| Author |
Topic Search
Topic Options
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Posted: 25 Jul 2013 at 22:45 |
I don't think we should interpret silence from the devs as indicating inactivity. Rather, it usually indicates they are working on some really difficult problems and will shortly unveil a large quantity of something or other. (Shortly being ... an elastic term.)
I sure hope the shine is not off the apple for Stormcrow and Thundercat, because one of the things that delights me about Illy is the joy they take in creating the game. I hope that they are still enjoying themselves as much now as they were when I began playing more than two years ago.
|
 |
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Posted: 26 Jul 2013 at 00:19 |
|
Announcing a major new release seems to indicate strong engagement, not insufficient interest. Perhaps the devs felt their appearances in GC were distracting, or drew too much negativity. Free Internet games can sometimes generate a background drone of low-grade antagonism towards company representatives (often for attention purposes) that can quickly swamp an otherwise productive community interaction.
|
 |
Ashtar
Greenhorn
Joined: 12 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 93 |
Posted: 26 Jul 2013 at 05:26 |
|
True - the devs did used to be more active in GC and the petition system really needs work. It is a matter of setting priorities and I believe you should fix what you have before you release new content. I have suggested a council of players to look at the petition issue before and was shot down by Luna due to the confidentiality rules of Illy. I still believe it is a good idea and would help resolve many of the current issues, however i will respect the terms and conditions of play. Having said that, I would love to see GM SC, and TC in Global chat more often. We miss you guys!
|
|
Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. -
Buddha
|
 |
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1173 |
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 00:42 |
|
the petition system is effectively a list made by the community. some items on the list are actual game-breaking bugs, others are exploits that might not distort things too badly if they are not widely known, others are informational issues (misspellings, mislabelled terrain), and many are misunderstandings questions that might be answered in a tutorial, etc. many petitions even of the "game-breaking bug" variety will not give enough information to reproduce the problem, leaving the devs with insufficient information to address the problem. competing with that list is another list of priorities, now including Broken Lands, the long-awaited pathfinding, new magic, faction AI, etc...any of which the devs would rather work on, any of which will draw, as individual items of work, more players into the game than addressing a petition. so i propose that it is as unreasonable to expect the devs to address every petition as it would be counterproductive as a business strategy. indeed, i would go so far as to say that GM TC spending time addressing a list of misspellings rather than implementing new content would be mismanaging his time in a way that most players would not support.
so the challenge to the devs is not to deplete the petition list, but to identify the 10% of petitions that actually need to be addressed. part of that strategy may include ignoring some particularly odd-sounding petitions because "something that broken is bound to happen again," and if it does happen again someone will put it into the petition system. updating the petition puts it back on top of the proverbial inbox, and also establishes that that very strange thing that happened to you once in December is in fact still happening in May and may have been happening all in the interim. the devs must budget their time, and doing so is to the benefit of the game and the community at large, if not to any individual player.
now i do have one suggestion that might not be too invasive and i doubt would lead to a pay-to-win environment, though it may upset some players: if a player is fussed about something that doesn't seem to be making it onto the devs' to-do list, would it be helpful to allow the player to attach a prestige value to the petition to give it priority in the queue?
|
 |
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011 Location: Oarnamly Status: Offline Points: 1857 |
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 01:41 |
Angrim wrote:
the petition system is effectively a list made by the community. some items on the list are actual game-breaking bugs, others are exploits that might not distort things too badly if they are not widely known, others are informational issues (misspellings, mislabelled terrain), and many are misunderstandings questions that might be answered in a tutorial, etc. many petitions even of the "game-breaking bug" variety will not give enough information to reproduce the problem, leaving the devs with insufficient information to address the problem. competing with that list is another list of priorities, now including Broken Lands, the long-awaited pathfinding, new magic, faction AI, etc...any of which the devs would rather work on, any of which will draw, as individual items of work, more players into the game than addressing a petition. so i propose that it is as unreasonable to expect the devs to address every petition as it would be counterproductive as a business strategy. indeed, i would go so far as to say that GM TC spending time addressing a list of misspellings rather than implementing new content would be mismanaging his time in a way that most players would not support.
so the challenge to the devs is not to deplete the petition list, but to identify the 10% of petitions that actually need to be addressed. part of that strategy may include ignoring some particularly odd-sounding petitions because "something that broken is bound to happen again," and if it does happen again someone will put it into the petition system. updating the petition puts it back on top of the proverbial inbox, and also establishes that that very strange thing that happened to you once in December is in fact still happening in May and may have been happening all in the interim. the devs must budget their time, and doing so is to the benefit of the game and the community at large, if not to any individual player.
now i do have one suggestion that might not be too invasive and i doubt would lead to a pay-to-win environment, though it may upset some players: if a player is fussed about something that doesn't seem to be making it onto the devs' to-do list, would it be helpful to allow the player to attach a prestige value to the petition to give it priority in the queue?
|
Very good post. I believe this sums up the truth of the petition system quite well.
I also like the suggestion but I would be willing to bet most players will poo poo it. Perhaps adding a refund when/if the problem described in the petition is solved. In other words, if you have a problem that you want to get more attention from the Devs, attach Prestige to it. The Devs investigate, find it to be a true issue, fix the issue, close the petition and refund the Prestige. If, on the other hand the issue is found wanting, either not a game play issue or not enough information, they ignore as before and no refund. The amount could be something like 25, not too much that most could afford it but enough to make one think "is this a good petition?"
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
 |
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 519 |
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 01:44 |
Angrim wrote:
competing with that list is another list of priorities, now including Broken Lands, the long-awaited pathfinding, new magic, faction AI, etc...any of which the devs would rather work on, any of which will draw, as individual items of work, more players into the game than addressing a petition. so i propose that it is as unreasonable to expect the devs to address every petition as it would be counterproductive as a business strategy. indeed, i would go so far as to say that GM TC spending time addressing a list of misspellings rather than implementing new content would be mismanaging his time in a way that most players would not support. |
If you don't know what is wrong with your system (ie. you do not address bugs), then how can you implement new code? Is the problem confined to some rarely used subroutine or is it in a core module? Is there a flaw with a core module that your "new stuff" heavily depends on?
The quoted text is many times how management views software development. It's not how software development works. If it's broke, you didn't create it right. If you didn't create it right, it does not make sense to add code without knowing if the house of cards will hold up. At what point will the whole thing collapse under it's own weight and would that be a "good business strategy"?
Deliberately choosing to gain new customers at the expense of current customers is called "churn". It's a sleazy business strategy. In the long term, that strategy always fails.
|
 |
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1173 |
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 12:26 |
this is a gross oversimplification of a quality process, operating on the false dilemma of "broke"/"not broke".
Salararius wrote:
If you don't know what is wrong with your system (ie. you do not address bugs), then how can you implement new code? |
when a petition is entered and has not yet been investigated, the devs do not/cannot know whether or not it is a bug. many times, the player will not know either. so a decision must be made based on the initial description and the likelihood that there is a real fixable problem behind the description. giving every report immediate priority would drive more players from the game, because it would require a subscription fee to justify that level of support.
Salarius wrote:
The quoted text is many times how management views software development. |
indeed. because management must concern itself not only with the quality of the system, but also with paying the developers to work on it. customers do not pay for quality they cannot perceive. if developers would volunteer, management might be much more relaxed about it. lacking GM TC's participation in that plan, however, illyriad would have to become open source to be the recipient of such community largesse, and while that might appeal to some, it's not really a decision we can make.
Salarius wrote:
It's not how software development works. |
it is, actually, which is why this thread exists at all.
Salarius wrote:
If it's broke, you didn't create it right. If you didn't create it right, it does not make sense to add code without knowing if the house of cards will hold up. At what point will the whole thing collapse under it's own weight and would that be a "good business strategy"? |
i hardly know where to begin. this "broken" piece of software is still working well for hundreds/thousands of players. should every perceived bug halt development? at what point would the development team achieve this nirvana of perfect knowledge required to proceed? is illyriad "broken" because it allows armies to walk over water as they would land? is it "broken" because players can multi-account until they're caught? quality is a continuum, not a switch.
Salarius wrote:
Deliberately choosing to gain new customers at the expense of current customers is called "churn". It's a sleazy business strategy. In the long term, that strategy always fails. |
hmmm. i rather appreciate some churn, actually. we sometimes call it "new blood". it's the rate that can be counterproductive, not the fact of it. likewise, yes, *all* business strategies fail in the long term. as do governments, dynasties, etc. which is why it's important to concentrate on the "term" and not the "fail".
|
 |
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012 Status: Offline Points: 915 |
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 13:03 |
|
i think something that needs to be addressed is how lack of gm involvement in the current game is enabling the game to become crazy full of resources, gold, and armies. with current game mechanics of slow builds and the destructive nature of warfare the game needs to provide ways of using these massive amounts of resources being produced. instead of addressing that issue we are seeing our aging mature game becoming very rich and nothing to really spend them on but dated mechanics that are tedious to perform. with current sitting and deletion rules and lack of threats players have billions just sitting there...hubs can store unlimited resources and there is little need for military....there must be over 2000 to 3000 accounts with 6 or more castles and this amount is increasing...the gms must address this issue and really take a look at their mission statement of non involvement and their direction of adding more land.
|
 |
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 20:06 |
|
Angrim, thank you for so eloquently defending sensible software management.
Salararius, you also provide a valid technical viewpoint, but it's taken to a rather impractical extreme (re: "house of cards"). I sounded the same way when I was fresh out of college. That was before I arrived at the perspective that while engineering was my personal profession, the corporation that employed me was a business. There is a necessary tension between technical pride and perfectionism, vs. providing a practical system to customers in a way that provides an ongoing paycheck for your employees. Both mind sets are necessary in a company, and I would venture to say that it is even healthy for your 100% technology-focused engineers to hold the mindset you expressed.
When you are a customer who has encountered a bug, it is of course very difficult to view your own problem as one that might not get prioritized by business management. I didn't appreciate that until I was put in charge of running the defect review council for our product. My idealism about fixing every issue soon caved to realizing that there are only so many hours in the day, and some of our customers paid us far more than others. You try not to let the product crumble, but new features are what drive new business. Bug fixing is often best approached by fixing serious problems immediately, and blasting everything else in a few weeks of a quality focused release.
|
 |
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 20:07 |
|
@twilights: Well, there won't be any huge stockpiles or perma-sat accounts in Broken Lands.
|
 |