New efforts!

[MM3squints]

Zombie is a negative term though, horribly negative.  Think about what the word does for people joining our community for the first time in say CoT or actually, more likely to be an issue, Issue 23.  They'd get the impression that we don't plan to do anything until we bring up atlas park revival or city of titans.  But then they'd not be happy in CoH I23.  By using more positive terminology you help reinforce morale with people, they get to feel more positive that hey, something is coming up and it's very much there.  By calling it a zombie, it'd be like your trying to exploit in their heads.

Edit: Another way to think of it: If your selling someone a sirloin or wanting to buy a sirloin for a dinner and someone asks "how tough is it?", you use the word that it's "firm" rather than "tough".  You also mention how much flavor the meat has, and how packed it is.  You use positive words rather than negative ones and you have a better shot at success.

From a marketing Copy writer stand point, you are correct. It is no coincidence Disney has the phrases they have to project a certain picture of themselves (my sister was a copy writer for Disney Parks and she said you can't say "Magical" when describing attractions inside the park itself because the phrase "Magical Kingdom" is already taken and you can't have one word or phrase associated with two different entity.) This is not that case, this is a case where I am talking to a community that basically would not be on this thread let alone this website if they didn't want CoX to come back. I'm sure just because I say "zombie" or anything as a joke, it won't make people suddenly have an epiphany thinking, "probably the finished negotiated product will suck because this was referenced as a zombie." In a sense I am talking to a clique where where words are just words and this clique could care less how someone describes something in order to draw an illustration to my point. Am I a representative of the team revival team, the negotiation team, the marketing team or any way affiliated with the projects on hand? Nope. Calling stuff for what is without having to "check yourself" is a sign of endearment because you are conferable with the product and the organization. Where do you think I came up with my name in game? In the Navy, my eyes squints so people gave me the nickname squints and for CoX purposes I just took my rank and my nickname and ran with that because I lack creativity. I think you probably know where I'm heading with this statement, but I am coming short of saying it.


Edit: spelled Clique instead of click

[Arcana]

Zombie is a negative term though, horribly negative.  Think about what the word does for people joining our community for the first time in say CoT or actually, more likely to be an issue, Issue 23.  They'd get the impression that we don't plan to do anything until we bring up atlas park revival or city of titans.  But then they'd not be happy in CoH I23.  By using more positive terminology you help reinforce morale with people, they get to feel more positive that hey, something is coming up and it's very much there.  By calling it a zombie, it'd be like your trying to exploit in their heads.

I23 is the epitome of thaumaturgic binary necromancy with exceptional chrysalytic stability.

[Golden Aurora]

I get the whole zombie analogy to a point.
A zombie is the undead. That is to say something which is not living but is still able to act on the world.
If one considers a state of code which cannot be modified as not living, then this definition fits.

Note I said nothing of marketing, mismanagement, cash shop whoring, or anything defining a franchise zombies.
I'd say the similarity ends there.

Also Arcana, this is for you.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Dawn_of_the_Dead_2004_movie.jpg

[LaughingAlex]

I get the whole zombie analogy to a point.
A zombie is the undead. That is to say something which is not living but is still able to act on the world.
If one considers a state of code which cannot be modified as not living, then this definition fits.

Note I said nothing of marketing, mismanagement, cash shop whoring, or anything defining a franchise zombies.
I'd say the similarity ends there.

Also Arcana, this is for you.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Dawn_of_the_Dead_2004_movie.jpg

This one gets it.  There are also oher terms, like phased out, to describe old equipment/software that doesnt have support.  Its kind of why i say retired is a better term.

[worldweary]

We live off dead stuff right?Oil comes to mind.Sure there is other stuff.

[Arcana]

This one gets it.  There are also oher terms, like phased out, to describe old equipment/software that doesnt have support.

Actually, the term for equipment that is no longer supported is not "phased out" it is actually "end of life."

So...  something that is used past that point is, err...

[Codewalker]

So...  something that is used past that point is, err...

A fully depreciated asset?

[darkgob]

I was speaking of my reactions to another community, actually, about a year ago.  Of which I don't even post in the forums anymore.  But until a spiritual successor comes along or something those negative experiences will be a bit fresher than I'd like them to be.  Heck Paragon Chat wasn't out for a year yet, even, and I still get word of the things happening to the other game I used to actually enjoy.  I wasn't so much as reacting as voicing concerns that with the whole zombie discussion attitude that we'd be heading in the same bad direction.

Assuming you're talking about Champions (and I'm not sure why you're dancing around naming the game), blaming the community for the state of the game is really misdirected since the game has been horribly mismanaged (and misdesigned, if we're being frank) from the get-go; that's not the fault of the community.  Regardless, I still think you're massively overreacting and need to take a couple steps back.  Frankly it's kind of irritating to have one person stand up and dictate how the community "needs" to act and what precise words should be used.

[LaughingAlex]

Assuming you're talking about Champions (and I'm not sure why you're dancing around naming the game), blaming the community for the state of the game is really misdirected since the game has been horribly mismanaged (and misdesigned, if we're being frank) from the get-go; that's not the fault of the community.  Regardless, I still think you're massively overreacting and need to take a couple steps back.  Frankly it's kind of irritating to have one person stand up and dictate how the community "needs" to act and what precise words should be used.

I talk more about how st the same time players often gave intentionally bad feedback, often for their own little agenda, and the devs would because their brains had fallen out, implement them no matter how bad the idea was.  The devs are partly to blame for being unable to tell the difference between a good and bad idea, but also i feel that community is to blame for enabling that and exploiting that in the first place.  I also blame how some would rub salt in the wound if they'd gotten what they wanted at everyone elses expense.  That was the main thing that really drove people away; by not only convincing developers to implement extremely unpopular ideas, but also the rubbing it in all the time, the game got a rep as having a very bad community.

How the game was designed, have you ever hear of differing people preferring different types of gameplay?  CO had it's own style in a way.  It had it's own potential but it was killed by developers who just didn't really get why people who enjoyed it, enjoyed it.  But they often listened to people who just had no tolerance for how others played, especially in the later days when instead of fixing a legitimate problem, they'd often take shortcuts.  If there was something that did need fixing, they'd simply change it so the bug was still there but people wouldn't use it, but often also so even those not exploiting a bug associated with a power would not use said power at all.

This sledge-hammer approach to "balance" was very, very frequently encouraged by players who had a very pessimistic view in the first place.  They had an attitude "Well they cannot do anything complex so get them to do something in the easiest way possible".  This often lead to suggestions that, while easier to implement, were often very damaging on the whole.  Instead of encouraging the developers to actually put some effort in the game, players in CO's forums DISCOURAGED them.  Repeatedly.  It got to a point where no one wanted to speak of anything and couldn't trust anyone.  This became even more of a problem when PWE took over.

You could say, that it's initial design was poor but ultimately, it's the direction that mattered.  Was CoH any better/worst initially, when  you look at it objectively?  It wasn't until after Issue 9 or so when the game grew the beard.  But it was players supporting it and encouraging developers to make smart decisions and the fact we got developers who listened to reasonable people.

But then, lets look at how community communication can lead to good and bad things.  Developers love to please people, and they'll even try to please everyone.  Thing is, sometimes the most vocal people in the forums are in reality a minority.  They are merely vocal about a playstyle or tactic they dislike, and complain in the forums.  Because when they complain in chat, they get no support of their view of something that is "cheap".  So they complain in the forums, and unlike the chat, the forums have others who were a minority in chat.  This leads to developers making a mistaken assumption however that the forums are how the majority feels even though the majority everywhere else have the opposite view.  This results in the minority winning, and changes that the minority support, but at the expense of the majority.  This is how a game could easily end up less balanced, especially if those vocal players really just wanted the game to be played in their very specific way :/.

It can go the other way, of course, and quality of life improvements can and have happened in games when someone comes up with a brilliant idea that everyone supports and the forums are open minded enough to back it up.  This lead to very awesome things like Dark Souls, for example, and Deus Ex Human revolution.  Player communication allowed for both games to develop into very fun games.

But thats where we saw the very thing killing CO come into play; anytime an idea was GOOD or increased diversity in things, it was shouted down hastedly by the very people asking for the more unpopular ideas.  This lead to a game made for a very, very, very narrow audience that frankly isn't even very fun even for those people, since it became stagnant :/.

But CO isn't the only game to go through with that.  In fact quite a few games get ruined this way, hell the developer of Deus Ex: Invisible War spoke of the exact same fault in development; he listened to the worst people who felt the original Deus Ex sucked.  So he listened to their "improvements" and you ended up with a game that was very immersion breaking and just generic feeling.  Hell even some popular modern games suffer from community-originated ideas and splitting, such as the sonic the hedgehog series.  The game series cannot stay true to any form because it's player base is impossible to please; a huge portion want something that is in complete conflict with what another huge portion wants.  This leads to games that ultimately suffer for it.

[LaughingAlex]

I just thought of this just now, though, to.

Perhaps it's time we stopped thinking "the community" and "the developers" as separate entities and instead consider both to be any game's community?  Because at a whole, the developers are people who are involved with the game, to.  I think any game where the developers tend to talk and act like they are not the community has a major issue; the developers cannot understand their players because they see them as completely different than themselves.

What made city of heroes awesome, was how the developers considered themselves as part of the community.

Edit: Reworded to make my point clearer.

[MM3squints]

I just thought of this just now, though, to.

Perhaps it's time we stopped thinking "the community" and "the developers" as separate entities and instead consider both to be the games community?  Because at a whole, the developers are people who are involved with the game, to.  I think any game where the developers tend to talk and act like they are not the community has a major issue; the developers cannot understand their players because they see them as completely different than themselves.

What made city of heroes awesome, was how the developers considered themselves as part of the community.

I don't know except you, who thought they were mutually exclusive (I sure didn't.) Good rule of thumb is because you believe it is happening, doesn't mean it is the norm.

[Arcana]

I talk more about how st the same time players often gave intentionally bad feedback, often for their own little agenda, and the devs would because their brains had fallen out, implement them no matter how bad the idea was.  The devs are partly to blame for being unable to tell the difference between a good and bad idea, but also i feel that community is to blame for enabling that and exploiting that in the first place.

The devs are singularly to blame for all the stupid things they did, whether they were encouraged to do so by idiot players or not (and there were many idiot players suggesting idiot things).  Ultimately, that's what the devs get paid to do.  They are the professionals, and they should know better.

I don't think the player community has much moral standing to complain when they get what they ask for and then they don't like it, but they aren't responsible.  Children are not partially responsible for talking their parents into feeding them ice cream for dinner.  The responsibility falls exclusively on the parents.  If you don't have a vision for the game you're trying to make, if you don't know what you actually want to do or what kind of game you want to make, if you think it would be best to leave it up to a community committee, then you shouldn't be a professional game developer.  Stick to being a game player instead.

[Arcana]

I just thought of this just now, though, to.

Perhaps it's time we stopped thinking "the community" and "the developers" as separate entities and instead consider both to be the games community?  Because at a whole, the developers are people who are involved with the game, to.  I think any game where the developers tend to talk and act like they are not the community has a major issue; the developers cannot understand their players because they see them as completely different than themselves.

What made city of heroes awesome, was how the developers considered themselves as part of the community.

I myself thought of them explicitly as part of the City of Heroes community.  That's why I then and now tend to distinguish that from the player community which is the subset of the City of Heroes community composed of people that primarily played the game, rather than developed it or performed administrative duties for running the game or the support infrastructure for the game.

[LaughingAlex]

I don't know except you, who thought they were mutually exclusive (I sure didn't.) Good rule of thumb is because you believe it is happening, doesn't mean it is the norm.

When I said that I was more thinking of just game communities in general.  Many game communities, the players and the developers don't consider themselves as part of the same community.  This leads to a disconnect of which the developers set themselves up.  Either they end up easily manipulated by a forum vocal minority, or just don't make good decisions in general.  Either way, they make major mistakes and it costs them and the player community.

As for Arcana's first reply.

I think most players need to consider taking a level of responsibility in what they post.  The complete lack there-of, even more-so when the moderators themselves don't do their jobs, generally leads to all kinds of problems.  And trolls tend to be trolls and need to be taken care of by moderators.  But when moderators themselves prove to be trolls or routinely side with the vocal minority trolls, well, even worst can happen :/.

Responsibility ultimately boils down to everyone involved.  It's why responsible parents teach their kids it or try to.  Some people never pick it up, and either go through life angering most people or in jail or something.  But most individuals pick up responsibility.  Heck, I think people need to be more responsible in what they post online.

[Felderburg]

Good rule of thumb is because you believe it is happening, doesn't mean it is the norm.

Interestingly, I have ended up making the opposite assumption: I am not so exceptional as to be the **only** person who thinks of a certain idea.

[LaughingAlex]

I don't know except you, who thought they were mutually exclusive (I sure didn't.) Good rule of thumb is because you believe it is happening, doesn't mean it is the norm.

I wasn't implying I thought they were 'always' separate, honestly I feel half attacked by you.

I know of a good number of games where the devs are also truely part of the games community.  Dwarf fortress, Unreal tournament, Minecraft to name a few.  Those are all successful.

When I posted that I was thinking of those bad games where the developers were to some extent or another separate and isolated from the players.  Who rarely ever really see how people play.  I talked of those games that end up falling apart.

[Arcana]

I think most players need to consider taking a level of responsibility in what they post.  The complete lack there-of, even more-so when the moderators themselves don't do their jobs, generally leads to all kinds of problems.  And trolls tend to be trolls and need to be taken care of by moderators.  But when moderators themselves prove to be trolls or routinely side with the vocal minority trolls, well, even worst can happen :/.

Of course they do.  But the degree to which they have responsibility for that they post revolves around the degree to which they enhance or degrade the community they are posting within.  They are responsible for being good citizens.  But they are not responsible for the content in the game, because they have no responsibility to contribute to it, even if they think they deserve some.

I often said on the official forums that no matter how impatient I would get, no matter how frustrated I might feel, and no matter how certain I was right about anything in City of Heroes, I never faulted the devs for ignoring me completely and doing something totally different because it was their job to do what they thought was right, not what Arcana thought was right.  They would be and should be judged on the work they did by their peers and their customers, and their future ability to work in their chosen profession should be based on the competency they showed executing their job responsibilities.  It is never an excuse to say "well, the players asked for it so we did it, even though we thought it was a bad idea."

Castle had every right to borrow my ideas, steal my ideas, ignore my ideas, ignore me, tell me to go climb a tree if he wanted to.  He was getting paid to do a job, and while I might judge the work itself I never judged his right and responsibility to do what his professional wisdom told him to do.  Truth is, I knew more math than all of Paragon combined and I was a better, faster, and more accurate numerical analyst than everyone in the building combined.  If you wanted to know how much damage an attack chain did, my answer was going to be better than theirs.  But that just makes me a useful tool for the devs.  They had to decide when and how to use that tool, if at all.

Did I feel personally responsible for what I posted to the community and what I shared with the devs? Sure.  But that's just me, owing to the fact that I felt a responsibility to act in a manner consistent with my own professional ethics and commensurate with the trust I had earned from both the player community and the devs.  But if I saw a stupid idea posted in the forums and then saw the devs actually implement it, I would blame the devs, not the player.  The player paid for the right to express their opinion, stupid or otherwise.  The devs were paid to use their brains responsibly when listening to players.

[MM3squints]

I wasn't implying I thought they were 'always' separate, honestly I feel half attacked by you.

I know of a good number of games where the devs are also truely part of the games community.  Dwarf fortress, Unreal tournament, Minecraft to name a few.  Those are all successful.

When I posted that I was thinking of those bad games where the developers were to some extent or another separate and isolated from the players.  Who rarely ever really see how people play.  I talked of those games that end up falling apart.

Don't get me wrong it's not an attack, just how I think and what I applied in my life. You can call me salty, cynic, jaded, etc, I just have a very dry way of communicating what I think and if it comes off attacking and if you felt it was an attack I apologize. If you notice my posts in the past I either talk in a very sarcastic tone or if I am attacking someone, I don't beat around the bushes, I come at them directly. The last comment was somewhat sarcastic (but then you can't really translate sarcasm over the internet fully unless you type *Kappa*) I was like in the Navy when some kid out of boot believing the fleet was this weird colorless reality (I guess that's what they started teaching in boot) and refused to believe stuff like the "mafia" existed to right now where my company went through a major data restructuring and people believed the old way was the norm so they preceded to continue on the old path without acknowledging the what has been implemented (that's of course until their KPIs starts messing up and then realizes they can't believe what they perceived to be the norm and learn the new system)

[Arcana]

When I posted that I was thinking of those bad games where the developers were to some extent or another separate and isolated from the players.  Who rarely ever really see how people play.  I talked of those games that end up falling apart.

But both of the examples you gave, Champions Online and Deus Ex: Invisible War, were not done in by being disconnected from the player base.  As you yourself posted, in both cases the devs were engaged with the player community, and their real errors were indulging a specific segment of it.  But it isn't easy to know when you're engaging a dangerous minority.  It may seem obvious in retrospect, but even in City of Heroes that was never obvious.  We saw what was posted on the forums and what our immediate contacts told us.  The devs saw the data that showed how players actually played, private messages we never saw, and other feedback channels that Cryptic and NCSoft constructed for the game - exit interviews, bug reporting forms, etc.  When the CoH devs said back around I6ish that most players did not have a single level 50 character, many forum posters professed disbelief to the point of believing the devs were actually lying or somehow lost the ability to count.

It is one of the big risks of engagement, that it is incredibly difficult to know what exactly you're engaging with.  It is never "the players" but always some subset.  You never get the whole picture: no one does.  You hope that you're skilled enough to know if it is a sufficiently representative subset.  But most people will get this wrong.  I get the impression you believe if only those two dev groups were engaged *enough* they would be able to tell that they were getting feedback from a very skewed sample.  But I don't think that is true necessarily.  How do you define "enough?"  Would you even recognize it yourself?

[Vee]

Zombie is a negative term though, horribly negative.

Zuvembie, everybody.