PDCWolf Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 12 minutes ago, regex said: And yet, again, according to Squad they gave far more weight to Reddit due to there being far more people there. Was Reddit defending the devs the clear behavior? I'm inclined to say yes. In fact they still kinda do. Back then I was on 4chan and we were visited by HarvesteR, Maxmaps, and some mods from here too, sadly those times are over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjbvre Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Is it too pessimistic to think the amount of time they spend somewhere is directly tied to the amount of users there for strictly pr reasons, and they're not actually giving that much weight to any of the suggestions on any platform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpazeGibbonz Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 (edited) Honestly while i'm completely fitting the description of "grumpy 40+ crowd", i'm only here rather than on their discord because one of the devposts/news on steam told the reader explicitly to come here for feedback and bug reports. Makes me think if they listen to the community, they will do so here as well. I am 100% certain the bugs i discovered in my 10hrs of gameplay (bought only after for science update) been reported already, but as a KSP 1 player i really felt the need to give feedback to a certain issue now that i'm on board. Edited January 8 by SpazeGibbonz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDCWolf Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, rjbvre said: Is it too pessimistic to think the amount of time they spend somewhere is directly tied to the amount of users there for strictly pr reasons, and they're not actually giving that much weight to any of the suggestions on any platform? I wouldn't say all feedback is weighted by amount of people repeating it, but I will say that there's of course a very heavy conflict of interest, with the devs all hanging out on discord and pretty much seeing only positive feedback, and then they are expected to put work on this or that feature that people didn't like, which of course directly clashes against their "reality" of what they see on Discord. For a very concrete example look at UI, where the further away you get from the Discord, the harsher and more varied feedback is, versus the reply we got from Nate: The most talked about points in feedback all over are the usability, design and position of the Navball, the VAB interface, VAB camera controls, UI color selection, legibility, and the PAW being a trainwreck. What did we get in return? that they're looking at legibility, maneuver nodes, icon salad, and PAW "organization issues". There's a clear disconnect between the focus points of feedback, versus what the team says they get from it. That can only come from two places: The conflict of interest I mentioned before, or that they're really not up to take high level feedback, limiting what they want from us to low hanging fruit like obvious and not so obvious bugs and playability complaints. It can also be a mix of both. For an even worse example look at science as a feature: almost a month of feedback has gone completely ignored. This is repeated on every single conversation that's been had in this forum, Reddit, and I'm sure the Discord too. I just wish that if it's the later, they made it very clear, because against all other EAs out there, this really means we're nothing more than buy-in testers. Edited January 8 by PDCWolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Thread closed by OP's request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts