Closed Dev. Group

[LordRahl2]

No, it isn't. Like I said, you have never actually seen the CDG.

 

That isn't a definition. Unless you are a journalist for Infowars and Prison Planet. Wait a minute. Just wait a minute.

 

 

The final piece of the puzzle has fallen into place. We have all been blessed by one of Alex Jones' lead conspiracy theorists journalists.

I have no idea what to say other than yeah, its definitional. For everyone.

 

Are you confusing the word 'planner' with 'preper'? If so then....

 

///////

 

Sheppy, if it is the Senate than just make it transparent.

[WISD0MTREE]

I have no idea what to say other than yeah, its definitional. For everyone.

 

Are you confusing the word 'planner' with 'preper'? If so then....

"It's more like an advisory board for a CEO." 

-The guy who has never even been on the board

 

Since we are talking about definitions... 

Joke 

2. something that is amusing or ridiculous, especially because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke

[LordRahl2]

"It's more like an advisory board for a CEO." 

-The guy who has never even been on the board

 

Since we are talking about definitions... 

Joke 

2. something that is amusing or ridiculous, especially because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke

 

I can read.  I do not need to be in any given group to know how it works.

 

Being dumb and then pretending you were trying to tell a joke is not really a definition problem on my side son.

Edited July 15, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Aslan]

Sheepy has already given his response to this thread. I'm inclined to close it. Unless anyone has any further constructive comments to add, there's no need to post. As with all threads, players continuing to harass or insult each other will be issued warns if the activity continues. Keep it civil.

[Prefontaine]

When do things get implemented? Whenever Sheepy wants. How long after suggestions? Greatly varies.

 

Sheepy loved the treasures idea. Treasures were implemented within about 24 hours I believe, and to great lack luster. Sheepy also loved the perks idea, that idea was at least 9 months ago and there are still no perks. There was an update a while back that had several elements to it http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6364-5172015-balancing-changes/page-1one of which is no longer on there, and it was the ability to buy a lot of spies per day. Guess which of those was the only idea not presented to the closed dev team? The spy buy idea, and it received such a whiplash that it was removed almost right away. This is the point of the dev group, to avoid updates that have kick backs like that. The closed Dev group has been around since I was still hosting a radio show (I don't remember the exact date), and this is the first time a game change has caused such vitriol with the cap. As I said in my thread I wasn't around for this debate so I don't know how it went, and frankly I don't give two !@#$. You are all pissed off at the wrong people. Dev people bickering with non dev people and vice versa. Both sides cool off and take a lap. I SAID TAKE A LAP.

 

If you want someone to blame, honestly blame Sheepy he made the game, he made the final call on changes, and he made the group.. And by blame him I don't mean fling insults and such at him like a child. Have a conversation with him, preferably in private about it cus it's sure as !@#$ going to do more than letting the copious amounts of sand build up in your collective vaginas from these forum posts.

 

If you all took a second, you'd realize you're on the same side. The side of trying to make this game better. 

 

..Oh and I hate all of you. 

Edited July 15, 2015 by Judge Dredd

[Isolatar]

..Oh and I hate all of you. 

 

And we love you too     

[Mayor]

Yeah really guys. . . I came in here cause I am all about transparency but after seeing some terrible posts from Dev members it leaves a lot to be desired about the nature and attitude of some of the members within that group, I always approve of contribution to the game and I don't think anyone should be left out of that. Really though I understand why some people would not even want to be part of that group due to the petty bickering on some of it's members going on about "not letting in others" because they couldn't stay away from their own agenda or some stupid shit like that? All I'm saying is whoever was thinking that posting in thread and "schooling" us non-Devs on who ought to be involved in making the game awesome just came off as being total douchebags and everytime I hear"I wouldn't really say the group is the ones who brought about the drama, more so the ones not in group who believe in some wild illuminati like conspiracy theory they've conjured up out of what I believe to be either personal jealousy or in character political reasons which are both things we tend to keep out of that group for a reason. "

"You need to back that statement up with something even remotely resembling a fact. The dev group is not a hive mind as you're implying."

 

Yeah. . . I think I will stay away from these asshats. Then they also admit to just inviting their friends from their aa while not inviting people into the group they dislike while claiming to not do just that? What a !@#$ing joke. If one suggestion to open up a closed board spawns all this elitist hate then I shudder to think the BS that is in the Dev group. Clearly anybody forwarding their "agenda" is the person accusing everybody of doing so while claiming to be a white shining knight of game suggestions.

​I was mixed feeling originally but I am leaning towards opening up this group, clearly some of it's members are not the cream of the crop as they themselves believe.

[Buorhann]

That's why you'll never be considered for the group, Mayor~

 

( Did I do that right? )

[LordRahl2]

This is the point of the dev group, to avoid updates that have kick backs like that. 

This is not a reason to have a secret group is it?  Almost the opposite.

 

The closed Dev group has been around since I was still hosting a radio show (I don't remember the exact date), and this is the first time a game change has caused such vitriol with the cap. 

First, it is disturbing that this group operated in secret for a long period of time.  Second, it is the discovery, announcement, and discussion about the BGEs that has had the most vitriol.  Most of it coming from the group itself, strangely.  The majority of 'ignorant' players and posts from them have been opinionated yet reasonable.  It is odd that a group selected for their ability to present reasonable debate does the exact opposite in public.

 

 

blame Sheepy ...Have a conversation with him, preferably in private 

 

'Blame' is not something that I do really.  I do look for issues and try to change them for the better.  Talking in public seems to be better imho.

 

If you all took a second, you'd realize you're on the same side. The side of trying to make this game better. 

 

 

This I agree with.

 

 ..Oh and I hate all of you. 

 

Strange, I kinda like you.

[Mayor]

Damn, I really blew my chance here to get into the elite group.

Dammit dammit dammit!

[Prefontaine]

This is not a reason to have a secret group is it?  Almost the opposite.

First, it is disturbing that this group operated in secret for a long period of time.  Second, it is the discovery, announcement, and discussion about the BGEs that has had the most vitriol.  Most of it coming from the group itself, strangely.  The majority of 'ignorant' players and posts from them have been opinionated yet reasonable.  It is odd that a group selected for their ability to present reasonable debate does the exact opposite in public.

First part was in reference to not having sheepys ideas be out of touch with with the game as he doesn't play in depth. Something may look good on paper but in practice come out shitty. So he selected a group to bounce ideas off of. The group hasn't been secret. I talked about it on one of the radio shows I believe with Malone, might even be one of the recorded ones. I've also talked about it openly on irc more than once in its earlier days.

[LordRahl2]

First part was in reference to not having sheepys ideas be out of touch with with the game as he doesn't play in depth. Something may look good on paper but in practice come out !@#$. So he selected a group to bounce ideas off of. The group hasn't been secret. I talked about it on one of the radio shows I believe with Malone, might even be one of the recorded ones. I've also talked about it openly on irc more than once in its earlier days.

 

I did not know you had a radio show and I get on IRC infrequently.  I am, however, relatively active in the forum and in game.  Just because you may have mentioned it a time or three does not make it widely known or not 'secret'.  A significant % of the active membership here sure seemed surprised.  So in general your classification is probably incorrect.

I was unable to find it referenced in any official post on the forums nor in game.  So, it was a secret.

 

Additionally, it qualifies as 'secret' because the member list is secret and the discussions it has are secret.

[Avruch]

I first heard about it a few weeks ago, and wouldn't categorize myself as among the in-crowd or particularly plugged in to the interior drama of pnw. 

[LordRahl2]

I first heard about it a few weeks ago, and wouldn't categorize myself as among the in-crowd or particularly plugged in to the interior drama of pnw. 

 

You are active enough and we can talk about how you heard it offline if you want.  However, weeks=/=months.

[Prefontaine]

I did not know you had a radio show and I get on IRC infrequently.  I am, however, relatively active in the forum and in game.  Just because you may have mentioned it a time or three does not make it widely known or not 'secret'.  A significant % of the active membership here sure seemed surprised.  So in general your classification is probably incorrect.

I was unable to find it referenced in any official post on the forums nor in game.  So, it was a secret.

 

Additionally, it qualifies as 'secret' because the member list is secret and the discussions it has are secret.

 

Secret implies a negative connotation, which is part of why you're being given a hostile response by some. By saying it was kept secret means that it was done in a manner to keep it from you. In fact your alliance leader knew about it around the time of its inception and he was not involved with the group, I remember him asking to have me suggest people to include on the list. As I've said before I didn't involve myself at all with who was in the group so I did not comply. There was no real effort made to keep it secret, nor do I think we were ever told to do so. I know I talked about it freely reasonably often. Less on the forums cus it was around the point in the game where I started to withdraw myself. 

 

Regardless I'm saying you're saying it's secret is the problem. It's a closed group, not a secret group. That's the main thing. Secret implies way more than what it really is. If that's changed, well, my information is out of date. Most of my involvement with the group were in its earlier stages. Balancing to military unit strengths, damages, damage ranges, and the change to superiority were most of what I worked on.

 

EDIT: Spelling. Words give the means to meaning.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Judge Dredd

[LordRahl2]

Whatever.  I meant it in a more literal definition.  If being secret holds such a negative connotation then why do the members keep their list of membership secret and why are the boards kept secret?

[Phiney]

Whatever. 

 

Finally. Let's just drop it now eh, mate.

[Isolatar]

Finally. Let's just drop it now eh, mate.

 

(Thank you Pre for helping him see the light)

[Reagan]

It is not really a dev group tbh. It is more an advisory board for the CEO. Unfortunately, it is not working very well and part of this is transparency. I doubt you will get much from their minutes.

 

It would be far easier to simply unhide the boards and restrict posting rights to the associated membergroup.

This would only result in more topics flooding the suggestions forum with players referencing the topics there and continuing the discussion in duplicate topics.

 

I'm no longer in the group. I never contributed to it. At one time, I was highly active and very much in tune with game mechanics, and I was added. Then I went inactive and eventually I was dropped. At this point, the game has changed so much, I wouldn't be an asset to the group.

 

The point is, from what I saw during my time of having access, people left politics at the door. Their actions outside of that forum in no way reflected on their conversations in it. I never saw a time where they had advanced notice from Sheepy and time to prepare with a heads up for what he was going to implement. It was serving it's purpose, exactly the way Sheepy described it earlier in this thread.

 

I can understand how some players take offense or feel shunned by not being included. It's the nature of creating a private forum and then having those not included learn about it. But I think the pros of it outweigh the cons and to make it viewable by everyone would create numerous problems, including the one I started this post with.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Reagan

[LordRahl2]

This would only result in more topics flooding the suggestions forum with players referencing the topics there and continuing the discussion in duplicate topics.

 

So having more activity with more suggestions is a bad idea.  Whelp.  All of the Browser Game Experts agree.  Only in secrecy can those few leit browser game warriors reach the penultimate recommendation.

[Dwynn]

So having more activity with more suggestions is a bad idea.  Whelp.  All of the Browser Game Experts agree.  Only in secrecy can those few leit browser game warriors reach the penultimate recommendation.

Because clearly there isn't a forum called game suggestions that the general populace of the forums and game can post suggestions to.... right?

[LordRahl2]

Because clearly there isn't a forum called game suggestions that the general populace of the forums and game can post suggestions to.... right?

 

And if the plebes knew what the current topics were that were 'hot' and made relevant comments and suggestions in that very forum that would be a terrible thing....right?

[Prefonteen]

EDIT: I initially addressed Rahl in the post, but realized the post has become a broader statement. I've removed the quote as its no longer relevant to the post. Sorry about that.

 

As Rampage mentioned earlier, I was added to this development group not too long ago. After spending a while feelings things out and simply watching how the development group operated, getting a grasp of the relevant topics at hand, I have recently begun sparcely posting and contributing. That covers the entire extent to which my involvement goes: I got added, and try to be constructive. The vast majority of guys in the Closed Development Group shares a similar sentiment. It goes without saying that this same majority, like me, has individually opted to stay out of this debate for a few select reasons:

 

- Engaging in a shitflinging contest here is not going to improve the game in any way shape or form. It simply takes time away from more important matters

- Quite frankly, it is not up to us to have this debate. From our end of things; Sheepy makes the call on who he asks to join the group and who he does not include. He also makes the call on how the group operates and how much transparency there is. We are allowed to bring suggestions, but that is the entire extent of it.

- From your end of things, engaging the Dev. group members in debate is, I suppose, an understandable and natural reaction to finding out that the group exists. I can't fault you for it. It must however be noted that it is counterproductive: We have no influence and we are not a united body- we can not in unison provide you with any representative explanation on decisions made; because we did not make these decisions. The ony thing dev. members are able to provide you, is their *own* perspective and their *own* rationale. To that end, you are free to engage anyone you wish, but I would caution that it is a disservice to those who attempt to help the game, to generalize personal statements by individuals as being any 'official' answer or even as being a shared sentiment amongst this group.

 

Ultimately, my personal suggestion to you would be to attempt to speak privately about the manner with Sheepy. You may have the greatest results that way.

 

As a final point, I would like to point out that the generalized sentiment I see here is based on players trying to fight for their 'rights' to transparency, in defense against a perceived 'illuminati' that is supposedly attempting to influence Sheepy in order to swing the game into their favor.

 

My question to you is: Why are we not discussing how to 'improve the game as a whole', instead of debating why the Development Group is supposedly biased? Personally speaking, I believe that to be a far more constructive approach to the game. Sheepy will ultimately decide what happens. Why not try to work with him, instead of forcing his attention to defending his decision to structure his operations in a certain way?

 

EDIT 2: Typos...

Edited July 17, 2015 by Partisan

[LordRahl2]

My question to you us: Why are we not discussing how to 'improve the game as a whole', instead of debating why the Development Group is supposedly biased? Personally speaking, I believe that to be a far more constructive approach to the game. Sheepy will ultimately decide what happens. Why not try to work with him, instead of forcing his attention to defending his decision to structure his operations in a certain way?

 

A fine reply and a good question.  Thank you, sir.

 

To answer, I would argue that I am discussing how to improve the game as a whole.  My main contention is that the game will be improved and actual changes will be easier and less distracting for him to implement if he has buy in from the community.  Having transparency in discussion and allowing outside inputs to a more selective group may not always result in buy in, but it cannot hurt in this regard.

 

If the wider community can see what the topics under debate are (there were two suggestions itt about how to do that - both valid) then it seems likely that other ideas will be forwarded to improve the game 'as a whole' as you say.  So this is not a suggestion about how to improve the game mechanically.  It is a suggestion about how to improve the process for improving the game.

 

Maybe I am missing something.  It is clear to me that more transparency will result in more suggestions, admittedly they will run the gambit of good, bad and neutral (as do those in the closed group I assume), however, I am missing any real downside.  Will there be 'bad' posts in the game suggestion forum?  It is a strongly moderated sub forum so the mods should be able to manage that.  So, what is the downside of transparency particularly in the light of improving the game?

[Atzuya]

You wouldn't believe how much terrible ideas Sheepy had

 

Remember those updates that caused everyone to riot like Jim Carrey on bath salts? I know you can name one or two, and hell in CDD there's like dozens of them, made mostly by Sheepy alone. What is the purpose of CDD? Simple, it's to provide Sheepy a quick way to get a feedback to his many many ideas that would amount to more than just 'OMG u suck', ideas that might sound good on the paper but maybe not so much in practice, and also for a place where people can suggest things without being accused of forwarding their own agenda. Because in CDD is a politic-neutral zone, anyone seen letting their own personal vendetta into matters would be swiftly removed.

 

For a secret society to operate, it must be capable of moderating its own members, which in this case only Sheepy has any say in who goes in and who goes out. Everyone can suggest names, but ultimately it is up to Sheepy. Atm only a third of the people inside CDD is invited by members, the rest are picked by Sheepy.

 

And if the plebes knew what the current topics were that were 'hot' and made relevant comments and suggestions in that very forum that would be a terrible thing....right?

This argument operates on the basis that everyone can always provide relevant, constructive comments every single time, which of course we all know people on Orbis would always freak out first, start bashing second, thinking maybe never.

 

Transparency is good, sure, but when you're dealing with dozens of people who never provided anything beyond 'I hate this' 'I hate that' 'Change it back' 'Why did you do this', filtering out the noise so you can discuss more volatile things in peace is reasonable.

 

Like really, the second CDD is made public, I bet 2 mil people would have a spamfest on the older threads Sheepy had there