Voting system 7 days

[grieferbastard]

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.

 

Do you think the money in a game company gets split evenly?

[grieferbastard]

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

 

I get what you're saying but the idea that it went 'the wrong way' is your personal opinion. I love it way more now than LBD.

 

Any alpha product is going to change, and change significantly. That's in the warning you read through when you buy the game in a development state.

 

I'm all for a system for people to give feedback to TFP but I just want to make clear that no game company should, or would, make their game based on player feedback. It's not only inefficent but likely to design a bad game overall.

[Roland]

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.

 

Could you post the source on this? I'm pretty certain they said they reduced the number of zombies in the streets for performance reasons. I don't recall the reduction of outdoor zombies being a change that was due to player feedback.

 

I also recall that it was explained that this reduction is the first step in a new "Encounter Mechanic".

 

But I could be wrong in my recollection and maybe TFP did state that the outdoor spawning reduction was in response to players asking for that.

[Hek Harris]

But I could be wrong

Don't open the Pandora's box.

[KrashYT22]

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 - - -

 

 

 

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.

 

I did not even know that there was such a poll. And I am glad that the leading points were exactly those that were leading for me. Namely the old skill system. Practical training system. And the absence of a gate blocking development.

 

I’m also glad that you have the same opinion that you just had to modify the system, and not just remake it from scratch. Previously, the truth was felt immersion in the atmosphere of the game.

[Brian9824]

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 - - -

 

 

 

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.

 

Yes because the A17 system introduced level gates which were WIDELY unpopular. If you were to run another poll with the new system it would show something very different.

 

Hence why only 10% of people said they liked the level gates. So that is why no one wanted the A17 system.

 

They did do several changes from that poll including doing away with the level gates, removing the limits to progression, and so on

[Viktoriusiii]

Yes because the A17 system introduced level gates which were WIDELY unpopular. If you were to run another poll with the new system it would show something very different.

 

If you could make a followup poll where you are only allowed to vote if you have played A16, then I would bet my hat on it that the poll wouldnt change much... but since that is only speculatory, we can only go by what we have.

[JCrook1028]

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.

 

No one said it was unprofitable. Nice strawman tho...

 

Also, you really think income is split between all employees? Speculating about how much is earned and how it is spent is not only in bad taste but iirc it is also against forum rules?

 

ps. Rick and Joel recently said on stream TFP has approx 25 full time employees and 10-15 part time.

[KrashYT22]

Yes because the A17 system introduced level gates which were WIDELY unpopular. If you were to run another poll with the new system it would show something very different.

 

Hence why only 10% of people said they liked the level gates. So that is why no one wanted the A17 system.

 

They did do several changes from that poll including doing away with the level gates, removing the limits to progression, and so on

 

Again, this is more like a lie. For the level gates were not removed, they simply changed. Now the level gates are attributes. Such as strength, agility, stamina and so on. In the older version, those bonuses that give these attributes separately gave separate skills. Now it’s mandatory individual skills to open the gate of perks.

[Viktoriusiii]

No one said it was unprofitable. Nice strawman tho...

 

Also, you really think income is split between all employees? Speculating about how much is earned and how it is spent is not only in bad taste but iirc it is also against forum rules?

 

ps. Rick and Joel recently said on stream TFP has approx 25 full time employees and 10-15 part time.

 

I will just leave this here:

 

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.

 

Show me a job where you can earn more than 400k a year in the private sector. That is ~35k a month.

And I was extremely nice with my /25 proposal. Since TFPs get the lion share which means they get MUCH more than that.

So telling us this is just about the passion, when MM himself stated multiple times that it IS about the money (and about passion, but more as an afterthought) is silly. That is why I pointed this out.

I do not blame MM or TFPs. Money is nice. I just wanted to show that his statement was big big bullocks!

[Brian9824]

Again, this is more like a lie. For the level gates were not removed, they simply changed. Now the level gates are attributes. Such as strength, agility, stamina and so on. In the older version, those bonuses that give these attributes separately gave separate skills. Now it’s mandatory individual skills to open the gate of perks.

 

No that is not a lie.

 

For instance in A17 you couldn't craft quality 6 tools until level 80 or something like that.

 

In A18 you craft them at like level 15 if you want, it's just a matter of how you spend your points. There is no gate and you can pump up any stat or skill at any time.

 

THAT is the exact OPPOSITE of a level gate.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

I will just leave this here:

 

 

 

Show me a job where you can earn more than 400k a year in the private sector. That is ~35k a month.

And I was extremely nice with my /25 proposal. Since TFPs get the lion share which means they get MUCH more than that.

So telling us this is just about the passion, when MM himself stated multiple times that it IS about the money (and about passion, but more as an afterthought) is silly. That is why I pointed this out.

I do not blame MM or TFPs. Money is nice. I just wanted to show that his statement was big big bullocks!

 

To be fair there is a massive difference between the company making that money and the employees making that money. You do realize the employees are most likely salary and there could always be bonuses but you don't just give our all your profits to employees....

[Limdood]

So...voting...polls...so that the devs can see accurately how the playerbase feels about a certain issue...

 

Tell me, what percent of the total people who bought 7dtd are currently ACTIVE on the forums? How would people off the forums get a voice in these polls?

 

Do you honestly think that that percentage is an equal representation of all types of players of the game? Or are the active forumgoers going to be the most satisfied? least satisfied? most hardcore? most casual? How would underrepresented people on the forums get an equal voice in these polls?

 

What about people who are only considering buying the game? How would they get a voice if they aren't on the forums?

 

You want scientifically accurate statistics...well...you can't have them...not in the form of voluntary polls on a forum.

 

You cited the LBD poll, where you say that 75% of people favored that system...well that poll was voluntary...people would only seek out an opportunity to voice their opinion if they were unhappy, and the poll was posted immediately after LBD was removed. Of course it was populated by dissatisfaction. Heck, the new system wasn't even fully understood.

 

Voting...in the form of polls for data collection isn't easy. There's a whole science around it. How many political polls have you seen on facebook where you read them and think "well, these questions are total Bulls***!" Because the people that crafted those questions made the poll to tell them what they WANT to hear. It takes teams of people with blind checks and conflicting biases, with experience and innate understanding of psychology and language to craft a poll. One mistake and the poll, and as a result, ANY data gleaned from it, is completely useless. It doesn't even take intent to screw up a poll. One word, put in a place that wasn't well thought out. One question, asked in such a way as to confirm rather than to give an option, and a poll's integrity is ruined. The LBD poll was answered the way it was because of the delivery method of the poll, the timing of the poll, the wording of the poll - in short, it is completely worthless. People citing it either have no clue what credible sources are or how they're vetted, or are willfully ignoring those factors in the hopes that their audience is too stupid and will be swayed by corrupt data.

[HungryZombie]

Polls are a terrible way to judge things. Ask Hillary Clinton.

[KrashYT22]

So...voting...polls...so that the devs can see accurately how the playerbase feels about a certain issue...

 

Tell me, what percent of the total people who bought 7dtd are currently ACTIVE on the forums? How would people off the forums get a voice in these polls?

 

Do you honestly think that that percentage is an equal representation of all types of players of the game? Or are the active forumgoers going to be the most satisfied? least satisfied? most hardcore? most casual? How would underrepresented people on the forums get an equal voice in these polls?

 

What about people who are only considering buying the game? How would they get a voice if they aren't on the forums?

 

You want scientifically accurate statistics...well...you can't have them...not in the form of voluntary polls on a forum.

 

You cited the LBD poll, where you say that 75% of people favored that system...well that poll was voluntary...people would only seek out an opportunity to voice their opinion if they were unhappy, and the poll was posted immediately after LBD was removed. Of course it was populated by dissatisfaction. Heck, the new system wasn't even fully understood.

 

Voting...in the form of polls for data collection isn't easy. There's a whole science around it. How many political polls have you seen on facebook where you read them and think "well, these questions are total Bulls***!" Because the people that crafted those questions made the poll to tell them what they WANT to hear. It takes teams of people with blind checks and conflicting biases, with experience and innate understanding of psychology and language to craft a poll. One mistake and the poll, and as a result, ANY data gleaned from it, is completely useless. It doesn't even take intent to screw up a poll. One word, put in a place that wasn't well thought out. One question, asked in such a way as to confirm rather than to give an option, and a poll's integrity is ruined. The LBD poll was answered the way it was because of the delivery method of the poll, the timing of the poll, the wording of the poll - in short, it is completely worthless. People citing it either have no clue what credible sources are or how they're vetted, or are willfully ignoring those factors in the hopes that their audience is too stupid and will be swayed by corrupt data.

 

Well, I wrote. That the polling system would be nice to integrate into the game itself. So that people playing can evaluate each item, etc. etc.

 

And about the juggling of meaning in the question, well, that's another question. I think people are able to vote in simple polls right into the game. For example, do you think that zombies are very few, do you think that zombies are very many, and so on. This is not a solution. It will simply be statistics, for clarity, no more.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

No that is not a lie.

 

For instance in A17 you couldn't craft quality 6 tools until level 80 or something like that.

 

In A18 you craft them at like level 15 if you want, it's just a matter of how you spend your points. There is no gate and you can pump up any stat or skill at any time.

 

THAT is the exact OPPOSITE of a level gate.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

 

 

To be fair there is a massive difference between the company making that money and the employees making that money. You do realize the employees are most likely salary and there could always be bonuses but you don't just give our all your profits to employees....

 

Sorry, but reducing the size of the gate does not equal removing the gate.

[Roland]

I can’t imagine any poll that would show that people think there were too many wilderness zombies. TFP didn’t reduce them in response to player wishes, they reduced them for performance reasons. Please provide your source for this premise you keep using for your point.

[Limdood]

Well, I wrote. That the polling system would be nice to integrate into the game itself. So that people playing can evaluate each item, etc. etc.

 

Wait, you want to interrupt people while they're doing what they want in order to barrage them with questions.

 

What do you think of people who canvass parking lots for polls or petitions while you're trying to go somewhere? Do you like reading the EULA in games? What if you HAD to? and then answer the questions it was asking before you play?

 

Oh...it's not before you play? It's an optional screen/menu that people can go to, but they don't need to, they could just choose to ignore it and play the game? Then you're right back to the problem with optional polls. They only appeal to the dissatisfied who are looking for an outlet to change things. If I loved everything about the game, why would I give up time that I was looking to spend playing it to answer questions?

 

Also the simplicity of a question does not preclude or determine the leading nature or bias of the question.

 

The question you asked...Do you think that zombies are very few? (this is a yes or no question, by the way)

What do you mean? Do you mean zombies overall in the game? Zombies in POIs (which, In a17 would sometimes have like 16 zombies packed into a 1 family home)? Zombies in the wilderness? Are you asking about the horde sizes? The wandering horde sizes? Are you asking about specific biomes? Are we ignoring or counting the wasteland? What constitutes "very few?" Early game? late game? mid game? Are you asking from a gameplay standpoint? a lore standpoint? a graphics standpoint? a performance standpoint?

 

Your simple question is packed with dozens of places for people to assume what you mean and answer WILDLY differing questions from what you just asked.

[hotpoon]

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

 

Yes, this is a great point. The devs have no obligation to do whatever the majority wants them to do, however, a poll should prevent certain snarky comments from certain snarky people insinuating that certain people are just 'squeaky wheels', 'or 'the vocal minority'.

 

I would venture a guess that those who argue against having the poll are the ones who suspect that their opinion will be in the minority and then they can't keep using those prior mentioned snarky responses.

 

Also your point of introducing the poll into the game itself, further ensures better feedback. I suspect that some users have more than 1 forum profile, so voting in the forum alone could be a bit skewed. If the voting were in-game, you would need to own multiple copies of the game to have multiple opinions, which I think is fair.

[grieferbastard]

I will just leave this here:

 

 

 

Show me a job where you can earn more than 400k a year in the private sector. That is ~35k a month.

And I was extremely nice with my /25 proposal. Since TFPs get the lion share which means they get MUCH more than that.

So telling us this is just about the passion, when MM himself stated multiple times that it IS about the money (and about passion, but more as an afterthought) is silly. That is why I pointed this out.

I do not blame MM or TFPs. Money is nice. I just wanted to show that his statement was big big bullocks!

 

 

So wait a second, are you saying that TFP has paid everyone on staff 400k a year?

 

That would be amazing - and possibly one of, like, 3 or 4 examples, at most, of that approach to profit sharing in not just gaming but small business in general.

[grieferbastard]

I can’t imagine any poll that would show that people think there were too many wilderness zombies. TFP didn’t reduce them in response to player wishes, they reduced them for performance reasons. Please provide your source for this premise you keep using for your point.

 

This. In a nutshell, exactly this but on the whole game scale.

 

If polled players would say "I want better game performance and optimization!" However TFP needs to decide what options for doing that match their available time and resource commitments and what their relative return is.

 

So why even poll it? There certainly are some design decisions where a bit of player feedback isn't bad the reality in design is that the players are not in a position to really understand what the options are. If polled players would all want a big slice of cake to hold and also eat, without having to give up anything required to get either.

[Brian9824]

Well, I wrote. That the polling system would be nice to integrate into the game itself. So that people playing can evaluate each item, etc. etc.

 

And about the juggling of meaning in the question, well, that's another question. I think people are able to vote in simple polls right into the game. For example, do you think that zombies are very few, do you think that zombies are very many, and so on. This is not a solution. It will simply be statistics, for clarity, no more.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

 

 

Sorry, but reducing the size of the gate does not equal removing the gate.

 

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Since nothing stops how you choose to spend your points unlike in A17 when you couldn't spend points until you hit an arbitrary level i'd consider that a level gate.

 

I've yet to talk to a single person aside from yourself who considers stat requirements a level gate (in part because there is no level minimum involved anymore)

 

But even if you just want to claim that the level gate was reduced its still far better then the previous system which was clearly shown by that poll you want to use as some sort of proof.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

This. In a nutshell, exactly this but on the whole game scale.

 

If polled players would say "I want better game performance and optimization!" However TFP needs to decide what options for doing that match their available time and resource commitments and what their relative return is.

 

So why even poll it? There certainly are some design decisions where a bit of player feedback isn't bad the reality in design is that the players are not in a position to really understand what the options are. If polled players would all want a big slice of cake to hold and also eat, without having to give up anything required to get either.

 

95% of polled players would say stuff like, I want to never get infected, or I want invincible blocks, or I want laser guns.

[A Nice Cup of Tea]

So wait a second, are you saying that TFP has paid everyone on staff 400k a year?

 

That would be amazing - and possibly one of, like, 3 or 4 examples, at most, of that approach to profit sharing in not just gaming but small business in general.

 

Not only that but apparently they have no expenses or overhead at all. All income (not just profit, but income) is apparently just divided equally amongst all the employees.

[Jihh]

I would venture a guess that those who argue against having the poll are the ones who suspect that their opinion will be in the minority and then they can't keep using those prior mentioned snarky responses.

 

As far as I remember I never called any position the position of a vocal minority here. I'm way to seldom on this forum to have any insight on what the majority wants or what the overall tendency in this forum (which probably isn't representative) is. But I'm againt polls, since I know how bad polls as an instrument for feedback are. And even if the result of a poll would be, that everyone wants the same, it still doesn't mean that this is the best for the game.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Not only that but apparently they have no expenses or overhead at all.

 

Also it seems like they don't plan for future projects which probably will cost money.

[hotpoon]

As far as I remember I never called any position the position of a vocal minority here. I'm way to seldom on this forum to have any insight on what the majority wants or what the overall tendency in this forum (which probably isn't representative) is. But I'm againt polls, since I know how bad polls as an instrument for feedback are. And even if the result of a poll would be, that everyone wants the same, it still doesn't mean that this is the best for the game.

 

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about 2 or 3 other people who enjoy using those terms. They know who they are.

 

I agree that what the majority wants *might* not be good for the game, but it's still interesting to know. Like I said, the devs have no obligation to actually do what the majority of people want.

[Viktoriusiii]

So wait a second, are you saying that TFP has paid everyone on staff 400k a year?

 

That would be amazing - and possibly one of, like, 3 or 4 examples, at most, of that approach to profit sharing in not just gaming but small business in general.

 

dont know. never said that.

My point is that this game made so much money, that I think that you would be hard pressed to find a "normal" job with madmoles qualifications that would pay that much.

I don't want to speculate about how much money someone got. Just wanted to debunk the thesis that its all about passion and you get paid less than average, when that is clearly not the case (those 400k were on the lower side and 800k is probably more realistic, I highly doubt that any boss of a company that made so much money in such a short timespan wouldnt pay himself a great bonus. More than what EA would pay you to be a programmer for fifa for sure.)

[dregonazure]

This is the pimps' game, not ours. Yeah you could make more polls or ingame ones but actually making major changes based on poll data would be terrible. Yeah you can voice your concerns but I don't see any benifit to say having a pole ingame. People may ignore it or say they may have played the game in the past and now are just waiting for it to be fully released before playing it. The best an ingame pole will show is the amount of people that care enough to use said pole.