Semper Fi - Development Diary #6

[unmerged(53215)]

I was just thinking. If we get the option to upgrade units to different unit types, there could be an option to convert regulars into reserves and reserves into regulars as well! I would use that for sure

Since Regular/Reserve status isn't just a matter of training or equipment (it's a matter of service requirement) swapping between the two should be tied into the current laws system and in the case of changing reserve units to regular might include a possible dissent hit.

 

[Daelyn75]

dermeister if they did that then I would be happy, since it pretty much is what I am looking for even if I wasn't as specific as you. Essentially this is what Stardock does when they are looking for ideas on how to implement things.

I'm not saying Stardock comes out and says, "Ok guys we are going to make a game and we will only build it out of forum feedback with no input from the developers at all."

When they look for ways to make things work, or look for ideas on how to get things work, it doesn't stop at the developers meeting table, nor like Paradox who sound more like forum ninja's who just come out and say they are doing it even though fans have been arguing and complaining for months at a time over that very subject.

 

[unmerged(53215)]

The new equipment (lets say trucks if we upgrade INF to MOT) still needs to be shipped to say Africa if they are stationed there.

What is the difference in upgrading them and adding a new brigade?

The difference is that most of the unit is already in the field, pulling the brigade out of the division until the upgrade is complete is the penalty for getting the equipment to the unit.

I'm not arguing against your idea, I'm just pointing out possible exploitations that need to be addressed.

 

[Daelyn75]

Seriously mate, do you know many game development studios, that have the devs posting on the forums on a daily basis, providing info and answering questions?

Not to mention the constant development reports, that actually provide specific information on features. For most of the few other studios out there, that do release dev reports, they tend to read like wishlists and are packed with PR speak. e.g. They would claim the new game would have "improved AI" as opposed to, and I quote from dev diary #3, "...the AI is much better at detecting potential pockets... and withdrawing from them if it does not have the overall front initiative.".

What you need to understand is that, by providing so much specific information, they open themselves up to potential scrutiny and criticism. Having built expectations, if they fail to deliver on what was promised on those dev diaries, the backlash could end up costing them customers. And they don't have to take that risk. Most companies don't and have their PR reps talking as vaguely as possible, until the last possible moment, when they present a playable version of the game to some expo for the journalists to try.

Also, one other thing to keep in mind, is that the people who frequent these forums do not comprise everyone who purchased the game. We are not even the majority. If we were, Paradox would probably be bankrupt by now... Keeping close contact with the core fanbase is good marketing, but it is not the only effective marketing choice they could make.

What Paradox has been doing is quite rare and it is something that we should be positive towards and not critical. Until now, I thought they were the only company that acted in this manner. From reading your post today, I learned, that Stardock acts in a similar fashion. That's a grand total of two... Therefore, I'd be a bit wary of complaining that 75% is not enough, when mostly everyone else is providing 10%.


Just my two cents...


edit: About the discussion that has been going on, on how Paradox treats feature recommendations from forum posters:
I just wanted to say, that a forum with dozens or hundreds of members, may be a great environment for the Paradox devs to get new ideas and see things from an angle they might not have considered before. However, when it comes to actually implementing those ideas, debating the details in such a public and crowded environment is imho not the best choice to get things done. At least from my experience with trying to make decisions in a group.

What your talking about reminds me of two companies who did it and failed miserably. These companies would be Lionhead Studios, and Quicksilver.

Quicksilver disapeared after the MOO3 fiasco, but Lionhead Studios survived the Fable forum debacle. Both companies promised the world, and both failed on many of them.

I am not talking about making promises that may or may not work, but what I am saying is gathering ideas for things and trying to implement them. If they aren't feasible then say why instead of the Lionhead way which was "Oh we cut that feature a long time ago," and then that was it.

I still remember the picture made by a disgruntled Fable forum user of Peter Molyneux with the caption "Oh to hell with it just cut everything!"

These kinds of things really piss people off, and I am not saying Paradox does them at all, but other companies that give this kind of treatment towards thier fans really upset them, and it is definitely not the way to go when it comes to the transparency thing I was talking about.

These companies would post what will be in their game, and then for reasons unknown cut or change them to be much less cool than originally planned. So yes I do realize there is a fine line when it comes to feedback and notifying the fanbase. That being said what your getting at is not what I am asking for, nor is your worst case scenarios what either Paradox, or Stardock is doing.

 

[Ruthlesssamuria]

Getetign supplies in Allied country etc..

Why can't a country get thier own supllies in another allied country? USA did in UK and Austriala. My bestfreidn playign as USA cannot get his own supplies thru Vichy France which went allied and not Axis. Same with Germans in North Africa, Romania, and Japan in Manchuria etc...wacko: etc...

 

[Thomas Kenobi]

What your talking about reminds me of two companies who did it and failed miserably. These companies would be Lionhead Studios, and Quicksilver.

Quicksilver disapeared after the MOO3 fiasco, but Lionhead Studios survived the Fable forum debacle. Both companies promised the world, and both failed on many of them.

I am not talking about making promises that may or may not work, but what I am saying is gathering ideas for things and trying to implement them. If they aren't feasible then say why instead of the Lionhead way which was "Oh we cut that feature a long time ago," and then that was it.

I still remember the picture made by a disgruntled Fable forum user of Peter Molyneux with the caption "Oh to hell with it just cut everything!"

These kinds of things really piss people off, and I am not saying Paradox does them at all, but other companies that give this kind of treatment towards thier fans really upset them, and it is definitely not the way to go when it comes to the transparency thing I was talking about.

These companies would post what will be in their game, and then for reasons unknown cut or change them to be much less cool than originally planned. So yes I do realize there is a fine line when it comes to feedback and notifying the fanbase. That being said what your getting at is not what I am asking for, nor is your worst case scenarios what either Paradox, or Stardock is doing.

I'm afraid I don't follow you here. Are you talking about providing feedback on why certain features were cut or implemented in a certain way?
If so, then I can think of at least one reason: Posting the exact reasons publicly, will likely lead to a debate, with various sets of people defending a number of different ideas. The thing is that, people participating in such a debate, would expect its result to matter. To be taken into account by the devs. However, as I said before that couldn't possibly work. Design decisions cannot be taken by a random group, comprising tens of people, all giving their qualified or unqualified opinion anonymously on a forum.

Plus Paradox would have nothing to gain from such a debate, except perhaps appeasing some people who feel particularly strongly toward some feature. Unless, of course the debate ends up swinging in those people's favour, in which case, not only will they not be appeased, but they'll be rather more pissed off that Paradox isn't listening to their ideas.

PS: What worst case scenarios are you talking about? I didn't mention any in my previous post. Also, I'm having difficulty understanding what it is you mean to say by making the comparison between Paradox, Stardock and Quicksilver, Lionhead.

 

[bbasgen]

Interaction by Paradox in Developer-Diaries is, if you read what I wrote, an after-the-fact thing. By the time a DD is posted, everything in it is more or less solid as stone.

Have a read of the Vicky 2 diaries, where the devs have explicitly said they would look into suggestions that are being made. Rewind to the original HoI3 threads, and lots of implementation tweaks were taken into account.

one specific phase which seems to be weak to me: the feedback on implementation phase during the conception of the plan.

Think of this in another way. As a manager, I'll give my employees direction: I won't tell them how to do something, only what to do.

So to summarize, I'm saying that there is ONE specific phase where I think that Paradox doesn't take enough advantage of their user-base: the phase where they decide HOW they will implement a certain new feature when there are multiple possible ways of doing it.

There you have it. Look, outside of training, when someone tells you how to do something, it is often a form of micromanagement. Micromanagement by forum users isn't a good idea, even for the "big issues". Actually, especially for the big issues!

PI is a very small company with lots of development going on at any given moment. These are the best forums I've ever been on, and I have seen a significantly positive change in how Paradox interacts with the forums over the last 3 years or so. What I find most impressive is that for the vitriol that became the HoI3 forum, the devs have responded by increasing involvement! That is a rare thing and an example of some great leadership.

 

[cwg9]

I think these guys need to take a lesson from Stardock . . .

http://forums.elementalgame.com/

Go through the forum and you can find lead developers regularily talk to their customers/beta testers.

They ask for ideas, get them and give reasons why they choose to go certain routes. In the end everyone knows why they chose to do this, and is satisfied.

Besides, Stardock is one of the few companies that can actually put out an AI that is as good or better than a human player without cheating. Now that is saying something.

LOL, if Paradox and Stardock ever collaborated, so that Paradox builds the game engine, implements the game mechanics, and Stardock writes the AI for it, I'll have died and gone to heaven!

 

[dermeister]

I'm afraid I don't follow you here.

1. I posted about Paradox soliciting more feedback on the implementation of features.
2. Daelyn75 agrees. He thinks a company called Stardock does this well.
3. You reply that Paradox can't do this because they would end up breaking promises, completely missing our point.
4. Daelyn75 gives examples of two companies that broke promises, and explains why that is not what we are talking about - Stardock solicits user feedback on feature implementation without breaking promises or making them.
5. Your reply seems to indicate that you do get what the original point was (then why say you don't follow?), and you basically say that Paradox would gain nothing from the debate that would ensue from solicitation of user opinion on implementation, or that the solicitation itself would piss-off those who didn't get their way.

Well, I have to disagree... I've explained why it might be of great use, and Daelyn75 gives an example of a company that does it just right. Everybody would gain from this.

I'm not quite certain of what you're so afraid of. Your reasons seem to be half-hazard or almost satirical at best (we gain nothing from debate! it's dangerous!).

Edit: Re-reading your post, you do make one good, if perhaps unwarranted point: design-by-committee is bad. I agree, but I don't think anybody wants or expects that. The purpose is not to have Paradox go Soviet on us. They're great at using their user-base on every phase but this particular one, that's all. There are plenty of good implementation ideas that probably go un-voiced, only to be posted after it is too late.

 

[cwg9]

Why can't a country get thier own supllies in another allied country? USA did in UK and Austriala. My bestfreidn playign as USA cannot get his own supplies thru Vichy France which went allied and not Axis. Same with Germans in North Africa, Romania, and Japan in Manchuria etc...wacko: etc...

Completely agree with this.

 

[DiLune]

Regarding Paradox not soliciting input: It seems to me, from what I can recall, a lot of what we are seeing in Semper Fi is based on input they received when HOI3 launched. More than that, it was debated at length. They've been reading the forums and Semper FI is a product of that. They don't have time to debate features right now because the expansion needs to launch sooner rather than later. (blah blah unfinished product argument starts and I'm not getting into that.)

We already got our say for features. Now our input helps them tweak and refine those features. If there is another expansion, the features will likely be produced by debate we are having right now or right after Semper Fi launches.

 

[Xendance]

Completely agree with this.

With the new system, can't you inject supplies into allied territory?

 

[dermeister]

Regarding Paradox not soliciting input: It seems to me, from what I can recall, a lot of what we are seeing in Semper Fi is based on input they received when HOI3 launched. More than that, it was debated at length. They've been reading the forums and Semper FI is a product of that. They don't have time to debate features right now because the expansion needs to launch sooner rather than later. (blah blah unfinished product argument starts and I'm not getting into that.)

We already got our say for features. Now our input helps them tweak and refine those features. If there is another expansion, the features will likely be produced by debate we are having right now or right after Semper Fi launches.

You're missing my point. I am talking about implementation. There are several ways to implement a feature. This is before the DDs take place. By the time the DDs are out, it's too late for this. This is a closed/hidden process right now. In case you missed it, check this post.

You're not the first to miss my point on this though. I have a feeling people just skim the post, see the words "Paradox", "doesn't", "user", "input", and "features" and then write-up an indignant defense of Paradox's high-rated record on this in general, the point I was trying to actually make be damned.

While just as many people have understood the point, it looks like people are so keen on protecting/defending what we already have that they feel that any debate even on the periphery of the matter will incur the risk of us looking un-thankful and loosing the favour that has been so gracefully bestowed upon us.

Maybe it's just that since it's posted in a DD thread (since it's reacting to the implementation of the subject of this particular DD), it's harder to follow then if it was it's own post with an elaborate OP. I'm not going to make a thread about it at this point, since I have the impression that I will need bodyguards. I'll just see the direction this takes.

 

[seattle]

"Great Army" for instance increases "war exhaustion". Is this concept actually being used? For all I know, war exhaustion only affects a nation after the war. Which in HoI3-terms means after the game is finished.

Will war exhaustion finally have an effect in Semper Fidelis? Why don't you implement its effect from Victoria?

 

[Sangeli]

You're missing my point. I am talking about implementation. There are several ways to implement a feature. This is before the DDs take place. By the time the DDs are out, it's too late for this. This is a closed/hidden process right now. In case you missed it, check this post.

You're not the first to miss my point on this though. I have a feeling people just skim the post, see the words "Paradox", "doesn't", "user", "input", and "features" and then write-up an indignant defense of Paradox's high-rated record on this in general, the point I was trying to actually make be damned.

While just as many people have understood the point, it looks like people are so keen on protecting/defending what we already have that they feel that any debate even on the periphery of the matter will incur the risk of us looking un-thankful and loosing the favour that has been so gracefully bestowed upon us.

Maybe it's just that since it's posted in a DD thread (since it's reacting to the implementation of the subject of this particular DD), it's harder to follow then if it was it's own post with an elaborate OP. I'm not going to make a thread about it at this point, since I have the impression that I will need bodyguards. I'll just see the direction this takes.

I completely agree. It is not an effecient system to implement a certain feature a specific way and then look through the responses by players in whether or not it should be changed. Undoubtedly they read our posts, and as Johan said they put time into that. But there is a disconnect, as Dermeister points out, in communication before features are implemented or coded. I hardly ever see Paradox employees comment on threads even as large as the paratrooper debate thread of 25,000 views; instead they limit their responses to things like development diaries. If they communicated to us in the process before the implementation it would have more desirable results and would be more effecient.

 

[Karelian]

The brigade upgrade concept would be GREAT for air units. When a new airframe is available, choose to upgrade your Hurricanes to Spitfires (or some other newer aircraft) giving you the benefits of the newer airframe. If you choose not to, you can upgrade only armament and engine - similar to the upgrades available to naval units.

Seconded. Is there going to be be "upgradeable = yes"-type variable in unit stats?
Edit: Or even better, in the tech effects as well?

 

[dermeister]

I completely agree. It is not an effecient system to implement a certain feature a specific way and then look through the responses by players in whether or not it should be changed.

Exactly. To help illustrate our point, I have created a diagram :



This is my understanding of the Paradox development cycle. I have separated it into phases: Ma, Mb, Mr, Fp, Pa, Pb, Pr, and Fm.

Sangeli and I are arguing that Paradox needs to solicit implementation ideas sometime during or about the transition between Fm and Ma. Paradox looks over the good feature ideas during Fm, but we have no idea if they are actually considering any given feature. This would be our only chance to actively interact with paradox or seriously debate the implementation options with any hope to affect the outcome. We can't do it in the dark. As things currently stand, we are only clued in at Mb, at which point it's too late to change any implementation decision.

Paradox does an amazing job with user feedback during the p stages, and getting feature ideas during the Fm stage. We are specifically talking about one particular point in the dev cycle where Paradox would greatly profit from actively soliciting implementation ideas.

 

[Sangeli]

Exactly. To help illustrate our point, I have created a diagram :



This is my understanding of the Paradox development cycle. I have separated it into phases: Ma, Mb, Mr, Fp, Pa, Pb, Pr, and Fm.

Sangeli and I are arguing that Paradox needs to solicit implementation ideas sometime during or about the transition between Fm and Ma. Paradox looks over the good feature ideas during Fm, but we have no idea if they are actually considering any given feature. This would be our only chance to actively interact with paradox or seriously debate the implementation options with any hope to affect the outcome. We can't do it in the dark. As things currently stand, we are only clued in at Mb, at which point it's too late to change any implementation decision.

Paradox does an amazing job with user feedback during the p stages, and getting feature ideas during the Fm stage. We are specifically talking about one particular point in the dev cycle where Paradox would greatly profit from actively soliciting implementation ideas.

Great job; this is a very good representation of the process. The key is a solicitation process between fm and ma that does not currently exist. Otherwise the feedback is "pushed" rather than "pulled". What I mean by that is the user "pushes" feedback to Paradox whenever the user deems it appropriate. Regardless of whether Paradox is concerned about certain features or not, the user will simply give feedback for his own reasons. If there were a soliciation process, feedback would be "pulled" on a need be basis. Paradox could simply ask for the feedback they want in a way that they want, rather than have to sort through all the information being pushed at them. Yes, there is some pulling in threads like this, but this is taking place at the wrong time. There needs to be a solication process before features are created, not just after.

 

[NiclasCage]

If you can make Semper Fi with an artificial intelligence that works AND make the game somewhat more historical than HoI-3, I'll be forever grateful! I still think that HoI-3 is the most promising strategy-game ever made, though with too many flaws. Clickfests and stupid interfaces I can live with.

Although I have to agree with those who wants a new supply-system. It's perhaps the weakest link of the series (except for the flawed AI offcourse).

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

I think the events to tie a game in to what really happened, and the unit upgrades, are much needed features - although the ai work and fundamental mechanics are still the most important. Unfortunately you've made me stop playing HoI3, because I'm now waiting for Semper Fi to come out.

This is my understanding of the Paradox development cycle.

That about sums it up, though perhaps not clearly. I agree with you, Paradox do a for the most part fantastic job - but if they interacted a bit more before things were set in stone, the game could be a very different thing. I get the feeling brigade upgrades would be implemented in a way that would make it easy to modernise a whole army for example. Now one of the dev replies here made it clear they had considered something like that, but rejected it based on the difficulty in choosing priorities. If they'd instead opened a thread, they would have had a hundred ideas. Most would be rubbish, but maybe one would be workable. Of course it would have to be handled in a way that didn't create impossible hopes, and they'd have to clearly draw a line saying "we're making the game and risking our company on it, we have final say on what can work". But that's doable.