There is a lesson to be learned here by developers everywhere (Not just in Broadsword)

gaygay Posts: 17
edited July 11 in General Discussions
With all the recent hype from players across many different games, many of which are long standing veterans of those respective games, recently investing their time and money into FF14 I thought that maybe there is a valuable lesson to learn from SQUARE ENIX and more importantly their CEO at the time of FF14's development and initial launch.

This lesson is the power of transparency and accountability.


FF14 failed hard when it launched, and instead of retreating into the confines and privacy of the dev team's quarters away from the scrutiny of player's eyes and voices they stepped up and stated how they intended to move forward from the mess. More importantly they admitted their failure to their fans and customers. The success they now see was not just from that admission of failure but also from listening to their playerbase in the first place, and continuing to listen to them from then on.

Comments

  • Arnold7Arnold7 Posts: 398
  • Arnold7Arnold7 Posts: 398
    Think developers here do read the forums and occasionally respond in one way or another to what players say.  So I would argue they do listen to and care about what the player base says.  But think they could do much better.  For example, would have liked to have seen a better response to the More Storage Please post regarding why storage can’t be increased, or my usual question asking why the Ultima Store can’t carry more items newer players can actually use, you know those items players have to buy from third party vendors.  Have been playing now about three years and have never gotten anything from Broadsword asking about my experiences in the game.  Maybe something like that sent to all active players or a targeted group, for example newer players, would not be a bad idea.



  • gaygay Posts: 17
    The new player experience in UO has been lacking for going on 15 years now or more. There have been attempts made to aid in the struggle of new players but every time they seem to miss the mark (for example the Stygian Abyss new player starter kit and the Armor of Initiation). There are also a lot of hidden mechanics that most veterans take for granted and consider pretty basic knowledge when making a new character. Stuff like the 300 skill points for special moves, skillpoint breakpoints, etc.

    If you look at the quests in New Haven, none of the rewards there would ever really help a new player progress themselves past greater mongbats. It used to be a new player could just find the nearest graveyard to where they started and work out how the game felt there, since the release of AoS and the introduction to individual resistances, and later on the introduction of necromancy spells to some graveyard monsters, that's not possible without the aid of some second party. Be it a player lending them a suit with resistances and LMC or maybe a pet.

    There have been so many additions to the game as far as landmass goes that it muddies up and clouds the vision a person may have of what a truly new player would initially experience. A magic arrow is deadly, a fireball even more so and a pain spike just brutal. Something that could really help a long the new player experience is re-vamping what players start with now. For the most part we still start with basic clothes and a weapon, and pre-AoS that was absolutely fine because of how damage was mitigated back then, after AoS characters inherently became weaker in a way that made monsters stronger even thought the only thing that changed about monsters at the time was their damage type profile.

    There are a few ways they could flesh out the new player experience that even tie in the Virtue city governance. The most basic way would be to change what new characters start with, a basic armor set, 60s in resistances, 20 LMC, 75 LRC, 5 MR, 5 Stam regen for a mage. 60s in resistances, 30 LMC, 30 Stamina, 5 HPR, 5 Stam regen for a dexer.

    Imagine if there were an incentive to a mage using reagents now, something like a 20% mana reduction to the base cost of spells when reagents are used before LMC is applied. Tie it together with some silly wizard RP like "The magical properties of LRC are wonderful but there are still benefits to the old ways of using reagents, your spells are more aligned with the archaic masteries and so your spells are less taxing on your mana." but I'm sure someone with a degree could re-phrase that better than I.
  • McDougleMcDougle Posts: 1,265
    Now some of this talk is making sense and should of course halt immediately...
  • DragoDrago Posts: 190
    I dont think the problem is the devs or broadsword.  Its EA, who owns Broadsword.
  • BilboBilbo Posts: 2,834
    Drago said:
    I dont think the problem is the devs or broadsword.  Its EA, who owns Broadsword.
    EA does not own Broadsword, EA hired Broadsword to maintain DAoC and UO.
  • DragoDrago Posts: 190
    Bilbo said:
    Drago said:
    I dont think the problem is the devs or broadsword.  Its EA, who owns Broadsword.
    EA does not own Broadsword, EA hired Broadsword to maintain DAoC and UO.


  • BilboBilbo Posts: 2,834
    Drago said:
    Bilbo said:
    Drago said:
    I dont think the problem is the devs or broadsword.  Its EA, who owns Broadsword.
    EA does not own Broadsword, EA hired Broadsword to maintain DAoC and UO.


    So you just proven EA does NOT own BS, so what was the point of your link.  We already knew EA hired BS.
  • DragoDrago Posts: 190
    Bilbo said:
    Drago said:
    Bilbo said:
    Drago said:
    I dont think the problem is the devs or broadsword.  Its EA, who owns Broadsword.
    EA does not own Broadsword, EA hired Broadsword to maintain DAoC and UO.


    So you just proven EA does NOT own BS, so what was the point of your link.  We already knew EA hired BS.

    Clearly you didn't read the article

    EA retains ownership of both MMOs along with billing and account services through its Origin online distribution service.

    So what is the point of you posting?  Anything....

  • BilboBilbo Posts: 2,834
    Drago said:
    Bilbo said:
    Drago said:
    Bilbo said:
    Drago said:
    I dont think the problem is the devs or broadsword.  Its EA, who owns Broadsword.
    EA does not own Broadsword, EA hired Broadsword to maintain DAoC and UO.


    So you just proven EA does NOT own BS, so what was the point of your link.  We already knew EA hired BS.

    Clearly you didn't read the article

    EA retains ownership of both MMOs along with billing and account services through its Origin online distribution service.

    So what is the point of you posting?  Anything....

    Mr Obvious Yes EA still owns DAoC and UO, why do you think EA HIRED BS, LMAO.  Yes EA collects all real money.  You Mr Obvious said EA owned BS and I said they did not own BS and you went and posted links that proved that EA DOES NOT own BS so please keep proven yourself wrong and stating things that almost all of the UO Platers already know and proving how little you really know about DAoC/UO and BroadSword.  NEXT.
  • DragoDrago Posts: 190
    Bilbo said:
    Drago said:
    Bilbo said:
    Drago said:
    Bilbo said:
    Drago said:
    I dont think the problem is the devs or broadsword.  Its EA, who owns Broadsword.
    EA does not own Broadsword, EA hired Broadsword to maintain DAoC and UO.


    So you just proven EA does NOT own BS, so what was the point of your link.  We already knew EA hired BS.

    Clearly you didn't read the article

    EA retains ownership of both MMOs along with billing and account services through its Origin online distribution service.

    So what is the point of you posting?  Anything....

    Mr Obvious Yes EA still owns DAoC and UO, why do you think EA HIRED BS, LMAO.  Yes EA collects all real money.  You Mr Obvious said EA owned BS and I said they did not own BS and you went and posted links that proved that EA DOES NOT own BS so please keep proven yourself wrong and stating things that almost all of the UO Platers already know and proving how little you really know about DAoC/UO and BroadSword.  NEXT.

    Because EA owns UO they have a SAY in the future of the game & its direction.  Obviously they don't want to see diminishing returns and while yes its a partnership w/ broadsword,  it's EA's asset on their books and shared revenue (Why do you think UO accounts are tied to an EA account)...they're doing that for free?  I'm sure Broadsword has alot of latitude with development and doesn't need EA's blessing on every little thing.. those details will never be revealed though.
    The point I'm making is very large changes that would require alot of overhead / capital (like server & client upgrades),  most likely need EA approval. 

    You're too stupid to talk.  @Mariah ; please kill thread due to trolling thanks
This discussion has been closed.