I think "The List" right now is basically this:
1. Get EE up and out
2. Get Settlements in
3. Get Companies in
4. Get a good nights sleep
5. Get back to progressing on the 1,000 different areas this game still needs work done on.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No thanks. Priorities change. I want them to have the flexibility to change with them. We all know that if they provide a "check list" of things to be done in a certain order, then there will be people who freak out if there is any deviation. Let them take the time they need to get things done properly. I love the fact that they are willing to delay features and updates when needed, but the community has to support that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd say they have been fairly transparent already without publishing their Gantt charts. Given the complexity of the project we would likely fail to understand the project design documents anyway.
There is such a thing as too much information, and it can be and usually is just as bad if not worse than too little information.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking about it, I guess my point is that an appeal for 'transparancy' doesn't seem an effective argument. What might be an effective argument is that it might give us greater clarity about some common issues we've been raising because we cannot understand what we don't fully know. For example the end-state for the design of archery we cannot yet know. If we had a way to see what is ultimately intended, could consider the missing elements of it, then we would be better positioned to offer insightful suggestions rather than making whiskey tango (Wasting Time) assertions based only on appearances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think "The List" right now is basically this:
1. Get EE up and out
2. Get Settlements in
3. Get Companies in
4. Get a good nights sleep
5. Get back to progressing on the 1,000 different areas this game still needs work done on.
Swap 2 and 3 and I think you are there. We have to have Companies before Settlements. Oh, actually add 3 more Zeros to #5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't support this thread because it seems demanding. I do support my dude pyro tho. Keep on keepin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree knowing design goals and philosophy is good and I believe a strength in attracting people. The underlying principle of meaningful choices, and therefor accepting asymmetries in design loops (for example the crafting paradigm,), makes intentional appear to be an oversight. Repeated statement of goals and explaining how these discrepancies fit in make for interesting discussions. Feature lists with date/time stamps would not produce as good discussions IMHO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Swap 2 and 3 and I think you are there. We have to have Companies before Settlements. Oh, actually add 3 more Zeros to #5.I think "The List" right now is basically this:
1. Get EE up and out
2. Get Settlements in
3. Get Companies in
4. Get a good nights sleep
5. Get back to progressing on the 1,000 different areas this game still needs work done on.
Ooh, very close, #3 should be #1. Would like to see this in Alpha honestly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Jazz said...
This is a good example of what might happen if they actually showed the list, which I wouldn't want them to do anyways.
This is one of the reasons why Stephen only gave the Spread Sheet data to a few people, he doesn't have the time to constantly be updating things. Their in-game list is pretty massive, and if they have to constantly update these things, and explain why to boot, that detracts from them working on the game.
They already have to monitor 3 different websites for ideas and concerns. I think there is only so much we can really ask of them before it starts cutting into the game development time tables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Move #4 to #1 and I think we're on the right track.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree I want to see the giant[sic] chart and I have no problem with its evolving nature. I want to see it and I think many others do.
I think it is incredibly rude and un-endearing to so blatantly demand things from the devs. Yes, I'm sure we all thank you for contributing money to this game to help it get built, but NO, you do not run the company. You do not own shares or sit on the board of directors.
The 'crowdforging' idea has always been a PRIVILEGE. It is not a right. We make suggestions and critiques, provide feedback when asked, and humbly thank the developers for the honour of including us in this cool process.
We do not make demands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am always amazed by people afraid of knowledge. If you don't want to see the list don't look. As for shares when I inquired about investing in pfo I was told they are only accepting accredited investors(investors with 1-2million in capitol). I don't see why asking for the list is rude. Why would I humbly thank the devs? We are why they have a job and we should be able to watch them do it. If there was no list fine but the fact that there is a list means we should be able to see it. I respect the devs but I am not going to suck up to them and defend them at every turn. That is a road to mediocrity at best.
From my perspective
they ditched on DDO style combat(the best rendition of pnp to date in an mmo) in favor of tab targeting duldrum(like WOW). So in response I went caster instead of melee as most spells need a target anyways. Now they are rooting castors. To me the game I was excited to play is being systematically dumbed down. I watch these forums and I see lower and lower expectations. I see less and less innovation more and more excuses.
Oh we cant have nice graphics they are working on systems. Oh the combat systems are not ready so we have rooting. Oh the auction house and bank are not ready yet..... So yeah maby I want to see the roadmap. I want to love this game not feel like a fool for telling thousands of people about it and for that at the least I need to know where it's going.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are the people who helped fund it, we are not their managers. We get to help prioritize by telling them about the things we consider important, not by demanding they reveal every step of the creation process.
There is only so much that can be asked of someone trying to get something done, and asking them to sit down and explain to you what they will do and in what order is just too much.
Would you order a custom wooden chair from a furnisher and then walk into his shop all through the work, badgering them?
We agreed on a curve to the back of the chair - I see a lot of straight pieces, which one will be the back?
Are you sure that's going to be strong enough? Looks a little thin.
Wait hold on, can we make it a little taller?
How much longer is that bevel going to take? I really want to see the finished product.
Why haven't you sanded these burrs off yet? Looks pretty uncomfortable...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are the people who helped fund it, we are not their managers. We get to help prioritize by telling them about the things we consider important, not by demanding they reveal every step of the creation process.
There is only so much that can be asked of someone trying to get something done, and asking them to sit down and explain to you what they will do and in what order is just too much.
Would you order a custom wooden chair from a furnisher and then walk into his shop all through the work, badgering them?
We agreed on a curve to the back of the chair - I see a lot of straight pieces, which one will be the back?
Are you sure that's going to be strong enough? Looks a little thin.
Wait hold on, can we make it a little taller?
How much longer is that bevel going to take? I really want to see the finished product.
Why haven't you sanded these burrs off yet? Looks pretty uncomfortable...
I never asked for anyone to sit down and explain the list. As I developed my own top down and isometric true colour engine with height mapping at the time of baldurs gate I have some idea of how to interpret a priorities list. I think a list would make for more valuable discussion rather then debates about unknowns. It's also usefull to the developers because they would know earlier what features are popular and build systems in that direction. Also I am not implying that crowdforging should mean absolute control. We will always be in the roll of advisers only and I would rather be an informed adviser.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Make no mistake - I would love to see this List, simply because I am pretty well obsessed with this game and its development. But at the same time I do not believe that having this made fully public would be good for the community. There is a limited amount of information we can collectively take in and effectively respond to as 'advisors'. At some point, you need to package things in broader terms and let people know that these things will be coming but they depend on so many factors that talking about it just doesn't make SENSE yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Make no mistake - I would love to see this List, simply because I am pretty well obsessed with this game and its development. But at the same time I do not believe that having this made fully public would be good for the community. There is a limited amount of information we can collectively take in and effectively respond to as 'advisors'. At some point, you need to package things in broader terms and let people know that these things will be coming but they depend on so many factors that talking about it just doesn't make SENSE yet.
I think talking about it is harmless at worst and usefull at best. You are right that some may not understand the developers goals but that is the case with or without a list. More information makes for better decisions. Many may not look at the whole list and may focus on small areas with no consideration to how that effects the system as a whole. However without the list this will always be the case. How can we consider what we do not know?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How can we consider what we do not know?
We can't - but that's okay. I trust Goblinworks to give us the information we do need to help them make design decisions. We cannot take the project from them, making every decision for them, so we can only let them share their considerations with us when they feel it is needed and will help us all achieve the overall design goals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Partial threadjack ....
I find this kind of thinking interesting, especially in light of how many gamers across the internet gnash their teeth when a publisher (e.g. Atari) "makes" the development team do things that are absolutely abhorrent, at least to said teeth-gnashing gamers.
Now, we are roughly in the spot of the publishers .... Interesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one here is afraid of knowledge. In fact, I am member of a group whose #1 philosophy is the pursuit and disbursement of knowledge.
The wise man humbly seeks knowledge; the tyrant takes it by force.
"So long as it gets you what you need, what does it matter?" ~Turian Ambassador, Mass Effect II
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a slippery slope, if they start revealing individual discussions via video or internal notes on timetables or priorities, they risk have every minor thing being scrutinized and criticized. They'll likely end up spending more time defending or explaining each step they take rather than getting anything built or running.
Transparency is good. I think the level of transparency and openness by GoblinWorks is commendable.
To suggest that increasing transparency without limit doesn't come without negative consequences is naive.
I'm a software developer myself, that is what I do for a living.
I can tell you that sometimes mistakes are made, backtracks are needed, sometimes we just need to hash things out, brainstorm, try stuff, revert, try something different. That is mostly internal.
I could not possibly imagine our clients having intimate access to our daily discussions and work process. It would stifle our internal communication because we would have to constantly be guarded in what we say, and measured in what we relay in terms of product. We'd also likely be scrutinized for time management or work approach, by people who can't even program no less.
Far worse though, I could imagine our project managers would spend less time helping to focus and organize our work, and more time building powerpoints and explaining transcripts from meetings to help stakeholders grasp the meaning of conversations taken out of context.
---
The CEO Ryan Dancey talks to us every day. That is more than most, and IMHO it is enough.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a terrible analogy.
Most open-sourced projects, not all, but most, are essentially free.
Money involved changes everything - as evidenced here.
You've provided some money and now feel entitled to certain things.
I understand this intimately, as I work almost exclusively in the open-sourced space. I live on bitbucket and github, so I understand what it means to have complete transparency (which doesn't exist in reality because tons of discussion happens over IRC so isn't documented for the public) and yet still have no ultimate obligation to the user of the software.
Why? Because they haven't paid me anything. I'm escalate and fastrack certain issues in the queue if somebody sponsors it, but otherwise I work on it because I need the software.
Now, of course that shows that as being payees GoblinWorks owes us something, and they give us "stuff", info and updates. Paying money does not, IMHO, entitle us to be sit in on every one of their meetings and look over their shoulder as it were.
---
They deserve the opportunity to work through their software issues in a healthy work environment, not one where they have thousands of stakeholders watching and critiquing their every move.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's a terrible analogy.
Most open-sourced projects, not all, but most, are essentially free.
Money involved changes everything - as evidenced here.
You've provided some money and now feel entitled to certain things.
I understand this intimately, as I work almost exclusively in the open-sourced space. I live on bitbucket and github, so I understand what it means to have complete transparency (which doesn't exist in reality because tons of discussion happens over IRC so isn't documented for the public) and yet still have no ultimate obligation to the user of the software.
Why? Because they haven't paid me anything. I'm escalate and fastrack certain issues in the queue if somebody sponsors it, but otherwise I work on it because I need the software.
Now, of course that shows that as being payees GoblinWorks owes us something, and they give us "stuff", info and updates. Paying money does not, IMHO, entitle us to be sit in on every one of their meetings and look over their shoulder as it were.
---
They deserve the opportunity to work through their software issues in a healthy work environment, not one where they have thousands of stakeholders watching and critiquing their every move.
So in your view the community feeling entitled to a decent product is a good reason to hide the production process from the community? I don't follow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, the is a mis-characterization of what I said.
I think sharing some of the production process with the community could be helpful in making the players aware of how things work, and what to expect in terms of updates, fixes.
Letting people watch videos of team meetings and such as you (PyroRath) suggested, and other drastic steps, is entirely inappropriate in my opinion.
As an aside, I don't really think letting the community have unfettered access to the production process would really make many of them feel better anyway. It would probably just make people more anxious and create more questions as they now are trying to digest software development work flow and project management.
I think the main flaw here, is that (good) - we get good transparency, and but you perhaps mistakenly think that more is inherently better.
More of something is not always better.
There are some places perhaps where Ryan Dancey could perhaps provide more clarity, but there needs to be boundaries so that their team can focus on what they need to be doing, rather than constantly responding to every request for clarification or explanation.
---
Facepunch Games is a great example of how high transparency and disclosure (to a fault) can disrupt the development process, cause developer burnout and frustation, while still not making the "customers" happy or even more knowledgeable about what is going on.
Phew, thanks. I was getting exhausted refreshing to check for replies. Byee!