Game goals/role of war

I am starting a new thread because the previous one has become so long it is difficult to wade through.  I posted in a thread on the monsters but the real issue is being lost.

In my view, the issue is - what niche should the game enter?  Bers has said there are innumerable games out there in Facebook to play an inane game.  I have no interest in those games, don't play them, and I would guess most here share that view.

I would counter with the reality that there are a very large number of fighting games - that, for the price of playing Alpha TT2, you have an awesome graphic experience and you can play in either single player or multi-player modes. 

TT1 and TTG provided a third experience.  There were also a few other games that did so in the past.  This is a genre that has almost become obsolete, but still has a tremendous following.

As I said in the other thread to the developers, I implore you to develop a short, thoughtful, and unbiased questionnaire for the current players to respond to.  This will provide real data to either uphold the developers' vision of where this game should go, or provide some insights as to the tweaks necessary to retain the core audience of the game.

I suggest that folks post their suggestions for the questions here for the devs to consider.  I will do so at another time.  Right now I am really frustrate with Bers response to me on that other thread.

Syzen I think you have forgotten a couple of very important facts. (1) The game is still in Alpha and very very rough. (2) They are really trying to test the war aspect of the game as it is what is most important to have balanced and working right before the game moves on. (3) The game has only a couple of quest locations right now. When there are more quests we will not all be concentrating so much on war. (4) With quests come rewards which will include both Blueprints and figurines of enlightenment. I find the developers have been very open to suggestions and they always ask our feedback but it is their game :)  I also know that the piece you are seeing as an Alpha tester is very small compared to where that vision is going. I also have to say that we are all a long ways from being their core audience, they are hoping for millions of players not just the limited number they have here. 

I also value your opinion and think maybe you have a good idea but I have seen the game evolve since stage 1 and what we have now is already 100 times better then what we had then and I expect the game to get 1000 times better then that :)

Very good points Tuey, however I indeed have considered some of the you put forth.  Past performance is not necessarily a good predictor of future success (see modern business debate on this topic). Also, I am sure that the future target market may be a very large number of participants, but I felt that I must bring forward the counter argument to that of the devs regarding the plethora of mindless games the point that there are a plethora of killing games, many of which are available for the fixed fee of the software and/or are available over multiple platforms.  As such I will maintain that TT and TTG were unique and have the opportunity to carve a singular niche in the future.  I also believe that if the loyal following is lost, it will be an uphill battle for eventual success.

I know that I am relatively new here, and I am sure that I know very little about the mechanics of the game itself compared to those who have played for a long time through the various Alphas, and am also sure that the progress to date has been awesome and there is nothing disparaging to be implied in my comments!  However, perhaps a fresh viewpoint can have as much value as that from testers that are or have been in the past in helping the game to improve?

Regardless of being relatively new to this alpha, I am trained as a scientist and manager of very large and challenging projects with divergent viewpoints, education, and professions.  As both, I don't believe in waiting until the end of a project to gather data that could influence future decisions at which time the realizations could be very costly.  Certainly we all are aware that there are some divergent opinions being voiced.  Thus, I am suggesting a short, thoughtful, and unbiased questionnaire to take the pulse of the current testers to provide data to assist the devs in future development of the game.  

So I again suggest a neutral questionnaire for the many participants, not just the seasoned, highly active, financially well-off members to voice their opinions.  This would take the current pulse to assist the devs in going forward. I offer this from my viewpoints of sound science and project management.  Hey, they did it in a less formal manner to assess the working of classical age as well as monsters :)

And I ask, what would be the downside of it, other than gathering real data to inform the developers in future decisions?   So I request that others reading this thread think about that before providing a considered reply.  I also suggest that we all provide possible questions for the devs to consider so they don't have to take on the burden.

And I forgot to say that I wouldn't have bothered to write this if I didn't care :) 

Thank all for considering my suggestion.

Bers - it wasn't meant for you to have to respond to and there is no criticism implied here.  My suggestion is to ask all of the testers a few questions in an unbiased way to get a sense of how many people feel or believe in certain directions the game could take. There is a lot of discussion (some passionate) on the forum or that has come up in chat that is expressed as words/feelings but nothing quantifiable or to the point.  I am only suggesting a way to get some data on the issues,

I realized in thinking a bit more that a few more ideas might be helpful to get the conversation rolling and to keep it from becoming a burden for the devs to deal with.  

• The first is that this should be team effort (small t, the big T being the devs who are leading the small t :)  in other words, everyone. In both formulating the questions and then in responding to them.  Best if everyone participates.

• Suggestions for questions could be amenable to a format such as - "What do you think about having monsters in the game?" - on a scale of 1 to 5 - love them to hate them.  (I am using an innocuous example, there should be a bit more to the question than in the example).
• It would be great if the questions can reflect everyone's views to make sure that they are properly focused on the concerns of the many.  I volunteer to collate and post a running draft if people want - but would be happy if someone more experienced in the game would like to do it.

• The questions should probably be limited to 10 or less so that it isn't a big deal to respond.  Comment fields can be a part of each question if folks want to elaborate on their response.
• People should chime in with their views!  If no one thinks this might be helpful, then we shouldn't pursue it and waste folks' time.

Hi, all
     I follow the discussion about the new TT2 since the beginning as I’m a fan of TT and TT Gold. I expected new TT2 with such impatience! Previous versions were unique because there was a good balance between adventure, building and fighting. In TT2 now there are much more options to build, research and develop. As for adventure, as I can see for now, I expect it to be much more interesting and exciting than before too - the story is intriguing and I look forward to its development in the future. I expect new puzzles that are going to be a challenge. The idea for fighting monsters is the same as before and, in my opinion, realized better too. They give necessary excitement in the game and test strategic thinking enough together with research and building.
     There are 2 major differences in TT2 compared to TT and TT Gold – fighting other players and expansion. You provided the option of cultural expansion and military expansion, the second one resulting in fighting or defending against other players. We can choose between the first and the second. To have a choice is good in my opinion – as I remember, when TT2 was just an idea, the team stated they were well aware of the structure of their audience (age, preferences) and they will try to retain the major part of it for the new game by providing the choice stated above. So I expected choosing Communality will suit my preferences as I’m not an aggressive person and do not want to fight other players (monsters are enough for me!). BUT! My choice does not prevent other players from attacking me and thus getting me into unwanted fight. The items present at this stage, which you can find or buy, do not ensure enough protection from more aggressive players and a peaceful development of my game, which was my choice. So then I do not have much choice in fact. I don’t accept the argument that having many quests to think about will distract players from much aggression – you don’t filter what kind of persons will play the game (they might like fighting only).
     In TT I liked the option to fight when and where I choose. I liked the possibility to play a stage over and over all from the beginning thinking over a different strategy. This is not possible now for obvious reasons.
     Somewhere in the forum discussions I read that the team does not like to make the game like any other building or farming game in the net. But do you want to make it like any other battle game in the net? I agree there are too much of the first and the second kind. If you want us to battle each other for the purpose of testing this part of the game – then just please say so, I will then gladly fight my neighbors and even friends, because we are here not only to find bugs, but to help make the game better (or I have misunderstood things?!).
I don’t understand why is it not possible to have both aspects – the figters to fight each other and the peaceful ones to compete each other In cultural expansion (it is not less challenging). More so you can make different heroes and have both aspects of the game at the same time. But this is your game and your decision after all, we can only decide to play or not to play the final version.
     If the team has set already their mind on the basic principles and doesn’t need more opinions, this discussion is meaningless and it can stop at this stage. If not – I agree with Syzen’s opinion. I had worked more than 20 years in a small team developing too a very, very large and complex project (automated management system for the whole country) and I know well that it is better to take important decisions for the direction into which the project will develop, at an as early stage as possible. If this is the case, a questionaire for the test players is a good idea and I back up Syzen’s proposal.
And again – if the team has a firm opinion on the issues stated here – just say so. This will save much discussion and disagreement. No offence - I, on my part, can easily keep my suggestions and opinion for myself, do the testing job as requested and wait for the final version to make my decision.

P.S. The post above was written before I could see what Bers answered.

To be honest, i'd like to know not only if some suggestions are accepted or denyed, but rather why: you always say that you aren't planning or sorting players depending gameplay,why? I dont want to be tiring with that subject but i feel like if i didn't get an appropiate awnser. this is perfectly stated, and i am not complaining about this specific thread

Doing a survey isn't a bad idea, but to say the truth i think that the results will not serve for anything

I think that you only leave the smallest things to people decission : will monsters spawn X often? id put more examples but i'm hurry so im not searching them now. Of course i think that somethig bigger can change the game, and most of the ideas will be refused, which is logic, but i feel that immediatly you see some idea to change something a little bit you get deffensive and nothing changes and even more when it has something to do with pvp. i understand there has to be some balance in the game, but this is the time to test, if something goes wrong it's as easy as revert to the previous version or fix it in the next update

To remember all of the things that were changed due to player feedback is hard to do since there have been so many. The one I remember the most though is less stone at the wade. Also increased number of world resources

Also not sure when you say that quest locations won't keep them from attacking you what you mean. If for example there is a quest location such as wolf island in original game where you need a large army just to beat it, then players would be using their army's to beat that location not attacking other players. Who would want to spend time training army to go to neighbors when there would be a true enemy that needed fighting

Berserker,this game is YOUR baby and it should stay that way.

When i want to write a book,i can ask for some suggestions about little things.But in the end i will be the one who writes it.

And back to the game.When i get to a point that i don't want to play anymore because of the direction it is going in,simple,i stop testing and playing.

Also I do think that many of the initial testers will take offense to the statement financially well off as many of us aren't. Not all testers have made big donations but were chosen more for their comment on the forum for the last three to four years as loyal TT fans. 

Suzan Another thing to think about doing is to think of the question you want asked and start a thread with that question with the topic. See what kind of response happens. 

The one thing I remember most was a comment made to me in the forum during Alpha 2 ... about game changes and separate servers. One of my fellow players eloquently posted a reply to me: "This is the game that we are testing." This put my mind right back into what my role is here ...

Insofar as what changes were made because of suggestions ... today I noticed that the font is larger. Wasn't that in response to player request? For other items, revisiting the update log would be a great reminder.    

To remember all of the things that were changed due to player feedback is hard to do since there have been so many. The one I remember the most though is less stone at the wade. Also increased number of world resources

well, i didn't know that those were made bacause of players, then, my apologies for the team

Lucille, this question has been raised several times before and I have answered that several times as well.

Make sure you have read these threads and most importantly my answers to the issues:

http://www.totemtribe.com/talk/single-player-mode/

http://www.totemtribe.com/talk/different-servers-for-different-gameplay-styles/

Because chances are you are raising questions that have already been answered. If you want to contribute your feedback, make sure it is constructive and in line with objective reality, so read my answers there.

Yes, I have read this threads and know the answers - and even then i naively continued to think that you would like to get opinion from newcomers in the game too, even if they are not so new or constructive. Still there is a little benefit for me from this thread - now I know that the proposal to lessen the amount of stone for the wade is  constructive, and the proposal to reset the existing monsters together with resetting the hero is not (Век живи, век учись). Having already a base for assessment, now I can easily keep non-constructive proposals to myself. As I said before and saw stated in this thread by others - your game, your decision (by the way, I completely agree).

My apologies to all.  I was offering a suggestion for consideration, not as a complaint.  I was also suggesting that it truly be an unbiased exercise, and yes I believe it could have been.  If testers and more importantly the developers do not think it would be useful in game development, so be it.  Let's end this thread and move on.