A lot of the feedback (if not most of it) given to CCP deals not with specific changes to individual gameplay elements, but CCP’s conduct as a business, regarding the promises they make (and often don’t keep), the general course of development for the game, and macro-level issues with the game as a whole (e.g. null-sec stagnation).
As far as metrics concerning what players do in-game are concerned, they can give a very inaccurate picture of reality, because players (especially new and inexperienced ones) are effectively, and often unintentionally, corralled into certain patterns by the game’s structure. Let me make an example for you: a player starts playing, completes the tutorial, completes the career agent missions, completes the SOE missions, and then starts running missions for normal agents. CCP looks at these statistics showing that so many new players end up running agent missions, and say “wow! new players really love missions! we should reinforce that aspect of the game further!” But what those statistics don’t show is that those players end up running missions because their initial set of experiences shoehorns them into this playing pattern, and by the time they finish their learning phase, running missions is all they know, so they continue doing it. It could very well be the case that those players would enjoy other aspects of the game much more than missions, but they don’t get to find out, and neither does CCP, because they trap themselves with their own statistics.
Are we doing "what is the nature of subjective reasoning and its place within a submarine simulator, and how this interacts with facts, repesented by X as X = ? (See sub-debate “What is a fact and how do I aquire it”, sub section 2, paragraph 1, sentence starting “MAKE MINING LASERS DO TARGETTED MODULE DAMAGE”)
Thank you. That is a perfect example of one type of post that is destroying the ability to provide constructive feedback on this forum.
Not clear who you are talking to.
Making a direct personal accusation.
Failure to grasp the constructive relation to context, therefore defaulting on “rant”.
Cannot even use grammar correctly in a three word post.
Nothing constructive added in the process.
Suspicion raised of favoritism for still existing on this forum despite all the above and more repeated hundreds of times.
Conclusion: Constructive feedback is pointless here.
This is all perfectly civil and on-topic commentary for the discussion at hand. It’s great clarification of an important distinction in language usage.
This part is unnecessary, and is probably what MB is referring to with his comment about ‘ranting’. It’s not directly related to the subject at hand, could be construed as talking about moderation (in violation of the rules), and detracts from your initial statements. Less of the latter, more of the former, and you will be less likely to see someone call you out for ranting. You could have made your point in a less vitriolic fashion by saying ‘I wish more people understood and accepted this distinction’.
As for the ‘not clear who you are talking to’, if you received a reply notification, it was a reply to you. It isn’t MB’s fault the forum software doesn’t include the ‘who has been responded to’ notice in this situation.
I’m not defending trolls. I’m highlighting that the issue isn’t with the players, it is with the software. It has been discussed in other threads. It isn’t something any if us as forum users control. If you didn’t get a reply to notice, it wasn’t directed at you; if you did, it was. If you aren’t sure who third parties are talking to, you can ask, but of course are not guaranteed an answer.
If it bothers you that other people may be unsure whom you are replying to, there are two things you can do:
Post feedback in the appropriate subforum for CCP Aurora to review if it is an adjustable setting.
Actively tag every one of your replies with who you are responding to so that everyone is clear, instead of just you and the responded-to party, on whom you are addressing.
Would be a great help if you directed this at someone other than me.
From what I see, we have the tools. Quoting is dead easy and makes everything dead clear.
That being the case, you are defending an indefensible person and should instead be directing your advice there rather than to me.
So why aren’t you? Because you actually know that I will actually read and understand and offer an opproriate reply. Now, could we please drop it? Nothing is going to change.
That advice is meant for you, since you demonstrated a concern with a lack of clarity on who is being addressed by someone’s post.
Either you got a reply-to alert and already knew it was addressed to you, or, you did not and made the assumption that it was you so you could pick at MB.
Regardless, you illustrated dissatisfaction with the way the forum handled that scenario, which is outside of user control. I provided clarification on that being a forum behavior - and realistically users should not have to add a quote or a tag in their replies to create this clarity, the forum should be doing it automatically. I provided two avenues to address this for yourself. If you choose to avail yourself of them, great. If not, no harm done by putting the info out there - someone else may benefit from it.
At no point was I defending the actions of any person. Explaining the forum’s lack of reply tags in-thread and directing your attention to opportunities for clarity (in the form of replied-to notifications) is not a defense of anyone’s actions. It’s a description of the realities of the system.
I think you are baiting me. There are at least two options to make this clear and I am sure you are perfectly aware. 1) click “reply” to post rather than thread and 2) insert a quote. Its not a software issue. Its also not complicated. I can see that some posts were directed at other users. Its in the top right corner of the post. If that’s blank the user clicked “reply” to thread.
Baiting is another reason why constructive feedback is useless here.
I’m going to buck the trend and thank CCP for bring such fantastic content to Wormhole space in the form of the Guardians Gala. For once they didn’t forget about us!. Thank You!!
Well, I can’t speak for anything that happened before I showed up, but I have most certainly seen plenty of people complaining about their threads getting locked and their posts getting deleted. And from what I’ve observed, the idea that CCP deletes criticism just because it is criticism is patently false. There have been plenty of people, including myself, who have openly criticized CCP on the forums without being subject to any moderater action. Post do not get deleted just because they criticize CCP or reveal some truth. They get deleted because they violate community guidelines.
Well, the T20 scandal was BS. But you talk this like it’s a pervasive and ongoing problem. So, I got to ask, you got some evidence to go with those accusations? You’re not talking about the partnership or recruiter programs are you?
