Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

XOOM

Discussion: Avoid forums becoming obsolete

Recommended Posts

B2K
1 hour ago, jwilly said:

A number of years ago, I was Lead Mod here. I had Rafter's OK to immediately move-to-a-hidden-location, or occasionally edit, posts that accused CRS of bias, otherwise attacked them, and/or threatened CRS with loss of the poster's business and other game contributions if X wasn't changed as the poster wanted.

Anyone that felt a need to make the latter threat in particular, wasn't going to do so using a server and bandwidth paid for by CRS.

We also were less open to posts by vets with the general themes: change the game to take away some of the other side's capabilities and give more capabilities to my side, or make it easier for me to kill a lot and not be killed myself.

Noobs of course often make the latter type post, not knowing any better yet, and those were tolerated more.

That modding approach made business sense to me, but OTOH, eventually Rafter fired me for my inability to get along with back-then-more-freewheeling OT flame wars, so maybe I was wrong.

It remains my view though that CRS's current direction to the mod team is more tolerant than IMO it should be.

Without the avenue of feedback players simply create their own locations to congregate and discuss issues with the game.  More so today as anyone can make a facebook group and/or setup a free forum with very little effort (well a lot less effort than was required a decade ago) or knowledge required.  I've been a mod here since ~2005/2006 and lead now for a few months, I'd like to think we're at a happy in-between spot. 

We still do close down the blatant CRS is bias posts (because why would a company intentionally kill off 1 side of a 2 sided game).  As a team we try to answer the posts where legitimate issues are raised (though not all posts will get an answer for one reason or another)).   

The more relaxed approach to forum mod is (IMO) better than the older 'strict' approach in that having a positive only echo-chamber (especially as it relates to gameplay) potentially leads to bad game adjustments and decisions.  While some decisions are made with the best intentions, they don't always turn out so well (see 'toughest campaign ever').  Due to the more relaxed policy we were able to recognize pretty quickly that what looked like a good idea to bring the game a bit closer to historic accuracy - may have not actually been.  Simply closing down the negativity would have led to that recognition and subsequent changes taking longer - and potentially leading to subscription losses.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorella
1 hour ago, B2K said:

 

The more relaxed approach to forum mod is (IMO) better than the older 'strict' approach in that having a positive only echo-chamber (especially as it relates to gameplay) potentially leads to bad game adjustments and decisions.  

The 'strict' approach only works in certain life situations - and certainly not in game forums.

Electra Jennifer Garner GIFs | Tenor

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
6 hours ago, B2K said:

Due to the more relaxed policy we were able to recognize pretty quickly that what looked like a good idea to bring the game a bit closer to historic accuracy - may have not actually been.  Simply closing down the negativity would have led to that recognition and subsequent changes taking longer - and potentially leading to subscription losses.  

Certainly I'm no expert on what approach is best, and I wasn't trying to suggest that "things were really better in the old days".

Re-reading Xoom's OP, though...is the current forums approach maximizing its delivery of benefits to CRS's bottom line? I thought that was the point of Xoom's issues 1 through 4.

Quote

we were able to recognize pretty quickly that what looked like a good idea to bring the game a bit closer to historic accuracy - may have not actually been.

I've wondered over the years about CRS's expressed desire for new customers, but their hesitance to explore new game directions that while they likely would result in the loss of some existing customers who don't favor that new game direction, might result in the gain of a greater number of new customers who do favor that new direction.

What matters to CRS's bottom line, after all, is the total number of customers...old, new, vet, noob...and those customers' profitability. A company that's wedded to its existing customers even while revenue is inadequate, and is risk averse and lacks confidence of its market understanding and therefore is unwilling to entertain a product direction change, is a friendship society, not an enterprise.

Ries and Trout in their classic "Marketing Warfare" observed that a small company in a market dominated by much bigger companies has the best chance of success if it defines itself as a guerrilla marketer, identifies a single product theme that the big guys aren't good at or don't care about because the number of customers interested in it isn't big enough to be of interest to them, and gets laser-focused on delivering that theme and only that theme, to that small-to-the-big-guys segment of customers who want that theme. Any divergence is a mistake, even if it seems like additional revenue.

Since its beginning, OTOH, CRS seems to have tried to offer a game that provides some historical focus, and some gameplay focus, and some of anything else that someone might want. It's always seemed to be the opposite of a focused approach. 

I thought there was a marketing plan underlying the "good idea to bring the game a bit closer to historic accuracy", and that CRS was finally focused on a niche that the big guys aren't doing. I don't know the inside story, but it doesn't appear that that's how it worked out. If there's a guerrilla marketing niche focus now, I don't know it. Of course, what I know doesn't matter, but like a lot of us I'd like to see CRS succeed.

Edited by jwilly
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silky
4 hours ago, jwilly said:

Certainly I'm no expert on what approach is best, and I wasn't trying to suggest that "things were really better in the old days".

Re-reading Xoom's OP, though...is the current forums approach maximizing its delivery of benefits to CRS's bottom line? I thought that was the point of Xoom's issues 1 through 4.

I've wondered over the years about CRS's expressed desire for new customers, but their hesitance to explore new game directions that while they likely would result in the loss of some existing customers who don't favor that new game direction, might result in the gain of a greater number of new customers who do favor that new direction.

What matters to CRS's bottom line, after all, is the total number of customers...old, new, vet, noob...and those customers' profitability. A company that's wedded to its existing customers even while revenue is inadequate, and is risk averse and lacks confidence of its market understanding and therefore is unwilling to entertain a product direction change, is a friendship society, not an enterprise.

Ries and Trout in their classic "Marketing Warfare" observed that a small company in a market dominated by much bigger companies has the best chance of success if it defines itself as a guerrilla marketer, identifies a single product theme that the big guys aren't good at or don't care about because the number of customers interested in it isn't big enough to be of interest to them, and gets laser-focused on delivering that theme and only that theme, to that small-to-the-big-guys segment of customers who want that theme. Any divergence is a mistake, even if it seems like additional revenue.

Since its beginning, OTOH, CRS seems to have tried to offer a game that provides some historical focus, and some gameplay focus, and some of anything else that someone might want. It's always seemed to be the opposite of a focused approach. 

I thought there was a marketing plan underlying the "good idea to bring the game a bit closer to historic accuracy", and that CRS was finally focused on a niche that the big guys aren't doing. I don't know the inside story, but it doesn't appear that that's how it worked out. If there's a guerrilla marketing niche focus now, I don't know it. Of course, what I know doesn't matter, but like a lot of us I'd like to see CRS succeed.

Bingo. It’s not clear what TGTCWTF actually wants to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC

I would imagine it's difficult to maintain such a maniacal focus on a smaller niche that might continue to succeed to a higher degree because the bigger boys are ignoring it, if at the same time you're hanging on by your fingernails and the bottom of the ravine is a long way down. Covered in nasty looking rocks. The desire within the team's various different workers, to suggest ways to broaden your appeal and ease that situation as quickly as possible as your fingernails break one by one ... is about the most struggle many people would have ever experienced. Probably even more. At some point it will become an all or nothing deal and the possibility exists it will be the last you make.

Or you keep manic dancing between the bullets and by some incredible feat you manage to have not been shot to death after 20 years. I wouldn't begrudge a person becoming a little frazzled during all this time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorella
5 hours ago, Silky said:

Bingo. It’s not clear what TGTCWTF actually wants to be

 

3 hours ago, DOC said:

 

Or you keep manic dancing between the bullets and by some incredible feat you manage to have not been shot to death after 20 years. 

We seem to be drifting, in classic OT style,  from the OP's focus on 'the forums' and/but it may be natural to get to a focus on 'the game' as the underlying issue.

What has been learned over the 20 years? What is the niche that can be profitable? 

  • Went through original launch to China venture to Rapid Assault to TOEs,  trimming back, downturn, to CRS 2.0 and current roadmap
  • Went from high or good pop to low pop =  okay $ to not enough $
  • Went through growth spurts with Tiger introduction, American introduction (6 AOs), Steam Launch (600,000+ downloads), back to now
     
  • has the largest mmo map and dual solo fps shooter / strategic overlay gameplay aspects
  • is the 'hardest pvp game ever' and 'the most heavily armed software company on the planet' (ie. steep learning curve)
  • has unique 'never know when it ends' campaign structure along with the free-est wheeling 'player created content' opportunities of any game
  • is arguably the most realistic WWII game as to historicity and/but
  • forums evince issues from 'dedicated voice' to 'turret turning times' to 'f109 turning times' to 'jogging with lmgs' to 'number of smgs in a platoon' etc
  • forums = a confusing mix of extreme attention to historic and gameplay detail to 'I can't find the action' to traditional 'bias' posts

I dunno. Maybe the name should be WWIIOL: The Conundrum Files. As a total noob outsider I would have to go back - not to what brings the most whining and complaints= forums;  but what brings in the most players who will/might try + pay = new stuff.

The biggest question of all for me over the 20 years - and perhaps only current and former Rats know the answer is: why hasn't some big game company or entertainment/content conglomerate snapped up WWIIOL and invested $$$ to make it whole with design and marketing expertise or backed a fully-upgraded, made-over WWIIOL 2.0 version?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ezrelay
53 minutes ago, sorella said:

The biggest question of all for me over the 20 years - and perhaps only current and former Rats know the answer is: why hasn't some big game company or entertainment/content conglomerate snapped up WWIIOL and invested $$$ to make it whole with design and marketing expertise or backed a fully-upgraded, made-over WWIIOL 2.0 version?

 

Think this might have come close to happening......but the PLAYER BASE wasnt on board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
5 hours ago, DOC said:

I would imagine it's difficult to maintain such a maniacal focus on a smaller niche that might continue to succeed to a higher degree because the bigger boys are ignoring it, if at the same time you're hanging on by your fingernails and the bottom of the ravine is a long way down.

Yes, understood. The question might have been most applicable when the game was founded and shortly thereafter, and was running on its founding investments; and perhaps during brief periods thereafter when the financial situation was briefly close to stable. For instance, the period of RA's partial development.

But even now the published path forward seems to be a commitment to more of the same, but more successful. I hope the latter comes to pass, but that hope requires a large measure of irrational confidence.

The value of Ries' and Trout's analysis and principles is in its historical success in multiple other markets. Of course, it might not work here...CRS's gaming niche might be fundamentally different from other kinds of markets. Or, CRS might not have what is required to commit to it.

In any case, the forums presumably must be seen as a product element. Some customers have said over the years...jocularly in most cases, but with an element of truth...that they don't play much but continue to subscribe to "play" the forums. Any substantial change to the forums presumably would be made in order to better align their focus and zeitgeist with that of the game's marketing intent. 

Xoom tells us that the existing forums sometimes are seen by CRS to foster negativity. If so, then the different participation and contributions of various forum users must have different effects on that negativity. CRS in many respects has been a data-driven company; its game of course is built on a core operational database that records many player actions for which a metric has been developed. Perhaps if CRS hasn't already, forum metrics beyond the rolling reputational score and the post counts...which don't help with Xoom's current concerns...might be developed so that data driven management could be applied to the forums as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
1 hour ago, ezrelay said:

Think this might have come close to happening......but the PLAYER BASE wasnt on board.

I'd think a significantly larger outfit, buying CRS's product, wouldn't particularly care about the relatively tiny revenue stream from existing customers...some of whom would leave anyway as the game's marketing focus likely was sharpened. 

I'd think that any such purchase would be to acquire the existing codebase, whatever IP is associated, and the transferable experience/knowledge. The value of the latter of course has evolved over time as people have come and gone. 

Just my historically uninformed thoughts, though. Analysis always yields to historical facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
5 hours ago, jwilly said:

I'd think a significantly larger outfit, buying CRS's product, wouldn't particularly care about the relatively tiny revenue stream from existing customers...some of whom would leave anyway as the game's marketing focus likely was sharpened. 

I'd think that any such purchase would be to acquire the existing codebase, whatever IP is associated, and the transferable experience/knowledge. The value of the latter of course has evolved over time as people have come and gone. 

Just my historically uninformed thoughts, though. Analysis always yields to historical facts.

According to one of the exclusive 'convention-goer' briefings this scenario DID happen.

A major purchaser wanted to raid the codebase, they wanted to buy CRS, they were asked to buy the code/company AND finance 'finishing the game', apparently that was too high a price point so it didn't happen.

At another point the company apparently had rights to a Traveller game, which flight models and joule-based damage would have fit in very nicely.  It would be a very different game as RPG, more like Star Citizens' Persistent Universe, but this codebase would be very useful for most adventures, or a Striker small military action version (think grav tanks, ortillery and battle dress/FGMP down to outback fights with simpler tech).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tex64
On 3/26/2020 at 7:24 PM, XOOM said:

The first major problem is: NEGATIVITY

Second major problem is: MINIMAL-NO PROACTIVE DIALOGUE

The third major problem is: TOTAL LACK OF RESPECT TO PEERS

The fourth major problem is: WE'VE ALL BEEN HERE AWHILE

So I ask you, how do we keep the forums from becoming obsolete?

Xoom,

I've been playing since August 2001 (only been unsubbed a few months in the time frame since) and I guess you could call me an Old Fan Boy now.  I would just say that to go to a FB-only 'forum' would be awful.  I am a member of several groups some personal and some work related and my phone is constantly asking me to check FB for the latest piece of info . . . most of the time I've already seen the post and most of the time it is entirely meaningless info that's not worth my time.  I don't even want to contemplate what ours would look like.  I'm a member of the present FB group, got lucky with an invite from a squaddie, but I don't always see things that are posted and FB resorts them.  Granted, I'm a total FB n00b but that is really by design because I hate that platform but that's a rant for another day.

The forums have low activity posting, would be interesting to know if you are tracking the lurkers of which I am one.  You can't artificially gin-up excitement that has be organic . . . I know that you have watch parties on FB.  Can you now post the link here so help drive visits and questions on those threads?

There are a lot of holes in the knowledge bank for the new player - our wiki is old and outdated.  That's CRS' fault and I realize you don't have the time to notate everything but that has been a HUGE weakness since Day 1 and, at times, the WW2OL community has stepped up like gang-busters to provide credible and insightful info and tools for the new and old player alike.  WW2OL is like a fine wine as despite the dents and flaking paint, it has acquired a certain patina that draws the gamer in once they understand how the systems work and the creativity/flexibility they have within the arena.

NEGATIVITY / LACK OF RESPECT - if those peeps can't/won't dial it back down . . . hit 'em with the ban hammer (I imagine you have a pretty set of guidelines to determine how long someone gets sent off).  I would rather have a dead or slower paced forum than hearing incessant gripes.  I am fully aware of the flaws in our game, I'm told by buddies that I've know for years and I would say . . . that at this point in my life as much as I enjoy history, functional realism, I come here for meeting old and new acquaintances.  This is my old bar that has occasional 2 for 1 bashes, all you can eat buffets, as I don't necessarily come here for the planes, trains, and opels but I log in hoping to see an old friend who I can give a lift to a forward base or run security behind their tank from dastardly zooks and sappers.  All the while catching up on what's the latest in their lives . . . 

CRS 1.0 always thought it was the GAME that was paramount but what they never really understood (in my opinion) is there was such a thirst for such a game space such as this that we would lovingly accept it patches, warts, and all that we became a rock-solid community. I know you know how great the community is but don't think that is a blank check to draw upon.  We've paid for years, decades even, with a child-like hope of the future; that our game would burst forth to take its place where it has always belonged - at the top with it's large battles and open expanses.   As the Chief of CRS 2.0 keep that vision and flame of what a social experience WW2OL is . . . I've met friends, not avatars, across the globe because of this arena.  That's something that was a welcomed side-effect.

Yes, some of the grumpsters act like 20-year jilted lovers because this model doesn't work the correct way, or how THEY think it should etc but I am hoping that with the continued advancement of the game that some of the un-subbed vets will return as well as the Steam Kitties, too, as we need all aspects of our community to allow the game to continue.

I don't agree with all the planned changes re: the road map but I'm ecstatic that there is still a road for this awesome game.  Keep the forums, drive content to it, encourage others to post their content here, etc . . . Don't pull the plug on these forums.  That's shutting the doors on most of the playerbase I reckon.

Keep grinding, CRS, it is appreciated but tread carefully here.  All our social lives depend upon it. :)

tex

ps - I upgraded my account to HERO of the Republic of Texas this week once the Mrs signed off

pss - Of course, I prepped the groundwork with a wonderful squad video of the Iron Wolves 10th Anniversary to set the stage (but don't tell her that!)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elfin

"Free the Forums"

:)

I can surely sympathize with CRS's consideration of eliminating the forums, though I disagree with this. For every negative (not a considered criticism with suggestion or query)  it takes an awful lot of positives to make up for it. CRS must get a lot of this I would imagine or at least too much of it. We all know the game is far from perfect, frustrating at times, joyous at others, for many different reasons.

CRS has an amazingly thick skin in my estimation, so when XOOM is talking about eliminating the forums, one has to guess that, it has really damaged the morale of those pushing CRS along (i.e. producers and consumers of this game). If that snaps...well that's the end of it I would suggest; the game that is, ending in  a sell off or closure.  C'est fini.

I am not the most "self aware" person  by any stretch, but at times I just have to wonder at the lack of "self awareness" and awareness displayed with some postings. Sometimes I wonder if people don't realize, that in this forum, to post is to post to another human being, not some avatar, or AI, or troll on some website. There's someone at the other end, reading, thinking, and feeling in response.

Refraining from negativity, from dismissive mannerisms, (i.e. not constructive commenting)  is not a matter of being "soft" or "mushy" or "snowflakey", just as coming forth with "bravdo" and "in your face" comments are not signs of strength....etc...It takes a whole "[censored] load" more of fortitude and responsibility to be civil and constructive with others, agree with them or not, like them or not, than to wander down the path of lack of respectful argumentation, suitable conversation, etc....

I don't want the forums to go away. I enjoy, for the most part, all the discussion and interactions. Don't like facebook much, likely would not visit there.

Anyway, just some thoughts these posts have prompted for me.

Now...there' a few things I want to say about those damned spitfire models ........

;)

S!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poker
8 hours ago, Elfin said:

I am not the most "self aware" person  by any stretch, but at times I just have to wonder at the lack of "self awareness" and awareness displayed with some postings. Sometimes I wonder if people don't realize, that in this forum, to post is to post to another human being, not some avatar, or AI, or troll on some website. There's someone at the other end, reading, thinking, and feeling in response.

You’re a good man, Elfin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XOOM

At no point in my post (or my thought process in general) have I thought about killing the forums. 

I am saying our core is eroding and we need to step back and evaluate. My request for this discussion was to come out and say something get your feedback and then go back with the Community Management team and see what improvements can be done. 

To that end, I will say that I am committed to keeping the forums operational (this was never in question) and I am also committed to making sure that there is added value and healthy discussions taking place. I will be meeting with the CM team this weekend and this will be the priority topic of our meeting.

Expect to hear back from us soon about anticipated changes in the atmosphere, potentially the terms of service and overall moderation practices. I remain committed to enabling genuine discussion to take place but not at the expense of hostility or total smearing. That is coming to a swift end.

Stay tuned as we'll get back with you on this topic soonish. My hope is, by pressing into this we can increase forum activity for all and that we all have a better experience discussing the game.

Thanks for all of your feedback, I am actively reflecting on it.

S! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ezrelay
On 3/30/2020 at 10:51 AM, jwilly said:

I'd think a significantly larger outfit, buying CRS's product, wouldn't particularly care about the relatively tiny revenue stream from existing customers...some of whom would leave anyway as the game's marketing focus likely was sharpened. 

I'd think that any such purchase would be to acquire the existing codebase, whatever IP is associated, and the transferable experience/knowledge. The value of the latter of course has evolved over time as people have come and gone. 

Just my historically uninformed thoughts, though. Analysis always yields to historical facts.

I am sure that the potential was there at the time. In fact im positve it was there.  I got a phone call from a fella some years back.  RAT HQ.  It was quite the conversation to say the least. What these folks( investors/potentential buyers) were looking for specifically,I dont recall.  Its a touchy subject and this is  not about re-hashing  the past.  But when the player base was asked to show up to show case the product.......the player base choked.

This new team has done a tremendous job.  I mean that,  floored by all the new stuff. And yes there are some core issues that may still need to be tweaked..........but for those of us that went through the  Rust Bowl( no new stuff for  a long while) like myself, the new toys are a site for sore eyes.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elfin
On 4/3/2020 at 0:43 AM, Poker said:

You’re a good man, Elfin.

Ha Ha ! Maybe.....

My wife has me "woke"! Sometimes she wakes me up for what I was hoping, wink, wink.... Other times it's to let me know I need to be more "aware" and not to complain as I take out the trash.

;)

Best to you all.

S!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XOOM

So I met with the Community Management team, and we will be meeting again. One thing stood clear: we want to keep the forums, but we all recognize that the original bullet points I had placed up were a shared consensus - no surprise.

That being said we are going to be meeting again and we're drawing up a forum consolidation plan, along with evaluating our terms of service and evaluating our current moderation practices. There may be too many forums, and not clear enough areas to drive discussion. We'll be aiming to find a happy-medium with moderation practices, where we can enable constructive criticism that works to help the effort, but we will be taking a more proactive approach in removing severe cases that are inconsistent with the environment that we're trying to foster. We'll come up with a mission statement on what this is for better clarity, but I think if you read my initial post you can put it together.

I have asked our Community Managers to get more involved with the forums, and I myself will also pick up my activity here to better communicate with you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bogol
On 4/7/2020 at 1:47 PM, XOOM said:

So I met with the Community Management team, and we will be meeting again. One thing stood clear: we want to keep the forums, but we all recognize that the original bullet points I had placed up were a shared consensus - no surprise.

That being said we are going to be meeting again and we're drawing up a forum consolidation plan, along with evaluating our terms of service and evaluating our current moderation practices. There may be too many forums, and not clear enough areas to drive discussion. We'll be aiming to find a happy-medium with moderation practices, where we can enable constructive criticism that works to help the effort, but we will be taking a more proactive approach in removing severe cases that are inconsistent with the environment that we're trying to foster. We'll come up with a mission statement on what this is for better clarity, but I think if you read my initial post you can put it together.

I have asked our Community Managers to get more involved with the forums, and I myself will also pick up my activity here to better communicate with you all.

You can reconsolidate all you want as long as we have left Hangar and Harbor in place :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bogol
On 4/7/2020 at 1:47 PM, XOOM said:

.We'll come up with a mission statement on what this is for better clarity, but I think if you read my initial post you can put it together.

 

On 3/26/2020 at 8:24 PM, XOOM said:

So I ask you, how do we keep the forums from becoming obsolete?

 

Thats what I read from your post. Clearly. So no, I cannot infer even a hint of a plan. Just a hint of disappointment with the same community that you all CRS call the greatest community of all games, when they promptly answer the calls for funding. When us -same community, maybe different apples, maybe some of them same apples- start expressing displeasure about certain things in fora, then suddenly we are not that great anymore. Which is it?

 

Edited by bogol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XOOM
4 hours ago, bogol said:

Thats what I read from your post. Clearly. So no, I cannot infer even a hint of a plan. Just a hint of disappointment with the same community that you all CRS call the greatest community of all games, when they promptly answer the calls for funding. When us -same community, maybe different apples, maybe some of them same apples- start expressing displeasure about certain things in fora, then suddenly we are not that great anymore. Which is it?

You're taking what I am saying out of context. I am saying that the forums as an atmosphere can and should do better, and that comes down to folks not treating each other poorly. And you what I am talking about, you've been here long enough. So let's not pretend I am making this up, and don't paint me out to be some bad guy. I'm trying to address the elephant and the room and re-adjust things so we can come out ahead and all enjoy our time here better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silky
5 minutes ago, XOOM said:

You're taking what I am saying out of context. I am saying that the forums as an atmosphere can and should do better, and that comes down to folks not treating each other poorly. And you know what I am talking about, you've been here long enough. So let's not pretend I am making this up, and don't paint me out to be some bad guy. I'm trying to address the elephant and the room and re-adjust things so we can come out ahead and all enjoy our time here better.

I think the best thing we can see as a community is more Rat posts, more RAT engagement in talking with, and presenting to, the community here.

That's the positive to take out of this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warspite

I think that if you start over policing the forums, removing negative posts etc, you will make them obsolete all by yourself. If there ends up being no new posts on a day to day basis then people wont even bother checking here anymore.

Forums will and should be a place for people to express their opinions, even if negative. If they cant do that here then they will go elsewhere and that is more damaging. 

It would be far better for RATs to respond to the negative posts in a polite and professional manner rather than hide them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OHM

Why programmers hate posting on online forums....

renderTimingPixel.png

ALLEN: Hi, I’m new to driving and I need to move my car back around 5 meters. How can I move the car backwards?

(2 days later.)

ALLEN: Hello? This is still a problem. I’m sure someone knows how to do this.

BOB: I can’t believe you didn’t figure this out yourself. Just take your foot off the gas and let the car roll backwards down the hill. Tap the bake when you get to where you want to be. Boom. Done.

ALLEN: But I’m not on a hill. I’m in my driveway and it’s completely flat.

CARL: Dude, I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish, but you should never be driving backwards. It’s dangerous and will confuse the other drivers. See the big window in FRONT of you? That’s your first clue. Don’t drive backwards.

ALLEN: I’m not trying to drive backwards. I just need to move back a little bit so I can get out of my driveway and start driving forwards.

CARL: So just drive in circle until you’re pointed the right way.

ALLEN: I don’t have enough room to turn around like that. I only need to move back a few meters. I don’t understand why this has to be so hard.

CARL: Sounds like your “driveway” isn’t compatible with cars. It’s probably made for bikes. Call a contractor and have them convert some of your yard into driveway to be standards-compliant with the turning radius of a car. Either way, you’re doing something wrong.

DAVE: I see your problem. You can adjust your car to move backwards by using the shifter. It’s a stick located right between the passenger and driver seats. Apply the clutch and move the stick to the “R” position.

ALLEN: But.. I don’t have a clutch. And there isn’t a stick between the seats.

CARL: Sounds like you’re trying to drive in Europe or something.

ALLEN: Ah. Nevermind. I figured it out.

(Also kudos to people that respond to their own question with the answer they found!)

 

 

I use to post a lot in the forums but over a period i have found myself posting less and less ........

For me it seems that no matter how hard you try and make a positive post to answer something   someone comes in with an very negative response and it like getting a paper cut over and over and over. Doesn't hurt to bad at 1st but over time you just get tired of it. 

I seen a few threads start off negative and i am like wtf ...hell if i am going to go in that and get ripped up.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
1 hour ago, warspite said:

I think that if you start over policing the forums, removing negative posts etc, you will make them obsolete all by yourself. If there ends up being no new posts on a day to day basis then people wont even bother checking here anymore. Forums will and should be a place for people to express their opinions, even if negative. If they cant do that here then they will go elsewhere and that is more damaging. 

Certainly the above was not my, or CRS's, view during the years I was Lead Mod. (A long time ago, under Old CRS.)

It absolutely was the case that negative views were expressed elsewhere. That will happen in any case. Theres no controlling or preventing it, if that were desired. But to a significant extent, noobs come here for their view of the CRS zeitgeist. What they expect in those other places is the anti-CRS zeitgeist.

To that end, it's critically important that what noobs and others see here is a content stream that's unpolluted by the corrosive-personality folks who are never going to be happy with a balanced-for-marketability game, and can only express their displeasure by badmouthing the game, CRS personnel and those other players who disagree with them.

Arguments that the game can only be worthy of existence if it's changed to make Side X weaker and Side Y stronger, and Player A able to kill without being killed, are pointless and dysfunctional. They don't contribute anything useful. It doesn't matter how they're couched, or dressed up, or justified. Arguments that don't start from an acceptance that marketable balance is Priority 1 are not helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...