First of all, let me state that I am pretty much against hit and running, though i must admit, this is a strategy that is SOMETIMES useful. But there are much more of those using this tactic than there used to be, and this can be a pain.

As there are no differences between donators and non-donators concerning available features, and we miss the nice features that were so useful against hit'n'runner (army interception and split), I would suggest to bring back the requested value for bank access. Thus hit and runners presumably would think it twice before just leaving cities behind.

Got my vote.

Mine as well

Not mine, bring back the features splitting and interception but leave bank access as is

Gotta play it as it lays... Splitting and interception would be good touch for 'realism' tho, and I +1 that. Increasing the value for banking favors the rich, and speaking as a hit and runner this round, getting enough value wouldnt be a problem.

Holding a high value city long enough before a counter-attack isn't hard. Somehow WTO left me untouched in Bangkok (about 10 mil value) for 24 hours, and I got to almost 2 mil player value. PV fades away slowly, so I'd have bank access easily enough for a while.

Edit: Hope my latest post in the "Hope and Change' thread doesn't have you too worried yet... :nana

no way.....you wouldnt even be suggesting this if you didnt already have numerous cities and in an established alliance(with numerous cities)......no chance

p.s...i havent hit and run once this round(doesnt mean i wont)but that shows im not talking from a hit and runners point of view

A few hit and runs and people are screaming to make it harder for those without cities?

H&R is part of the game.

Every round we have the same discussion over hit and run, and literally every time I am sure the same response is made. It is part of the game, it is how some wish to play, we all just have to accept it for what it is, who is to say your way is better than theirs and vice versa.

Actually now it is quite far from being hard for those without cities.

- Army upkeep is hight, while city tax is low.
- Non-donators - as far as I know - can have as much as donators without holding a city.
- The features of army interception and army splitting is missing.

Besides, you can keep 2-3 higher value cities for a few hrs and your value will be high enough to get the bank access. So I would not say that would hurt hit and runners that much.

Arctica do you want the game to be impossible to play for those without cities? Someone posted in another thread that the donator features we had will be brought back (army splitting and interception) so that alone will make it harder for H&R's, but they will never go away completly.

I don't think it would make impossible to play the game for those without cities. Collecting a value of 200k does not seem to be impossible.

New comers are usually respected, and those constatly zero'ed are almost always those that have poor diplomatic skills or stupid enough to realize that they should switch their sphere of territorial interest.

I know that hit and runners are always be here, but this game should still be about holding cities.

First of all, let me state that I am pretty much against hit and running, though i must admit, this is a strategy that is SOMETIMES useful. But there are much more of those using this tactic than there used to be, and this can be a pain.

As there are no differences between donators and non-donators concerning available features, and we miss the nice features that were so useful against hit'n'runner (army interception and split), I would suggest to bring back the requested value for bank access. Thus hit and runners presumably would think it twice before just leaving cities behind.

when this was brought up several resets ago (of course different people were on top of the pile at that time) it was shot down by just about everyone.

The scoreboard is about holding cities. The game is about war. ;baddy

I have an insanely good idea on how to deal with hit and runners.

If only I took the time to put it on the forums 27 times.

If only..

If only..

/fade to flashbacks

I agree Tim , still wish we had homebase stealage even now :)

I agree Tim , still wish we had homebase stealage even now :)

I was totally referring to my idea that shouting into a microphone would encourage the troops and therefore give them a combat bonus the harder you shout creative obscenities.

But Homebase Stealage would work as well I guess.

First of all, let me state that I am pretty much against hit and running, though i must admit, this is a strategy that is SOMETIMES useful. But there are much more of those using this tactic than there used to be, and this can be a pain.

As there are no differences between donators and non-donators concerning available features, and we miss the nice features that were so useful against hit'n'runner (army interception and split), I would suggest to bring back the requested value for bank access. Thus hit and runners presumably would think it twice before just leaving cities behind.

In this game if you dont have hit and run all you will have is large alliances fighting with each other..The new player wont be able to even play if he has to hold a city for days just to get bank access.....Bringing back the other features will help stop them...But keeping players out of the bank will just keep them from playing..
Is hit and run really a problem now? For in order to hurt a alliance with hit and run, once you hit them you want other alliances or players to pick those cities up..If the alliance you attack keeps picking them right back up then its not worth doing a hit and run, as i was doing against A.I. the start of this game..

You are right though the fact donators get no benefits over nondonators is crappy. I noticed even our resident loudmouth is no longer one, no real point i guess if you get nothing different. Maybe changing that should also be at the top of the list.

here's a choice. give hit and runners a chance, or continue the game as it is...

have fun fighting WTO.... i've been a forum jockey for the entire reset. it's not worth doing anything else.

You are right though the fact donators get no benefits over nondonators is crappy. I noticed even our resident loudmouth is no longer one, no real point i guess if you get nothing different. Maybe changing that should also be at the top of the list.

the donator/nondonator inequality was retarded in the first place. Its yet another reason why this game lacks new players.

the donator/nondonator inequality was retarded in the first place. Its yet another reason why this game lacks new players.

If there isn't any 'benefits' for donators then why do we pay to play? We pay to get something extra out of the game, a little bit of an advantage over those not paying...

Surely that isn't too hard to understand!?

i dont know, why would u pay to play.

donations should be fine and volentary. not necessary for getting half of the game. Ive played many internet browser games that have been/are far more successful than this game and they have not required payment to gain most of the aspects of the game.

i dont know, why would u pay to play.

donations should be fine and volentary. not necessary for getting half of the game. Ive played many internet browser games that have been/are far more successful than this game and they have not required payment to gain most of the aspects of the game.


As with any online game Carach, there are costs incurred in running the game online. Thus there is a need for donations. You cannot expect a person to work all day everyday to pay for a game to run for free for alot of online players.

i dont know, why would u pay to play.

To get something more out of the game. There is costs to keep a game like this running and people aren't just going to pay without getting advantages?

need to get this thread back on topic...

here's a simple suggestion.

in each players forum post, like near their avatar or something, label the alliance they are in.
eg
killerclown
status...
signature
misfits.

To get something more out of the game. There is costs to keep a game like this running and people aren't just going to pay without getting advantages?

people can and do pay to get no advantages in other games. the internet tends to be free, im not paying for browser games that give donators as large an advantage as in gewar (or used to/plans to again).

ads also tend to cover much of the cost.

i really dont get some of u donators really. u dont appear to have played any other online games whatsoever to have the opinion that you do. I however have played dozens, none of which have required my payment to recieve the number of benefits donators gain from gewar.

like i said in my OP; it is just one of many issues that makes this game a very low-populated, elitist community that will never grow in a meaningful way.

like i said in my OP; it is just one of many issues that makes this game a very low-populated, elitist community that will never grow in a meaningful way.


Even though I love the game I have to agree with you... I have been playing this game for years now and get the feeling that it hasn't really grown that much! Some have left and the new players that have joined made up for that, but has there been a significant rise in players over the years??

It would be very interesting to see some stats...

The donator features is good for the game imo but I wouldn't mind if they are available for everyone!

people can and do pay to get no advantages in other games. the internet tends to be free, im not paying for browser games that give donators as large an advantage as in gewar (or used to/plans to again).

ads also tend to cover much of the cost.

i really dont get some of u donators really. u dont appear to have played any other online games whatsoever to have the opinion that you do. I however have played dozens, none of which have required my payment to recieve the number of benefits donators gain from gewar.

like i said in my OP; it is just one of many issues that makes this game a very low-populated, elitist community that will never grow in a meaningful way.


Carach - congrats to your post....specially with the last sentence you hit the real problem, not the only one, but a main one....

Our game need to fuel in a lot new player every day, only then we do have enough action, to avoid that a very few people or 3-5 alliances can control 90% of the game.....

And yes - Gewar doesn't need to rely on Donators , not that reset and not the past ones....all arguments I find in the forums for "pro Donator" just postpone the real development of the game..
Or it was a misused story spoken out by some player, who needed to find an argument for their own weakness....

Laoma
*It is about time now to cut off all those useless arguments which are circling over 2 years now in here - doesn't matter what I read from some crew member, Mods or players....

it is in part down to the ....finite space of planet earth aswell; that suffocates younger players/non affiliated players and alliances heh. without expanding into the solar system i dont really know how one could remedy the city situation.

but meh whatever, will go back to my original point and ask that not everything demanded by a donator become a fact of the game. Hit and running is like geurilla war of rl. The US cant stop the taliban playing that way, the admins shouldnt stop those that have been steamrolled/gangbanged/forced out due to non affiliations whatever... from playing gewar. (tbh with the proposal in the OP i would have quit at the start of this round after being kept without cities by NAOW and then WTO) - we are the rural resistance!

perhaps with the new travel times (i swear the times have changed?) u could probably double the number of cities involved in the game, that may or may not result in the big alliances just getting bigger but who knows. Perhaps lenghtening times even more would make the playing field bigger and more stable, less prone to mass zeroings and mega-steamrolls that bigger alliances can often inflict (obviously they would still be at the advantage even with such a change because numbers is a quality all of its own..)

ive also personally been interested in zones of control and logistics style stuff. alliance cities in blocks not sprinkled out. to take stuff overseas an alliance must have sea access, must take a port city before moving into that foreign continent or whatever (or do it the long way via land in some cases).. but thats complicated and i guess rather difficult to implement.

Perhaps more advertisement of GEWar would help get people in. I think that this would be ineffective though with the way the game is currently (unless groups from other games come over here and coordinate together, it happened on other games ive played..)..

im just writing down a bunch of stuff that comes to my head, feel free to agree/criticise/bash that im not a donator and thus im a whiner whatever people feel like coming out with :)

You know Laoma, you are wrong, what slows down the game development right at this moment, is the constant negativity from the players on this game. All the staff read is whinging and whineing, no constructive ideas, just merely expecting the staff to jump to their tunes. This is precisely why there has been very little game development happening of late. We have had quite enough, many are tired of the amount of hours they put in to receive nothing but criticism.

Fortunately its by the same few who have an axe to grind, however even those few are enough to drive the staff from the game at times. Perhaps in hindsight it might be good if some players thought before posting.........

Carach - congrats to your post....specially with the last sentence you hit the real problem, not the only one, but a main one....

Our game need to fuel in a lot new player every day, only then we do have enough action, to avoid that a very few people or 3-5 alliances can control 90% of the game.....

And yes - Gewar doesn't need to rely on Donators , not that reset and not the past ones....all arguments I find in the forums for "pro Donator" just postpone the real development of the game..
Or it was a misused story spoken out by some player, who needed to find an argument for their own weakness....

Laoma
*It is about time now to cut off all those useless arguments which are circling over 2 years now in here - doesn't matter what I read from some crew member, Mods or players....

OMG. What a great post.

You know Laoma, you are wrong, what slows down the game development right at this moment, is the constant negativity from the players on this game. All the staff read is whinging and whineing, no constructive ideas, just merely expecting the staff to jump to their tunes. This is precisely why there has been very little game development happening of late. We have had quite enough, many are tired of the amount of hours they put in to receive nothing but criticism.

Fortunately its by the same few who have an axe to grind, however even those few are enough to drive the staff from the game at times. Perhaps in hindsight it might be good if some players thought before posting.........

OK I feel like I have to say something here lol

Constant negativity? I don't see that at all from players... Well there might be a bit of negativity because we don't know what's going on with the game development but as of now there is between 2-4 threads going that's there to ask what we would like to see, changes that we want in the game etc! I don't see that as negativity at all but rather as something that a player started and would like to see happen in the game!

I can understand that staff feel there have been negativity but that's something totally different and maybe something that should be looked at fyi :)

I like Carach's ideas. Especially about logistics and increasing the number of cities/travel times. Make the game more strategic.

And I don't care what any of the "haves" think about hit and running. Try being a "have-not" and still enjoy the game, without H&R. Flip the coin, other edge of the sword, whatever, when you have no cities and are fighting against a more powerful opponent, it's your best weapon.

Carach - congrats to your post....specially with the last sentence you hit the real problem, not the only one, but a main one....

Our game need to fuel in a lot new player every day, only then we do have enough action, to avoid that a very few people or 3-5 alliances can control 90% of the game.....

And yes - Gewar doesn't need to rely on Donators , not that reset and not the past ones....all arguments I find in the forums for "pro Donator" just postpone the real development of the game..
Or it was a misused story spoken out by some player, who needed to find an argument for their own weakness....

Laoma
*It is about time now to cut off all those useless arguments which are circling over 2 years now in here - doesn't matter what I read from some crew member, Mods or players....

I'll give my two cents(and then some)...


Donator privs are not built for personal gain. They exist to support the coding effort of a game that people enjoy. If we wanted a pay-to-play game then we would just sell geos, resources, and probably cities. However, we can't expect people to support the game, that you play and we code, for nothing. So small advantages are necessary. You may not agree with that, but that's just the way it is. The balance comes when you understand that these advantages are necessary regardless of your personal belief that everything should be equal and free...the world doesn't work that way, and neither do games. Without donations....we can't host the game and then you can argue your point, right or wrong, with yourself.
Furthermore, other games (worth discussing) all have incentive mechanisms built in. Just because you don't use them doesn't mean that they don't exist.Show me a game that isn't turn-based that has no incentives for donations and I'll show you a game that will disappear within 2 years.
Why is this game small and has a low population. Donatorship has nothing to do with it. This game is small because its hard to understand and grasp. We want to change this with Level 1, but that requires coding time (see below).
To the original (from Carach) post, Ad revenue barely covers 20-25% of a dedicated server. Now if we went to a cloud host where drop off was daily, speeds were slow, and the game was limited on bandwidth...hey maybe then ads might pay for the game, but since decisions have been made to give the players the best possible environment then we are stuck with a higher bill.

Do we need more players...Sure. More players means more parity, but do you honestly think that any player would actually play this game right now with the open, public negativity? Hell I love this game, and I can't stand being around you people for more then 5 threads. So saying that the donator advantage argument means anything is like me saying that people see the color blue on the forums and stay away. It's minor and way off base. It's way behind arrogant forum posters, negative threads, entitled players, alliance bullying, lack of coding improvements and mean-spirited players.

What do we need:


Less public negativity from the players.
more dedicated coding time (affected by #1).
**Why Code when people will just beat you up for it. Not like I get paid for this.
more advertising. (affected by #1)
**Why advertise to bring people in when the first thing they see is discontent.
new features (affected by #2)
**If we can't code to fix the problems then we can't honestly build in new features.
small, workable donator advantages.

If we fix those first two items then everything else becomes possible. If we don't fix them...we will still be having this conversation in 2 years. and in 2 years, I will still tell you the same thing...Donator Incentives are necessary and minor if done right.

...Enough from me.

You know Laoma, you are wrong, what slows down the game development right at this moment, is the constant negativity from the players on this game. All the staff read is whinging and whineing, no constructive ideas, just merely expecting the staff to jump to their tunes. This is precisely why there has been very little game development happening of late. We have had quite enough, many are tired of the amount of hours they put in to receive nothing but criticism.

Fortunately its by the same few who have an axe to grind, however even those few are enough to drive the staff from the game at times. Perhaps in hindsight it might be good if some players thought before posting.........

I sure would like to post a reply about this but with my last warning you gave me iam afraid I cant..Oh well....But iam sure your negative post will stir the negative pot even more ...

Why is coding time affected by the tone of voice of the people in the forums? Are the people working on the game reading comments and then crying about it at home for so much time it's debilitating?

I've said this before. Screw the current gamers. The game is in Beta. Too often in developer discussions the current gamers are taken into account.

Make a game you like, and then find the people that like the game you made. You now have 50 people and are trying to make the game they like. And they like nothing; They are really invested in the current game and are afraid of any change, but would like extra features that add to the game without changing anything of the old gameplay.

The whining of the players is easy to ignore. I'm doing it right now. The whining of mods like sunshine about the whiners is easy to ignore because it's just weird and uncomfortable.

It's luke, as owner, and the coders, as enablers, that have to decide to just come together and make a game they like. Then just see who stays and who doesn't, after that you can get a new community together.

The current Beta gamers and some of the current mods are too involved in personal inanities to be listened to. Everytime I hear "I really like that idea but the players wouldn't" I cringe. If everyone designed the game the average of gamers would like everyone would design thesame game.

What players say on the forums feels like whining because it's been this way for 3 years, as has the game itself. Prophet, If you're really losing that much time because of negative feedback, just don't visit the forums.. Same goes for Luke or any other coder or contributor. The current playerbase is ignorable; a lot of old gamers would come back and new players would join if the game actually took off but for that to work you'd have to actually shed the old game, no slow progressions anymore.

I actually advice you just take down the game for half a year and come back with your changes if the player base annoys you. This is beta and they're really not testing anymore because the current features have been there for years.

Word.

Like said I don't think it's that much about getting really frustrated about it, as much as we coders couldn't care less after all the negativity. Why bother? We have other things in life.

Now none of is just being stubborn and refusing to work. We just can't get motivated to do it with a bunch of players that always hate everything. I went away for a month because of it. You work hours a day, 7 days a week...and in the end all you get is that crew dont reserve respect because the way they are etc. Then a human response is: then why should I care? Go ahead. Have fun. I'm off.

Now I want to get back to work, but notice it's still the same or worse. But this time I say: hey, it's my game. You give the impression you don't want to be here? Then let me help you..........

And then crew is happy and we can get back to work finally.

So to get back to work we'll change something...now: so who and how is it gonna be?

I wouldn't say that i lose sleep over it (or cry for that matter...but that would be funny), but it is demotivating to hear the same ole same ole crap on the forums. No matter what you do your stuck doing something you don't want to do...So I don't do it...and the cycle continues.

I need to see the forums, because I like the ideas that come from the players and the staff forum is kind of necessary. However, when I go into a thread like this one, and want to see what good ideas someone might be talking about that is specific to code that I'm working on right now...I get what I got earlier. Sure I could ignore it, but it's little assumptions like "Ad revenue pay for everything" and "Donators aren't needed" that end up spreading like wildfire. Then when a coder, me, implements the changes we get backlash because some player spread the rumor months ago and now it's become gospel. So then we have to either deal with the misconception or we get the "You never listen to us"...it kind of reminds me of dealing with my teenage daughter now that I think about it.

so it goes...

Bravo Luke. Please, give it some energy.
Timm, being right is dangerous, being wrong more so.

And My problem that I was polite enough to take off the forums with this post is staff needed say nothing, there are lots of us who will defend the donation system. It is nessisary and should be used more not less. But it is a circle, a large one.

Staff thinks they are unloved so they dont work, players feel they are ignored so they attack staff, and on and on.

I wouldn't say that i lose sleep over it (or cry for that matter...but that would be funny), but it is demotivating to hear the same ole same ole crap on the forums. No matter what you do your stuck doing something you don't want to do...So I don't do it...and the cycle continues.

I need to see the forums, because I like the ideas that come from the players and the staff forum is kind of necessary. However, when I go into a thread like this one, and want to see what good ideas someone might be talking about that is specific to code that I'm working on right now...I get what I got earlier. Sure I could ignore it, but it's little assumptions like "Ad revenue pay for everything" and "Donators aren't needed" that end up spreading like wildfire. Then when a coder, me, implements the changes we get backlash because some player spread the rumor months ago and now it's become gospel. So then we have to either deal with the misconception or we get the "You never listen to us"...it kind of reminds me of dealing with my teenage daughter now that I think about it.

so it goes...

I agree with you that this thread, and some of the opinions here are stupid. So are most.

You have enough ideas to keep you coding for the rest of your natural life. But the main point is to just code what you like in the game yourself.

I realy haven't a clue why these people who play a beta game played by less than a 100 people expect a right to demand things of you. But apperently you're letting it get to you.

Just ignore them. Ignore the ones who hardly speak english, ignore the ones that just started, ignore the ones that are 14 years old. None remain? Great! You can just code what you'd like..

I'd much rather play a game 1 person made to his own standards than a game a 100 people made to their standards of which I was 1.

PS. Peon:
"Timm, being right is dangerous, being wrong more so." is a really zen way of saying nothing. If you disagree and have arguments state them. If not shut up. Actually, when in doubt you should just shut up.

Not just him, it gets to me too

Edit: Tim you can say things I can't. That is life and I have to work within the constraints I am given. And the point you missed is even opening your mouth is dangerous, This is not my playground so I must follow the leaders rules or not play.

Staff thinks they are unloved so they dont work, players feel they are ignored so they attack staff, and on and on.
Yes. I got exactly the same impression. So now that we start to analyze the problem we can hopefully also find the solution.

Timmetie, your posts are a bit much here really. First you threaten Luke with the fact you'll become more of a pain by being "less fair", then you talk a load of crap about ignoring people who play the game, and then that people who don't speak English aren't entitled to an opinion, and so on and so on.

I've seen a lot of posts from you suggesting how the game can be "improved" in your opinion, yet none of them seem to be particularly realistic or based on the actual priorities at present. This is likely because I haven't actually seen you playing the game at all hardly. I saw you take Riyadh once, which is 5 mins from your HB, and you held it for about an hour. So how exactly are you qualified to have an opinion on what will improve the current game? You haven't experienced all the intricacies of the new game; the good ones like having to think about oil usage, and the missing features that affect how playable the game is.

Now I know, you're going to say you've been around for X amount of years and I haven't blah blah blah, but actually this is a new game now, very different from the old beta version you will have played. You won't have found out about these differences because you haven't played this version properly. So once again, why should anyone listen to these endless criticisms and snippets of wisdom/advice you come up with? Because you've read the forums and learnt from there what the alleged problems are? Well I'm afraid that doesn't count, people may not always be constructive with the way they put their suggestions across on here, but at least with most it's based on their actual experience of playing the game. To be entitled to an opinion on players forum posts, you need proper experience of the current game yourself.

Anyway, my suggestion would be that all of us players try to keep Peonboss' thread "What would you like to see fixed first? Take 2" as constructive as possible which so far everyone has been great at doing for the most part. This will provide a good indication to staff as to how to make the players happier, which in turn will reduce the negativity from players. In the mean time, players just need to be patient. Beyond being reasonable human beings when it comes to discussing game features then there isn't really anything else required in my opinion to get through all this.

Let the mongoose hating begin! :)

Why is coding time affected by the tone of voice of the people in the forums? Are the people working on the game reading comments and then crying about it at home for so much time it's debilitating?

I've said this before. Screw the current gamers. The game is in Beta. Too often in developer discussions the current gamers are taken into account.

Make a game you like, and then find the people that like the game you made. You now have 50 people and are trying to make the game they like. And they like nothing; They are really invested in the current game and are afraid of any change, but would like extra features that add to the game without changing anything of the old gameplay.

The whining of the players is easy to ignore. I'm doing it right now. The whining of mods like sunshine about the whiners is easy to ignore because it's just weird and uncomfortable.

It's luke, as owner, and the coders, as enablers, that have to decide to just come together and make a game they like. Then just see who stays and who doesn't, after that you can get a new community together.

The current Beta gamers and some of the current mods are too involved in personal inanities to be listened to. Everytime I hear "I really like that idea but the players wouldn't" I cringe. If everyone designed the game the average of gamers would like everyone would design thesame game.

What players say on the forums feels like whining because it's been this way for 3 years, as has the game itself. Prophet, If you're really losing that much time because of negative feedback, just don't visit the forums.. Same goes for Luke or any other coder or contributor. The current playerbase is ignorable; a lot of old gamers would come back and new players would join if the game actually took off but for that to work you'd have to actually shed the old game, no slow progressions anymore.

I actually advice you just take down the game for half a year and come back with your changes if the player base annoys you. This is beta and they're really not testing anymore because the current features have been there for years.

Word.

thx Timmetie, couldn't have said that better.....

one thing to add....
the day Gewar is clear by it's scope...Gewar would be something......

Laoma

I'm kind of lost on how anyone could agree with that and be posting in an improvement thread. In Tim's own way he just said "Screw the players" which is a philosophy that we just don't support and is counter to what the game is. We've alway given players a say in changes and game improvements and that's one of the core foundations of the game. It probably the most challenging, frustrating and fun part of the game for the coders.

but to be far let's review what would happen if we followed Tim's plan...
The game that was inherited would be re-written over a 2 year period into an MVC object-oriented code structure with clean code. After which, we would bug fix the game, and then we would say here is version 2. When we got around to it we would add in new ideas...

Now that I think about it...we already did Tim's plan, and that's what people don't like.

glad to know im a horrible, negative whiner with an axe to grind.
:butcher

You can't have a game where the game is programmed around player suggestions and not expect others to complain about those suggestions or suggestions that became part of the game.

You can't make everyone happy.....ever. Trying to so is a one-way ticket to insanity.

I think what timmetie was trying to say (in too many words, lol) is that whoever makes the decisions about what gets done and what doesn't (whether that's luke or a committee) should make those decision based on what they feel is best.

If you want to take "suggestions" from players, make it anonymous. After gathering enough suggestions, pick a few that you like, post them, and have players post their opinion for/against the suggestion, again making those posts anonymous. This way those that need to see the pros and cons that they may have missed can see them, without dealing with the drama associated with public postings about the suggestion.

The actual post that Timmetie made that I responded to has been removed.

Please forgive it if my post above seems harsh, it was very appropriate at the time.

You can't have a game where the game is programmed around player suggestions and not expect others to complain about those suggestions or suggestions that became part of the game.

You can't make everyone happy.....ever. Trying to so is a one-way ticket to insanity.

I think what timmetie was trying to say (in too many words, lol) is that whoever makes the decisions about what gets done and what doesn't (whether that's luke or a committee) should make those decision based on what they feel is best.

If you want to take "suggestions" from players, make it anonymous. After gathering enough suggestions, pick a few that you like, post them, and have players post their opinion for/against the suggestion, again making those posts anonymous. This way those that need to see the pros and cons that they may have missed can see them, without dealing with the drama associated with public postings about the suggestion.

This is the closest to reality I have seen. We take all the ideas that people have (the one's you see here and the one's we have in staff discussions) and then go through the process of reviewing, analyzing, and logically eliminating ideas. I know many of them get lost because of the logical elimination (i.e. the amount of code time required outweighs the benefit to the game, or the code itself may hinder future development or security principles).

I would love to take suggestions completely out of the forum and let them be anonymous in another system. Mainly because too many threads get muddled up and the good ideas get lost in the fray, or things get mentioned 300 times with no real explanation of what the idea is.