why are players not allwed to give feedback that is the stupiest thing I heard of. Because that is the tought about this thread and the lobby "LET THE PLAYERS DECIDE"
Minecraft PC IP: play.cubecraft.net
now for your suggestion as a whole if you mean let the players decide whether a game is good or not will cause a lot of outrage of people with different opinions
as well as that would mean players could likely tamper with the game to break it if they could in developement
1. Players can find bugs that staff testing did not find players outnumber you by thousands
2. A open or rank private beta also allows players to find flaws, such as mistakes in spelling, an inefficient and impractical building system, or missing elements
3. It allows players to suggest ideas more directly such as "wouldnt this work better than that"
Also, I think it's pretty ironic you want the people to give feedback, while you don't accept criticism yourself...
On Topic: John's already stated that he'll be bringing this idea up at the next management meeting. It doesn't really get much better than that in terms of responses to suggestions, so I'm gonna go ahead and lock this up.
LET THE PLAYERS DECIDE
- Thread starter Baploon
- Start date
- Status
Let the players decide. Yes.
Not on the forums, but in the game.
They could use this to release new gamemodes, and to see if the playerbase likes it or not. However, they could also use this when a gamemode gets updated.
Let's pick an easy example: UHC.
The team has decided to update UHC using a system similar to this. By giving the players to option to tell whether they like a certain change or not.
On this beta server the player should be able to vote for every individual (and noticeable) change. For example: normal terrain as a new map. 80% or the players vote yes.. meaning it will stay. Changes will get made over time and the changes will stay permanently when the playerbase likes it.
In the end some big exciting stuff will get added (to keep the surprise) and the new update replaces the old version of the game.
This is just something realistic I could came up with on how to use the 'let the players decide' system with game updates.
Not on the forums, but in the game.
They could use this to release new gamemodes, and to see if the playerbase likes it or not. However, they could also use this when a gamemode gets updated.
Let's pick an easy example: UHC.
The team has decided to update UHC using a system similar to this. By giving the players to option to tell whether they like a certain change or not.
On this beta server the player should be able to vote for every individual (and noticeable) change. For example: normal terrain as a new map. 80% or the players vote yes.. meaning it will stay. Changes will get made over time and the changes will stay permanently when the playerbase likes it.
In the end some big exciting stuff will get added (to keep the surprise) and the new update replaces the old version of the game.
This is just something realistic I could came up with on how to use the 'let the players decide' system with game updates.
This Is Kind Of Backwards A Lot Of People Are Hating Game Breaking Bugs (Which isn't dumb it makes sense) But people blame these bugs on sloppy developing so devs just don't care to fix them when really there are 2 things wrong with that assumption Firstly Most Bugs Occur Out Of The Blue They Just started happening 1 day (an example is when Fantasy took over Survival Games it just happened which most bugs do that or devs don't actually know about them) the second thing is deadlines devs can't always fix every bug in beta because they have a deadline
now for your suggestion as a whole if you mean let the players decide whether a game is good or not will cause a lot of outrage of people with different opinions
as well as that would mean players could likely tamper with the game to break it if they could in developement
I fully support this idea its great! Though what if this "Beta Lobby" Was not linked to the "Main Games". What I mean is that the "Beta Lobby" Has games but those games give you different points, Vanity Points, and Experience so It doesn't effect the "Main Games" like Eggwars or Lucky Isands.
Example:
Say you have 30 Levels with 2500 Vanity Points and 486 Points. In the "Beta Lobby" You would have 0 Levels With 0 Vanity Points and 0 Points. Meaning that you earn those by playing the "Beta Games". (I really hope this makes sense ^-^)
Example:
Say you have 30 Levels with 2500 Vanity Points and 486 Points. In the "Beta Lobby" You would have 0 Levels With 0 Vanity Points and 0 Points. Meaning that you earn those by playing the "Beta Games". (I really hope this makes sense ^-^)
wonderful
While it is true its not easy, look at the advantages
1. Players can find bugs that staff testing did not find players outnumber you by thousands
2. A open or rank private beta also allows players to find flaws, such as mistakes in spelling, an inefficient and impractical building system, or missing elements
3. It allows players to suggest ideas more directly such as "wouldnt this work better than that"
Cyqni
Forum Expert
The problem is: MOST PEOPLE WON'T GIVE ANY FEEDBACK. Most people would play the game only to say "What a shitty game, lot of bugs" without any kind of useful comments. That's why restricting it to a small amount of players (imo, the more active/veteran players, cause they should have more influence than somebody that joined yesterday) would nake it a lot easier. Most of the players don't have a forums account, so giving feedback would be impossible, or at the very least, really tedious.
This comment makes no sense at all... Tacos is involved in running the server, he does know whether it would work or not. People might've liked your idea, that doesn't mean these people have experience running a giant server, and it does definitely not mean that your idea is bulletproof.
Also, I think it's pretty ironic you want the people to give feedback, while you don't accept criticism yourself...
Gets more players than Control Point did at the end. It's nice to have some diversity in our games as well. If it becomes incredibly unpopular, it'll probably go the same way as the others.
Pretty much. No reason to dump a game that still gets players and isn't throwing issues.
On Topic: John's already stated that he'll be bringing this idea up at the next management meeting. It doesn't really get much better than that in terms of responses to suggestions, so I'm gonna go ahead and lock this up.
- Status
