No I actually said the quality and not the volume of complain is what gets more attention. Loud, hostile, aggressive complains usually repeated by the same people (and sometimes nobody else), can end up been dismissed.
Who is the arbiter of objective quality? Are you missing the forest for the trees in that the forum represents a part of all players, and that perhaps the ones here are especially invested in having game balance improve over time, hence being vocal about balance related issues? Do you feel a lack of transparency as to what changes are being consider, or even an acknowledgement that complaints have been heard (something we lack now, IMO) could perhaps cause critiques to devolve into more pessimistic and negative talk? I know these are hard questions, but they're ones that answering would (I feel) do a lot about the discourse here. Or I dunno...give us a step-by-step of the "CB Approved (TM)" way to make a formal complaint about a rules/balance issue. Does it need to be a changenow page? surveymonkey linked to ITS codes? Messages hidden in Bostria's lunch?
Guess if you want to ignore pre-eminent voices of the community such as Mayacast and White noise who have both featured episodes on this, as well as the collective warcors whose job it is to provide community feedback. But you do you mate
That is not what I said, that is what you assume, but help me here, I go and highlight this thread as a potential rules/ balance issue to be solved, by the thread title alone the CB employees are been insulted, how exactly should they receive the points made in this thread? When I showcase 3 different threads and the same 5 people argue the same things in the same aggressive manner how exactly will I make my case? I do not know why I need to say it? be polite, be constructive, be considerate, offer examples, describe meta, offer suggested potential solutions and more importantly of all highlight why the issue is important in the wider scope of the game.
I've been doing all that for years before now. I've literally done that with regards to this issue on several occasions before now. CB's response has been to exacerbate that issue. What you're seeing is frustration. And then add in the fact that passion is often mistaken for aggression.
Yet it was dismissed several times as "just the same small bunch of guys making the bigger waves they can", implying that most people say nothing, which obviously means they are OK with how things are... while in truth those simply flee the forums, or the game (or both). Ah, ok, everything is OK as long as you stay in your caves, folks! The problem comes only when people compare notes and see the obvious exploits, like the Xenotech + MSV2 + smoke combo... XD (read with humor, please. Not trying to seriously attack here) As for the "game balanced around extras"... Limited Insertion and the changes it brought, Counterintelligence, and the "elite sectorials" we have been seeing lately seem, in my opinion, to contradict your statement. It was mentioned before, the main problem was the new extras that were added while Specops was aged and bland. But we have seen a trend (a logical one, too), in which the latest extras get added to games and tournaments over the older ones, to add more variety. In this case, a TO has the need to ensure people enjoy their tournament, so they will come back for more... and seeing how 1-2 factions can sweep a lot of opponents with minimal effort is not really fun. Sure, the winner has fun... for a time. Because seeing several with LI at 400pts around Spain is "not often"... For me it was VERY often, to see LI. And since they removed the -2orders to the first player from 1 command token, LI lists have been quite used regardless of the tournament demanding it or not. Uprising was, then, not loud enough? XD Well, "legally" I can play whatever I want as long as I use CB miniatures which represent accurately their loadout, so... If that were factually true, rules differences between translations would have been solved already. Yet it's only after a long argument that the problem is even accepted as existing. Not to mention, the Daedalus' Falls rules PDF don't say the same between the Spanish and English versions, despite the spanish ones having suffered already a correction. Considering the ridicule CB employees do every time they publish a demo video, they either don't care, or prefer to double their commit to show how little they care about something so mundane as the ruleset that sells their product. If they really considered that an insult, they would edit those videos (which are NOT LIVE videos) and make several drills so they get the rules a little better than they show. Me, I think they simple ignore us. With factual data. Being polite, constructive and considerate, offering examples and offer potential solutions has onlt been met with silence from CB's staff. That means we, the customers, have two options: be louder, or leave. Guess which one should worry more CB.
@psychoticstorm Several well-reasoned arguments for the brokenness are given in this thread, none of which contain insults to CB staff. Link to the posts specifically when you point out the problems, not the whole thread. Here's a greatest hits of this thread, if you need one:
So glad you did this. All quality comments and community input. All valid, and all meeting these mercurial expectations Pyschotic has set here and there. Shame it likely won't get a response, but then that'll give us an answer in and of itself. (PS: CB, this is the part where you prove me wrong...please?)
If the title is insulting, or the posts not polite, it probably just means players feel strongly about this subject. But ultimately, if CB is unable to objectively look at the points and evidence provided because of the attitude those points are presented in, they can choose to ignore them or put a process in place to ensure those points are presented politely. Which will require moderating. One moderator can only do so much. Maybe flag those impolite posts so members know their language has meant their post is being ignored for feedback. Members WILL learn to be polite if they want to be heard by CB. If they don't learn, who cares, because it's not like CB was listening anyway, right? Maybe hire someone to filter through these topics and take the important points further up the food chain to be looked at. If hiring someone to do this is out of the question, create a format/form members can submit that will be taken seriously. Maybe provide ways for the community to back certain issues and CB can filter by community importance. The most important thing IMO is to provide some transparency regarding whatever process is put in place. Otherwise players will never truly feel heard. Which can lead to frustration and anger. However, IMO, there a few reasons these kinds of transparent processes are not put into place. Companies are either unwilling to spend the money necessary or do not want to be held accountable for their decisions and mistakes made that are there for all to see. For example, if a company said they weren't willing to spend a dime on looking at community feedback, you'd see an upset community. If they spend billions on this, the community would love it. So if a company doesn't want to put much effort into looking at community feedback, they're probably not going to let the community see how they deal with it. If a company is unsure how the community will react, that transparency will allow for feedback, good and bad, then the company will have a better idea of where they stand and can act accordingly. It's usually about being afraid or knowing in advance their current approach is going to receive a negative reaction.
Nope. If the title is insulting, the title is insulting. If the post is not polite, the post is not polite. There are way more polite ways to address problems.
Like giving an answer before three months have passed, you know. And *this* post's title is not insulting, but reasonable considering the "demo videos" CB has published so far. To be fair, I still have to see a video of people playing Infinity with no errors, which by itself speaks volumes about the overcomplexity of the rules and their interactions.
Yes, but a company shouldn't ignore feedback based on the politeness of their customers. Look at it like this: If a charter bus company is sometimes late for their pickups when clients have appointments to keep, or a restaurant serves food with bugs in it, are the complaints and feedback really expected to be that polite? If a company ignores that feedback and continues to serve bugs and be late for pickups, is that good for business? Companies need a thicker skin and to be more objective than their customers. Edit, or as I've suggested as a compromise... put processes in place to encourage polite feedback.
For me, the title IS insulting. Because it aim to ridicule the company (who owns the forum you are insulting them on, btw). You don't like answer after 3 months? I'm sorry for you, but addressing alleged problems as soon as they came out is a perfect way for a disaster. You do not change something based on the first feeling of the moment. I lived it on my skin (and wallet) with other companies. Because something that feels bad now, can be just because you didn't already adapt to it. All of this behaviors do nothing more than poison the forum. Any discussion is flooded by "NOBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN" effect of a minimum bunch of users. This is totally wrong. This will bring the forum down to that bunch of user arguing with our beloved spambot, because no one in his mind would enter the forum. Do you like the game? Do you want it to grow? Stop this behavior now.
However, if the complaints come from the same people again and again, and are delivered with the same hostility and entitlement again and again, why would a company pay them heed? Suggesting a thicker skin goes both ways. Constant weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over trivialities will also likely lead to complaints being shelved and/or dismissed out of hand.
I mostly agree with you. Changing something right after an initial release due to negative feedback solely isn't a smart approach. There really isn't one policy that can cover all possible situations, each one needs to be looked at and action taken based on it's own merits. The insulting behavior of customers can partly be a product of a companies own making. Are these forums really moderated to a standard where we expect everyone to be polite? The world isn't polite and wonderful, the forums will reflect this unless the owners put processes in place to change this. I think there is no perfect solution with so many different customers and opinions. However I do feel transparency is important to any solution. If customers have some expectation of when issues will be addressed and how they will be addressed, it would help curb that frustration and anger. The whole, "we're looking into it" is fine as long as there's some expectation of when the next update will occur. Then it comes down to the actual response from the company. I think Uprising is an interesting case in point. When a company thinks they're doing the best thing for themselves and the product, their customers will not always see it that way. But when the company lays down that marker and takes a stand providing their reasons for doing so, only time will tell how it turns out. Maybe the company turns out to be right, or maybe the community had valid concerns. Things can be learned and the community will feel part of it.
