Square obviously not listening to feedback

[Valence]

They likely have many avenues where feedback comes in:

* internal testers
* other designers
* streamers
* random surveys
* forums
* reddit
* google trends
* NPS surveys

It's a bit of distance from saying, "hey, they might not have chosen your feedback over other feedback" to "SE doesn't listen to me and is forcing me to eat crow." There's a difference between not listening to your feedback and not acting on your feedback the way you want.

There are so many factors that go into how a large organization operates. Feedback is useful, but expecting any one particular idea to be acted upon is unrealistic.

I don't understand why you're replying to me since I do mostly agree with this. I specifically replied to people trying to shut us down with "the majority has spoken" arguments.

And the main problem with said majority is that said majority isn't open to any compromise, and is already getting 100% of the cake and changes specifically tailored for them. That our feedback is ignored By SE has been pretty obvious for a while now even though they ask us to continue sharing it. Well, I'm not very smort I guess, and I'll continue doing what I'm told to do.

And yes, I do think SE hasn't been very respectful toward its veterans, and I do feel salty about it. I do hope this isn't too much of a hard concept to grasp even for the privileged out there.

[Sjol]

I don't understand why you're replying to me since I do mostly agree with this. I specifically replied to people trying to shut us down with "the majority has spoken" arguments.

And the main problem with said majority is that said majority isn't open to any compromise, and is already getting 100% of the cake and changes specifically tailored for them. That our feedback is ignored By SE has been pretty obvious for a while now even though they ask us to continue sharing it. Well, I'm not very smort I guess, and I'll continue doing what I'm told to do.

And yes, I do think SE hasn't been very respectful toward its veterans, and I do feel salty about it. I do hope this isn't too much of a hard concept to grasp even for the privileged out there.

You're right. This should have been more clearly directed at some of the other people speaking. Though, in general, what I'm trying to say is there's a difference between ignored and not acted upon, at least to me.

[rawker]

Quite unrelated to the current flow of discussion but I have this gut feeling that their move to give more rewards is to drown any potential valid complaints about the jobs and gameplay, in general.

[Aravell]

Also, complete lack of self-awareness of "you don't speak for the majority" immediately followed with "actually the majority of people think..." every time. Rather than just engaging the argument/criticism.

That's always the funniest part though.

"You can't speak for the majority because I hate your opinions, but I can speak for the majority because I like my opinions."

[Aravell]

You're right. This should have been more clearly directed at some of the other people speaking. Though, in general, what I'm trying to say is there's a difference between ignored and not acted upon, at least to me.

I don't think people expect all of their suggestions and feedback to be acted upon, that's just not realistic. I think what people want is for the dev team to actually communicate their intentions clearly.

Like the healer situation. The dev team has been flip-flopping on the issue for years, never fully committing to anything. If they just stated outright "No, we will never be expanding the damage kit" or "No, we will never be increasing the healing requirements very much at all", then people can accept it and make their decision to stay on or leave the role. The dev team flip-flopping and never committing to one side or another just ends up making people restless and makes the team seem like they're not taking any feedback at all.

It's the same with the Kaiten thing. All the dev team has to do is commit, either say "We heard your feedback, but we have no plans on ever bringing Kaiten back" or "We heard your feedback and we're bringing Kaiten back". The fact that they asked for feedback and then never addressed the topic again makes them look very deaf to the playerbase, and that's not a very good look.

The dev team does not need to do everything we ask for, but they do need to communicate their intentions clearly.

[Sjol]

I don't think people expect all of their suggestions and feedback to be acted upon, that's just not realistic. I think what people want is for the dev team to actually communicate their intentions clearly.

The dev team does not need to do everything we ask for, but they do need to communicate their intentions clearly.

I'm a developer. Not on this, but lots of things at a lot of different companies. I think it might be surprising how much disagreement there is internally on how to proceed with things. In fact, it's usually a sign of a healthy work environment where people can openly disagree and discuss without fear of retribution.

The fact they they've flip-flopped a bunch of times may simply indicate that they have a lot of internal disagreement about how to proceed on various topics. And without agreement, they're unwilling to commit to a strategy for fear of alienating all the people on one side of the discussion. They're all people, too. And you can have decisions get stalled because you don't want to alienate critical people in the office.

You may have a designer in the office who wanted desperately to keep Kaiten, but the director laid out his vision for streamlined jobs but has stated to the designer who was overruled that they're just going get feedback before committing to a decision. I think people see the politics out here but don't see the politics in there. And why would we since it's purposefully hidden.

I think you hit it 100% that they're not committing. They may even recognize that it's causing problems, but not have agreement on the solutions. Admittedly, it's extremely frustrating for the people using their product. I know I've failed the customers of my products a bunch of times. I know our development teams have done it, collectively on more than one occasion. Sometimes it's messy. Sometimes you don't want people to see just how messy the process is.

[MagiusNecros]

I think you hit it 100% that they're not committing. They may even recognize that it's causing problems, but not have agreement on the solutions. Admittedly, it's extremely frustrating for the people using their product. I know I've failed the customers of my products a bunch of times. I know our development teams have done it, collectively on more than one occasion. Sometimes it's messy. Sometimes you don't want people to see just how messy the process is.

They follow a 3 step procedure.

Step 1: Create a problem.

Step 2: Look at the problem they created.

Step 3 : Create another problem to fix the previous problem.

[Katish]

I'm a developer. Not on this, but lots of things at a lot of different companies. I think it might be surprising how much disagreement there is internally on how to proceed with things. In fact, it's usually a sign of a healthy work environment where people can openly disagree and discuss without fear of retribution.

The fact they they've flip-flopped a bunch of times may simply indicate that they have a lot of internal disagreement about how to proceed on various topics. And without agreement, they're unwilling to commit to a strategy for fear of alienating all the people on one side of the discussion. They're all people, too. And you can have decisions get stalled because you don't want to alienate critical people in the office.

You may have a designer in the office who wanted desperately to keep Kaiten, but the director laid out his vision for streamlined jobs but has stated to the designer who was overruled that they're just going get feedback before committing to a decision. I think people see the politics out here but don't see the politics in there. And why would we since it's purposefully hidden.

I think you hit it 100% that they're not committing. They may even recognize that it's causing problems, but not have agreement on the solutions. Admittedly, it's extremely frustrating for the people using their product. I know I've failed the customers of my products a bunch of times. I know our development teams have done it, collectively on more than one occasion. Sometimes it's messy. Sometimes you don't want people to see just how messy the process is.

Not all working environments are like this, I am too a developer...and if you question the flow of those above (usually Code I's and Code II's); Or you go against the customers wishes, you end up being reported (thankfully usually the higher ups take heat from this in my company).
And yes, I have seen this...There is no common ground on development, you work with your leader and they pass down to you what the higher ups want. You then execute it...that is all there is to it. So I think your opinion is a bit biased to your own working environment, or position, as not all environments are like this, I can assure you; and the end result on whatever your making (the product) definitely does play into how much say goes into it.

If you do freelancing development, perhaps you have more say...because they have to take your input, as you have to comment on what you changed (if you are a programmer of course). Although I do not have personal experience with freelancing work and only have worked directly for companies, so this is only a guess(?)

[RyuuZero]

Who asked for Damageless Gap Closers on DPS?
I also don't get the hate for Spine Shatter Dive since it's just a Gap Closer, that's also a Jump.. about regarding Damageless Gap Closers overall.. why can't we have Proximity based Damage Values on Gap Closers?

You know.. like in the returning FFXV Event's Warp Strike. I think that would be a Good Change.

[Equitable_Remedy]

Who asked for Damageless Gap Closers on DPS?

Everyone who wanted gap closers to be gap closers and not part of the DPS rotation.

why can't we have Proximity based Damage Values on Gap Closers?

Because running away from bosses to maximize gap closer DPS during a rotation is, at best, awkward. Also, because the first thing.