re: Developer's Response and why it's bad

[Kra]

Shortly after the Patch 01.000.100, one of the developer responsible for Weapon Balancing from Arrowhead, u/AHGS_Fredrik_E has replied to a rant for the patch with

Originally posted by u/AHGS_Fredrik_E:

"A game for everyone, is a game for no one."

More on this thread .

I believe that this comment alone might give you an idea as to where they intend to take the game to, a niche genre of impossible co-op where only pure luck and discord coordination is required to beat the high-difficulty levels.
Which directly goes against with what made this game so popular in the first place; a fun, adrenaline pumping gameplay that can be enjoyed without demanding too much investment from players individual skills.

Even if we were to give the developer benefit of doubt, responding in manner which serves no purpose than to close off the majority of the audience's expectation is not how to "communicate" with the community.

With overwhelming backlashes, the developer responsible for the comment, u/AHGS_Fredrik_E came out with a "apology", that did not apologise for his actions, but rather that of a generic PR damage control, which states;

Originally posted by u/AHGS_Fredrik_E:

"...I went a little far with the trolling, but what I said is said."

Refusing to give up his stand, further emphasised by

Originally posted by u/AHGS_Fredrik_E:

"I'm sorry if people took offence to it" and "...but I realize being a dev I'm in an unfair position."

I do not believe that by such response we will see a sharp decline in the game's economy. However, such childish behaviour signals to me that user-developer communication will not be as fluid as other successful subreddit, which is critical in most multiplayer games.
Where a user expectation is completely disregarded, and therefore abandoned.

Check out the thread link above for direct response made by u/AHGS_Fredrik_E himself.

[xaerock [RVR-42]]

Originally posted by Kra:

I believe that this comment alone might give you an idea as to where they intend to take the game to, a niche genre of impossible co-op where only pure luck and discord coordination is required to beat the high-difficulty levels.
Which directly goes against with what made this game so popular in the first place; a fun, adrenaline pumping gameplay that can be enjoyed without demanding too much investment from players individual skills.

I don't really understand the conflict that's assumed here between those two things.
Unless: the vast majority of players should all be playing the optional highest difficulty modifier and need to get the same enjoyment from it. Why?
Can't you have game modes for the more casual player with low investment and an optional setting for some hardcore audience?

Let's say they add a difficulty 10 and higher later on to please part of the playerbase. How does the existence of that difficulty option this hurt the people already enjoying difficulty 7 as is? That is assuming the modes don't add any new content like new enemy types or unlocks.

It'd be an optional mode not aimed at everyone. The low difficulties (before Rare samples) probably aren't aimed at the majority of players either but I imagine there are groups who like playing those for fun even at a higher player level.

I'd argue the selection between difficulties 7 to 9 is already an optional thing since they all give super rare samples. Personally I like playing at 7 with randoms (or I'm trying out new loadouts) and if the team is performing well push it up to 8-9.
For the Terminids the charger and titan spawns are significantly toned down on 7, hardly needing you to min-max your team just to not run all the time.

[Mini]

Well if it gets rid of all the whiny railgun babies then it is a positive at the end of the day.

[Isz]

It has already amounted to what it's going to. A handful of the playerbase complaining in places no sane person looks anyways. That's the entire backlash.

Also, I'm so tired of people with the fantasy that devs are supposed to partner with the playerbase. It's so entitled. You haven't done anything except buy something and you think that exchange entitles you to be heard and respected about how you feel about it? Regardless of your decorum?

[Mother Heffer]

Gamers are the only rube consumer base that listen to what the people trying to SELL them things says, rather than looking at what they DO.

[Cuppa Tea]

Originally posted by Kra:

Shortly after the Patch 01.000.100, one of the developer responsible for Weapon Balancing from Arrowhead, u/AHGS_Fredrik_E has replied to a rant for the patch with

Originally posted by u/AHGS_Fredrik_E:

"A game for everyone, is a game for no one."

More on this thread .

I believe that this comment alone might give you an idea as to where they intend to take the game to, a niche genre of impossible co-op where only pure luck and discord coordination is required to beat the high-difficulty levels.
Which directly goes against with what made this game so popular in the first place; a fun, adrenaline pumping gameplay that can be enjoyed without demanding too much investment from players individual skills.

Even if we were to give the developer benefit of doubt, responding in manner which serves no purpose than to close off the majority of the audience's expectation is not how to "communicate" with the community.

With overwhelming backlashes, the developer responsible for the comment, u/AHGS_Fredrik_E came out with a "apology", that did not apologise for his actions, but rather that of a generic PR damage control, which states;

Originally posted by u/AHGS_Fredrik_E:

"...I went a little far with the trolling, but what I said is said."

Refusing to give up his stand, further emphasised by

Originally posted by u/AHGS_Fredrik_E:

"I'm sorry if people took offence to it" and "...but I realize being a dev I'm in an unfair position."

I do not believe that by such response we will see a sharp decline in the game's economy. However, such childish behaviour signals to me that user-developer communication will not be as fluid as other successful subreddit, which is critical in most multiplayer games.
Where a user expectation is completely disregarded, and therefore abandoned.

Check out the thread link above for direct response made by u/AHGS_Fredrik_E himself.

Too long, didnt read, too busy bringing democracy

[Mother Heffer]

Originally posted by Isz:

It has already amounted to what it's going to. A handful of the playerbase complaining in places no sane person looks anyways. That's the entire backlash.

Also, I'm so tired of people with the fantasy that devs are supposed to partner with the playerbase. It's so entitled. You haven't done anything except buy something and you think that exchange entitles you to be heard and respected about how you feel about it? Regardless of your decorum?

That's exactly how business works. Finish high school first.

[Isz]

Originally posted by Mother Heffer:

Originally posted by Isz:

It has already amounted to what it's going to. A handful of the playerbase complaining in places no sane person looks anyways. That's the entire backlash.

Also, I'm so tired of people with the fantasy that devs are supposed to partner with the playerbase. It's so entitled. You haven't done anything except buy something and you think that exchange entitles you to be heard and respected about how you feel about it? Regardless of your decorum?

That's exactly how business works. Finish high school first.

It really isn't. If I get upset at a bank teller and lose my decorum, I will be asked to leave the bank and my opinion will not be heard.

If I buy a pair of shoes, I don't have an entitlement to be heard about how I think the shoes could be better designed.

Opting in to services and goods does not entitle you to anything more than your purchase or the initial agreement you made with them. You don't get a say in how it runs.

[Kra]

Originally posted by Isz:

Originally posted by Mother Heffer:

That's exactly how business works. Finish high school first.

It really isn't. If I get upset at a bank teller and lose my decorum, I will be asked to leave the bank and my opinion will not be heard.

If I buy a pair of shoes, I don't have an entitlement to be heard about how I think the shoes could be better designed.

Opting in to services and goods does not entitle you to anything more than your purchase or the initial agreement you made with them. You don't get a say in how it runs.

I have broke down your argument and divided into 2 parts,

If no decency, not welcomed

• I believe that just discriminating against devs, even if they have made a mistake, is not the right way to act. However, I believe just because developers make a change, players are required to follow the decision obediently.
  By this, I don’t mean that developers should follow what majority of players says (for democracy rahh), but listening to active players that love and have passion for the game can overall lead the game to a better direction. It is a cooperative environment.

No say in development

• Yes, we do not have to be “heard” about how weapons are underpowered, and game is not balanced properly by developers. But if many of us feel this way, we may express how we feel about it. As said, we must not dictate the game's direction or bully the development team because they have made an unpopular decision. But constructive suggestions and criticism should be welcomed in the community, not disregarded.

To clarify, I have made this discussion for critique purpose, but also to see the different views and opinion. I do not believe that my argument is 100% right, and more than happy to fix and reevaluate my view as people point out.

[Khloros]

People ♥♥♥♥♥ piss and moan on the internet about devs trying to fix their game
Dev trolls a wee bit
everyone gets butt hurt.

Personally i think he did nothing wrong, nor what he said was wrong. People think they know more or are better at the game then they really are.

[Caduryn]

Its funny.... it really is..

The most toxic and cancerous Group "Gamers" getting a Headache because a Dev made a *burp*

Shows how insane delusional "Gamers" have become to their OWN attidude...

[Myth Alric]

It is fine. One of the devs was being a bit cheeky with players and his boss yelled at him. It isn't like he was cursing at people or anything, so it isn't anything to worry about.

[Vaati]

Yeah, it was deserved, that clapback from the dev.

[Isz]

Originally posted by Kra:

Originally posted by Isz:

It really isn't. If I get upset at a bank teller and lose my decorum, I will be asked to leave the bank and my opinion will not be heard.

If I buy a pair of shoes, I don't have an entitlement to be heard about how I think the shoes could be better designed.

Opting in to services and goods does not entitle you to anything more than your purchase or the initial agreement you made with them. You don't get a say in how it runs.

I have broke down your argument and divided into 2 parts,

If no decency, not welcomed

• I believe that just discriminating against devs, even if they have made a mistake, is not the right way to act. However, I believe just because developers make a change, players are required to follow the decision obediently.
  By this, I don’t mean that developers should follow what majority of players says (for democracy rahh), but listening to active players that love and have passion for the game can overall lead the game to a better direction. It is a cooperative environment.

No say in development

• Yes, we do not have to be “heard” about how weapons are underpowered, and game is not balanced properly by developers. But if many of us feel this way, we may express how we feel about it. As said, we must not dictate the game's direction or bully the development team because they have made an unpopular decision. But constructive suggestions and criticism should be welcomed in the community, not disregarded.

To clarify, I have made this discussion for critique purpose, but also to see the different views and opinion. I do not believe that my argument is 100% right, and more than happy to fix and reevaluate my view as people point out.

"However, I believe just because developers make a change, players are required to follow the decision obediently." - I think in opt-in entertainment scenarios this idea doesn't really hold water. Also, obedience isn't really on the table. There's really no way to disobey here. You just sort of opt out.

I don't care if people discriminate against the devs, people discriminate constantly. You just shouldn't hold them to a level of decorum you would not hold yourself to.

[Inuakurei]

Yea and GTFO is doing just fine, and that didn't even have matchmaking at all at launch.

[Malker]

Dude was unprofessional to post his view. Understandable, because of the out of Proportion reactions from some idiots towards a product he put His blood, sweat and tears into. Was is it a dumb move: yes! Is he right though? Yes!