[META] Mods - start cleaning up this forum. seriously.

[ReportingBugs]

You know what, fuck it. I'll bite.

That rule was made in a completely different era of Deadlock.

Nobody gives a shit anymore, including the developers. This game is being streamed to thousands now. There's a whole subreddit for this game. Millions of people have been exposed to Deadlock. Ecelebs are blatantly using their audience to sway the public perception about how strong heroes and items are in order to get things they don't like nerfed. All the while, this place remains incredibly dead.

Is that so? One of my posts was moved privately, one of them regarding Mo and Krill entering the tunnels. This was not too long ago. Also, yeah, you can just flat out say it's metro lol.

 

[ExistingExpert]

You know what, fuck it. I'll bite.

That rule was made in a completely different era of Deadlock.

Nobody gives a shit anymore, including the developers. This game is being streamed to thousands now. There's a whole subreddit for this game. Millions of people have been exposed to Deadlock. Ecelebs are blatantly using their audience to sway the public perception about how strong heroes and items are in order to get things they don't like nerfed. All the while, this place remains incredibly dead.

If the developers didn't care, over half of this forum wouldn't be privated and valve wouldn't be rate-limiting statistics sites like crazy.

I agree that it sucks that the "ecelebs" are using their platform for hero politics instead of just playing the damn game, but we have to remember that the developers are not stupid, they know how to balance a game and they can adjust for community bias.

These forums are not dead, half the changes the devs make come from the feedback flowing through here. This is still the most important place driving deadlock's development.

At the end of the day, if the developers are still listening here, and the game is still fun, who gives a shit about some streamer's opinion on a hero he doesn't even play?

 

[ReportingBugs]

If the developers didn't care, over half of this forum wouldn't be privated and valve wouldn't be rate-limiting statistics sites like crazy.

I agree that it sucks that the "ecelebs" are using their platform for hero politics instead of just playing the damn game, but we have to remember that the developers are not stupid, they know how to balance a game and they can adjust for community bias.

These forums are not dead, half the changes the devs make come from the feedback flowing through here. This is still the most important place driving deadlock's development.

At the end of the day, if the developers are still listening here, and the game is still fun, who gives a shit about some streamer's opinion on a hero he doesn't even play?

There is also the aspect that a lot of people who play this game are not aware of these celebrities, you know?

 

[Oleg-fav]

You know what, fuck it. I'll bite.

That rule was made in a completely different era of Deadlock.

Nobody gives a shit anymore, including the developers. This game is being streamed to thousands now. There's a whole subreddit for this game. Millions of people have been exposed to Deadlock. Ecelebs are blatantly using their audience to sway the public perception about how strong heroes and items are in order to get things they don't like nerfed. All the while, this place remains incredibly dead.

It really feels like you should post on reddit to increase chances that devs will see your stuff. Too bad all my accs were nuked after using VPN once

 

[flameblast12]

It really feels like you should post on reddit to increase chances that devs will see your stuff. Too bad all my accs were nuked after using VPN once

Honestly, the devs definitely see this forum. There are many more changes done in here than on Reddit (I have many colleagues whose change proposals are accepted). People just post here and Reddit, and most think devs only see Reddit since there are much more users there.

Though I agree there should be an open board dedicated to existing heroes.

 

[ToastedPotato]

You are not supposed to do that. They exist, and it's under the private forums on the main page, which you can post, which only Valve and you see but no one else. Community bias is only allowed for completely brand new characters or items, not on reworks or balancing or suggestions to enhance.

Community bias hurts the development of Deadlock. You should be speaking privately about it to people, not openly on this forum.

I agree with you about balance. However, what – for you – makes up the distinction between suggesting a rework to an existing character, and to suggesting a new character? It seems that in both cases the community will be generating new content with the intention of it being added to the game.

I also don't know why you've substituted my talking of wanting community feedback on an idea I had for talk of "community bias". It's not even clear what you mean by this, but I suspect you've (probably accidentally) set up a straw man by interpolating my words like that.

 

[ReportingBugs]

I agree with you about balance. However, what – for you – makes up the distinction between suggesting a rework to an existing character, and to suggesting a new character? It seems that in both cases the community will be generating new content with the intention of it being added to the game.

I also don't know why you've substituted my talking of wanting community feedback on an idea I had for talk of "community bias". It's not even clear what you mean by this, but I suspect you've (probably accidentally) set up a straw man by interpolating my words like that.

My understanding (and what I've told and seen), is that you want the suggestions to be their own independent thought, and not coming from a "bandwagon effect".

People may struggle to be authentic and instead go by what's popular, or they may become contrarian due to other beliefs. This is why there are things such as "placebo changes" in League of Legends.

Sometimes just giving the players something that feels good is what is enough to satisify them. And sometimes the players don't know what they truly want, as well.

Hence, reducing community bias for current existing content. My apologies if I've strawmanned you, but the idea I'm getting at is that if you're trying to discuss about current existing content being adjusted, it can indirectly cause a chain effect, and then balance and philosophy may start hitting what people think they should want, versus what they actually >need<.

 

[Oleg-fav]

I agree with you about balance. However, what – for you – makes up the distinction between suggesting a rework to an existing character, and to suggesting a new character?

It's literally there. Rework of an existing character involves an existing character. Suggesting a new character does not involve an existing character. Isn't that simple?

There is a bias towards existing characters. And no one cares about new made-up characters

 

[ToastedPotato]

It's literally there. Rework of an existing character involves an existing character. Suggesting a new character does not involve an existing character. Isn't that simple?

Well, not really. Nothing about what you've just said actually explains why one would be okay while the other wouldn't be.

 

[ExistingExpert]

Well, not really. Nothing about what you've just said actually explains why one would be okay while the other wouldn't be.

It is in the rules: https://forums.playdeadlock.com/threads/feedback-process.3/
Gameplay related feedback should be posted in the hero's subforum.

 

[Oleg-fav]

Well, not really. Nothing about what you've just said actually explains why one would be okay while the other wouldn't be.

you don't see difference between making new and reworking old?

 

[ReportingBugs]

Well, not really. Nothing about what you've just said actually explains why one would be okay while the other wouldn't be.

Example:
You discuss about how you think Shiv is broken. You may have been mistaken, due to accumulation of changes you may have not been aware about.
Other people, also with a Nelson Mandela effect start agreeing too.

Valve patches out a fix where they reduce the bleed by 6%, which does not change anything meaningfully.

Suddenly players are now satisified. Despite doing a change that does nothing.

But new content - you can gauge whether it is worth investing trying it out. Then when implementation comes, then it goes private.

 

[ToastedPotato]

My understanding (and what I've told and seen), is that you want the suggestions to be their own independent thought, and not coming from a "bandwagon effect".

People may struggle to be authentic and instead go by what's popular, or they may become contrarian due to other beliefs. This is why there are things such as "placebo changes" in League of Legends.

Sometimes just giving the players something that feels good is what is enough to satisify them. And sometimes the players don't know what they truly want, as well.

Hence, reducing community bias for current existing content. My apologies if I've strawmanned you, but the idea I'm getting at is that if you're trying to discuss about current existing content being adjusted, it can indirectly cause a chain effect, and then balance and philosophy may start hitting what people think they should want, versus what they actually >need<.

Yeah, I understand this sentiment. I think I'll have to hark back on what was said somewhere earlier: Valve Devs are really quite headstrong in going with whatever the best idea is, not with whatever the community asks for. They don't often confuse the two.

I'll try to exemplify the kind of interaction I think we'd miss out on, if we didn't have public forums for existing hero design: I recently posted about Silver's Lycan form. I suggested, among other things, some new movement mechanics, all intended to make her Lycan form feel more "werewolfy" and "weighty". My post didn't get much attention, but when I posted the same thing on Reddit it did get quite a lot of comments. There were a number of good suggestions iterating on my ideas and adding new ones.

Basically, someone suggesting a design change has ostensibly identified an area for improvement in the original design. Once that area is identified, I think it's valuable to have a lot of people put their heads together and think about it. The fact that there's a community of people who are interested in game design and willing to do this for free is awesome, and it would almost be silly not to take advantage of it.

Again, I want to be really clear that what I'm talking about is quite removed from discussing hero balance. I'm sort of presupposing a philosophy where you try to make an awesome design first, and then balance it later by adjusting the numbers. In that sense, my idealised community members would be talking just about game design, in the way that people do on this forum when they talk about new character concepts. The closest they would get to talking about game balance would be stuff like "hmm... this seems like it would be hard to balance", or "obviously, we would have to strengthen/weaken other parts of the kit to accommodate this change".

 

[ToastedPotato]

Example:
You discuss about how you think Shiv is broken. You may have been mistaken, due to accumulation of changes you may have not been aware about.
Other people, also with a Nelson Mandela effect start agreeing too.

Valve patches out a fix where they reduce the bleed by 6%, which does not change anything meaningfully.

Suddenly players are now satisified. Despite doing a change that does nothing.

But new content - you can gauge whether it is worth investing trying it out. Then when implementation comes, then it goes private.

Sorry, didn't read this before replying.

Refer to above post. I'd want community members to leave existing game balance "at the door" before they come to talk about design changes to existing heroes. I absolutely agree with you that a post like "shiv is broken" has no reason to be made public.

 

[ToastedPotato]

you don't see difference between making new and reworking old?

No... I don't see why that difference is important.

 

[ReportingBugs]

Yeah, I understand this sentiment. I think I'll have to hark back on what was said somewhere earlier: Valve Devs are really quite headstrong in going with whatever the best idea is, not with whatever the community asks for. They don't often confuse the two.

I'll try to exemplify the kind of interaction I think we'd miss out on, if we didn't have public forums for existing hero design: I recently posted about Silver's Lycan form. I suggested, among other things, some new movement mechanics, all intended to make her Lycan form feel more "werewolfy" and "weighty". My post didn't get much attention, but when I posted the same thing on Reddit it did get quite a lot of comments. There were a number of good suggestions iterating on my ideas and adding new ones.

Basically, someone suggesting a design change has ostensibly identified an area for improvement in the original design. Once that area is identified, I think it's valuable to have a lot of people put their heads together and think about it. The fact that there's a community of people who are interested in game design and willing to do this for free is awesome, and it would almost be silly not to take advantage of it.

Again, I want to be really clear that what I'm talking about is quite removed from discussing hero balance. I'm sort of presupposing a philosophy where you try to make an awesome design first, and then balance it later by adjusting the numbers. In that sense, my idealised community members would be talking just about game design, in the way that people do on this forum when they talk about new character concepts. The closest they would get to talking about game balance would be stuff like "hmm... this seems like it would be hard to balance", or "obviously, we would have to strengthen/weaken other parts of the kit to accommodate this change".

Problem is, getting into current implementations and tweaking is indirectly meddling around with balance. When you add, remove, or adjust a functionality, when would it not affect game balance? Think about what differentiates the two.

Same can be said about user experience, which includes thematic aspects.

 

[ToastedPotato]

Problem is, getting into current implementations and tweaking is indirectly meddling around with balance. When you add, remove, or adjust a functionality, when would it not affect game balance? Think about what differentiates the two.

Same can be said about user experience, which includes thematic aspects.

Well, it would affect balance, but then you just jiggle some numbers around to get things back roughly how they were. If the design gets better, it'll be worth the effort to do some rebalancing.

That's why you'd still need to say things like "this seems hard to balance". If someone goes "oh it would be really brilliant if we just made Shiv invincible", someone has to explain that this would be impossible to balance and that would make it a bad design choice. On the other hand, if someone says "Silver should have new mobility options in her Lycan form", I think they should get away with it as long as we get the impression that the resulting kit can be made balanced by just adjusting her damage or something.

I'd probably be looking for a separate forum precisely for discussion like this, where it's about "going back to the drawing board" on the designs of existing characters. That would be a public board, to encourage interesting conversations about hero design. But the private forums would stay, and they would be used for talking about hero balance.

You might think that this distinction is just too nuanced for people to navigate consistently. That would be a fair cop. In which case we wouldn't be able to get the best of both worlds like I'm suggesting

 

[Hipster Monkey]

I'd probably be looking for a separate forum precisely for discussion like this, where it's about "going back to the drawing board" on the designs of existing characters. That would be a public board, to encourage interesting conversations about hero design. But the private forums would stay, and they would be used for talking about hero balance.

You might think that this distinction is just too nuanced for people to navigate consistently. That would be a fair cop. In which case we wouldn't be able to get the best of both worlds like I'm suggesting

That’s essentially the model in place now, if you think about it on a bigger scale.

Forums are the most important to check, it’s the “official” outlet; social media spaces like YouTube and Reddit are secondary, it’s where those conversations you mentioned would take place. Personally, I don’t think there should be a board like that here as it would start funneling those conversations here. And this space should be reserved for those private discussions and community ideas. Helps keep the bias out.

This model on a smaller scale, the people that truly cared would post here and comment on the discord. Now, with the larger scale, that division is between the larger communities.

All this to say that I personally think moderation isn’t really needed at the moment, this is just a wave that we have to wait out. Just need a little time.

 

[bloodfrost27]

You know what, fuck it. I'll bite.

That rule was made in a completely different era of Deadlock.

Nobody gives a shit anymore, including the developers. This game is being streamed to thousands now. There's a whole subreddit for this game. Millions of people have been exposed to Deadlock. Ecelebs are blatantly using their audience to sway the public perception about how strong heroes and items are in order to get things they don't like nerfed. All the while, this place remains incredibly dead.

I have thought this for a long time now.

Only after multiple people bitched to them on discord for days. The current mods have proven countless times to not give a shit about the forums, therefore their mod status should be removed and given to someone else who actually cares about this place enough to browse it regularly.

And this too, I remember being frustrated about there being no mods doing anything a year ago and still nothing has changed, if not gotten worse. Maybe you see ZM do something every month but thats like it, its sad cus I know theres a whole swathe of no-lifers like us who are on this forum literally every other day. Not that I'd want to be a mod, but people like us are probably better suited than the current team. A current team which was set up like 2 years ago when you couldn't even walljump yet.

I don't just care about order for the sake of it, I care cus so many of you make amazing ideas I want to read and I think other people should read because you are all so wonderfully creative and considered.

And I was under the impression that the devs only read posts in the correct place so the lines and lines of posts about existing balance were obscuring those amazing new ideas for readers and devs while being overall useless. The smart posts about current characters also get lost here if they dont end up in the right place. Maybe that isn't true anymore and they just dont care about organisation and will just read anything anywhere but theres no communication so who knows? I assume they still do.

 

[ZM]

Only after multiple people bitched to them on discord for days. The current mods have proven countless times to not give a shit about the forums, therefore their mod status should be removed and given to someone else who actually cares about this place enough to browse it regularly.

Still here. Looking at reports all the time. I can't be on here all the time, so I do what I can in my free time. Unfortunately, the report system doesn't have the cleanest UI so even a simple report can take a minute or two each, and when I'm seeing 50, sometimes over 80 reports a week, it can take up quite a bit of time.