Do the devs really listen to their community?

[fabius]

We wrote that diary before we had implemented air transport. turned out to be easier rather than use bombers, so this wasnt a response to forum "rage".

EDIT: actually, we did add trucks because of the forum (and alpha testers) requesting it.

We do listen and read almost all posts, but there is a very big difference between doing exactly what a vocal minority is arguing and listening to all sources. If the specific group that is this forum will like or not like something does factor into all decisions (and quite a bit!), its just not the only basis we form decisions on. We always pick up on good ideas however.



People arguing for fuel, here are some points:
- the HOI3 flow system is not possible to implement well. Even if it functions its not understandable to most people. We tried for years to make it work, it just doesnt. its shit on many levels and affected the rest of the game design in negative ways. The solution to the problem is definitly not "try harder".
- abstraction is necessary to make a game, and it is a game, it isnt a simulation we are trying to make. Most suggested solutions I'v seen in threads have either had huge flaws or basically made something that is exactly like supply making it pointless to separate.
- Its good to be passionate about stuff and raise concerns, but generally for stuff like this we already know the exact reaction it will have and consider it before hand. You also have to take opinions from people who havent played the game with a grain of salt as it can only be a hunch or feeling on their part. Of course there is also people who have played HOI3 so long that they do not see its flaws anymore ("the hoi3 supply system was almost perfection" some guy commented in a thread).

tl;dr we do listen, but its not the same thing as doing exactly what someone personally requests.

First off, another "Thanks", and your post about listening with balance is really appreciated!!

Secondly, this sort of thing reminds me of something when I was beta testing a slice of a game years ago. I and many others thought something would be great for the game. I truly believed it. But I did not have the full picture or experience of the whole game. It turned out that the wish that we got really didn't go so well when combined with the whole game.

That said, I would like to imagine that when many make the effort to offer ideas that sometimes it's helpful.

 

[Axe99]

We do listen and read almost all posts, but there is a very big difference between doing exactly what a vocal minority is arguing and listening to all sources. If the specific group that is this forum will like or not like something does factor into all decisions (and quite a bit!), its just not the only basis we form decisions on. We always pick up on good ideas however.

Cheers for the response Podcat, and for a bit more discussion of the supply/fuel thing - big props for continuing to engage with your fans . I'm still yet to be convinced, but my concerns are well stated by now, so I won't clog up the forums re-stating them, and hope that you get to laugh at me being off the mark when it's all good .

 

[agus92]

It is a game, not real life, and not trying be a simulation.
Abstraction is a crucial and necessary part of game design.
How things are abstracted should follow the design goals the developers have set themselves. It looks like they feel confident that this system is the best to reach those design goals.
You may not agree with those design goals or the steps the devs have taken to reach them, but that does not make them wrong. It just means, this is not a game for you.
Or maybe it just means, that you have never invested as much thought about the topic as the devs, and obviously have never seen the bigger picture how it works in the game. Well... obviously they have an advantage here, as they can test their stuff instead of speculating blindly and with incomplete information.

I agree completely with your point about me speculating, compared to the devs.

But sorry, I don't need you to teach me about abstractions. If I didn't like abstractions, I would have studied physics instead of engineering. The issue is that I believe that abstractions are a way to simplify something, but without changing too much the outcome. And I speculate it will. Here's hoping the devs prove me wrong.

 

[gianlucad]

Paradox has been abstracting game mechanics in their latest releases because it makes for easier development.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

Seriously, what's the major problem with the supply system in Hoi4 apart from your personal preference? I mean I don't like that the fuel has been abstracted, but if that's what we get, that's what I will play with. A well designed simple system is better then a badly designed complex one imo.(aka Hoi3)
Time will tell if it's well designed or not.

Well, I won't retype all that have been said about that yet. It's in the numerous related posts.

I have come to the conclusion this past week that people are going to go into this title with their own ideas about what will and wont work with it. It seems that, judging from many of the comments, that regardless how good (or even if this system works) the people who are in a frenzy will continue to be in a frenzy until they get their way. See OOB, Counters, etc.

Allowing the game to even hit beta, or its release date to provide their play tested feedback on these system? PFFT! yeah right

I never complained about OOB or counters neither.
I hope there will be a nice demo for this title, to let me see if my speculate, like said above, that this system will change the outcome a lot and be very unrealistic, is eventually right or not. And so to buy the game or not.

 

[Mannstien]

What they leave unfinished modder's will for them or at least what we feel is unfinished because the modder's in the HOI community are some of the most dedicated I have seen and I have seen quite a few (thinking of Grey Wolves Expansion for SH3 as one which cost me a dollar donation until I saw what they had done to that game which is why I still play it), as for Paradox they have been the most straight forward group of folks I've seen in my travels these recent years of gaming but they do so as they should, with a filter for sound judgement and reason in making their company and products not only successful but developing a loyal group of customers.

Do I agree with what they do all of the time absolutely not, nor do I make excuses for it, but neither do they and so I respect them for that which is one reason I'm still here, granted I'm not active as often as I was the first year or so of development but when they delayed the project while disappointed at the same time I understood that someone in that company had stood up (or perhaps a few) and said it wasn't ready. Hell they even came out and said as much to their fan base and gave us some reasoning behind it but just to make that call is not easily done no matter what project you are leading, now that I can respect and in no way am I a fan boy as I have been intolerant of some of the things which were not taken from HOI3 and intend to stand by my positions, but I've learned that somethings are best delayed because what I have seen in that time since the delay was announced has turned my opinion around of the potential of this game.

If you try to please everyone, you'll find that no one including yourself will ever be please.

 

[Kazansky22]

I just want to be able to starve the XXX fleet out of fuel so that it has to remain in port and Starve the XXX air force so they can't fly as many missions.

 

[Zaku]

Well, I won't retype all that have been said about that yet. It's in the numerous related posts.

Yep, that's my point. Most of the numerous related posts are basically "I don't like it".

I just want to be able to starve the XXX fleet out of fuel so that it has to remain in port and Starve the XXX air force so they can't fly as many missions.

Well you can do that in some abstract way. Deny the enemy their resources then they won't be able to reinforce their units so they will be combat innefective.
Its not perfect, but still better then Hoi3 where you could just hoard up 99999/99999 fuel and oil before the war and would never run out of it ever.

 

[Lifthrasil]

Have you noticed the increase in Devs forum activity after the "Fuel-discussion"? They obviously noticed that the users feel left in the dark and increased activity due to that. That's why we see so many more posts with the "Dev posted here" tag.
I think that's good and will help calm the community

 

[podcat]

Paradox has been abstracting game mechanics in their latest releases because it makes for easier development.

while this is sometimes true, there is also:
- a higher abstraction is usually more accurate simulation of the situation you try to simulate. Example: "The simulation doesnt separate fuel from supply!" vs "oil is an extremely important strategic resource you go to war over".
- higher abstractions usually come with less micro work. also If a detailed model can be simulated without player input, why even have it in the game if it doesnt give player something to do. we strive for the code effort of something reflect how much direct interaction a player would have with it.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

Yep, that's my point. Most of the numerous related posts are basically "I don't like it".

No. Plenty of posts detail a lot of arguments to explain how such a mechanism can only lead into some very unrealistic (even historically opposite) things. If you fail to find them, maybe it's because you don't want to read them.

And by the way, we can say that we don't like it if we're pretty sure that will lead to insane, even dumb situations.

 

[Hagen67483]

For all those people who say they have an easy solution for something that they dont like in the game, here my advice: "Make a Mod with your Solution".

 

[Zaku]

No. Plenty of posts detail a lot of arguments to explain how such a mechanism can only lead into some very unrealistic (even historically opposite) things. If you fail to find them, maybe it's because you don't want to read them.

Oh, or maybe because I don't think that is important in a game.
Let me say it again, that I also don't like that fuel has been abstracted, but I know its only because my of my personal preference and not because some major design flaw in the game.
Actually, the more I think about this new system, the more sense it makes.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

while this is sometimes true, there is also:
- a higher abstraction is usually more accurate simulation of the situation you try to simulate. Example: "The simulation doesnt separate fuel from supply!" vs "oil is an extremely important strategic resource you go to war over".
- higher abstractions usually come with less micro work. also If a detailed model can be simulated without player input, why even have it in the game if it doesnt give player something to do. we strive for the code effort of something reflect how much direct interaction a player would have with it.

Again, Podcat, it's not the abstraction nature of mechanism itself which is problem for us, even if I can't speak for all the worried/annoyed people. It's that a motorised stuff doesn't :
- consume its oil/fuel during its whole lifetime but instantly for production.
- consume its oil/fuel not related to its use, but to an arbitrary amount.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

For all those people who say they have an easy solution for something that they dont like in the game, here my advice: "Make a Mod with your Solution".

But are we sure modding those things will at least be possible ?

 

[agus92]

Again, Podcat, it's not the abstraction nature of mechanism itself which is problem for us, even if I can't speak for all the worried/annoyed people. It's that a motorised stuff doesn't :
- consume its oil/fuel during its whole lifetime but instantly for production.
- consume its oil/fuel not related to its use, but to an arbitrary amount.

Not only this, but the temporal line is affected as well. Example: you're Germany in '37. Your oil situation is really bad but you predict that it will fine in a year (for whatever reason). The thing is that you want to build tanks for a future campaign, and you really need to create a reserve of them. But the game doesn't allow to build them now and use them later (usage=oil) since oil is abstracted into equipment. I think that's a major flaw of the abstraction.

 

[Zaku]

Not only this, but the temporal line is affected as well. Example: you're Germany in '37. Your oil situation is really bad but you predict that it will fine in a year (for whatever reason). The thing is that you want to build tanks for a future campaign, and you really need to create a reserve of them. But the game doesn't allow to build them now and use them later (usage=oil) since oil is abstracted into equipment. I think that's a major flaw of the abstraction.

Now that's a good point, but I think that you can still build them if you have resource shortage, only at a reduced rate.

 

[GsusNSV]

Not only this, but the temporal line is affected as well. Example: you're Germany in '37. Your oil situation is really bad but you predict that it will fine in a year (for whatever reason). The thing is that you want to build tanks for a future campaign, and you really need to create a reserve of them. But the game doesn't allow to build them now and use them later (usage=oil) since oil is abstracted into equipment. I think that's a major flaw of the abstraction.

Your production in this case will be reduced. If you need 1 steel and 1 oil, but have no oil = -50%.
2 steel and 1 oil needed, but still no oil = -33%.

That means it is possible to build a "tank" with only oil and no steel.

 

[agus92]

Your production in this case will be reduced. If you need 1 steel and 1 oil, but have no oil = -50%.
2 steel and 1 oil needed, but still no oil = -33%.

That means it is possible to build a "tank" with only oil and no steel.

I know it's possible, but the reduced rate doesn't make any sense in this case.

 

[Mannstien]

while this is sometimes true, there is also:
- a higher abstraction is usually more accurate simulation of the situation you try to simulate. Example: "The simulation doesnt separate fuel from supply!" vs "oil is an extremely important strategic resource you go to war over".
- higher abstractions usually come with less micro work. also If a detailed model can be simulated without player input, why even have it in the game if it doesnt give player something to do. we strive for the code effort of something reflect how much direct interaction a player would have with it.

Abstraction does not always equate to less micro, you can abstract to a degree the OOB which could reduce Micro if introduced in a well thought out manner.