Voting system 7 days

[KrashYT22]

There was a huge post from the developers that they read reviews of thousands of players, and did as they asked. But then in each social network it turned out that the players asked in most cases the opposite.

 

I think, a very long time ago it was necessary to implement an interactive voting system on the site. And also enter a similar one into the game. So that people can go to the polls and participate in polls, as well as observe the opinions of other players.

 

Just a commonplace script for voices. You click on the big button, and people see the question in capital letters. For example, “Is there too much loot (average complexity is acceptable) in the game?” And answer options. 1. Make less, 2. It suits me. 3. Make more.

 

And then everyone will see the interest, 30% to 40% to 30%.

 

So trite, but there will be no more messages that one person speaks for everyone.

 

Also in the main menu, in the line between the new game, settings, exit the game. Somehow it’s authentic to add a button, like development, development of the game. And so on. And there, the moderators will insert the most discussed polls from the forum in order to increase the coverage of the poll already in the game.

 

So trite. But thanks to this it will be possible to objectively know what the players want. And already listen to objective statistics.

 

Because one of the highlights of alpha 18 was that. What the developers said they listened to reviews, and went to meet the players. Reducing the number of street zombies. BUT, there was always a million that players complain that there are very few of these wandering zombies. Something like this.

 

He wrote through a translator, so that meaninglessness is possible.

 

Visually write `` + '' in the comments under the post to vote for the idea, if you read of course up to this point.

[Kalarro]

deleted

[Jeraal]

+

I like the idea of a poll in the game menu. A lot of players never come to the forums.

[KrashYT22]

No. As much as I ask them for things I want and tell them what I dislike, making it like you say would probably be the dawnfall of the game. They need to read the forums and what people think and want, but at the end it's better if they take the decitions instead of leaving them to an online poll.

 

EDIT: well a poll would be good so they gather information, not denying that. But they dont NEED to do whatever choice wins.

 

Nobody cancels the forum, and all these detailed discussions. I mean, the polls will be clear statistics.

 

For example, 10 negative players can write their posts on the forum, and developers will appreciate them. But in fact there are 100 players, of which 90 did not give their feedback, but for example they had their own opinion, and would easily put their vote in the poll window.

 

I proposed a voting system solely to see everything in cold numbers.

[Kalarro]

yeah you are right, I deleted my post

[Viktoriusiii]

 

I proposed a voting system solely to see everything in cold numbers.

 

A17 hater here.

They don't care about numbers. When steam reviews plumeted to 33% first they said it was normal and they are just haters, then they said it was only because of performance and then because A17 was just so unfinished/rwg sucked.

About 75% of all the comments I read were people complaining about the leveling system/progression.

And even now after 11 months and .4 beeing out for the longest time steam reviews are still at 66%. That is about 20% lower than what A16 had and ~10% lower from what the lowest ratings had ever been before A17.

 

So don't worry that they will change the game based on feedback. If they dislike the feedback, they will ignore it, no matter how loud.

 

Huge rant incoming, just skip.

 

Which, granted, can be a huge plus... but also its an EA title where fans have only minimal say if any.

I remember the backlash for the burning zombie... which got changed... and the bear... which everyone applauded them for.

But when we tell them that a more instance based progression (from 1->100 in steps of 1 to 1->10 and 1->600 in steps of 50 to 1->6) is less rewarding and that forcing a player to chose instead of giving him the freedom to "train/farm/min-max" is limiting a sandbox, then suddenly its "dying on that hill".

I get it... they worked hard on A17... Sadly it was bad work by the gamedesigner and they just doubled down.

 

Long story short:

TFPs have one major problem. They rather scrap/rework something instead of tweaking it.

LBD? Only needed some tweaks to be balanced (like damage from environment not giving xp and small changes like that)

Traders? Only needed some slight changes to pricing just so that certain items cant be masssold. Instead they rework how guns and tools are crafted and MASSIVELY inflated trader prices to a point where going to the trader feels like a punishment. An unnatural one. Who would ever buy/sell anything to that guy at those prices?

Log spikes? Make them a falldamage multiplier and a 50% damage recoil on hit (on walls for example) and they are golden.

 

And so much more.

But they often have this mentality "we don't like it, remove it! Who cares if players liked it!"

 

 

 

A poll wouldn't change their opinions. Not on the stuff that matters. They implement electric doors and drawbridges... which is awesome... but they won't change features just bc a majority likes/dislikes it. With the argument "this forum is only a super small subset and not representative of the whole playerbase!" Even when steamreviews are literally the most diverse feedbacksource you could have.

[Kalarro]

A17 hater here.

They don't care about numbers. When steam reviews plumeted to 33% first they said it was normal and they are just haters, then they said it was only because of performance and then because A17 was just so unfinished/rwg sucked.

About 75% of all the comments I read were people complaining about the leveling system/progression.

And even now after 11 months and .4 beeing out for the longest time steam reviews are still at 66%. That is about 20% lower than what A16 had and ~10% lower from what the lowest ratings had ever been before A17.

 

 

Well, I agree about not likeing the direction a17 took, but I still felt they listened bc a18 changed several things about it. Not all, and some of the complains were "too fixed" by far (making looting useful), but all in all, I think they listened.

[Viktoriusiii]

Well, I agree about not likeing the direction a17 took, but I still felt they listened bc a18 changed several things about it. Not all, and some of the complains were "too fixed" by far (making looting useful), but all in all, I think they listened.

 

True... still not played A18. But they only did it their way is what I wanted to say.

Instead of making a reasonable change to an existing feature that is small and doesnt upset anyone, they changed EVERYTHING again (how guns are crafted, how trader works) and with that open up 10 more problems.

[Jihh]

Polls aren't always a good way to get feedback. I'd even say the are most often a bad way for good feedback. It's better to get feedback from a forum, where people can explain and discuss their feedback. An ingame poll, even with a commentary function probably wouldn't work well for most topics, since (almost) nobody wants to write long texts, when he/she already is in the game.

[Viktoriusiii]

Polls aren't always a good way to get feedback. I'd even say the are most often a bad way for good feedback. It's better to get feedback from a forum, where people can explain and discuss their feedback. An ingame poll, even with a commentary function probably wouldn't work well for most topics, since (almost) nobody wants to write long texts, when he/she already is in the game.

 

Trust me. From my 4 years experience on this forum... they don't care about good arguments. They think they have the best and complainers are only haters and a small subset and everyone who doesnt leave a comment on the forums or steam reviews loves what they are doing.

I'm not making this up.

[Jihh]

So assuming you are right and they don't care at all, what could a poll do that the forum can't? Worse feedback won't lead to better decisions, just because more people participate in it.

[KrashYT22]

14, 15 alpha were ideal. The mechanic herself of the objects and skills was good. It's just that everything was raw for some moments. But the game felt good. And when no one complained about the old pumping system and objects, they decided not to improve it, but simply change it to something else. Make some other game in the literal sense.

[Brian9824]

14, 15 alpha were ideal. The mechanic herself of the objects and skills was good. It's just that everything was raw for some moments. But the game felt good. And when no one complained about the old pumping system and objects, they decided not to improve it, but simply change it to something else. Make some other game in the literal sense.

 

If your referring to the old crafting system a TON of people complained about it. The old way while logical was highly unfriendly. It was a horrible experience to craft tool after tool only to turn around and re-smelt it and repeat over and over just to raise crafting. People would spend entire days doing nothing but sitting in their base queing up dozens of workbences with crafting high cost items and going into each one as it finished for the xp and then turn around and destroy what they made.

 

For combat skills on the other hand it was great, but skills like medicine were next to impossible to level without having to engage in grinding.

[ktr]

If your referring to the old crafting system a TON of people complained about it. The old way while logical was highly unfriendly. It was a horrible experience to craft tool after tool only to turn around and re-smelt it and repeat over and over just to raise crafting. People would spend entire days doing nothing but sitting in their base queing up dozens of workbences with crafting high cost items and going into each one as it finished for the xp and then turn around and destroy what they made.

 

For combat skills on the other hand it was great, but skills like medicine were next to impossible to level without having to engage in grinding.

 

Even weapons got grindy when thousands of rounds needed to be fired to advance a level. I remember switching exclusively to fire arrows at one point just because it was the best way to level archery - far, far better than steel arrows or exploding bolts. Then you had things like mining and gunsmithing (I think that was the name. Whichever skill making gunpowder contributed to) that advanced probably too fast. I still had plenty of fun, but the spam crafting and beating on wood blocks with a club because 'natural' game play would never level some of these skills at a decent clip was not fun.

[Brian9824]

Even weapons got grindy when thousands of rounds needed to be fired to advance a level. I remember switching exclusively to fire arrows at one point just because it was the best way to level archery - far, far better than steel arrows or exploding bolts. Then you had things like mining and gunsmithing (I think that was the name. Whichever skill making gunpowder contributed to) that advanced probably too fast. I still had plenty of fun, but the spam crafting and beating on wood blocks with a club because 'natural' game play would never level some of these skills at a decent clip was not fun.

 

Or the old trick of filling workbench output with items and crafting high value items on it and then going around and collecting the xp.

[grieferbastard]

I don't know how else to put this -

 

Anyone working in the gaming industry could make more money elsewhere in private sector with the same skills.

 

Significantly more.

 

There isn't anyone in the INDY gaming industry who's there for the paycheck. Not true with EA/Blizzard/Activision/Sony etc but in an indy game development it's a work of passion.

 

Of course you want feedback from players and you want people to enjoy what you're creating but there is no question or issue or even moral facet to 'yes but they should make what the players want'.

 

No. Absolutely and unequestionably no. They should make the game they want to make. As a consumer you buy what you like.

 

Beyond which most players don't really know what they want, aside from they want to win and feel like they're special, etc. If game developers just made what the majority want you'd have nothing but Halo/Battlefield/CoD clones. 7DTD would look like Overwatch because more people like Overwatch than the game as it is.

 

Good tools for feedback is always great. However questions in the games startup will only get self-selected results and it's going to be from people who often don't really even understand the issue or relative tradeoffs; any changes, every second of work takes those seconds from other things. Only so many zots to spend and all.

 

TFP will make the game they want to make. If you want a different game, get the education, gather the people, fund it and build it. If that game isn't an Overwatch clone the majority of gamers in the world won't like it. Does that mean you should give up or change? What segment of the gaming population do you make happy, what segment do you piss off? Do you just go by population which, again, leads back to simple shooters?

 

No, you pick a niche, you build an idea you yourself are excited about and enjoy, and you make that and see who else does to.

 

That's good indy game development.

[Jihh]

That's good indy game development.

 

I usually like that there is no upvote system in this forum, but I'd like to give you one.

 

But I'll have to say that Overwatch actually is a fun game (or at least was until rolequeue was introduced due to players who want a competitive environment without the hassle of looking for a group).

[Hek Harris]

TFP is a company, not a democracy. Create your own business and a voting system to help you choose the decisions to make. I'll be there to buy your assets when you close.

[Viktoriusiii]

I don't know how else to put this -

 

Anyone working in the gaming industry could make more money elsewhere in private sector with the same skills.

 

Significantly more.

 

With 5-10 ppl (maybe 25 at most) and at 2.5 million copies sold (pc only not including consoles and in 2013) at a minimum price of 8$ and 30% for steam, that is still 10.000.000 /25 which is still 400.000 in about 1 1/2 years + kickstarter + most ppl have paid more than reduced prices on 3rd party websites I highly doubt you are correct.

 

MOST indy games... sure... but 7d2d is definatly profitable.

[KrashYT22]

I don't know how else to put this -

 

Anyone working in the gaming industry could make more money elsewhere in private sector with the same skills.

 

Significantly more.

 

There isn't anyone in the INDY gaming industry who's there for the paycheck. Not true with EA/Blizzard/Activision/Sony etc but in an indy game development it's a work of passion.

 

Of course you want feedback from players and you want people to enjoy what you're creating but there is no question or issue or even moral facet to 'yes but they should make what the players want'.

 

No. Absolutely and unequestionably no. They should make the game they want to make. As a consumer you buy what you like.

 

Beyond which most players don't really know what they want, aside from they want to win and feel like they're special, etc. If game developers just made what the majority want you'd have nothing but Halo/Battlefield/CoD clones. 7DTD would look like Overwatch because more people like Overwatch than the game as it is.

 

Good tools for feedback is always great. However questions in the games startup will only get self-selected results and it's going to be from people who often don't really even understand the issue or relative tradeoffs; any changes, every second of work takes those seconds from other things. Only so many zots to spend and all.

 

TFP will make the game they want to make. If you want a different game, get the education, gather the people, fund it and build it. If that game isn't an Overwatch clone the majority of gamers in the world won't like it. Does that mean you should give up or change? What segment of the gaming population do you make happy, what segment do you piss off? Do you just go by population which, again, leads back to simple shooters?

 

No, you pick a niche, you build an idea you yourself are excited about and enjoy, and you make that and see who else does to.

 

That's good indy game development.

 

I just offered an additional tool for monitoring reviews. For it was embarrassing that the developers themselves said that the community asked to do so. But the community for a long time asked the exact opposite. I did not put forward any obligations

 

About consumers and products. The game is in alpha version. The essence of the alpha version is that the player buys a raw game, verbally agreeing that he is ready to use the raw product, while supporting the developer so that the developer will improve this product. Using consumer money.

 

I am a consumer. I bought the game in alpha version. I liked her, I paid money. Waited for improvements and improvements. But the bottom line is that the game went the wrong way. The game went the way of changing the game itself. That is, a good part of the mechanic has become a completely different game. This is the point that consumers buy a raw product to be completed. But in the end, you get not an improved product, but another. It's just the way that you wrote about consumers. p.s. I wrote everything through a translator, so somewhere it may make sense

[Brian9824]

I just offered an additional tool for monitoring reviews. For it was embarrassing that the developers themselves said that the community asked to do so. But the community for a long time asked the exact opposite. I did not put forward any obligations

 

About consumers and products. The game is in alpha version. The essence of the alpha version is that the player buys a raw game, verbally agreeing that he is ready to use the raw product, while supporting the developer so that the developer will improve this product. Using consumer money.

 

I am a consumer. I bought the game in alpha version. I liked her, I paid money. Waited for improvements and improvements. But the bottom line is that the game went the wrong way. The game went the way of changing the game itself. That is, a good part of the mechanic has become a completely different game. This is the point that consumers buy a raw product to be completed. But in the end, you get not an improved product, but another. It's just the way that you wrote about consumers. p.s. I wrote everything through a translator, so somewhere it may make sense

 

The game went the wrong way IN YOUR OPINION.

Personally I think many of the systems such as the skill system and crafting are in a far better place now then they were in A15 or A16 and I know many other people agree. You claim that the community asked the exact opposite yet you don't provide any proof on the matter.

 

In fact when the devs changed crafting from grinding to the A17 method they made 2 posts. 1 for each method for people to discuss and the majority seemed to approve of the new way, even if it was less realistic because it got rid of the grind

[KrashYT22]

If your referring to the old crafting system a TON of people complained about it. The old way while logical was highly unfriendly. It was a horrible experience to craft tool after tool only to turn around and re-smelt it and repeat over and over just to raise crafting. People would spend entire days doing nothing but sitting in their base queing up dozens of workbences with crafting high cost items and going into each one as it finished for the xp and then turn around and destroy what they made.

 

For combat skills on the other hand it was great, but skills like medicine were next to impossible to level without having to engage in grinding.

 

No, I refer to the old skill development system. Where there was no gate of artificial restriction on the level of the character. According to the level of attributes and so on.

 

I also liked it when the quality of items was from 1 to 600 levels. During the repair, the level fell by a couple of percent, and so on.

 

I liked the dynamic system for the development of passive skills, like resource extraction. Possession of weapons and so on.

 

About spam through workbenches. This is bad, something could be done about it. The level of objects also increased through perks. The system was again damp, but it was interesting, it was just necessary to remove spam.

 

As for the spam shooting at the wall, and so on. This is the choice of players. For example, it was enough for me that I developed dynamic skills moving '' along the plot ''. Spam is already the choice of the players personally, if the player wants to stand still and beat the wall for 2 hours in a row, then he will find a similar occupation anywhere.

 

Just again, this system needed to be improved. It is possible to fix a little perks of armor, medicine. Well, that is, the bottom line is that it needed to be finalized. The system was raw, it needed a trivial improvement. But she was just redone in some sort of RPG quest for a calculator.

[KrashYT22]

The game went the wrong way IN YOUR OPINION.

Personally I think many of the systems such as the skill system and crafting are in a far better place now then they were in A15 or A16 and I know many other people agree. You claim that the community asked the exact opposite yet you don't provide any proof on the matter.

 

In fact when the devs changed crafting from grinding to the A17 method they made 2 posts. 1 for each method for people to discuss and the majority seemed to approve of the new way, even if it was less realistic because it got rid of the grind

 

Oh god. You don’t listen to me at all. I am saying that it would be nice to introduce a voting system so that there is evidence. So that people make clear choices on a specific issue, and we see everything in numbers.

 

Regarding the discussions, I'm not talking about changing the system with skill. The question was originally about walking street zombies.

 

The developers said that the players were begging to reduce the number of zombies in the streets, and they reduced them. But everywhere in the comments on YouTube, on social networks, people endlessly started writing that they asked to increase the number of zombies in the streets.

[Brian9824]

No, I refer to the old skill development system. Where there was no gate of artificial restriction on the level of the character. According to the level of attributes and so on.

 

I also liked it when the quality of items was from 1 to 600 levels. During the repair, the level fell by a couple of percent, and so on.

 

I liked the dynamic system for the development of passive skills, like resource extraction. Possession of weapons and so on.

 

About spam through workbenches. This is bad, something could be done about it. The level of objects also increased through perks. The system was again damp, but it was interesting, it was just necessary to remove spam.

 

As for the spam shooting at the wall, and so on. This is the choice of players. For example, it was enough for me that I developed dynamic skills moving '' along the plot ''. Spam is already the choice of the players personally, if the player wants to stand still and beat the wall for 2 hours in a row, then he will find a similar occupation anywhere.

 

Just again, this system needed to be improved. It is possible to fix a little perks of armor, medicine. Well, that is, the bottom line is that it needed to be finalized. The system was raw, it needed a trivial improvement. But she was just redone in some sort of RPG quest for a calculator.

 

The issue was with how the system was built you couldn't level a skill in a reasonable manner without resorting to basically cheating. Had to sit there and let zombies hit you to gain armor for instance. Or stand on a catcus and spam heal to raise healing. Or craft 5000 Chest Plates that you'd never actually use.

 

It's an interesting system, but it breaks in many ways as anyone who has played Skyrim or other similar games knows when trying to raise crafting skills, sneak, etc. They don't raise the same as say weapon skills that are used all the time so you have to go out of your way to spam them. There just isn't a good way to do that organic skill progression without grinding for those skills.

[Viktoriusiii]

The game went the wrong way IN YOUR OPINION.

Well that is up for debate. A17 definatively was a wrong step. and 66% seemed to agree. Now it bounced back a bit, but be aware that there are ppl that give games like ATLAS on launch an upvote (33%)

Personally I think many of the systems such as the skill system and crafting are in a far better place now then they were in A15 or A16 and I know many other people agree. You claim that the community asked the exact opposite yet you don't provide any proof on the matter.

In fact when the devs changed crafting from grinding to the A17 method they made 2 posts. 1 for each method for people to discuss and the majority seemed to approve of the new way, even if it was less realistic because it got rid of the grind

If you are talking about this, you can clearly see that 50% liked the old system and 25% would have liked an even more extreme LBD system. That is the LARGE majority with 75%.

 

And I know it wasn't you that asked before... but ppl constantly ask for proof... I have posted that like 5 times already.

PPL really loved the old way of playing. It was immersive and perfect for a survival sandbox.

If you like the new way that is fine. But even if the "ultra large majority" (how MM called them) are silent and don'T give reviews, doesnt mean they like the changes put in front. They might just not care enough about the game.

 

 

I will give TFPs credit, while looking for this poll, I have seen that they actually DID listen for most of their polls (electricity and stuff) and even though everyone wants more zombies, which they cant fulfill, they lowered the amount inside of POIs even though they were so proud of those dungeoncrawls.

So there. The good: they aren't AS bad as I sometimes make them out to be.

The meh: ppl like you who bring up the same dead argument that because they liked it and they know ppl that like it, its good

The ugly (for me personally): when push comes to shove, they WILL do what they want. No matter the feedback. They will try and patch it... put a bandage on it... but they will do what THEY think is best.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

The issue was with how the system was built you couldn't level a skill in a reasonable manner without resorting to basically cheating. Had to sit there and let zombies hit you to gain armor for instance. Or stand on a catcus and spam heal to raise healing. Or craft 5000 Chest Plates that you'd never actually use.

 

It's an interesting system, but it breaks in many ways as anyone who has played Skyrim or other similar games knows when trying to raise crafting skills, sneak, etc. They don't raise the same as say weapon skills that are used all the time so you have to go out of your way to spam them. There just isn't a good way to do that organic skill progression without grinding for those skills.

 

And I can tell you that you could. Everything but armor in A16 was very well possible to get that skill up to 80+ on day 50.

And since they only gave small % boosts you never needed them, since quality of the weapon/tool/armor was far more important (but not unimportant)

 

 

Small fixes (like faster armor leveling and environmental damage not giving xp) would have been MUCH simpler and met with less backlash than reworking basicially the entire game.