How much input did players have in charting the 2023 Roadmap?

True, one of them is an author.

NDA stands for Non-Disclosure Agreement. I assume thats the elaboration you desire, since asking someone to elaborate on their actual agreement or subject of their agreement would be unwise.

You may disagree for whatever reason, but there is a huge portion of the playerbase that should not have any input on game design/direction. Just take a glance at the New TLP suggestions, there are some absolutely garbage ideas that some people believe would be the best ideas ever.

The ChatGPT thing is a joke right? I refuse to believe you asked it a question and were like "yep this backs my claims"

Probably the most accurate answer. I would assume the Venn Diagram of those few players and "players that raid with devs" is almost a singular circle.

"We demand to see the roadmap for the roadmap"

Person posts daily on the forums for 23 years then says he never got a chance to give his opinion.

While I know you will dismiss me as a "white knight" though I am not, DP still has zero obligation to give you a break down on what specific feedback source is the reason for ANY changes to ANY part of the game, game code, monetization of their products, future products, future planned changes, etc.

They DO use feedback from multiple sources which include these forums and other community-related groups (CRC, Discord, Facebook, Twitter, Beta, Test server, and other interactions between DB employees and players, etc.).

In the roadmap, bug fixes / release notes, etc. they may not use the exact same terms that players do for the same thing. "Zone Performance" is a far more professional and precise term that encompasses the vernacular/slang "lag". You likely won't see a mention of "lag reduction" in an official post because it's not the proper technical term. The several mentions toward changing the backend of the UI are also likely to affect the "lag", too.

And it does. They don't give a breakdown of which elements are specifically from player feedback/input or to what extent that feedback/input influenced the change or in what specific way and they have zero obligation to do so. No matter how you read the mission statement, you are not entitled to that information. Additionally, the roadmap is an overall look at what their planning at a high level. It's not detailed for every fix and change. The release notes have a more detailed breakdown of the exact changes but even in the release notes, there is no reason they need to specify thus and so is from gamer input.

You are the one who cannot fathom the very fact they host a community forum, a Discord server, have a Facebook account, have a Twitter account, have a test server, open a beta server, etc. is not giving the players a constant input into their games.

So you think they don't listen to the players because??

There are bug fixes and improvements in EVERY release and even in every expansion that are things players have asked for at some time. There are even some direct developer dialogues on the forums and other places which then result in a specific change. One such is the Auto-Fill button for Overseer. Players complained of the repetitive clicking to start a task and the auto-fill was one answer to that.

So why don't you thing that any player feedback isn't used? Is it that some change you wanted wasn't instantly acted on and changed in the next release or the next expansion or some specific thing you want isn't called out in the Roadmap? Is that why you believe no feedback from the community is used?

They have done polls and even email surveys in the past. They've even called out changes because of those polls and then been raked over the coals on the forums and other places for making changes the majority of player respondents wanted because they weren't the changes the vocal posters thought should be made because it wasn't what they wanted. No matter that the majority of the player respondents wanted them, the vocal posters demanded that only their voices mattered and those polls were incorrect.

So, which customers are the only ones they should satisfy? Do you think only your voice should matter? Do you think anyone who doesn't agree with you should be ignored?

Perhaps not by you, but I have been told many times on this board that my opinion doesn't matter because I am not playing in the 'end game' progression raids (at this time), that I am on a high population server, that I don't min/max (at this time), that I haven't been playing this game continuously from launch, that I took a break from the game and then from games entirely for a while, that I only returned in 2020, that only have two 120 characters, that I have more than one character, that I have only two paid accounts, that I have more than one account, that I play on only one server, that I don't have a 120 character of every class, that I don't have a 100+ character of every class, that I play Overseer, that I have ever two boxed, that I don't use two computers now to two box, that I am adamantly opposed to 3rd party automation tools for game play, that I was once vehemently against any real money (other than subscription) in the game, that I am grudgingly accepting the Marketplace and real money being paid to the game company (other than subscription), that I ever was on CRC, that I have been to Fan Faires, that I have known and been friends with several developers/designers/producers over the years, that I played EQ2, that I played other MMOGs not in the EQ franchise, that I have played other games that aren't SOE/Daybreak/Darkpaw/whatever, etc.

When giving real examples that contradict certain posters, I have also been dismissed with "that's just anecdotal" while their own declarations (usually without a specific example) could be said to be the same.

So. Why specifically do you think that players don't have ANY direct or indirect input into either the roadmap or the fixes and changes they do? What change did you think was the absolute pinnacle of priority that wasn't specifically noted?

I get the frustration. You can post on here for years and never feel like you're being heard. And while the CRC is for the devs to get information from player reps when needed (not the other way around). I do think the members should be more active in the community. That's the whole reason we were invited.

I believe there is some confusion over seeing a bullet-point list aka a "Roadmap" vs actual hours and subcomponents that go into what's on there.

Main examples:
April - New UI launch with "some" windows being ported over
October - DirectX 11 API Port
Throughout the year - Porting more windows to the new UI engine

To those who entirely glossed over these three bullet-points, I am pretty sure these items require a massive undertaking. For a game that is nearly 25 years old, these are big items imo.

These are also items that should contribute to dealing with some of the lag, too, in addition to the Zone Performance improvements.

They're also in response to player feedback both because of expressed desires to have UI improvements and as a way to facilitate other changes later which will likely be at least somewhat in response to player feedback.

Theoretically, it should... but that's only part of the reason.

I am not sure how much this matters, and I am not a guru on DirectX... but Intel announced in April of last year that it will drop native support of Dx9 on their newer processors (some of their GPUs will continue to receive emulation support, instead). EQ currently uses DirectX 9.

Certain AMD graphic drivers have also had issues in recent years with older/dx9 games. DX9 is from 2002 - basically ancient. This is isn't so much as a "nice-have" but an inevitable necessity before support is discontinued or dwindles down by various companies on the DX9 front. So yea... it seems to be one of the priorities on the roadmap - whether anyone likes it or not. EQ2 is also undergoing the same migration process to DX11.

But, yes...DX11 should run older hardware better anyway than DX9 at this present point.

Intel just fell back on DX 9 -> DX 12 emulation that Windows handles instead, though to get performance back up they changed it to emulate to like Vulkan or something instead recently (like the Steam Deck does iirc) so it's not as terrible as it used to be, but still worse

nVidia has always been best choice for dx9 based games since they actually optimized them in their drivers (AMD gpu's never went beyond, but this just leads to extra cpu overhead usage in dx9 based games)

AMD/nVidia probably wouldn't drop whats there since there's no reason to, while intel for some reason clean cut from their igpus for their dedicated ones instead of like build off whats there

Thank you, this is what I meant. Not the NDA

A common tactic on these forums is to misrepresent what people say, then easily refute that mispresentation. This is called the Strawman fallacy. That's what you are doing. Cherry picking arguments is another trick people use to achieve the same result.

Consumers have rights. I didn't say that consumers have rights to determine the final product that a company makes. Both things can be true at the same time.

You ignored the totality of my post and insteach cherry picked my comment about consumer rights.

The legal right of Darkaw not to have to seek input from it's customers has never been disputed by me. That has NEVER been the question.

This thread is a typical example of how most threads devolve on the forums. The status quo is challenged by someone and then throne sniffing white knights circle the wagons and come to pile on the original poster.

In this day and age, it's mind boggling that there are still people on these forums who believe that the EQ devs should not listen to the concerns of their players. Maybe the very same people that tell other people on the forums that they should not have a voice, should take their own advice and not post here. Do as I say, but not as I do.

If player input is not neccesary to making EQ better, then why bother having beta tests? Why bother having forums at all?

Did you generate your reply with ChatGPT? Be honest. It is completely unrelated to what you replied to.

Who says they are not listening to the players? Just because the players ask for something doesn't mean the devs have to agree with it and do it.

Name just one poster in this thread with an EXACT quote where they have said Daybreak or any company at all should not ever listen to the concerns of their players/customers.

Daybreak not breaking down how every fix or change to the game is due to specific player feedback or even having changes that aren't specifically and expressly due to player feedback is not ignoring the community.

With just one example, but there are countless others: There are players who post on the forums who want Overseer improvements and others who want Overseer abolished completely. Daybreak listens to both. But if they add improvements, those who want it abolished will claim they were ignored. If they remove it from the game, those who wanted improvements will claim they were ignored. Same can be said of ANY game feature which has opponents and proponents. Tradeskills

So what was the thing you wanted that didn't get implemented as soon as you posted your idea or was even done in a different way, likely in response to feedback from other players?

Did your parents give you every single thing you asked for as soon as you asked for it? Did you tell them they weren't listening to you or ignoring you when you didn't get every single thing you wanted or when they had different plans than you wanted to do? A game company is not a parent, but a similar concept applies.

Prediction for 2024 Roadmap

The only uncertainty for next year is what they do in April

Other than the new UK engine and DXc change there isn't really anything in the road map for 2023 that we don't expect.

People keep throwing around the word "non-inclusive" in all kinds of settings. Acting or not acting someone's feedback does not make a business or person more or less "inclusive."

I think most of us understand that the EQ team itself had little to do with why the franchise did not achieve more. That is not the say the team has not made mistakes along the way that alienated some customers, but it was not their decision to not invest a higher percentage of the receipts back into the game.

People need to realize that this company is ran by the management of Darkpaw Games just like any company as ran by management. Management tells the devs what they can and cannot work on. So if feedback is given and the developers didn't listen, 9 times out of 10 it was because the developers are given a schedule through the year on things they have to work on and a timeframe on when it needs to be done. They are too busy to work your idea into the schedule or most likely they have someone presenting feedback to the management and then they delegate what gets worked into the schedule if they work any of it in.

If you want to blame someone, blame the management of Darkpaw Games.

True, but you constantly assert that non-binding and nebulous social pressures should be weighted with similar substance or else you wouldn't keep trying to hammer them in the face of actual binding obligation. Inclusion, agency, transparency, tone-deafness, class, etc. are not comparable and your attempts to force Daybreak to bow the buzzterms seems pretty disingenuous.

If someone went to your home and asked, "How frequently have you sought and integrated feedback about the exterior of your home in an inclusive and transparent manner so as to promote agency and knocking down class-barriers for all people viewing your home?" How would you respond?

"Um... Who are you? Why are you asking me this? I don't report to you!"

Status quo is challenged: Correct, but the value of that challenge was questioned. That's only reasonable.

Throne-sniffing white knights: A number of us are very skilled a massive variety of industries and you can see some of that experience come out in how we communicate, in what topics we communicate, and where we tend to lead discussions. If you cannot see the value in the disagreement and have to resort to grouping all disagreement into an ad hominem, then you're missing out on the massive value provided.

I'll spell a bit out for you: I work for a massive institution of higher education and it's my job to get people to do what they don't want to do-- quit polluting so dang much. I use levers of incentive, price, marketing, education, policy, law, etc. and my team is highly successful.

Look through my posts with you. I'm pretty sure they say things to the extent of "Don't attack like this" and "don't make these types of assertions" or "advocate like this to be successful". I've been trying to tell you that your methods are self-destructive and this forum thread with everyone piling on to disagree with you should be seen as evidence.

I think everyone in this entire forums agrees that we want the devs to consider player input, but Methods matter.

Let us not forget there was a time we didn't even get Roadmaps for the year. So now we get Roadmaps and we are still not happy.

I would love polls and such and welcome any opportunity to give input but let us not forget part of the Devs jobs (or whoever is giving input on what they should do and not do) is not just to give us what we want but to also not give us what we think we want. Sometimes what players want is not always best for the game (and no quoting realistic requests then claiming I said those shouldnt be looked at ).

What other games are always doing polls and questionnaires to decide what updates to make? I think most review player posts and then make the best decisions they can based on what their bosses want, on resources available etc and the overall direction of the game.