Discussion Thread: direct commits of balance changes without player input

[Chickenish]

So, I was provoked to start this thread by a large number of significant changes made by developers without Pull Requests* and without asking for player input, with this one directly impacting me:
https://github.com/goonstation/goonstati...9e3de9eb01
This direct commit** makes it so that instead of having 100u or more ethanol in you(normally enough to overdose) meaning that you can shrug off 40% of attacks in normal melee combat(any melee hit with a force less than or equal to 15), it is now limited to defending against 40% of punches.
I only learned of this now because of the wiki page, where it was updated what appears to be one day after the change; it was communicated in, as far as I know, no other player-visible place.
https://wiki.ss13.co/index.php?title=Che...01#Ethanol

While defending against punches would be effective in a boxing match with no chairs around, it doesn't even help against a shattered bottle, let alone a fire extinguisher or air tank.
I haven't played recently and so don't have direct experience with current ethanol use, but I used to be one of the few people that used the Career Alcoholic trait and got stuffed with ethanol.
Back then, ethanol did nothing against a projectile of any sort, which means that someone could wreck you just by throwing floor tiles at you or shooting you, although this did not happen often; I believe that providing feedback to the one that attempted to hurt the drunk spaceman would be a good cue to resort to ranged options.
From what I've heard, the only thing I could think of that would provide a reason to nerf ethanol this hard would be drunken rampages being too effective against melee weapons allowing someone to punch their enemies just too well.
if I was given opportunity to give input on this change, I could have included stuff like ethanol being made to be an actual painkiller, or providing defense against item hits instead of completely deflecting them, or only deflecting blunt damage, but that was not the case.

TL;DR: Some devs make changes without informing players and without allowing players to give input, which can be very bad.

What are some direct changes that impacted you, and how could the developer(s) involved have handled it better?






*A Pull Request is a request to add code to the game; for developers it would be a way to let the community know what the change is and why it is necessary, and allow the community to comment on it.

** A Direct Commit is when someone with code access directly changes the game code without going through a Pull Request.

[Mordent]

I was personally affected by literally every commit prior to April 1st 2020, by virtue of the game existing and steadily being developed.

[nefarious6th]

I don't want to get to into it. I know someone once said before players aren't entitled to have devs making PRs on every change, and I get that on one hand and why it may not always be necessary, happen, or be seen by devs as a productive thing to do.

I think that perspective necessitates PRs as The Open Forum Where We Can Discuss the Merits of a ThingTM. Which can, in fact, be very counterproductive and not worthwhile to pursue. I get that; not every change should be open to that kind of solicitation of feedback.

What I would have liked to see on some recent changes weren't Debating the Merits of Things. I think a good example was the prismatic laser damage nerf (or whatever the strelka one was). I don't think it would've been worthwhile AT ALL in that scenario to get a bunch of people going "but, but, but don't nerf it"; but I think the formality of a PR or forum post or whatever can be useful, if not to say "this is something we are _looking_ at doing", then to say "this is something we _are_ doing". For the particulars of the lasers, I actually wanted them nerfed! But I also wanted to see harder caps on the pod too, with it to start locked and have the lasers be unremovable from that specific pod. And I think a forum thread or PR would have been the place to give those thoughts.

Even though those things can all be added going forward still, some people I think look at the commit log or the change of the Singular Instance and go "well, the problem is fixed now, see, someone else touched it so we can forget it"; and there may be ideas being lost in the process, not on the Merits of a Thing, but more akin to workshopping something to be a really full solution for what I think commits and PRs are attempting to address for the game's sake. For some of those things too, it's just a lot easier to see things connected all at once, versus having ten disparate commits that all are working on tweaking something following some bigger initial commit. It's easier to see when something changed, why it changed, what further changes that thing prompted in turn, and document it somewhere for players' referencing.

Not too upset about it or anything, I just thought I'd put my (potentially very different and idealistic) perspective on some of the benefits of being able to share these changes in advance out there.

[Flaborized]

Developers have no obligation to gather feedback from players or publicly broadcast any changes they make to the playerbase; there are just some things where it's not necessary, or situations where feedback wouldn't actually really impact the choices made, since the arguments against are already preemptively fairly understood. Devs are given a large amount of creative freedom to work on this game, and part of that freedom is being able to choose What Changes Are Good For The Game. Gathering player feedback is only a tool for trying to assess the merits of a change, it's not the be-all-end-all or even the primary method of doing so. Goonstation development (and really all videogame development) isn't a player-driven-democracy and it shouldn't be, in my personal opinion. 

You are, of course, *allowed* to give feedback on changes, but when doing so one should fully expect their suggested changes to never actually be carried out. Overall, devs are making the game they want to make, and improving it in ways they think makes it better. Players are not entitled to opportunities to give feedback on any specific change, or to any game design Compromises when they don't like a change. Devs will ask for feedback when they think it's a good idea, and that's just the way it has to be pretty much.

[ZeWaka]

https://mikemcquaid.com/2018/03/19/open-...u-nothing/

[Mopcat]

https://mikemcquaid.com/2018/03/19/open-...u-nothing/

wow. just wow.

this response shows nothing except disrespect for the community, dude. you're just flat out telling everyone that you don't care about the people who play your damn game. nobody's telling you that you owe them anything. we just want you guys to not make balance changes without even telling the damn people who play the game first.

your players owe you nothing either. they don't have to play the game, especially when you're being an ass to them over them being unsatisfied with the direction you're taking it.

[Drewmajor11]

https://mikemcquaid.com/2018/03/19/open-...u-nothing/

Ok I actually went and looked through this article quickly and, while I understand where you are coming from to a degree. This is just un needed and shows no degree of respect for criticism even when its an attempt to be constructive and not just an hateful attack. The people play here too and want to enjoy the game, I understand that you don't need to listen to everything we say or make every knee jerk change that some random yells about. But I've seriously only learned about changes from skimming discord or forums pages where its randomly mentioned most of the time recently, it keeps happening and some are not so great. That article basically states to not care in the slightest what anyone says, over rule all opinions and tell the user to go fuck themselves.
 

• "For contributors: defer to maintainers and ensure that you’ve read all relevant contribution documentation. They are the ones running the project and ultimately their word goes. Understand that it’s not the job of the maintainers to teach you how the project works (or actually anything)." 

• This specifically comes off very rude and counter productive, I understand its not your duty to maintain this game and continually work on it to everything the players say but, simply discussing and thinking about these changes with the players first is all most of us want. What we get instead is changes instantly which we don't even learn about without diving into discord and forums or the times its added to the changelog and noticed. Then when people complain or want an change or even just more ability to talk about a change and have a conversation, all you provide is responses that are un productive and harmful to the community and coders reputation. 

---

Also, fuck bullet points it randomly formatted itself like this.

[Flaborized]

https://mikemcquaid.com/2018/03/19/open-...u-nothing/

wow. just wow.

this response shows nothing except disrespect for the community, dude. you're just flat out telling everyone that you don't care about the people who play your damn game. nobody's telling you that you owe them anything. we just want you guys to not make balance changes without even telling the damn people who play the game first.

your players owe you nothing either. they don't have to play the game, especially when you're being an ass to them over them being unsatisfied with the direction you're taking it.

Yeah, that's how it works. Devs make the game the way they want to make it, and they don't *have* to listen to feedback or make balance changes without telling players. You're absolutely right, if the users are unsatisfied with the product produced then they won't play it, that's the incentive to make a Good Game. I don't see a particularly large dip in playercount though, in fact I've seen the opposite over the last few years; this leads me to the conclusion that the devs are doing a Good Job at making this game, and that most complaints about the game being Ruined or the Direction of the Game being wrong are outliars.

If you see this Fact of Development as disrespectful or don't like the direction of the game, I dunno what to tell you. That's how its always been and how it will always continue, and our playerbase hasn't all left over it before. They don't owe it to us to stay if they don't like it, but I'm pretty sure they do actually like our game overall, statistically.

[Drewmajor11]

https://mikemcquaid.com/2018/03/19/open-...u-nothing/

wow. just wow.

this response shows nothing except disrespect for the community, dude. you're just flat out telling everyone that you don't care about the people who play your damn game. nobody's telling you that you owe them anything. we just want you guys to not make balance changes without even telling the damn people who play the game first.

your players owe you nothing either. they don't have to play the game, especially when you're being an ass to them over them being unsatisfied with the direction you're taking it.

Yeah, that's how it works. Devs make the game the way they want to make it, and they don't *have* to listen to feedback or make balance changes without telling players. You're absolutely right, if the users are unsatisfied with the product produced then they won't play it, that's the incentive to make a Good Game. I don't see a particularly large dip in playercount though, in fact I've seen the opposite over the last few years; this leads me to the conclusion that the devs are doing a Good Job at making this game, and that most complaints about the game being Ruined or the Direction of the Game being wrong are outliars.

If you see this Fact of Development as disrespectful or don't like the direction of the game, I dunno what to tell you. That's how its always been and how it will always continue, and our playerbase hasn't all left over it before. They don't owe it to us to stay if they don't like it, but I'm pretty sure they do actually like our game overall, statistically.

I'm just saying, I don't want to take a massive position on this specifically but every other time I've seen this happen on actual games, it ends with the playerbase unhappy and the devs continually messing with the game until its dead. I don't think the game is fully being ruined but the entire thing is that the playerbase of a game like this should at least be made aware of changes, I've literally had to discord dive to figure out if changes in the past were made or not. People have left but new people come in so the player count doesn't drop and that doesn't mean everything is fine. I've seen the same arguments from dying Early access games until the player base has enough and starts dying off.

[Mopcat]

https://mikemcquaid.com/2018/03/19/open-...u-nothing/

wow. just wow.

this response shows nothing except disrespect for the community, dude. you're just flat out telling everyone that you don't care about the people who play your damn game. nobody's telling you that you owe them anything. we just want you guys to not make balance changes without even telling the damn people who play the game first.

your players owe you nothing either. they don't have to play the game, especially when you're being an ass to them over them being unsatisfied with the direction you're taking it.

Yeah, that's how it works. Devs make the game the way they want to make it, and they don't *have* to listen to feedback or make balance changes without telling players. You're absolutely right, if the users are unsatisfied with the product produced then they won't play it, that's the incentive to make a Good Game. I don't see a particularly large dip in playercount though, in fact I've seen the opposite over the last few years; this leads me to the conclusion that the devs are doing a Good Job at making this game, and that most complaints about the game being Ruined or the Direction of the Game being wrong are outliars.

If you see this Fact of Development as disrespectful or don't like the direction of the game, I dunno what to tell you. That's how its always been and how it will always continue, and our playerbase hasn't all left over it before. They don't owe it to us to stay if they don't like it, but I'm pretty sure they do actually like our game overall, statistically.

okay, here's the thing

player count =/= player satisfaction. people won't instantly leave if changes they disagree with are made; usually, they'll criticize these changes and, depending on how things are going, the overall direction of the game's development and developer attitude towards their playerbase and their concerns with the game. what i've seen from most developers is a lack of regard for the players. most complaints are met with either "go to the forums" or Nothing, and most complaints on the forum are met with either "actually the devs do whatever they want anyways" or Nothing. in my opinion the general vibe is that most developers just... don't care what the actual players have to say, not to mention very rarely even being seen playing the game themselves.

i know people who have stopped playing the game because they're dissatisfied with the direction of the game and the devs' attitude towards the community. i've seen a lot of double-standards exercised by admins and devs alike and, from my point of view, been banned from the discord for expressing discontent towards the state of the game's development and how the developers treat the players. i do admit a lot of it could have been worded better to be expressed as what i've personally noticed rather than raw fact, but the point still stands.

[ZeWaka]

snip

Ive seen the same arguments from dying Early access games until the player base has enough and starts dying off.

Good thing we have the experience of keeping this game going for almost 18 years now, longer than some of our players have been alive. Moreover, we've only seen an increase in population.

The playerbase of a game like this should at least be made aware of changes

Good thing we have a changelog for the players to read, right?

[subjectparfait]

a lot of changes dont get put in the change log

[Drewmajor11]

The playerbase of a game like this should at least be made aware of changes

Good thing we have a changelog for the players to read, right?

I've seen multiple times where stuff doesn't appear there for a while or just doesn't, I read the wiki, forums, changelog and stuff a bit and a lot of times theres no player input then nobody even knows stuff happened for a while. Also I forget how to do the reply thing correctly so it doesn't spam so I think this worked and it shouldn't?

[Flaborized]

-post-

-post-

-post-

okay, here's the thing

player count =/= player satisfaction. people won't instantly leave if changes they disagree with are made; usually, they'll criticize these changes and, depending on how things are going, the overall direction of the game's development and developer attitude towards their playerbase and their concerns with the game. what i've seen from most developers is a lack of regard for the players. most complaints are met with either "go to the forums" or Nothing, and most complaints on the forum are met with either "actually the devs do whatever they want anyways" or Nothing. in my opinion the general vibe is that most developers just... don't care what the actual players have to say, not to mention very rarely even being seen playing the game themselves.

i know people who have stopped playing the game because they're dissatisfied with the direction of the game and the devs' attitude towards the community. i've seen a lot of double-standards exercised by admins and devs alike and, from my point of view, been banned from the discord for expressing discontent towards the state of the game's development and how the developers treat the players. i do admit a lot of it could have been worded better to be expressed as what i've personally noticed rather than raw fact, but the point still stands.

Playercount does represent a general trend of people enjoying our game. If our game truly was ruined, we'd see a dip in playercount, but we see the opposite. Whether you or anyone specifically enjoys a change or not is immaterial: the devs make the changes they want to, and if they're punished for making a bad change it's by reduced playercounts. Like I've repeated multiple times, the devs are making the game they want to make, not the game they think you want to play. Player feedback is used as a tool when devs think it would make the game better, and there's absolutely no obligation to listen to it or care. These elements aren't gonna change, you don't have to like it, but it's not gonna change. If you can't adjust your expectations to account for the way the game *has* to be made, then again, I don't know what to tell you. It's the way it is.

[Technature]

Honestly? If you don't like it so badly?

Make a server.

If Goonstation is gonna die because...uh, what is it now...

Change being drunk to only randomly shrug off punches, not item attacks

...a drunk debuff?

For the love of...

If Goonstation is gonna die because of a drunk debuff, have a server up and running for when players leave in droves over it.

With how shit the game industry can get and how little effort are put into $60 $70 games now? You can't be fucking serious.

With how little effort are put into $70 games that are plagued with every single little feature being jammed behind a paywall, I'm happy that there's something that has so much love and care put into it that is available to me for the ever low extra cost of absolutely nothing.

You don't have to be happy with every little change (I'm not, after all), and I know this isn't the only thing we're talking about, but is opposing a debuff to something that people rarely use (as mentioned by the OP) really going to be the hill you die on? Is this really gonna be the "No don't do that you're gonna kill the server" thing?