Hethwill, the Red Duke

I get what disposable income is. If you don't, your problem. That's as far as it goes.

If it's not disposable income, then it isn't. I don't get it.

References moderated content. - H. Darby

Hobbies are "disposable income" territory.

@z4ys @Socialism Forum Rules, 13. Do not divert discussions to off.topics

@Michael Corvinus @Angus MacDuff this thread is Combat and Boarding Feedback. Forum Rules, 13.

?????????? I'm talking about communication 1on1 between a player and a game designer. If you read what i wrote, the design decision to solve the problem may not be what the player wants but that doesn't mean is not successful game design and that it proves right in the end. Not talking specifically about any aspect of NA at all. We have boards dedicated to the different mechanics. This thread is about Communication. Mostly theorycraft and how to improve it, both ways. In the case of the example i put up, the thing would be, from devs patch note: - "Region Death had a increase of enemies (design solution for the problem presented by the community). They are now triple numbers and five times more patrols. Players are advised to prepare for continuous firefights in the area." Simple. Clear. And without any margin of doubt. Take it of leave it, that's what the designers wanted for that specific game portion; and no amount of whining would change the fact that the guys making the game wanted that area to be really really dangerous and player must prepare. Regarding NA... Try to hear the noise of the lights. Sometimes things make more sense than not.

Tell me more how encyclopedia of ship handling doesn't matter "much". 😑 If it doesn't matter "much" there's no issue with wiping everything. No double standards please. Be honest at least once.

I am talking about communication between players and game designers. - you report game experience - designers approach the issue in a designers point of view and NOT on your point of view. That's the morale of the story. Leave your moderation concerns out of my way. I don't care about them if you follow the rules.

It is real. Devs decided that players had to understand that area was not like the others. So the concern of - too many enemies - was void but valid in a game design POV. So they increased the amount of enemies so the Players understand and prepare for a combat heavy area instead of expecting just another area. It worked. Game was Borderlands by the way. So, Hachi, i'm sorry that it worked as the devs envisioned. Pretty sure it didn't work for all, but it worked. Players understood the design and started playing it accordingly. NA is no different regarding that player - designer communication. And the designers find ways, not fix whiners issues. That's the entire end of the story. In any case, old filmmaking adage, that goes something like "If people are complaining about the music, there's something wrong with the lights" So don't expect game design to be what you see or expect as player. Hence don't be hostile to the point of ceasing communication and hating the game.

It has run its course indeed. GL crew can still open if they feel the need.

Okay, time for game design communication tale of wonder. I must thank a friend of mine for telling this tale about how communication works sometimes, in surprising ways and how a game designer solves problems without having to cater for anyone but the game and thus solving the problem. Lets just say the game is called OurFirstGame, OFG. So, developers of OFG setup a open world, that can be explored by the players, but there's storylines and whatever. So the players can do their own planning and advance accordingly while exploring the world. I'd say it is a sandbox on rails. Devs of OFG design one of the regions of the map to have a LOT of enemies. Really challenging. Next day players come to the Communication center and start crying and screaming and accusing devs of many things. You know, the typical "You guys are drunk!" type of thing. Obviously the development team sits down and starts going over ALL the feedback that makes sense. This means players were displeased with the result... but... would it be a developer issue or player issue ? Was the message not clear enough ? How to solve the 'crisis' ? So OFG designers found the problem was not the players, was their own design. Was not clear enough. Their solution ? They tripled the amount of enemies in that region. ... You know why ? Think a bit about 'game design' itself and NOT how to solve a player problem ( or appeasement of cry babies ) and how ACTUALLY increasing the amount of enemies to the triple solved that one BIG problem. - Communication worked perfectly. The developers understood the problem reported by the players and SOLVED it in the light of the design of OFG. - So why ? WHY make it even more difficult if that was the main concern of the players !? ... ( answer is fairly simply and the game was a big score btw, but those that can guess what it is doesn't matter, is not about that game, is about communication and design decisions )

Balance is blind to individual human concerns. Hence voted for balance and hope for the best.

Theme of this thread is Communication. Clear, honest and acceptable forms of Communication in the Forum. Try to keep the theme as central piece. Discuss the theme, not the persons.

Apart from 'suffering by anticipation' feelings ( we all do go through that unless we are 100% bits and bytes ) Has this happened already ? Any data to support the 'nation A with premium ships rekt nation B without them' in a valid test scenario ? ( equivalent player numbers and PvP/RvR at the same timezones )

1. Buys product for 'when it is released' during early access which grants access to development builds and 'not released' product. 2. Confuses privilege of accessing development builds with 'I am now a tester and can ORDER the devs what game to design' 3. Breaks every rule of fair and educated communication with other users and company employees and volunteers. 4. Turns from fan into a hater. - has nothing to do with good or bad communication. this happens a lot - So before anything you should be honest with yourselves and see where you forgot the essentials: - not a designer. not a GL developer. not anything NA related except that you bought the game and have access to forums and early builds. Respect and honest behavior walk hand in hand. - Communication is a issue with many indie development houses. Being a staunch follower of about 10 products (as today) in the same vein as NA early access and in development for more than 4 years, i see the exact same. More time dedicated to their development and less to 'blogs, twitter posts, facebook updates' but they never miss the essential - forum/platform updates. Funny thing is that many indies rely on prospect gamers to be the ones being actively searching for news and promoting the game. One of them is actually and might win a bafta. Due to the game design and players passing the word and showing the quality.

Premade list from 3decks names could work. Same way as the AI captains are named.

One 'word'. - once "you" go outside of the game discussion and attack the devs and other users, that means you are ACTIVELY trying to hurt the game. See the difference "my dude" ? As Jodgi said, absolutely no one has ever been disciplined for game discussion.

I know. Speaking in a broad approach. We all seen what competitive bile can spew and the lengths some go to ensure it.

Of course. I'm a suspect because I rather limit alts full force and provoke some less liberties to honest folk, that's all. I play honest and do help other nation's buddies. But going to the extent of using "other nations" to provoke some exploit battle turns my stomach. So I rather see less liberty at the expense of less BS from metaalts.

Why help a "enemy player" ? See... this is where it starts.

What about only the original battle nations are able to enter ? e.g. If a Brit attacks a French, only brits and french can enter.