[Suggestion] Only allow paying subscribers to provide feedback.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Sprant Flere-Imsaho, Mar 25, 2020.

  1. Sprant Flere-Imsaho

    The process of on-going creation should be collaborative between the developers and the player base. They should collaborate with the subscribers because subscribers finance the whole operation and subscribers represent a portion of the people who care most about the game. They are not the only people that care about the game but given that payment is entirely optional, payment is the simplest way to identify a group that does.

    This is how it works in every industry I can think of. Why would this game be different? I understand that good ideas can come from anywhere, and not everyone that loves the game can pay, I've already stated that I've been there.
  2. LordKrelas

    Your own post, blames Nerfs on Free-players in the opening; Why? It implies negatives are from them.
    And is vague enough that it could include the original Canis, which could Head-shot from a torso-shot.
    Not to mention, if it's Paid-Scale: The Likelyhood of the Feedback that gets the top spot, not being from a Try-Hard, is slim.

    I'll put it this way; NC Scatterguns.
    Is that caused by Free-Players, Salted Players, or Subbed Players?
    If someone pays more, it doesn't involve anything besides they paid more; They equally are crap at this game, or grand.
    They could've praised it, or hated it; Both the NC's Max and the Hammer blows done to it; Their Sub doesn't factor in.

    The less sources available for Feedback, the more vulnerable said Feedback is, to Bias.
    Imagine if a large number of Subs suddenly came from one Faction or Aspect; Now they're the primary source.
    And then easily manipulated into a corner.
  3. TRspy007

    Pretty sure more people would invest in the game if they knew the game had a stable direction.



    Also, I would like to add that you mention it yourself: people who invest in the game are a really small portion of the community, about 10% of players.


    Now considering how much population the game has (before the update, since this recent surge does not mean the game will actually retain these players) I would say that only taking input from paying members would favor bias and nerfs in certain play-styles, since only a few players would share their opinion (about 160 to give an idea).




    Although none of this really matters since the devs have stopped having discussions with the community since SOE sold the game.
  4. Sprant Flere-Imsaho

    False! I blame nerfs on casual players and I associate being a casual player with being less likely to financially support the game. Is that not logical?

    To clarify; when I say casual, I don't mean low K/D or whatever; I mean people who play a few hours here and there and might play a ton of other games. I'm not paying a half dozen subscriptions for games, I don't even pay for a single streaming video service. I pay for PS2 because I'm serious about liking and supporting it and making it better.

    Anyway, because I actually do care about this subject and I continue to give thought to the matter, I came up with a better way to prioritize community feedback.

    Time spent on PTS.Whether they can pay or not, it's free, and those people care more about the game than I do. As far as I recall, you don't get to keep any character progress, there's no upside but making the game better and those that put in the time there probably do actually give more of a damn.

    I maintain that being a paying subscriber only favors people of average and above financial means. I say only because in all other regards, why would they not be a cross section of all empires/skills/play styles/etc? Moot point for me, now.
    And the second bit really does double moot it. I took a look at the "Staff Post Tracker" and the 5 or so messages a week I remember is definitely long gone. It's just patch notes now. Probably wouldn't even have started this thread if I had realized that. Just like a prayer, whinging into the void.
    • Up x 1
  5. TRspy007



    Yeah, if you really want to have a slight chance of the devs reading what you said, try posting in the Planetside 2 reddit, or on their Twitter. The forums don't even get all the update warnings now. They've really been abandoned since SOE left, but I'm glad you remember the days the devs actually interacted with the community over here.
  6. ZDarkShadowsZ

    I understand the point you are making. However, it makes it sound like you're saying that the feedback of paying customers is the only thing that should determine whether or not the developers that aids in the decision-making progress on whether or not development chooses to implement something.

    The problem with this, is that it's not about the amount of money a person pours into the game, but the amount of experience they have with it. A paying customer could be someone who has just joined the game and has already forked out a bunch of money buying several bundles, camos, made a 12-month subscription and are good to go. Just because they've spent all that money on the game doesn't necessarily mean that anything they say will hold more worth than someone who has been playing the game for 5 years and hasn't paid a penny.

    Yes, there is the likelihood that players who've spent a lot of money on the game are actually those who've played the game for a very long time, such as yourself for example. However, again, money spent doesn't necessarily mean suggestions, feedback, or whatever else, is actually of worth while. It's the amount of experience you have, and the knowledge of the game's mechanics that determines the worth of that feedback and the suggestions made.

    Let's pretend you're a developer for a game for a moment, and you have many non-paying players who've given feedback on a certain game design you've implemented. One non-paying player has been playing for just 2 weeks, another has been playing for 1 year. Who's suggestions/feedback are you likely going to listen to more? The person who is new and doesn't really know what's going on? Or the person who's been playing for a year, has learnt your game's mechanics, and how to play it effectively? Once again, it's not about who pays and who doesn't, it's amount how much experience they have.

    Another example. Two players in this game. Both have been playing for 5 years. Both have spent an enormous amount of money on this game. However, one has spent a lot of time learning the game's mechanics, how each weapon fires, writes blogs and articles, help guides.. etc... and are generally a very good player in the game. The other player has done nothing of the sort, they come, shoot up a few people and then they go away. They don't care what weapon they use, or how good they are, they just want to play. Now say both players decide to give feedback on X weapon in the game. Who are the developers more likely to listen to? The high-paying, long-term player with a lot of experience in game mechanics, or the high-paying, long-term player with none?

    On top of all of that, from a business perspective, it's never a good idea to cut out the suggestions or ideas of a new player. This game is getting pretty old for an MMOFPS. This means that there are many, many experienced players in the game. The developers themselves have said time and time again that many new players try the game but they never stick at it. Whilst trying to explore why this happens, cutting out those new-player voices and putting them behind a paywall in order to give feedback would only make the situation worse.

    Developers don't always get this right. Nobody does. But it's not as though they're going to listen to every single suggestion some new player has, or will ever make. In the end, it's up to the development team which direction they wish to take, or whether they wish to listen to player feedback. High-paying player or not.
    • Up x 1
  7. Lord_Avatar

    Stupidest post of the day confirmed.
    • Up x 1
  8. Rooklie

    Thought of something else ! :)


    1. Teacher's Pets aren't necessarily a teacher's favourite


    Player's who pay money, players who care more about the game, players who generally believe that they have a worthwhile opinion and suggestions to share will tend to be more insistent. (I'm not saying it's a bad thing, as a matter of fact I'm like that).

    They'll put more thought into their suggestions (which is what you value I'm guessing), put more time into expressing it (which often takes the form of huge walls of text) and so on. That's not to say their input will necessarily be of higher quality though, or maybe a better way of saying it, of higher value to the devs.

    Try to take the point of view of the dev. He knows the fanboy's position, he could almost memorise their arguments cause they've repeated them so many times, but not just that, he may find them positively irritating, as they enter into huge debates with each other arguing back and forth for pages and pages and pages and millions of posts and threads about the slightest most insignificant detail.

    If I were dev, I'd value the fanboys' input, it goes without saying, however I would also be interested in the rest of the player's experience and thoughts, if only because it's better to have a variety of opinions, but maybe also for other reasons, like a "not fanboy" may be a lot more to the point, concise, sometimes excessively so, for example if some random casual who's played for only 1 week says only two words ; "it sucks", that's already something the devs need to take into account, cause if this guy feels this way, it's likely that many others will too, and it really doesn't take much reading and time to get that point or sentiment.

    So I imagine that sometimes, the devs, like the teacher in the classroom ignoring the guy at the front as he desperately holds his hand up high, will, in a manner of speaking, be more interested with the guys and girls at the back who never say anything.




    2. Casual players are the target audience in the first place.


    No one who plays the game dislikes the game, those who dislike the game don't play it

    I suppose a more appropriate word would be "care" for the game instead of "like".

    Anyway whether that's absolutely true or not, I would suggest that those who don't care for the game wouldn't bother providing feedback so a kind of automatic self censorship would happen. In other words, feedback is (almost) only ever given by players who care in the first place, so all of them have a legitimate reason to express themselves but also to be taken into account, all of them care.


    The only argument (that I can see) that you've got left is to say "those who pay care more so the devs should listen to them more". So it then becomes a matter of caring more or caring less.

    The counter to that one is easy, but I'd like to point something else out instead;

    There aren't a whole lot of games who target hardcore players. I'd guess that the reason for that is that for any given player base, hardcore players represent only a small portion of the target audience . Most people have jobs, university, school, and even afterwards, most people don't regularly have the time to be hardcore whether that is how much time per day, week, or for how long they can keep playing actively over months and months.

    Fact of the matter is a game company may very well find feedback provided by casual players much more valuable because their game is and always has been made for casuals.

    So just to loop back to my first post quoting Smedley; the game was made for both paying and not paying customers. At the time, 10% of those players ever spent any money. Doing as you suggest would disregard 90% of the population. A population which is the intended population, who cares for the game, and who's opinion, if only because there are 9 times more of them, but particularly because the game was made for them in the first place matters just as much and probably more even than those 10%.

    I might even argue that their opinion matters 9 times more.
    • Up x 1