join the official Goodgame Discord today!
Are you looking for a community of like-minded gamers to discuss your favorite games with? Look no further than the GoodGame Empire Family Discord Server!
Our server is the perfect place to connect with other gamers from around the world. Whether you're looking to chat about strategy, share tips and tricks, or just make new friends, our community has got you covered.
And that's not all - as a member of our Discord server, you'll also have access to exclusive giveaways and other special events. It's the perfect way to stay up to date on all the latest news and updates from GoodGame Studios.
So what are you waiting for? Join the GoodGame Empire Family Discord Server today and start connecting with fellow warriors from all over the world. Just head to https://discord.gg/goodgamestudios to join the fun!
How GGS handles our Feedback (textwall warning)
triangle
Posts: 425
This is a post I have been planning to write for a while, but as usual, I've been lazy. This is particularly regrettable, as I believe this to be one of my most important, direct and wide reaching suggestions I plan on making to GGS. That's not to say that there will be any expectations of the few actual suggestions I will be making to be implemented, nor will there be any insistence that they are necessarily the best solutions. But I feel the issue that shall be addressed here to be of extreme importance, to GGS but particularly to its customer base, and I wish for GGS itself to seriously consider both the proposals I shall be making, and the issue I will be discussing.
To give you a quick intro about how I came to this topic:
I have a habit, I supposed, of getting into arguments on these forums with people who more or less agree with me, over relatively minor, or at least marginal topics, such as abusive behavior on a particular thread, or how reliable a poll is. Now these arguments vary in size and complexity a great deal, but I've never really had a major argument, with long paragraphs, twice about the same topic. Except, that is, about the thorny issue of customer feedback to GGS and that feedback's influence on GGE updates. This will be the issue I plan on discussing here. So without further ado, let's begin.
Just about every player I have had the chance to talk to on these forums, agrees that GGS is not really taking customer feedback seriously enough, and is churning out too many misconceived or shallowly designed updates. This may partially be due to people with such opinions naturally being concentrated on the forums, but the fact remains that the vast majority of players can be united by this single opinion. To put it more frankly, nobody not on the pay roll of GGS can deny that there is a chronic pattern of lazy, repeated designs and ideas disconnected from the game as it currently exists, emanating from the vast majority of GGE updates.
To take perhaps the most prevalent example, the Auto-War update resulted in more than 3200 individual posts on just one of the many GGE forums, with universally negative feedback, players united across alliances and servers to boycott rubies*, and myself, for the first time in all my years on this earth, quite literally speechless.
It was more than just a bad update, it was more than just GGS ignoring thousands of their customer's opinions. No, this was an update who's very idea, the very bedrock of its conception was fundamentally disconnected from the game GGS has made. It betrayed such a truly awesome lack of knowledge, of understanding, of the game they themselves had put together. It shocked and, well, left me speechless.
*Quick note, it actually strikes me that the auto war update was far, far more successful at organizing and uniting my server (Int 1) against a common enemy than the Invasion update(, who's very design is supposed to encourage server wide unity,) ever did. I suppose that's just irony for you.
So GGS has a profound lack of understanding of their own game. The obvious solution to this is to ask the people who know the game the best, in other words the players, for their input and feedback to ideas and plans. And this is indeed what GGS has been doing, with the use of such tools as the GGE forums and player behavior analysis. However, it has become clear in light of the chronic mishandling of updates previously discussed, that these methods no longer function to an acceptable degree. That these methods no longer function to a satisfactory degree is a fact, and should no longer be under any form of dispute.
I would therefore like to strongly advise GGS to consider a reformation of their player feedback inclusion methods, with consideration to the suggestions I'm about to give.
In order to discuss my suggestion with the greatest organization and depth possible, I'd like to split it into three areas, or segments. Type of customer feedback, feedback reliability and feedback inclusion. I shall discuss these briefly, in order, starting with the last. Note that an effort will be made to not become too specific, as I am in no way trained or experienced in this field. I will therefore focus more on what general idea should be sought or accomplished, rather than laying down specific directives to follow.
Then, to start: feedback inclusion. With this term is meant the method or process by which customer feedback is processed into the game. As you (the reader of this thread, if you've managed to get this far) probably know, given that you're on the forum now, the current method is as follows: The GGE developers team has a bright idea, they announce it on the forums, collect feedback through CMs, and, in case of extreme outcry after implementation, change the update to the smallest possible degree to remove any serious issues, while leaving the rest of the feature as in-tact as possible. Added to this is also in-game analysis of player behavior.
My advise would be to firstly slow down the pace of updates immensely, and focus more on including customer feedback at a far, far earlier stage. Whereas currently feedback is only even considered at the very end of the process, when the update is already included in the game, it should instead be being added at the opposite end. When the ideas are first being cooked up.
Another point I'd like to emphasize here is that customer feedback should not only be considered in the general conception of updates, but also in a somewhat more detailed manner. Surprisingly, we have an excellent example of this in the new Invaders event. Here, we see an update which was, from the beginning started with the premise of "customers said they wanted server wars". The issue for most people then appears to be, not in the general idea, but rather in the execution. Again, I would argue that greater customer involvement, but on a more detailed level, would have vastly improved this update. True, it might still not have overcome the many technical issues that had to be considered for this particular event, but I feel that a greater chance of success would have existed.
It appears to me that customer feedback is currently mostly looked at by GGS, as a metaphorical "bucket of water". They keep it around in case a fire breaks out, and if that happens they can throw a bit o' water on it and hope things cool down. This is, to any prudent observer, a fantastic waste. There are very intelligent people playing this game, who invest extreme amounts of time playing it and have a very good understanding of its flaws, and would be more than willing to work proactively with GGS to make GGE an awesome experience for all its players. They could be using this feedback as a strong bedrock, on which to build the metaphorical house (metaphor for the game). Instead, blind shots are taken, with most landing in thin air, or worse. I cannot stress enough how important this is: that GGS modernize their process and become a truly proactive company. Otherwise, even millions of dollars in TV adds cannot save a flawed game that simply isn't fun to play.
Secondly then, an issue that I feel GGS probably already understands fairly well: feedback reliability. If you place player feedback in as much of a central roll as I propose, mistakes can always be covered up with the excuse of "Welp, it's wha' da' customers' said 'day wanted!". This in itself is an issue, as it becomes a general excuse applicable to anything. But what makes it worse is that it can sometimes be genuinely true. Player feedback could indeed be misleading.
To take an example I know will make many people angry:
In the recent Invaders event, people have been complaining a lot about being attacked and burning. They call the event "unfair" and "broken", and say that it should be removed from the game for this reason.
The problems with this particular complaint are many fold; it doesn't suggest a reasonable solution relevant to the issue, it fails to understand the event design and it's extremely vague. Adapting this feedback into "the attack patterns should be rebalanced to be less lopsided towards some players and take into account such things as alliance strength etc" would be a useful piece of feedback. But just saying "I don't like having fires in my MC and this event creates fires in my MC therefore I hate it" is pathetic, and like saying that archery should be removed from the olympics because the targets are too small and you might miss. To be sure, useful feedback can be DERIVED from this complaint, such as the example I gave in the middle of this paragraph, but to take these words at their face value, and take the suggestion that has been directly stated, would result in an absolute fiasco.
As such, I would like all to recognize that no matter how central customer feedback becomes in the GGE development process, the developers team itself, the professionals, should always retain the central roll, and never commit to an action simply because there's a bunch of people saying that they should. If many different players agree on a particular topic (and, above all, players stemming from different alliances, servers and social groups), then this feedback should by all means be taken seriously. But player feedback should never (and probably never will be, given GGS's previous policy) taken as absolute law.
The last big aspect I'd like to discuss is "type of customer feedback". To put it bluntly, there should be more of them. Currently, there are two types, or methods by which GGS collects customer feedback: GGE forum discussion and in-game analysis of player behavior. These, as previously discussed, are already insufficient in many respects, and if player feedback is to be put at as central a roll as I would suggest, then a diversifying of the sources of feedback is absolutely necessary for the success of this policy. Not only that, but feedback should be gathered not only from the top 10 alliances (although, of course from there too) but from all social groups participating in the game. Even lvl5 players should be considered in this analysis of player opinion, as even a lvl5 is a valid player who's opinion should be considered.
To give some none-mutually-exclusive suggestions as to how player feedback can be collected in addition to the current system:
-Frequent in-game surveys sent to all players which can be fulfilled in exchange for a small ruby prize (eg: 10 rubies). There are examples of other games using this method with great success.
-A council of either hand-picked or voted representatives from the top alliances who are particularly experiences in this game, and who can therefore give detailed advise to GGS concerning their updates (oddly enough, I found this to be a particularly popular idea amongst those individuals whom I discussed this topic with).
-A "test server", which anybody may join, on which updates are implemented considerably earlier than on the "ordinary servers", and which will experience considerably more surveys and other tests. (This may actually already exist in some form, but I am not quite clear on that point.)
Now, all of this testing, discussion and analysis would take a considerably longer time in this newer, broader context, than it does currently, when the discussion only occurs in a vastly smaller and more organized group. As such, updates might become considerably less frequent, and less substantial. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. As mentioned previously, a lot of the current updates seem to be near copy-paste of already existing events*, or extremely unbalanced towards some players or player groups. It would be good to see some of that quantity being traded out for some quality. In the end, that's all I really want from GGS updates.
*To take an example, the marauders event is basically the nobility even, with resources instead of glory/recruited troops as the points generators and a new artwork for the prize troops.
To conclude, GGE updates are mostly terrible, due to an inbred failure to understand their own game. The clear solution to this would be to enlist the dedicated player base, which would be only too happy to help. This would involve player feedback being put into a relatively central roll in the GGE creative process. However, caution should be taken when interpreting this feedback, and to guard against misrepresentation of the situation in the game, a diversifying of the methods used to gain player feedback is necessary. The final point I'd like to make in this, rather long, post, is that none of these proposals I have made will succeed on their own. Having lots of detailed player feedback is great, but won't be much use if you only use it in case of extreme emergency. Then again, placing customer feedback at a central place in your development process would lead to fiasco if you don't have sufficient information to work with.
Ultimately, the decision of to what extent, if any, my proposals will be considered by GGS, is up to GGS itself. I have urged them until now to seriously discuss this topic amongst themselves, and think over my proposals. However, I would like to state that in the unlikely event of GGE ever moving in the direction I have envisaged here,no step should be taken on its own, and what is additionally necessary, should always be considered.
With kind regards, I look forward to your replies and discussion.
-triangle
PS Oh, and apologies to any CMs who are actually obligated to read the entire post. Sorry guys, you'll just have to slog through this one
To give you a quick intro about how I came to this topic:
I have a habit, I supposed, of getting into arguments on these forums with people who more or less agree with me, over relatively minor, or at least marginal topics, such as abusive behavior on a particular thread, or how reliable a poll is. Now these arguments vary in size and complexity a great deal, but I've never really had a major argument, with long paragraphs, twice about the same topic. Except, that is, about the thorny issue of customer feedback to GGS and that feedback's influence on GGE updates. This will be the issue I plan on discussing here. So without further ado, let's begin.
Just about every player I have had the chance to talk to on these forums, agrees that GGS is not really taking customer feedback seriously enough, and is churning out too many misconceived or shallowly designed updates. This may partially be due to people with such opinions naturally being concentrated on the forums, but the fact remains that the vast majority of players can be united by this single opinion. To put it more frankly, nobody not on the pay roll of GGS can deny that there is a chronic pattern of lazy, repeated designs and ideas disconnected from the game as it currently exists, emanating from the vast majority of GGE updates.
To take perhaps the most prevalent example, the Auto-War update resulted in more than 3200 individual posts on just one of the many GGE forums, with universally negative feedback, players united across alliances and servers to boycott rubies*, and myself, for the first time in all my years on this earth, quite literally speechless.
It was more than just a bad update, it was more than just GGS ignoring thousands of their customer's opinions. No, this was an update who's very idea, the very bedrock of its conception was fundamentally disconnected from the game GGS has made. It betrayed such a truly awesome lack of knowledge, of understanding, of the game they themselves had put together. It shocked and, well, left me speechless.
*Quick note, it actually strikes me that the auto war update was far, far more successful at organizing and uniting my server (Int 1) against a common enemy than the Invasion update(, who's very design is supposed to encourage server wide unity,) ever did. I suppose that's just irony for you.
So GGS has a profound lack of understanding of their own game. The obvious solution to this is to ask the people who know the game the best, in other words the players, for their input and feedback to ideas and plans. And this is indeed what GGS has been doing, with the use of such tools as the GGE forums and player behavior analysis. However, it has become clear in light of the chronic mishandling of updates previously discussed, that these methods no longer function to an acceptable degree. That these methods no longer function to a satisfactory degree is a fact, and should no longer be under any form of dispute.
I would therefore like to strongly advise GGS to consider a reformation of their player feedback inclusion methods, with consideration to the suggestions I'm about to give.
In order to discuss my suggestion with the greatest organization and depth possible, I'd like to split it into three areas, or segments. Type of customer feedback, feedback reliability and feedback inclusion. I shall discuss these briefly, in order, starting with the last. Note that an effort will be made to not become too specific, as I am in no way trained or experienced in this field. I will therefore focus more on what general idea should be sought or accomplished, rather than laying down specific directives to follow.
Then, to start: feedback inclusion. With this term is meant the method or process by which customer feedback is processed into the game. As you (the reader of this thread, if you've managed to get this far) probably know, given that you're on the forum now, the current method is as follows: The GGE developers team has a bright idea, they announce it on the forums, collect feedback through CMs, and, in case of extreme outcry after implementation, change the update to the smallest possible degree to remove any serious issues, while leaving the rest of the feature as in-tact as possible. Added to this is also in-game analysis of player behavior.
My advise would be to firstly slow down the pace of updates immensely, and focus more on including customer feedback at a far, far earlier stage. Whereas currently feedback is only even considered at the very end of the process, when the update is already included in the game, it should instead be being added at the opposite end. When the ideas are first being cooked up.
Another point I'd like to emphasize here is that customer feedback should not only be considered in the general conception of updates, but also in a somewhat more detailed manner. Surprisingly, we have an excellent example of this in the new Invaders event. Here, we see an update which was, from the beginning started with the premise of "customers said they wanted server wars". The issue for most people then appears to be, not in the general idea, but rather in the execution. Again, I would argue that greater customer involvement, but on a more detailed level, would have vastly improved this update. True, it might still not have overcome the many technical issues that had to be considered for this particular event, but I feel that a greater chance of success would have existed.
It appears to me that customer feedback is currently mostly looked at by GGS, as a metaphorical "bucket of water". They keep it around in case a fire breaks out, and if that happens they can throw a bit o' water on it and hope things cool down. This is, to any prudent observer, a fantastic waste. There are very intelligent people playing this game, who invest extreme amounts of time playing it and have a very good understanding of its flaws, and would be more than willing to work proactively with GGS to make GGE an awesome experience for all its players. They could be using this feedback as a strong bedrock, on which to build the metaphorical house (metaphor for the game). Instead, blind shots are taken, with most landing in thin air, or worse. I cannot stress enough how important this is: that GGS modernize their process and become a truly proactive company. Otherwise, even millions of dollars in TV adds cannot save a flawed game that simply isn't fun to play.
Secondly then, an issue that I feel GGS probably already understands fairly well: feedback reliability. If you place player feedback in as much of a central roll as I propose, mistakes can always be covered up with the excuse of "Welp, it's wha' da' customers' said 'day wanted!". This in itself is an issue, as it becomes a general excuse applicable to anything. But what makes it worse is that it can sometimes be genuinely true. Player feedback could indeed be misleading.
To take an example I know will make many people angry:
In the recent Invaders event, people have been complaining a lot about being attacked and burning. They call the event "unfair" and "broken", and say that it should be removed from the game for this reason.
The problems with this particular complaint are many fold; it doesn't suggest a reasonable solution relevant to the issue, it fails to understand the event design and it's extremely vague. Adapting this feedback into "the attack patterns should be rebalanced to be less lopsided towards some players and take into account such things as alliance strength etc" would be a useful piece of feedback. But just saying "I don't like having fires in my MC and this event creates fires in my MC therefore I hate it" is pathetic, and like saying that archery should be removed from the olympics because the targets are too small and you might miss. To be sure, useful feedback can be DERIVED from this complaint, such as the example I gave in the middle of this paragraph, but to take these words at their face value, and take the suggestion that has been directly stated, would result in an absolute fiasco.
As such, I would like all to recognize that no matter how central customer feedback becomes in the GGE development process, the developers team itself, the professionals, should always retain the central roll, and never commit to an action simply because there's a bunch of people saying that they should. If many different players agree on a particular topic (and, above all, players stemming from different alliances, servers and social groups), then this feedback should by all means be taken seriously. But player feedback should never (and probably never will be, given GGS's previous policy) taken as absolute law.
The last big aspect I'd like to discuss is "type of customer feedback". To put it bluntly, there should be more of them. Currently, there are two types, or methods by which GGS collects customer feedback: GGE forum discussion and in-game analysis of player behavior. These, as previously discussed, are already insufficient in many respects, and if player feedback is to be put at as central a roll as I would suggest, then a diversifying of the sources of feedback is absolutely necessary for the success of this policy. Not only that, but feedback should be gathered not only from the top 10 alliances (although, of course from there too) but from all social groups participating in the game. Even lvl5 players should be considered in this analysis of player opinion, as even a lvl5 is a valid player who's opinion should be considered.
To give some none-mutually-exclusive suggestions as to how player feedback can be collected in addition to the current system:
-Frequent in-game surveys sent to all players which can be fulfilled in exchange for a small ruby prize (eg: 10 rubies). There are examples of other games using this method with great success.
-A council of either hand-picked or voted representatives from the top alliances who are particularly experiences in this game, and who can therefore give detailed advise to GGS concerning their updates (oddly enough, I found this to be a particularly popular idea amongst those individuals whom I discussed this topic with).
-A "test server", which anybody may join, on which updates are implemented considerably earlier than on the "ordinary servers", and which will experience considerably more surveys and other tests. (This may actually already exist in some form, but I am not quite clear on that point.)
Now, all of this testing, discussion and analysis would take a considerably longer time in this newer, broader context, than it does currently, when the discussion only occurs in a vastly smaller and more organized group. As such, updates might become considerably less frequent, and less substantial. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. As mentioned previously, a lot of the current updates seem to be near copy-paste of already existing events*, or extremely unbalanced towards some players or player groups. It would be good to see some of that quantity being traded out for some quality. In the end, that's all I really want from GGS updates.
*To take an example, the marauders event is basically the nobility even, with resources instead of glory/recruited troops as the points generators and a new artwork for the prize troops.
To conclude, GGE updates are mostly terrible, due to an inbred failure to understand their own game. The clear solution to this would be to enlist the dedicated player base, which would be only too happy to help. This would involve player feedback being put into a relatively central roll in the GGE creative process. However, caution should be taken when interpreting this feedback, and to guard against misrepresentation of the situation in the game, a diversifying of the methods used to gain player feedback is necessary. The final point I'd like to make in this, rather long, post, is that none of these proposals I have made will succeed on their own. Having lots of detailed player feedback is great, but won't be much use if you only use it in case of extreme emergency. Then again, placing customer feedback at a central place in your development process would lead to fiasco if you don't have sufficient information to work with.
Ultimately, the decision of to what extent, if any, my proposals will be considered by GGS, is up to GGS itself. I have urged them until now to seriously discuss this topic amongst themselves, and think over my proposals. However, I would like to state that in the unlikely event of GGE ever moving in the direction I have envisaged here,no step should be taken on its own, and what is additionally necessary, should always be considered.
With kind regards, I look forward to your replies and discussion.
-triangle
PS Oh, and apologies to any CMs who are actually obligated to read the entire post. Sorry guys, you'll just have to slog through this one
Post edited by triangle on
My Thoughts:
Two years of Playing GGE: Independent Alliance and None Ruby Players
How GGS handles our Feedback
Why I decided to Leave
Thoughts on the Legendary Update
Achieved title of "the terrible", on the 8th of August 2014, without buying rubies, and while playing in an independent alliance.
Two years of Playing GGE: Independent Alliance and None Ruby Players
How GGS handles our Feedback
Why I decided to Leave
Thoughts on the Legendary Update
Achieved title of "the terrible", on the 8th of August 2014, without buying rubies, and while playing in an independent alliance.
0
Comments
http://prntscr.com/4bi099
http://prntscr.com/4chnie
http://prntscr.com/4bi1hr
http://prntscr.com/4ct5iw
there is no I in team but there is the word ME!
The surveys idea is great. It's possible, they sent it a few months ago asking for players' ages. They also had a ruby reward, I think it was 150 rubies?
The council was shot down. CMs said it would waste time... come on, waste time? If the update is horrible, you're gonna have to waste time fixing or removing it.
Test servers. It would help a lot. Probably won't be implemented, because CMs say "creating a new server is too expensive". It doesn't really exist now. They just use test accounts, like 2 accounts in a neph sub that were almost level 2,000.
http://en.board.goodgamestudios.com/empire/showthread.php?82159-FAQs&p=951186#post951186
#TheDreamLivesOn
(Mix of ruby/armorer tools)
http://prntscr.com/39gqa6
http://prntscr.com/3xf6wl
http://prntscr.com/4ee952
#GG$
#GGreedy
#GreedGameEmpire
GGE is always trying to get players to buy rubies, and to do that, comes up with horrible updates. Put this in your siggy if you agree.
R.I.P. in peace Billy962, King of the forums ;_;
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]TM
GGE needs to change. The idea of a test server sounds good as well as announcing the update when its thought up instead of when they are about to release it. Although a lot of updates sound good but turn out to be bad. ( Foreign invaders, Gems, etc)
http://en.board.goodgamestudios.com/empire/showthread.php?122041-Lots-of-Great-Suggestions&p=1424338#post1424338
Deathsweeper at USA1! Founder and Co-leader of Vae Victis!!
i cant agree more.
We are the Battle Sacred Kittens
(for whom who really want to know the exact meaning of BSK, PM me ingame :P)
Sword Art Online is the best best Anime ever
Negative verbal feedback is usually perceived, by Goodgame Studios, to blithely oppose any feature which causes people to spend/buy more rubies precisely because they cause people to spend/buy more rubies.
Most of us know that perception is NOT true, but I think Goodgame Studios actually doesn't know. That is, Goodgame Studios seems not to appreciate our concern for the company's financial best interest, when we offer negative verbal feedback. In other words, Goodgame Studios doesn't feel we care enough about its number one priority: to sell rubies and then deplete people's rubies, in order to sell more.
But even if Goodgame Studios chooses not to believe it, we know the features we complain about are unsatisfying for reasons which have little to do with their effect on rubies. Such reasons are almost always strategy-related, as I've explained many, many, many times before.
This is why when I post negative verbal feedback, I often try to balance my critique with a creative idea for some slightly different design approach, that would still let Goodgame Studios deplete people's rubies and make more money.
Just without crippling the strategy!
So here's my point: I wish every other customer would do that too, to help Goodgame Studios trust our verbal feedback more easily. Show Goodgame Studios that we're not trying to take away new profits; we are simply trying to rescue the game's strategic elements. Right now those elements are, sadly, on "life support."
-- Hobee
Space Engineers is a fantastic example of a good relationship between the devs and the players. The game is in alpha and it's run by a small development team. They release consistent good updates every 7 days exactly. What I love about the relationship is that a lot of the suggestions I read on that forum ACTUALLY get implemented into the game, 75% of the time. What else is great is that the devs actually have a deep passion for their jobs, they love hearing what their players have to say. If I have a suggestion, I wouldn't hesitate to post it, because I know that it'll be read, considered and maybe implemented.
I don't feel that here, I have tons of ideas that I believe would be good additions to GGE, but I don't post them, because I know, they won't be read, won't be considered and sure as hell won't implemented. Our suggestions here have been ignore so much and for so long that we just don't see the point in posting suggestions in this sub forum anymore, I mean, for goodness sake, I haven't seen a CM post in weeks.
Yeah, I blame our CM's and Mods. I don't even notice them doing their jobs.
Sure I can't prove that our suggestions aren't being read but I sure as hell can prove they're not being implemented.
If a CM/Mod reads this and disagrees. Then please, prove me wrong, give me a list of suggestion threads made by the community that were actually implemented into the game. Like come on, not all our idea are bad, right?
I'm not sure I agree with you 100% on this. The CMs (of which I believe there are only currently 2 active) have to manage all of the other forums for every GoodGame game. Unfortunately, they probably spend an unnecessary amount of time clearing up spam and trawling through the countless threads asking to implement transporting rubies/coins or something equally bad. I know we have volunteer mods for this but I don't see them around much. They seem to get bored of the job quite quickly.
I think the problem goes to the root of GGS and many people seem to think the buck stops with the CMs. It doesn't. GGS likely employ more data analysts and strategists then they do developers and it is those people who are interested in squeezing every last penny out of us. They're not that interested in developing an awesome game. It's about numbers on a spreadsheet and the majority of decisions are based on these numbers.
There are more than 2 CMs I assure you. They may have jobs on other GGE games but not every one.
http://en.board.goodgamestudios.com/empire/showthread.php?122041-Lots-of-Great-Suggestions&p=1424338#post1424338
Deathsweeper at USA1! Founder and Co-leader of Vae Victis!!
Cheers for clearing this up. I stand by the rest of what I said though.
Most successful forums hire staff more openly and unconditionally. They also use different types of staff members such as...
Moderators : These are top tier staff with a lot of abilities
Helpers : Higher in numbers and are generally more active than moderators. Less abilities though.
Cores : No real abilities, but they're members from the community who have proven themselves to be active, loyal and nice.
Generally disgusted by the way this forum is run, I've never actually seen a forum run this unprofessionally by a group of devs.
Why have one if you're completely just going to disregard it and ignore it?
I'm merely saying that the bigger issues go much further than just how this forum is managed. You're original statement suggested that our feedback was not passed on at all. How do you know that? You cannot come out with statements accusing the CMs of disregarding and ignoring posts when you have no proof. I personally think we are disregarded and ignored but I think we're disregarded and ignored at a higher level.
In fact, you mention that other companies hire staff more openly and unconditionally. How is this the decision of the CM? It's not. It's the decision of those higher up employees of GGS (probably a combination of HR and procurement) that make the decision of who to employ and what forums to put them on. Again, not the fault of the CM.
I agree with you on most points. I just think you're pointing the finger of blame at the incorrect people.
Well, somebody's at fault here, not us.
Generally I blame the chairman of GGS, but since I don't know his name, I'll just blame the next highest person I know in the chain, who is Ethan. Get me the name of Ethan's boss and I'll blame him, then get me the name of that guy's boss and I'll blame him too.
A quick Google search will show you that these are the names of GGS CEO(s)
Dr. Kai Wawrzinek
Dr. Christian Wawrzinek
I'm not disagreeing with you here though Ninjareviver. I just don't think it's fair to constantly blame the CMs. For all we know, they may hate the updates as much as we do but they're not paid to side with us (publicly at least).
You walk in to a supermarket and are outraged at the price of bread. It's such a rip off! Who do you blame? The supervisor who happens to be on shift that day or the guy sat in his private office somewhere else, ultimately in charge of setting prices? Sure, the former might be an easier thing to do but it doesn't make it right.
Well, I would just like to generally add that including customer feedback as a central feature of one's development process is by no means an obvious decision. I feel GGS's current position on the subject to be a significant mistake (as I made clear in the original post), but I would not go so far as to blame any particular person for it. They made a decision, and I'm sure it seemed sensible to them, at the time.
However, I feel that all this name-calling and finger-pointing is somewhat beside the point. Who is at fault for the low standing of customer feedback within GGS is a insignificant sideline that doesn't actually have much of an effect on the final solution of the issue.
Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that we shouldn't bother too much with the question of if the bad decisions are being made at the developers or the management level, but rather how the current system can be improved, and how we can develop this into a product that GGS can reasonably consider.
Two years of Playing GGE: Independent Alliance and None Ruby Players
How GGS handles our Feedback
Why I decided to Leave
Thoughts on the Legendary Update
Achieved title of "the terrible", on the 8th of August 2014, without buying rubies, and while playing in an independent alliance.
Note to self: this post will likely get removed because of it's direct criticism of those responsible - check on it later...
Alliance - Obewan @ usa 1
Don't worry, a CM hasn't posted in this subsection for a while, and I mean A WHILE. They might be on their annual vacation to Hawaii
Alliance - Obewan @ usa 1
Retired from duties in September 2015.
Once Leader of Phoenix Sword and the once prominent alliance empire, Phoenix. Proud member of now collapsed OU. All organizations mentioned above have collapsed or merged into other prominent alliances since. Co-founder of the Force family.
"I have seen many wars fought through my four years on this server. I have seen families rise and fall. I have been members of prominent organizations in International 1 and International 2, and have played in United States 1 with my forum buddies as well. It has shown me many things, but mainly that every action that is partaken in this game and in the world can only be deemed right or wrong depending upon your perspective. Never pass the blame, fight hard to succeed. As a non-ruby player, I managed to create and nurture not one but two of the most successful alliance families in International 2. Believe, there is always another path. Success is determined by the amount of effort you are willing to put in"