Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems
-
@sparks said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
However, a lot of this thread has not been actionable suggestions, which... well, after all, it's more a theorycrafting and analysis thread, rather than something focused solely on how to improve things to make stuff more fun for players, which is the focus I needed in my redesign work.
In terms of actionable suggestions and focused discussion on those suggestions, the Github ticket is always going to be the winner by far since it breaks the discussion into specific topics that can be sorted/labeled/assigned etc.
A catch all forum topic like this one is always going to be derailed by whatever someone feels like ranting about for the moment and while good suggestions may appear in it, they're not going to be at the forefront or given good individual discussion.
While the systems discussion board does have the advantage of being available to anyone with an Arx character, in terms of discussion it's even worse then MSB because it's a kind of half-assed version of a BB that was never designed to be used for discussion in the first place.
If anyone has any actionable ideas or concerns I really recommend going through the effort to make a github account so you can make a ticket here:
https://github.com/Arx-Game/arxcode/issuesWhat is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
-
I do think the github is probably the best place for actual constructive feedback. A lot of the discussions on the systems discussion board are half-assed at best, and many of the suggestions on it are ...
is there a constructive way to say dumb?
Maybe, "not designed for the kind of game Arx is/wants to be". I don't want to be unfair to people who have ideas that are not my ideas, but sometimes I do see suggestions get floated where it's like... I think you are just playing a different game than this one in your head. I D K.
-
@groth said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
@sparks said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
In terms of actionable suggestions and focused discussion on those suggestions, the Github ticket is always going to be the winner by far since it breaks the discussion into specific topics that can be sorted/labeled/assigned etc.+1.
Forums like MSB are great for general brainstorming but they fall apart if you need to create sub-topics on the fly and organize feedback. They are simply not meant for organizing technical information since a lot gets lost in the noise, especially for late comers.
But the scope of what a thread is meant to achieve is still debatable, and obviously for those of us who simple enjoy debating systems and mechanics there's value in it whether it's deemed usable or not. It's not like the rest of every other thread is packed solid with high quality content not comprised entirely of cat memes.
-
@saosmash said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
I think you are just playing a different game than this one in your head
There's this phrase I heard, once, I can almost remember where, which would be an almost-perfect Staff response to that:
"We don't do that here."
Maybe phrased to be less antagonistic toward the suggestion.
"Our goal is for something more <fill in blank>."
It shows that the idea was considered and rejected for a design reason, not just out of hand. Who wants to make a suggestion with a flat-out "no"? Nobody, that's who.
(It's also why I took out '+job/deny' out of the aJobs system. It's '+job/complete' or nothing.)
-
@saosmash said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
I do think the github is probably the best place for actual constructive feedback. A lot of the discussions on the systems discussion board are half-assed at best, and many of the suggestions on it are ...
is there a constructive way to say dumb?
Maybe, "not designed for the kind of game Arx is/wants to be". I don't want to be unfair to people who have ideas that are not my ideas, but sometimes I do see suggestions get floated where it's like... I think you are just playing a different game than this one in your head. I D K.
This is always my fear, honestly. I try to couch what suggestions I make in terms of my personal preferences and viewpoint, with an understanding that it may or may not fit in with the design goals of the overall game, but it can be hard once you get enthusiastic about some bit of system nonsense that no one but you cares about (but suddenly you find that you care an unexpected amount).
-
When I peeved about system discussion going on in the hogpit it wasn't to create an officially recognized queue or anything it was just system discussion interspersed with you monster and cussing and other random attacks without any substance seemed counter productive. At the very least this thread does appear to be a degree less hostile than the hogpit peeves thread discussions.
Still Kudos to @Meg using her catchy name to create it, my name is far to weak to have sustained such a result.
System Question
The Clue systems primary issue appeared to be creating to much overhead work for staff to continue to generate clues. The new system basically sets it so that if 5+ people know a clue you have very good odds of uncovering it in a short timeframe. It does however push new clues further out. With this adjustment to the rate of new clue generation will staff be maintaining the same clue writing style or will they be shifting towards a less is more approach where clues are perhaps more substantive than they have been in the past? I know some clues are very helpful but other clues seem more tidbits or very vague meant to either lead players to ask around or continue their investigation for more clues to create the lattice of understanding. That bread crumb approach would (from an outside observer) appear to create staff overhead too since someone might keep investigating the same issue for months and be needing new clues along the way if it's untread or lightly tread ground.
-
-
All the fun happens in the hog pit.
Come get dirty with the rest of us.
-
@jeshin said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
Still Kudos to @Meg using her catchy name to create it, my name is far to weak to have sustained such a result.
i still don't know what you mean by that. But ok?
-
@jeshin said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
With this adjustment to the rate of new clue generation will staff be maintaining the same clue writing style or will they be shifting towards a less is more approach where clues are perhaps more substantive than they have been in the past?
Staff has said they're purposefully staying out of this thread, so you're probably not going to get answers from them on here.
-
@jeshin said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
System Question
The Clue systems primary issue appeared to be creating to much overhead work for staff to continue to generate clues. The new system basically sets it so that if 5+ people know a clue you have very good odds of uncovering it in a short timeframe. It does however push new clues further out. With this adjustment to the rate of new clue generation will staff be maintaining the same clue writing style or will they be shifting towards a less is more approach where clues are perhaps more substantive than they have been in the past? I know some clues are very helpful but other clues seem more tidbits or very vague meant to either lead players to ask around or continue their investigation for more clues to create the lattice of understanding. That bread crumb approach would (from an outside observer) appear to create staff overhead too since someone might keep investigating the same issue for months and be needing new clues along the way if it's untread or lightly tread ground.
My understanding is with the new clue system is that when they are generating that new clue for you, they are also generating a whole subset of clues to be discovered, not just one clue, so that you can continue researching that shiny new thing you're looking into and maybe get more information or point you to different plots, or a whole new plot thread in general. That's why new clues are being pushed back further, so they have the time to write all the good tidbits for you. That's partly why they introduced the ability to @investigate/tags Clue: #ofClue - so you can delve into further information into what you discovered, and it can look at the tags of your new clue and try to match it to other tags. It's not guaranteed you'll get that juicy newness after that initial new clue right away - you could get something else matching the tags of that clue, but you'll eventually get the relevant information you are looking for.
-
@kanye-qwest said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
So thanks for the idea of this thread, but we get goodfeedback talking to players directly and aren't really getting the kind of suggestions we'd hope for. If you have feedback, take it through the official channels in game or on github, we are abandoning this MSB-staff-interfacing to focus on what we think is important, and fun.
Back to your regularly scheduled posting.
You guys have been such active participants in threads specifically for trashing your game, I have never been able to decide whether that is admirable or just nuts. Definitely drop it for what's important and fun. This can't possibly be either.
-
@raemira said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
@jeshin said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
System Question
The Clue systems primary issue appeared to be creating to much overhead work for staff to continue to generate clues. The new system basically sets it so that if 5+ people know a clue you have very good odds of uncovering it in a short timeframe. It does however push new clues further out. With this adjustment to the rate of new clue generation will staff be maintaining the same clue writing style or will they be shifting towards a less is more approach where clues are perhaps more substantive than they have been in the past? I know some clues are very helpful but other clues seem more tidbits or very vague meant to either lead players to ask around or continue their investigation for more clues to create the lattice of understanding. That bread crumb approach would (from an outside observer) appear to create staff overhead too since someone might keep investigating the same issue for months and be needing new clues along the way if it's untread or lightly tread ground.
My understanding is with the new clue system is that when they are generating that new clue for you, they are also generating a whole subset of clues to be discovered, not just one clue, so that you can continue researching that shiny new thing you're looking into and maybe get more information or point you to different plots, or a whole new plot thread in general.
I don't think that's accurate. They're writing a number of new clues in general, so that topics are more fleshed out and filled out, so that people are a bit less likely to NEED a newly written clue. But the reason that new clues now have a cost is just for the staff time required to write ONE new clue, not a whole set of them.
-
@pyrephox said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
@saosmash said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
This is always my fear, honestly. I try to couch what suggestions I make in terms of my personal preferences and viewpoint, with an understanding that it may or may not fit in with the design goals of the overall game, but it can be hard once you get enthusiastic about some bit of system nonsense that no one but you cares about (but suddenly you find that you care an unexpected amount).
If couching your ideas defensively makes you feel better about proposing ideas, that's a good thing but a bad idea is still a bad idea even if expressed politely and guardedly.
I think it's important to realize most ideas from everyone are bad, there's no mythological person out there who only has good ideas and it's very hard to recognize which of your own ideas are bad. What you can do however is make sure your idea is properly developed. For a game like Arx you can ask yourself.
What kind of goal/problem do I have in mind for my idea? Will it actually achieve that goal/problem?
What specific kind of RP would my idea enhance?
What kind of RP might my idea detract from?
Might my idea cause other problems?If you've already considered those questions you should have something worth talking about at least.
-
@kanye-qwest said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:
So thanks for the idea of this thread, but we get goodfeedback talking to players directly and aren't really getting the kind of suggestions we'd hope for. If you have feedback, take it through the official channels in game or on github, we are abandoning this MSB-staff-interfacing to focus on what we think is important, and fun.
Back to your regularly scheduled posting.
Honestly, can I just say, seriously bravo?
One of my personal biggest peeves about the Way Things Are on Arx that I didn't feel like voicing because it was a) a bit hypocritical and b) didn't really seem like it would be a very positive conversation was how much time staff was spending on MSB and engaging here, especially with the Hogpit. It just hasn't seemed like a very healthy/beneficial thing either on a personal level or gamerunner level, because TBH Musoapbox is pretty toxic a lot of the time. That's just facts.
Nobody asked for or even maybe particularly cares about my opinion but damn, thank you for winning back a lot of personal goodwill with this move.
^_______^
(@_____@)
---|---
/\ -
@wizz eh, I mean, a lot of people engage in MSB and the Hogpit because they enjoy it. If staff enjoys it, then cool. If they don't, then also cool. I'm not gonna judge them either way about it.
i am not just saying this because i feel slightly defensive of how much i enjoy randomly shitposting and trying to be funny on these boards. (i started this whole thread because i think i am more funny than i am.)
#FreeFarfalla
-
Um, I'm still here too, there's obviously something about it I enjoy, hahaha. Y'all are a bunch of incredibly witty, smart peeps and I have had a lot of fun participating in game discussions and GIF-offs and, yeah, even bitching.
I just mean, IMHO, the way Arx staff were interfacing with the forum as staff didn't seem to be doing them any favors and I think it's a really good decision.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I changed "interacting with" to "interfacing with." I don't mean to say I think staff were acting poorly here, I mean I just don't think it was a great thing how involved they were, because we can be a p mean forum and we are ALL like so fucking strongly opinionated, in a way that can sometimes drown out or delegitimize actual solid feedback, haha.
^_______^
(@_____@)
---|---
/\ -
@wizz MSB is what y'all make of it. There are pros and cons, since having an environment where you can speak your mind without worry of censorship can backfire or it can be a way to get honest feedback.
The reason I agreed it wasn't the right thread for staff to get constructive technical feedback is because we're not built for it. A bboard in-game would be even worse, for example. The medium doesn't match, it's as simple as that - in fact not for any kind of extensive brainstorming where separate subthreads need to be tracked down, including building up a new game's theme for example.
But please don't underestimate the value of being able to speak freely. I don't mean it for Arx but in general. While shitposts and unprovoked personal attacks are a sad consequence of it, there's a big upside of both being able to say what you want without looking over your shoulder and reading what people outside of your personal circle think of your grand plans.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
For the record, I don't think that staff is planning on pulling out from ALL THE ARX THREADS here or something. Just -- as @Arkandel said, MSB is not well-equipped for this kind of really dense system discussion, and I know it was getting pretty discouraging for staff just because of the way MSB discussions can get stuck on one particular issue and circle around it forever and not have a bigger picture to compare it to. There's the publicly accessible Github now, and yeah you'll have to make an account to chat there, but it provides a much better venue for being able to get into specifics, to have different issue threads on different topics and ideas and projects, etc.
-
@roz On the other hand it's also fun to talk about design. I quite like discussing that kind of thing even when it's not meant to become a game when it grows up, or even if the genre/theme itself doesn't even interest me.
So... what if this Arx thread's pitches aren't actively watched over by Arx stuff? If you wanna brainstorm, storm your brain out. Hell, you might inspire someone to do something cool.
