How GGS handles our Feedback (textwall warning)

Ninjareviver

StephenWonder wrote: »

Haha, my point is that they don't care, because their business model works without the need for expensive customer retention schemes. I'm with you, I think their customer service is rubbish - but as long as they are making plenty of money, why should they care about a few dozen complainers on the Internet?

50 million registrations by June 2014? If just 1% of those turns into someone who spends as little as $10 a month, that's $5 million turnover every month. I don't know if that's a lot. It seems like a lot.

Complaints on the forum aren't going to be bothering the accountants... because most of the people complaining are still playing, and still paying. As long as you're having fun, and can afford it, that's fine.

If you're not having fun, stop playing.

If you are upset that GGS isn't listening to you, and you accept that as a fact... just how effective a strategy is asking them to listen to you? Because, I mean, they're not listening in the first place, right?

Well, we're also giving new players a bad impression as soon as they join the forums. This kind of negative feedback that we're spamming on the forums is probably scaring away a lot of potential buyers from spending a cent. Whether or not GGS cares, they could be earning a lot more money. I actually probably bought a good $15 worth of rubies through all of my time playing GGE, but after a couple weeks of reading on the forums, I completely shutted out the idea of ever spending another cent on this game. In the end, I convinced myself that I'm better off saving up money for 4 or 5 of the major multi platform games coming out next year.

To be conclusive, this game doesn't deserve anybody's money. I pray for the day this game shutsdown so they could make a GGE 2.0 where they actually listen to their players.
"Need for Greed" should be their motto.

Caleb80Player

lol at "Need for Greed"

Neamhain (US1)

Ninjareviver wrote: »

I reckon we should just spam-message the CM's with the link to this thread until they give us a suitable explanation for this mess that they call a studio.

That is exactly what we shouldn't do. If we resort to acting like children, then they will treat us as such.

Ninjareviver

At least they'll be treating us like something other than dirt

Neamhain (US1)

If anything, that would cause their attitudes towards us to worsen.

desmond2565

replies don't reach some people as fast

Ninjareviver

Caleb80Player wrote: »

lol at "Need for Greed"

I'm glad that somewhere in North America I made a guy laugh in front of his computer.

dueltheabdul (INT1)

Couldn't agree more with Billy, one of the best and most accurate threads on this forum.

Just slightly considering these suggestions would be a beginning to a bright future.

Unknown

triangle wrote: »

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

tl;dr

cliff?

phaedra4

With reference to the OP.

Let me tell you something. I worked in IT 30 years, im retired now. Ive been involved in implementing millions of pounds worth of LANS, WANS, servers, workstations, standalone PC's and software, both bespoke and off the shelf, and in training, support ,analysis and feedback. What i dont know about this business you can scribble on the back of Greece's Credit rating.

One fundamental thing i learned was NEVER EVER let programmers design user interfaces, or talk to the customers. You will NEVER get the software you want. Thats why you need to make sure ALL coders are kept in locked cages and only slowed to talk the the Systems Analyst. Similarly, never let the Analysts near a graphic design computer, thats what you need to employ Graphic Artists for.

Unfortunately, in the last few years theres been an explosion of games like this, designed, coded, and run by a bunch of coders. And none of them, as long since discovered, has a clue how to provide what the customer wants.

And therein lies the problem. Games like this are the manifestation of the coders wet dream. But his vision is exclusive and peculiar to him, and the mentality of these people does not extend to being able to take a step back and view it from someone elses (eg the user's) eyes. Programmers never understand the need for massive and extensive documentation and user support. After all, they dont need it, they already know how the program works.

Ive rescued commercial IT projects started by coders 20 years ago with exactly the same problems. Coders never learn, and every years we get a new batch of coders with the same problem.

So this game, like many others will always suffer from lack of support, lack of feedback acknowledgment and a warped view of what the paying customers want. Writing documentation doesnt make money. Neither dos answering support tickets. And there so many potential customers, it doesnt matter if you cheese off a couple of thousand customers off every now and then, the next lot of new customers will be along soon.

These people, like many online games, are not in this for your benefit, they are in it for theirs.

neil33 (GB1)

phaedra4 wrote: »

With reference to the OP.

Let me tell you something. I worked in IT 30 years, im retired now. Ive been involved in implementing millions of pounds worth of LANS, WANS, servers, workstations, standalone PC's and software, both bespoke and off the shelf, and in training, support ,analysis and feedback. What i dont know about this business you can scribble on the back of Greece's Credit rating.

One fundamental thing i learned was NEVER EVER let programmers design user interfaces, or talk to the customers. You will NEVER get the software you want. Thats why you need to make sure ALL coders are kept in locked cages and only slowed to talk the the Systems Analyst. Similarly, never let the Analysts near a graphic design computer, thats what you need to employ Graphic Artists for.

Unfortunately, in the last few years theres been an explosion of games like this, designed, coded, and run by a bunch of coders. And none of them, as long since discovered, has a clue how to provide what the customer wants.

And therein lies the problem. Games like this are the manifestation of the coders wet dream. But his vision is exclusive and peculiar to him, and the mentality of these people does not extend to being able to take a step back and view it from someone elses (eg the user's) eyes. Programmers never understand the need for massive and extensive documentation and user support. After all, they dont need it, they already know how the program works.

Ive rescued commercial IT projects started by coders 20 years ago with exactly the same problems. Coders never learn, and every years we get a new batch of coders with the same problem.

So this game, like many others will always suffer from lack of support, lack of feedback acknowledgment and a warped view of what the paying customers want. Writing documentation doesnt make money. Neither dos answering support tickets. And there so many potential customers, it doesnt matter if you cheese off a couple of thousand customers off every now and then, the next lot of new customers will be along soon.

These people, like many online games, are not in this for your benefit, they are in it for theirs.

Couldn't agree more!

Shark mcspot (US1)

Tl;dr..........

triangle

gmdclark wrote: »

TL;DR - "Just about every player I have had the chance to talk to on these forums, agrees [with me]" WALLOTEXTWHINE

Bigdaddysnorlax wrote: »

tl;dr

cliff?

Shark mcspot wrote: »

Tl;dr..........

Guys, believe it or not, this is in fact a serious discussion about a serious topic. I know many of you are used to the fun and games section of the forums, but over here it is sort of expected that you actually have something to say before you post. So please, in the politest way possible, could I ask that you stop clogging up this thread and leave? Immediately.

Shark mcspot (US1)

triangle wrote: »

Guys, believe it or not, this is in fact a serious discussion about a serious topic. I know many of you are used to the fun and games section of the forums, but over here it is sort of expected that you actually have something to say before you post. So please, in the politest way possible, could I ask that you stop clogging up this thread and leave? Immediately.

Sorry.

10 characters

Unknown

i know this thread is old, but it deserves to be bumped! it shows how dumb GGE is at handling our feedback