New Shop Released

[Door]

When trying to market/improve a game, there is no such thing as a player who is wrong. If a player quits after 2 seconds, it is your problem. If a player finds the enemies difficult, it is your problem. If a player is bored by the quest, it is your problem. You shouldn't be making excuses for why a player is negatively experiencing or misinterpreting your game because it is never, ever their problem. Just about anyone who has even the slightest bit of marketing understanding or experience understands this fact.

Granted, there will always be the people who will never enjoy anything you make at all, but there's no way for you to genuinely identify those people, even after it seems like they've created a pattern. As somebody trying to make a game (server) that others will like, you have to assume that every problem someone cites is a valid problem that needs addressing. But more importantly: even if you honestly think it's not a valid suggestion and/or that it is being made by someone who represents .0000001% of the playerbase you are targeting, you should never state that publicly.

What you have been doing is inadvertently advertising your server as being the opposite of player-friendly. Your attitude is saying that the server is the way it is, and no matter what people have to complain about regarding it, they are wrong. You are making a massive mistake by toting this attitude around everywhere you go because you basically create an "us vs them" atmosphere, "developers vs players." You are alienating and patronizing the people who could be doing some valuable viral marketing for you.

To further illustrate my point, I'll use an analogy that I'm familiar with and like to use whenever this sort of thing comes up.

This "us vs them" effect is something that permeates a lot of social situations. If you've ever taken a course or two on education, you've definitely learned a little bit about it. One of the worst things a teacher can do is mock a student--any student, even one that s/he taught decades ago or one that the rest of the class despises. The reason is this: human beings naturally identify themselves in terms of categories.

A classroom full of students might group themselves into certain cliques internally and be in opposition to one another (student vs student). However, if a conflict arises between one of the students and the teacher, the cliques will be disregarded in favor of students vs teacher. No matter how strong those student vs student cliques were, they are still all students when faced with a separate hierarchical figure, so to speak. Teachers who mock students immediately become untrustworthy, and students lose a great deal of respect for them.

The point of deviating into that tangent was this: You are a developer/admin on Classic, making you at a separate hierarchical level from the players. This may only extend to the boundaries of Classic, but it still exists on that server. For that reason, you should assume that any non-staff member who plays on Classic will identify as "a player" rather than "a developer," and if you mock/berate/patronize/hand wave any player, even one that is disliked by others, then all players will still be naturally inclined to identify with that fellow player more than with you.*

So basically your attitude regarding criticism sucks, and you are sabotaging yourself.




*Sometimes the peer cliques are so strong or hierarchy is so convoluted that this phenomenon won't apply in the exact way I've described it. In general, however, it really does work out like this. Anyway, you should always assume it applies just for the sake of good practice. Plus, everyone likes Crono, so good luck with that one LOL!

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Door

When trying to market/improve a game, there is no such thing as a player who is wrong. If a player quits after 2 seconds, it is your problem. If a player finds the enemies difficult, it is your problem. If a player is bored by the quest, it is your problem. You shouldn't be making excuses for why a player is negatively experiencing or misinterpreting your game because it is never, ever their problem. Just about anyone who has even the slightest bit of marketing understanding or experience understands this fact.

I don't see how I'm making excuses here, all I've done is question why certain individuals have made a big point out of deciding to quit but without actually making any point as to why they quit.

Originally Posted by Door

Granted, there will always be the people who will never enjoy anything you make at all, but there's no way for you to genuinely identify those people, even after it seems like they've created a pattern. As somebody trying to make a game (server) that others will like, you have to assume that every problem someone cites is a valid problem that needs addressing. But more importantly: even if you honestly think it's not a valid suggestion and/or that it is being made by someone who represents .0000001% of the playerbase you are targeting, you should never state that publicly.

You're making it out as if we're ignoring some of the things that have been said, when it's actually been made quite clear that we understand the feeling and it's something we have plans in order to deviate towards in future.

Originally Posted by Door

What you have been doing is inadvertently advertising your server as being the opposite of player-friendly. Your attitude is saying that the server is the way it is, and no matter what people have to complain about regarding it, they are wrong. You are making a massive mistake by toting this attitude around everywhere you go because you basically create an "us vs them" atmosphere, "developers vs players." You are alienating and patronizing the people who could be doing some valuable viral marketing for you.

Well that's funny, one of the main complaints was that the Questing is too linear and streamlined towards keeping new players on track, and that this is too monotonous for an experienced gamer.
And again, it was made clear that we do not disagree with this notion and intend to work towards a different direction in future.
Somehow you see this as "us" saying "they" are "wrong", you're seeing something that quite simply isn't there.

Originally Posted by Door

The point of deviating into that tangent was this: You are a developer/admin on Classic, making you at a separate hierarchical level from the players. This may only extend to the boundaries of Classic, but it still exists on that server. For that reason, you should assume that any non-staff member who plays on Classic will identify as "a player" rather than "a developer," and if you mock/berate/patronize/hand wave any player, even one that is disliked by others, then all players will still be naturally inclined to identify with that fellow player more than with you.*

Again, I think you're seeing something that isn't there, all I've been trying to do is suggest that rather than say something like "it's annoying", it would be much better to actually describe how something is annoying, and then maybe we can go about changing it.

Originally Posted by Door

So basically your attitude regarding criticism sucks, and you are sabotaging yourself.

As it happens I've seen one specific suggestion as to how something within this quest can be improved, and I like the idea of it, yes that's a terrible attitude.

[jacob_bald6225]

Originally Posted by Door

To further illustrate my point, I'll use an analogy that I'm familiar with and like to use whenever this sort of thing comes up.

This "us vs them" effect is something that permeates a lot of social situations. If you've ever taken a course or two on education, you've definitely learned a little bit about it. One of the worst things a teacher can do is mock a student--any student, even one that s/he taught decades ago or one that the rest of the class despises. The reason is this: human beings naturally identify themselves in terms of categories.

A classroom full of students might group themselves into certain cliques internally and be in opposition to one another (student vs student). However, if a conflict arises between one of the students and the teacher, the cliques will be disregarded in favor of students vs teacher. No matter how strong those student vs student cliques were, they are still all students when faced with a separate hierarchical figure, so to speak. Teachers who mock students immediately become untrustworthy, and students lose a great deal of respect for them.

T


*Sometimes the peer cliques are so strong or hierarchy is so convoluted that this phenomenon won't apply in the exact way I've described it. In general, however, it really does work out like this. Anyway, you should always assume it applies just for the sake of good practice. Plus, everyone likes Crono, so good luck with that one LOL!

I dunno, it is all about audience. In developed communities of learners(IE: Classes that have been together for years--Like the "classic community") the students will distrust the teacher. However in "new communities"- like when a class is broken up amongst many schools in a system the teacher holds way more power and sets the tone of the class. So a response to critiscm like this only hurts the old community. Which, from what I've seen, isn't the focus of the development- so it isn't as big of a problem as you're making it out to be.

Also, if you let the students dictate what you're doing and when, you aren't going to get anywhere. Sometimes you have to tell them "Relax I've ****ing got this" and just teach(develop) what you think is necessary.



I think you're putting too much emphasis on the community and not enough on actually getting things done development wise. To get things done you have to make decisions and work forward. Sure, this lesson(or quest) didn't work. When you realize that it is best to let it go and do better next time and not take 3 steps backwards to fix mistakes.