Yoshi-P Statement on Player Feedback

[Kaurhz]

Snip.

If a post contains naught but derogatory terms, or terms that are strictly only inflammatory, sure you can construe it as feedback, but no amount of gymnastics is going to translate that into something constructive.

Saying that the healer design is shambolic because the damage rotation consists of nothing but DoT > 1, 1,1.. 1, > reapply. That is constructive feedback. To take it a step further, if you introduce examples of how you would make the set more engaging, be it through reworking the encounters in the game so there is a heavier demand on actually healing, or through the introduction of some new damage spells, then that's great. However, if your only statement in this regard is that the developers don't play their own game, and that they should be fired because their design philosophy does not align with your own. Then as per my initial statement, no amount of gymnastics will make that feedback any good.

There's a big distinction between venting your disappointment, or annoyances and just electing to take the stand of attacking both the community and/or the developers. It's also quite glaringly the absolute worst thing you can do for yourself, the developers and the community you're apart of.

An echo chamber will only occur if their purpose is to very selectively listen to feedback, which I'm pretty sure is not the case. But whilst we're on this final section though. Arguably there is already a level of echo chambering going on within the community. Taking into account that in many cases views opposing are either met with nonsensical remarks such as "Find a new game", or "White Knight." These levels of remarks serve no other purpose than to attempt to undermine an argument. - Arguably in this respect, some of the community are already in the state where they're unintentionally creating this environment.

What is not a great situation is to create and entertain the notion that your disappointment, or disapproval in a product gives a token to be disrespectful and rude with your criticisms.

[Lauront]

If a post contains naught but derogatory terms, or terms that are strictly only inflammatory, sure you can construe it as feedback, but no amount of gymnastics is going to translate that into something constructive.

But you're now qualifying it as "constructive", which is raising the bar. If we simply say "feedback" or "criticism", it isn't mental gynmastics to say it doesn't have to be constructive.

Saying that the healer design is shambolic because the damage rotation consists of nothing but DoT > 1, 1,1.. 1, > reapply. That is constructive feedback. To take it a step further, if you introduce examples of how you would make the set more engaging, be it through reworking the encounters in the game so there is a heavier demand on actually healing, or through the introduction of some new damage spells, then that's great. However, if your only statement in this regard is that the developers don't play their own game, and that they should be fired because their design philosophy does not align with your own. Then as per my initial statement, no amount of gymnastics will make that feedback any good.

There generally isn't an expectation when a customer complains for them to provide an answer as to how to resolve the issue or even a detailed understanding of what they dislike about it. The business can ask what would improve matters, it might even probe further to identify what if anything went wrong, but it's absolutely not a requirement for something to be constructive for it to count as feedback, and even SE's own mechanisms of gauging customer dissatisfaction e.g. on unsubbing, are pretty minimalist. If they are content with that level of feedback when a customer terminates a service with them, it's a bit bizarre to expect more of a forum, which is not really seen as anything other than a venue to discuss the game with no particular expectation that feedback provided will be constructive... even if as an ideal it is. Thus my point that if their employees are going about reading social media feedback, while he can certainly request that consumers be considerate, but he cannot ultimately control what customers say and so the way to address this is to coach them on it or have staff who specialise in this sort of work to do it. It's only natural for people to become attached to their work creations, and it's good to see he is supportive of his staff, but generally speaking it is advised to either go in with a steeled mindset when reading feedback or to have someone who is detached from creating the work to do so to avoid situations such as this. And I think for the avoidance of any ambiguity, he should provide examples of the general behaviours he mentioned.

There's a big distinction between venting your disappointment, or annoyances and just electing to take the stand of attacking both the community and/or the developers. It's also quite glaringly the absolute worst thing you can do for yourself, the developers and the community you're apart of. Inflammatory remarks, regardless of whether constructive will just get ignored because they serve no purpose whatsoever. I'm pretty sure the majority of the community is of the appropriate age where this should be something seemingly obvious.

An echo chamber will only occur if their purpose is to very selectively listen to feedback, which I'm pretty sure is not the case. But whilst we're on this final section though. Arguably there is already a level of echo chambering going on within the community. Taking into account that in many cases views opposing are either met with nonsensical remarks such as "Find a new game", or "White Knight." These levels of remarks serve no other purpose than to attempt to undermine an argument. - Arguably in this respect, some of the community are already in the state where they're unintentionally creating this environment.

What is not a great situation is to create and entertain the notion that your disappointment, or disapproval in a product gives a token to be disrespectful and rude with your criticisms.

And all that goes back to what is the purpose of a forum? You may think it is to elicit constructive feedback. They may simply see it as a way to increase customer engagement that occasionally produces some feedback that is of use to them. Same with third party social media. At the risk of repeating myself, unless they want to enshrine it in the TOS, simply offering vague references to members of staff finding some comments hurtful in an interview only a tiny proportion of this community will even be aware of, isn't going to achieve much. They would be better served either tightening up the TOS or training their staff on the matter.

[Kaurhz]

snip.

I only set the bar in accordance with what could reasonably be inferred from the comments made by Yoshida, and aside from the fact that remarks that aren't constructive serve no purpose whatsoever. So regardless of whether explicitly stated or not. There is an implicit expectation that if you're giving feedback and want to be heard, then you will construct your argument or feedback in a way that best conveys your issue to the target audience. There is no need for the bar to be raised. It should be implied already that it needs to be constructive if you want your time posting to be worth anything in the first place.

Practically anyone in the position of a customer representative role will typically be following-up questions for further feedback with a request for comment on how they think the service can be improved, in addition to complementary tokenism to give good service. - The fact this is already carried out gives weight to the point that in cases a lot of criticism a community makes, is otherwise not very meaningful to them in the first place. So they probe for further meaning. Such models work perfectly fine where customer engagement is an easy process to follow up with. In cases such as these that is not easily the case - and the developers; the target of these criticisms in the first place are otherwise helpless to act upon them to probe for additional feedback and make their complaints actually constructive for their business or product. -- Battle designers just cannot simply come on a forum and start probing people for more constructive feedback like what might be present for those where customer representatives are employed.

You already see this process on practically any review site. - Customer posts bad review, representatives scout said review sites. Find review in question and probe reviews for something meaningful to actually be inferred for the business/product.

This is the whole point why it is stated that if you have concerns or feedback then if possible to refrain from being disrespectful and to address the person or area in question as if it were a direct exchange. Not some meaningless faff on a forum for like-baiting or just taking your 'god-given right' to skirt around social etiquette as much as possible. I don't think his goal is to control what people say versus creating the mental image in your mind that the developers are people too. They have families, they have holidays, they have days where their brain just doesn't simply click, they have days of exhaustion and fatigue, and dare I say it actual real-life complications for a myriad of reasons, like everyone else does on this forum.

Purpose of a forum is to help incite meaningful and engaging discussion with people of a similar interest. In the event these discussions are undermined on the basis of "white knight" or "go play another game" responses then it is counterproductive to anything that a forum aims to achieve, and will inevitably turn into a situation wherein contrasting views are not accepted because they are viewed as the following above, or in some hyperbolic cases "upset cuz we criticising your favourite game, bro". None of these are an exchange of views, perspectives or opinions, but rather creates the expectation that every thread should be treated as an echo-chamber of my own views. Lest you want the thread to devolve into a semi-ad hominem flicking contest. A forum doesn't even need to have the express aim, or the aim at all of providing criticism or feedback, it just needs to be an area of meaningful discussion and some responses or attitudes are absolutely counterproductive to this endeavour. This was my point. - SE would hardly need to police the feedback on this forum because evidently in many cases the community does that for them when they try and shut down meaningful discussion or exchange of ideas and viewpoints.