Closed Dev. Group

[Caecus]

An easy fix to the problem is to just have the closed development group be view-able. Keep the development group only to be able to post and comment, but have it be view-able to anyone who wants to see. Almost everyone here knows at least one person in the dev group, and if not, could easily find them in-game or over the IRC. This also prevents those "24-hour surprises," since everyone would have the ability to access and view the latest discussions of the group. 

 

 

[MRBOOTY]

I actually really like this idea. The only downside is that we would see lots of !@#$ing on these forums about the things going on on the dev forums, but eh whatever.

[Caecus]

I actually really like this idea. The only downside is that we would see lots of !@#$ing on these forums about the things going on on the dev forums, but eh whatever.

 

Which is what we do anyway after Sheepy makes an announcement. The only difference is it wouldn't be within a time span of like 10 hours over 3 threads, 8 pages each. 

[ELPINCHAZO]

I disagree because then it goes against the idea of keeping the drama and politics out of that area. It would just reintroduce those elements by proxy.

[Pax]

This also prevents those "24-hour surprises," since everyone would have the ability to access and view the latest discussions of the group. 

 

We got hit with the spy suggestion at more or less the same time as the public.

 

Also, we've talked about doing this before. I think this quote sums it up best:

 

What is great about this forum is that it takes the politics out of improving the game. Everyone here has at least one goal in common, and that is to see the game improve, through finding solutions to current problems, and to introduce new ideas to the game.

What can happen in public suggestion boxes, is that politics enters in to the picture, which sways how people perceive the suggestions and replies. There are people out there who want things to change things in a way that benefits themselves - or hurts their foes - more than it benefits the game. 

 

This forum is a good place where people can work with, and get direct feedback from the administrator. Don't lose that by creating a circus around what gets talked about here. 

 

I do agree that ideas should go public, and we've got several suggestions floating around where we're discussing how we should do so. My suggestion was that we should do something like post it in the dev group, talk about what we think should be changed, then post it in the public forums (possibly with tweaks from the dev group) and see how the discussion goes. Then we talk about it in the dev group one last time, and what we feel the best points are from the public discussion and consider those points of view, before either adjusting the suggestion and implementing or just scrapping it altogether if we decide it's not a good plan.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Pax

[Callisto]

Honestly, the whole Dev group thing has been blown way out of proportion by a small group of people who arent in the Dev group who feel that their ideas mean less than the ideas of the dev group, however, I'm sure that if anyone made a consise suggestion in the suggestion box, that Sheepy would most certainly consider it.

[naTia]

I don't think we need to view it. Without seeing it, we can still give our input. Just as we don't need to have Sheepy constantly update what he plans on doing, we don't need to see what people in a closed group are discussing. 

[LordRahl2]

I don't think we need to view it. Without seeing it, we can still give our input. Just as we don't need to have Sheepy constantly update what he plans on doing, we don't need to see what people in a closed group are discussing. 

 

 

What reasoning or evidence do you have to support this idea?

[naTia]

We have a forum for game suggestions, and the game has run fine without Sheepy giving us constant updates.

[LordRahl2]

We have a forum for game suggestions, and the game has run fine without Sheepy giving us constant updates.

 

Actually he has avoided at least one small misstep by bringing an idea to the player base.  He has made at least one, maybe he is reconsidering the second, major game change mistake(s) while engaged with the BGEs.  So no, it has not worked fine.

Edited July 11, 2015 by LordRahl2

[naTia]

The game has been going for over a year and a half now with Sheepy having most of the playerbase's support, what has suddenly become such a large problem?

[LordRahl2]

The game has been going for over a year and a half now with Sheepy having most of the playerbase's support, what has suddenly become such a large problem?

 

Ummm, you are saying that most people who continue to play support Sheepy.

 

A ) Do you have evidence of that?  I suspect it is true statistically although that may not mean as much as you may be trying to imply.

B ) Probably more importantly, do you have evidence that those who started and no longer play support Sheepy?  That data is impossible to attain of course.  Retention, of those who can be retained, is important.

 

So it is not 'sudden' nor, maybe, a 'large' problem.  But it certainly seems to be a problem of note.  Do we only need to address 'large' problems?  Maybe, by not adding problems, we can retain more players who 'support' Sheepy.

Edited July 11, 2015 by LordRahl2

[ELPINCHAZO]

Ummm, you are saying that most people who continue to play support Sheepy.

 

A ) Do you have evidence of that?  I suspect it is true statistically although that may not mean as much as you may be trying to imply.

B ) Probably more importantly, do you have evidence that those who started and no longer play support Sheepy?  That data is impossible to attain of course.  Retention, of those who can be retained, is important.

 

So it is not 'sudden' nor, maybe, a 'large' problem.  But it certainly seems to be a problem of note.  Do we only need to address 'large' problems?  Maybe, by not adding problems, we can retain more players who 'support' Sheepy.

to be fair,you're not providing any evidence to the contrary.

[LordRahl2]

to be fair,you're not providing any evidence to the contrary.

 

 

Sorta fair point.  However, I was not making a claim really.  I was showing that the fact he presented is not actually a fact.  It is unknowable.

[ELPINCHAZO]

Sorta fair point.  However, I was not making a claim really.  I was showing that the fact he presented is not actually a fact.  It is unknowable.

Not many facts presented here at all, but lots of opinions.

[LordRahl2]

Not many facts presented here at all, but lots of opinions.

 

That is a true fact.  To assume that issues can be resolved with facts and evidence is really quite silly isn't it.

 

However, well reasoned arguments can elucidate the discussion.  In such instances we should avoid posting declarative statements and stick to qualifying remarks with appropriate caveats.

[Wayne]

Opinions are like arseholes, everyones got one and some of em are shitty...

[naTia]

If I say that the forums aren't in chaos, I can't prove that, but it would be understood that they are not. Similarly, I can say that the community supports what Sheepy does, which you could argue that they don't, but there is no proof either way. It's just a general statement based on what people have to say about him and what he does with the game.

 

Edit: Also, to be fair, my first post wasn't necessarily an argument, but a general statement in support of the current system.

Edited July 11, 2015 by The Captain Nao

[LordRahl2]

If I say that the forums aren't in chaos, I can't prove that, but it would be understood that they are not. Similarly, I can say that the community supports what Sheepy does, which you could argue that they don't, but there is no proof either way. It's just a general statement based on what people have to say about him and what he does with the game.

 

Edit: Also, to be fair, my first post wasn't necessarily an argument, but a general statement in support of the current system.

 

Great! we now agree.  It is unknown if the 'majority of players' support Sheepy or not.  So this is irrelevant to the current debate.

 

What is relevant are well reasoned arguments.

 

To wit: The stronger the move toward defense and away from the ability to engage in productive war is the worse off the game is.  The game will stratify and people will lose interest and leave.  This is unhealthy for the community and the game.  It is possible that some people who care greatly about their pixels will leave if they might lose them but they likely stand in the minority.  Active and engaged members care about their alliance and winning or at least having fun.

 

We are, at the end of the day, getting away from the OP.  The suggestion is to have the community with view access to the now super secret BGE forums.  This is a positive suggestion for the community since active and engaged players can provide feedback here on the forums.  Hopefully the suggestions from an even wider base improve the quality of future changes or lack thereof.  This is not guaranteed, nothing is, but it is more likely than having the current system in place.

[naTia]

My problem is, given some of the prior joke posts, that people will take suggestions in the closed dev forum and start making posts that do not really contribute to a discussion. What we get then are people who have to separate what is useful from what is not even more so than now. Also, everything you just said was an opinion, so is what you said irrelevant to the current debate?

[Buorhann]

I don't even know all of you in the closed dev group.  In fact, with the list of those in the closed dev group, I rarely see at least half of them regularly posting in the Game Suggestions area.

 

So why should I feel confident that you personally selected few have what is best for the game without knowing/seeing the discussion at hand?

[LordRahl2]

My problem is, given some of the prior joke posts, that people will take suggestions in the closed dev forum and start making posts that do not really contribute to a discussion. What we get then are people who have to separate what is useful from what is not even more so than now. Also, everything you just said was an opinion, so is what you said irrelevant to the current debate?

 

It would not be terrible to gather input from the community.  The velociraptor incident demonstrates this.  I am unaware of a counter example.  Can you provide one?

 

Jokes that are non-topical can be ignored or you can participate in them for fun.  Whatever.

 

On your second point.  Right, there is a difference between forwarding an unprovable declarative and providing a well reasoned argument.  The former is what you provided and I provided the latter.

[Caecus]

 

My problem is, given some of the prior joke posts, that people will take suggestions in the closed dev forum and start making posts that do not really contribute to a discussion. What we get then are people who have to separate what is useful from what is not even more so than now. Also, everything you just said was an opinion, so is what you said irrelevant to the current debate?

 

I mean this in agreement with you, but people already do that. I am one of those guys who has a lot of free time on my hands to play this game, and even I have yet to run through every thread that "do not really contribute to a discussion." As long as those kinds of posts are not in the "Game Discussion" section and trolls are shut down. The fact of the matter is that there is going to be displeasure from any update Sheepy makes. There is going to be a group of people who will not benefit from an update, and there will be dissent. And those people will post and post about it, no matter what you do. The real difference between having the closed development section viewable and not is that "posts that do not really contribute to a discussion" would be made, but it would be right after a new development thread started and not after Sheepy's announcement. 

 

I totally understand why Sheepy has created the group and how it serves an overall logical function within the development aspect of the game. I have met and seen the posts within the Closed Development Group and I wholeheartedly agree that the majority of the group is doing what it's job is, which is to advise on logical and fair methods of improving the game without personal benefit. 

 

However, understand that there are people displeased that a secret has been kept from them and from the outside the group seems almost aristocratic in the exclusiveness and clandestine nature. That is degrading, and the fact that the group was never directly mentioned in public makes us suspect conspiracy and foul play. 

 

What I am suggesting is a compromise. Keeping the functionality of the closed development section is indeed a necessity, and that does mean it has to be exclusive to people who are willing to put aside their own personal benefit and use reasoned arguments and a sense of fairness to contribute to developing the game. However, *in light of how being in the closed development group may favor them in the game*, I do think it is necessary for transparency. 

 

 

*To illustrate, Mr. Apeman (whom I affectionately dubbed 'Neanderthal') has sold his spies. Knowing that he could have had his spies refunded to him, his action would have been different. However, whoever was in the development group, would never in their right minds sell their spies after learning about the coming update. This example alone should immediately make you question the fairness of non-disclosure. 

[Caecus]

I would also like to add that Pig was right. You need diversity in the development section, and a good way is to increase the transparency. I know that people within the development group are logical and concise, which make them very suited for an advisory role. However, the more diversity within the group, the greater number of ideas flow through, which makes game development better and stronger. 

 

Increasing the transparency to the entire forum DOES increase diversity WITHOUT having to deal with trolls, arguments lacking evidence, or just plain bad writing. In effect, those within the closed development group (CDG) become voice pieces. They can be contacted by someone who does have a good idea or a good argument, and people within the CDG can voice those ideas and arguments in a way that is consistent with the purpose and functionality of the group. 

 

This does, however, depend on the open-mindedness of the CDG, and will really test if those within the CDG are really there for game development or pushing their own agendas. 

[naTia]

On your second point.  Right, there is a difference between forwarding an unprovable declarative and providing a well reasoned argument.  The former is what you provided and I provided the latter.

Right, so it is your opinion that what I said was different from what you said because it has a term you pulled out of thin air to describe it. I assume you'll next give me a well reasoned argument about how those were a well reasoned argument so what I said wasn't as valid?