Community Feedback Update - Jan 6 + Jan 10 Update - Page 9

On January 11 2017 23:48 Elentos wrote:

Are you sure a map with 10 bases total and a pretty far away 4th is a good idea in LotV?

On January 11 2017 23:34 icesergio wrote:


Strange, you know nothing about me, yet you comment #goldleagueproblems
1. Being in gold is great, it means you have learned your race om enough to play decently
2. Gold, bronze, what does it matter? Everyone has the right to have fun and as such everyone's opinion should be taken into consideration
3. I am actually plat, hit dia and working towards getting back into it, so with your permission, I'd say I'm not exactly the newcomer here
4. You were the one who said you lost 30scvs to 6 adepts, so I guess #woodleagueproblems

On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.

Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems.

On January 07 2017 08:53 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
We wanted to remind people once more that just complaining without solutions isn't helpful, so if the majority of you don't believe these specific maps would be the best, please make suggestions from the existing maps that have been used on the ladder in the past because keeping the brand new map count to 4 is important.

On January 12 2017 03:17 Tuczniak wrote:
The DK response just shows he is not a PR guy. He could have said "We noticed the community isn't happy about proposed maps and we would like to encourage everyone to suggest maps they would like to see in next ladder pool." The same thing, just worded better. So on one side his mindset isn't good, but on the other side it's good the discussion between developers and community isn't filtered by PR team.

On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.

Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.

And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."

I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.

On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:


Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this:

Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg."
Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on."
Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?"
Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional."
Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy."

A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this:

DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback."
Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!"

There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting.

I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship.