Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2
Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.
It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.
To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.
Here's a link discussing a very important topic (something VERY relevant to City of Titans). When does being a fan of a game (or franchise etc ) become bad for the creators of the game? How do you solicit feedback and temper expectation? How do you give negative reinforcement of a "bad idea" without stifling GOOD and NEW ideas?
http://youtu.be/cQ9YozVtUag
Crowd Control Enthusiast
good question. My outside looking in POV.
Fanboys, while increasingly used with negative connotation, can be very useful. These are people that get the word out about the game that is available or in process. Now sometimes it can be damaging when they try to put heir view above anyone elses or place rules of engagement that they themselves ignore. I.E. Talk down and bad about any game besides the one(s) they are personally interested in but quick to attack any other person that talk anything remotely negative about the game they like and part of.
The easiest way to solicit god feedback without stifling good and new ideas is remember that what is considered a good bad or new idea is all in the eye of beholder's opinion. What may be bad idea to some and in some cases may be excellent idea and what may seem like good idea presented by fanboy of the game may actually be a very bad idea in the end. Or rather there is really not much in the way of good and bad ideas but different view of the idea and labels assigned to said idea that may or may not work regardless if it was viewed by some to be good idea or viewed by some to be bad idea. It's just ideas. And when viewed as merely ideas, even if different or against tradition take it as ideas and not so much focus on whether it's good or not. And more on seeing if it would work or not. Then secondly, do not attack the person for making a perceived bad idea. While the first reaction may be to use negative reinforcement aka throw out something negative to prevent to person from thinking bad ideas, which usually entails attacking the person in the online world, that stifles ideas anymore. Not everyone throw out perfect genius ideas all the time, so do not try to kill them for it. Or else the effect that is gone for may happen, and they simply stop giving ideas and not only them, but any lurker that may have some good ideas may not speak up which in turn stifles idea sharing because they do not want to be jumped on for coming up with an idea that may be viewed as the people of the status quo as a bad idea and become their next target. Because negative reinforcement purspose is to get a desired behavior through aversive stimuli. Thus, before negative reinforcement be used, which it probably shouldn't if ideas are to flow, then one must decide on what is the actual behavior desired? Sounds simple but when it gets down to it, it may not be so simple. Because the desired behavior may be for the person to come up with good ideas. But who decides what is good idea or bad idea? And if people are afraid to put forth ideas because they may be attacked for it, then who is to say if they truly have a good idea or bad idea if it's never presented because negative reinforcement will be used if one presents a bad idea? Thus the result can be ideas presented that are within the box of the expected, but ideas outside the box are not even considered which is many lost opportunities.
Or the shortcut is to simply remember if a person express an idea without hassle then allow others and extend that same courtesy to others when they present ideas, even if it's contrary to the ideas presented. Sometimes people so caught up in the idea of "My idea is king, your idea is stupid, how dare you speak of such an idea" and trying to prove their idea is better by ways of personal attacks that they forget that there is usually more than enough room for all ideas. And again, some ideas will work, some will not, and in many cases both ideas may work. Not everything is light switch either on or off. Basically, when posting ideas, people should keep as open mind to others as they expect others to give their ideas, in some cases twice to three times as more and less time focusing on attacking other people simply because they feel the other person idea is a bad idea.
Because a website can post all day, "We welcome new ideas. All ideas are welcomed." but the true actions are contrary, it speaks louder than the website motto and people will be less inclined to express and share ideas.
You hit on something I wish more fanboys would adopt. Judge the ideas not the persons.
Negative reinforcement has its place. However, there are ways to use it to sharpen an idea or define better parameters instead of calling the idea "bad" and being done with it.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
That is true. But it's an art form.
Very few people I came across online world that knew how to use it effectively. Most just think they do but end up making a mess of things.
I found the link to be very thought provoking and quite germane. Thanks for sharing. My initial reaction to the whole thing was "Well, don't blame the angry fanboys... blame the developers for a lack of (1) having a thick enough skin to accept and filter criticism in all forms, (2) Conviction and/or skill to be truly innovative and (3) the integrity to deliver on promises." I know it's not a great idea to generalize but I swear if people designed, erected, and maintained buildings like some of these games are done the world would collapse around us. As far as angry fanboys go... I know they are far from blameless (especially trolls, etc.)... but couldn't you say that this entire CoT effort was an "angry fanboy" reaction to what happened to CoH?
Developers should look at all well meant feedback as gold (that obviously doesn't imply they need to react to it all). Want to know why there is this so called "silent majority" of players and angry fanboys seem to rule? Two reasons; most people are too busy or lack the desire to invest intellectual capital on the subject of games and you often have to "duck for cover" after expressing an opinion online (I've lost count of the number of times I've been told "learn to play", stop preaching dooooom [even when doooom occurred], or got a lecture from a dev wannabe on how a game's "system really worked").
Lincoln was right. You can't please all the people all the time. But he did show that with character, integrity, and strength of conviction, you can persevere even in the face of intense criticism. I don't see angry fanboys going away. Nor do I see them as the main problem in the gaming industry.
The forum seems slightly broken. I'd quote the OP but the reply button is covering the quote link.
Just FYI you are misuing the term negative reinforcement. Check out the wikipedia entry for reinforcement if you're interested in what it is. I think the term you're looking for is constructive criticism.
The advice given to teachers may apply to this situation.
If there's anything at all good about the idea, start with that feedback. You don't need to give a detailed and full account of why an idea isn't feasible. Pick the one or two most pertinent reasons and explain those. If you can understand their point of view and demonstrate that with some personal experience (eg. I liked that feature in game X too) then that communicates you've genuinely listened to and understood their feedback even if you're not going to adopt their suggestions.
I find this a particularly timely question given what I'm seeing on another pre-release MMO forum right now. Angry fanbois are directing an insane amount of hostility at anyone who doesn't profess abject and total devotion to their beloved game. Every other newcomer to the forum is accused of being a troll and most of the time it's completely unfair. Then the angry fanbois gang up on their target and the personal attacks fly thick and fast. I'm sure most of that game's community aren't like that but it's not a very welcoming environment for newcomers. It's sad they don't realise how much harm they're doing to the game they probably think they're defending.
That's why positions like Community Manager exist and are so important. Fans are a great resource for a game but some can go dark-side all to easily.
Yes, but they're not the only ones bad for the gaming industry. Rabid fanboys in fact never seem to really come through with all their hype. Or at the very least they have a tendency to overhype.
I've known more than a few friends who were fanboys, the game would come out and the idea of paying at all for it after it releases was just beyond their comprehension, when before they were all "OMG WHEN IT COMES OUT!" and then even some others who weren't even like that, they were major fans, talked as if everyone should support it, but they themselves were all "I'll wait till it's on steam for 5 dollars or at gamstop for cheap"
Then there's the release of said product. Doesn't live up to what they believe it should be and boom lots of negative.
Game needs it's fanboys, but it needs people in charge who look beyond them and can see what else needs be done to make a better product. Especially CoT with it's CoH fanboys. :p
Fans are good. They're a kind of dedicated buyer that you know will pay for your product as long as it's true to whatever their fandom is.. (And will go for some deviations as long as the spirit is there.) I mean for gods sake, I bought every rerelease of Devil May Cry and it's sequels (and Metal Gear) because I love the series and I wanted to support the developers.
Fanboys, to use the more commonly associated definition, are poxing. We're talking about the overhyping, "My Game is better than all and anyone who disagrees is shunned", purists who are the reason most recent franchises have never really done more in the sequel(s) than graphically update. They're the ones that leave the second you mention faults in their fandom of choice and frankly I've never been a fan of them. In the business sense, they're also good because they're another form of dedicated customer, but in PR it's nightmare. As mentioned in posts above, when the fanboys get loud and trash new ideas (or worse, bug fixes that ruin something they love) then nothing really gets done and an experience can be ruined for the silent players. Now that being said, being loud isn't a bad thing. Just look how we changed XBONE policy by getting angry over the pseudo-DRM. But herring angry over a minute change that actually is for the better? That's crazy.
[B]Revenge is motivation enough. At least it's honest...[/B]
Roleplayer; Esteemed Villain
[img]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg[/img]
Using negative reinforcement not the same as constructive criticism.
I am saying that fans SHOULD use negative reinforcement when applicable to affect change in game policy. For instance if a game continues to make up new currencies or make balance breaking decisions then you should put that game on blast, not just in their forums but in the gaming community at large. What you are doing is hurting the game's reputation biensure but only insomuch as they refuse to change their policy. This is fans using negative reinforcement; this is not constructive criticism. I believe it has its place because of our capitalistic economics (See XBONE v PS4)
The problem with negative reinforcement is that its not always applicable. If you have a problem with only 1 tiny aspect of a game, or a company, or a decision then the best thing to do is to use constructive criticism and not go nuclear and demand change "or else".
Also the "or else" has to have weight. If a company is constantly making bad decisions (not just one) and you threaten to go spend your money on their competition you have to be realistic. If there's no other product on the market that is in direct competition then you are trying to sell an empty threat. "I'll go play another custom superhero MMORPG" well if that were true you'd have done it already. If you plan to use negative reinforcement then you have to be sure the decision making party actually feels the stimulus. The mice may fear being shocked if they touch the banana and that negative reinforcement done before may be strong enough.. but if there is only the THREAT of being shocked without an actual shock then they will for sure eat that banana without much concern of the formerly perceived threat.. moreover if they get away with eating the banana without a shock this is actually positive reinforcement for them and they will be MORE APT to make the decision to eat the banana.
P.S. I study neuroscience and behavioral psychological study pretty rampantly. I tend to not mince words or misuse them on internet forums because so often this leads to misunderstanding in a text based argument where people look for subtext instead of at the expressed text. That's what gifs are for
Crowd Control Enthusiast
+1.
The listening part is very good important advice. Seems like someone suggest an idea, many people have tendency to try and pick it apart rather than just try and understand. They rather bury it if they don't like it than look at it and realize it might have some merit to it. And while many do not realizing it, that is a quick way to get just about anyone on the defensive because it comes off as attacking in the way of "I don't like you or your idea so I will make sure I will pick out every little thing why this idea and you are stupid. And by the way since I do not like your idea, you misspelled a word and because of that one word and misplaced period, Oh now I cant understand your idea. I cant read it. My eyes!" While common on the forums, it do come off as not good, negative, and attacking and it seems many do not realize it and call it "I'm just being straight forward. Not my fault they cant take it." when in reality they are coming off as an aggressive, ignore all the points and idea attacking self righteous boar that is no way in shape or fashion helping out. In many cases it make people hesitate to present ideas, ideas that may be good due to not wanting to deal with that sort of person that do not care to take in the idea and rather nit pick it to death, in some cases nit picking about everything but the point, instead of taking the time to actually read, comprehend, and communicate and discuss the ideas properly. There are ways to show you disagree with the person while showing you actually looked at the idea, considered it, read it, and willing to discuss it, with an open mind, in sensible fashion without being aggressive and attacking it or the person. And of course when a person say that format or grammar is getting in the way of understanding it and it's that big of a deal they cant even read it, then there should be no where in their statement of them arguing against the idea. Becaus if they are arguing against the idea, that is a clear sign of them ignoring the points and attacking the grammar and format to use it as a scapegoat to ignore the points and argue irrelevant material to attack to start crap, they read and comprehended the information and just pointing out the grammar and format just to be an ass, the grammar and format is indeed getting in the way and they are arguing against something when they have no clue what the idea is since they couldn't read it as they say, or they couldn't understand it for the grammar and format and just looking for something to argue about. Either way if grammar and stuff is indeed was getting in the way then one cannot argue against the point if it's true that grammar and format is in the way. If they can read it and get the point enough to speak against it, then the grammar and format is not preventing them and thus should not be relevant in dismissing the entire idea.
Basically many think they are being helpful but really are not. And when the other party is getting defensive or feeling they are being attacked, instead of stepping back and thinking, maybe of taking a different approach, they continue attacking and then accuse their target of being overly sensitive and defensive which usually quickly derail things and cause more harm than good. AKA, the basics, treat ideas as you expect your ideas to be treated and sometimes approach other ideas better than how your ideas are expected to be treated.
Why don't games go outside the normal formula? Because so many ideas get muddled and buried over irrelevant stuff and arguments instead of actually looked into. and people are afraid to present ideas when they feel they may end up the target themselves leaving not much for the devs to bite on and see if it would work. Thus many game makers usually simply create the game they want to play and call it a day or distill some information from a few people they like or listen to when many people that are looking forward to their game or play their game have some great ideas but end up buried before the idea can even be refined in any way.
I'm aware of that. But you were misusing the term negative reinforcement and it seemed like constructive criticism was the most appropriate replacement. Turns out I misunderstood you. Sorry about that. Going by your followup post, where you are still misusing the term negative reinforcement, I can now see what you're getting at.
What you describe as negative reinforcement - fans taking to the interweb to blast a developer and hurt the game's reputation - is not negative reinforcement. It's positive punishment.
Leaving the game, i.e discontuing your financial support of a game, is also not negative reinforcement. It's negative punishment.
Negative reinforcement is removing a negative stimulus to increase the likelihood of a behaviour. I can't think of a fanboy related example to illustrate.
I'm a psychologist. I know this stuff. But you don't have to take my word for it. The wikipedia entry for reinforcement explains it all. I suggest you take a look. Just to quote a little bit:
"Negative reinforcement is often used by laypeople and even social scientists outside psychology as a synonym for punishment. This is contrary to modern technical use, but it was B.F. Skinner who first used it this way in his 1938 book. By 1953, however, he followed others in thus employing the word punishment, and he re-cast negative reinforcement for the removal of aversive stimuli."
Don't feel bad. It is frequently misused. I once even saw a psychology academic get this wrong in a lecture and have to be corrected by students.
That definitely happens a lot in MMO forums but I think that's a matter of fan-on-fan aggression, not really about how the developer handles feedback.
I see it as territorial behaviour. There are lots of different aspects to games and people enjoy different ones. If an idea is presented which has the potential to impact negatively on an aspect someone enjoys then that can inspire them to go all kamikaze on it. Reason and civility be damned, they'll just attempt to bash it to death to protect what they like about the game.
People being people I wouldn't expect to see this stop until the cost of developing MMOs drops to the point where we see an explosion of what would currently qualify as niche games, to perfectly suit everyone's tastes. Then new ideas wouldn't be threatening anymore.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/hive-mind.html
At 35 Min into the video it speaks a lot about "Cross-Inhibition" as once known as positive and negative reinforcement to stimuli.. I don't know where your definitions come from but again, I think positive and negative campaigning (reinforcement) are both vital to decision making when in context.
In case i be misunderstood in my Thesis I will restate:
I think positive and negative campaigning (reinforcement) are both vital to decision making when in context.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I don't know why that would be the case since I've twice referred you to the wikipedia entry for reinforcement and also told you I'm a psychologist.
You said you were studying behavioural psychology so open any psychology textbook. It will confirm what I said.
Or you could google negative reinforcement. A quick skim of the first page of results looks like they all point to reliable sources with the correct definition.
Not that's important to me. I only pointed it out as an FYI and only followed up to your reply because you said you were studying in this field and knowing this is important if you are. I'm not going to back and forth with you any more over it though. I've pointed you (and anyone else who is interested) to the right info.
Good lord. You should have seen the flap when "Alien: Colonial Marines" was released. I don't think I have ever, ever seen that much hate directed at a mere game in my life. And it really was not that bad. I liked it.... [but then I'm pretty easy to please, really.] One of the funnier complaints was that the game was "fanservice." ROFFLE, really?! IS NOT EVERY GAME OUT THERE "fanservice" to the franchise it represents?!
I agree that steep markdowns, especially within a few weeks or months, incentivize people to just wait for the markdown. IMO this is human nature and I don't get why this early marking down is SOP, but what do I know anyways. It seems like the gaming industry denying itself moneys...?
Hurry to get reimbursed would be my guess. Sounds like what my company would do. Then wonder why they're not making enough money. Though, at the same time, I've seen people wait over six months for the markdown.
Probably other factors as well.
I just hope CoT devs know not to listen to much to CoH fanboys who think CoH had nothing wrong with it. I loved loved LOVED CoH, and I know it had some flaws.