Recent Topics

Ads

Balancingteam, Developers and the community

Let's talk about... everything else
Saltos
Posts: 15

Re: Balancingteam, Developers and the community

Post#81 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:53 pm

Ramasee wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:36 pm It took 5? soul crushing incidents before we were out.
As someone working HR this one stuck out to me. I do not intend to poke a hornet's nest, so I'll keep it as general as possible:

Of what kind of nature were these incidents? I am primarily asking, because this loops back to my initial input here on the topic of 'recruitment'. It is, in my opinion, only fair to give people a genuine heads-up as far as these things are concerned.

E1: To clarify, for the sake of drama-prevention:
There is a difference between a project failing because of technicalities, and a project failing because of its work environment. Hence my question about the nature of these incidents.
E2: Considering how heated the situation appears to be, let me clarify further:
Technicalities: "We have spend x hours, and it got veto'd because of tech/time restraints."
Work environement: "We have spend x hours, and it got veto'd out of spite."
E3: To clarify even further:
Both of the following events are equally soul-crushing:
a) Putting your all into a task and failing because of discrepancies between unrealistic (for whatever reasons) personal expectations and means available.
b) Putting your all into a task and failing in spite of means available and generally realistically aligned personal expectations.
E4: Changed words in the above from such with negative connotations to such without.

E5: In addition to my initial question in this post:
Ramasee wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:36 pm Both what Natherul has said and what I have said are true. There were more than one lead that had an issue with us, but it was only one lead that did the veto. Yeah we **** up v1 proposal for WL; we had a v2 and it wasn't the leads or Yali keeping us from proposing v2. (Natherul was on this group as well)
I've read this part roughly 15 times, trying to figure out the hierachy of things. Either this is a severe case of beating around the bush (see emphasis) or I am just dense beyond saving.
Also, define 'having an issue with us', shouldn't it be 'having an issue with the proposal'?

E6: In the staff listing on the bottom right of the page there are 2 leads (Torquemadra and Natherul). MaxHayman and Yaliskah are manager and owner, so I guess they weren't involved as much, if at all.

i.) What is the actual hierachy like?
ii.) Why are two leads made out to be more than just two, i.e. abstract 'more'?

You see, if you speak about 'more than one' I'd expect the initial set to be greater than two.
The avatar of Salt and Shitlord'ery.
Take me seriously and you'll lose your mind, matey.

Ads
User avatar
Ramasee
Posts: 457

Re: Balancingteam, Developers and the community

Post#82 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:35 pm

Saltos wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:53 pm
Ramasee wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:36 pm It took 5? soul crushing incidents before we were out.
As someone working HR this one stuck out to me. I do not intend to poke a hornet's nest, so I'll keep it as general as possible:

Of what kind of nature were these incidents? I am primarily asking, because this loops back to my initial input here on the topic of 'recruitment'. It is, in my opinion, only fair to give people a genuine heads-up as far as these things are concerned.

E1: To clarify, for the sake of drama-prevention:
There is a difference between a project failing because of technicalities, and a project failing because of its work environment. Hence my question about the nature of these incidents.
E2: Considering how heated the situation appears to be, let me clarify further:
Technicalities: "We have spend x hours, and it got veto'd because of tech/time restraints."
Work environement: "We have spend x hours, and it got veto'd out of spite."
E3: To clarify even further:
Both of the following events are equally soul-crushing:
a) Putting your all into a task and failing because of discrepancies between unrealistic (for whatever reasons) personal expectations and means available.
b) Putting your all into a task and failing in spite of means available and generally realistically aligned personal expectations.
E4: Changed words in the above from such with negative connotations to such without.

E5: In addition to my initial question in this post:
Ramasee wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:36 pm Both what Natherul has said and what I have said are true. There were more than one lead that had an issue with us, but it was only one lead that did the veto. Yeah we **** up v1 proposal for WL; we had a v2 and it wasn't the leads or Yali keeping us from proposing v2. (Natherul was on this group as well)
I've read this part roughly 15 times, trying to figure out the hierachy of things. Either this is a severe case of beating around the bush (see emphasis) or I am just dense beyond saving.
Also, define 'having an issue with us', shouldn't it be 'having an issue with the proposal'?
One of the incidents happened before I was brought into the group. We all agreed to leave names and identifying details to ourselves.

The incidents involve either removal of rights?responsibilities not sure how to describe it or the addition of oppressive rules. Basically we all entered this group with a defined set of conditions and all of the important ones were either changed or found out to be false to begin with.

Our process kept us from going too far with something that was mechanically impossible. We also weren't vetoed out of spite (at least I don't think so, I can't read minds). Basically we were interfering with a person's vision but would not be told this vision, and this person did not want to code for us. (Which is mostly fair given that he or she is a volunteer) this person is the only one capable of doing what we want. I offered to learn from this person in order to lighten his or her load so that he or she would not have to code things they didn't want to do. Understandably this was denied (thanks apoc server!)

So basically it was impossible for the balance group to get anything accomplished, and we didn't want to push through the resistance and step on more toes to get it done. So we left.

As for the second part it is entirely possible for leads of other departments (there currently is no balance lead) to have an issue with our groups existence, our process, and our outcomes. And for those same people to eventually at least accept and be willing to roll with it. This is no different than some of our player community.

Yaliskah did put Dan and Jon there in a forcefulish manner. At least from what I gathered, I could be wrong. The general hierarchy should be public somewhere.

Anyways tl;dr is if you want to contribute to the project do so. I just don't recommend trying in the same area (balance) or the same way (community involvement)

Saltos
Posts: 15

Re: Balancingteam, Developers and the community

Post#83 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:05 pm

Ramasee wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:35 pm (...)
The incidents involve either removal of rights?responsibilities not sure how to describe it or the addition of oppressive rules. Basically we all entered this group with a defined set of conditions and all of the important ones were either changed or found out to be false to begin with.
(...)
Basically we were interfering with a person's vision but would not be told this vision, and this person did not want to code for us.
(...)
I offered to learn from this person in order to lighten his or her load so that he or she would not have to code things they didn't want to do. Understandably this was denied (thanks apoc server!)
(...)
So basically it was impossible for the balance group to get anything accomplished, and we didn't want to push through the resistance and step on more toes to get it done. So we left.
(...)
Yaliskah did put Dan and Jon there in a forcefulish manner.
(...)
Anyways tl;dr is if you want to contribute to the project do so. I just don't recommend trying in the same area (balance) or the same way (community involvement)
Let me summarize:
1.) Drama occurs, prompting an exodus of staff and players.
2.) In the process of trying to fix things new staff is being recruited.
2.1.) New staff is being struck with 'oppressive rules' and 'deceived'.
2.2.) New staff is being made to work on vague terms and to honor an 'unspoken/unwritten' vision.
2.3.) New staff isn't taught how to do things, and told off upon requesting their workload to be assessed.
2.4.) New staff is being made to face the brunt of the backlash from the community.
2.5.) Old staff and new staff are in conflict with another, hampering the overall productivity.
2.6.) The hierachy of the project is all over the place.
3.) More drama occurs, prompting another exodus of staff and players.

All the while the current staff refers to the lack of manpower in response to player criticism stemming from what is perceived as bandaid fixes.

Looping back to my initial input. It is an uncomfortable question, but a genuine and necessary one:
How do you folks imagine to ever get to recruit new coders, and how do you imagine putting them to (productive) work, if you don't teach them how to do things; don't tell them what to do/not do to - let alone find a way to work out differences between each other?

E1: Removed emphasis, didn't expect it to be as visually noisy.
E2: Words and grammar (yes, I know, it's in vain, it's all over the place - english isn't my native tongue). Added bulletpoints.
Last edited by Saltos on Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
The avatar of Salt and Shitlord'ery.
Take me seriously and you'll lose your mind, matey.

User avatar
Xergon
Posts: 798

Re: Balancingteam, Developers and the community

Post#84 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:11 pm

Ramasee wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:35 pm
Spoiler:
Saltos wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:53 pm
Ramasee wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:36 pm It took 5? soul crushing incidents before we were out.
As someone working HR this one stuck out to me. I do not intend to poke a hornet's nest, so I'll keep it as general as possible:

Of what kind of nature were these incidents? I am primarily asking, because this loops back to my initial input here on the topic of 'recruitment'. It is, in my opinion, only fair to give people a genuine heads-up as far as these things are concerned.

E1: To clarify, for the sake of drama-prevention:
There is a difference between a project failing because of technicalities, and a project failing because of its work environment. Hence my question about the nature of these incidents.
E2: Considering how heated the situation appears to be, let me clarify further:
Technicalities: "We have spend x hours, and it got veto'd because of tech/time restraints."
Work environement: "We have spend x hours, and it got veto'd out of spite."
E3: To clarify even further:
Both of the following events are equally soul-crushing:
a) Putting your all into a task and failing because of discrepancies between unrealistic (for whatever reasons) personal expectations and means available.
b) Putting your all into a task and failing in spite of means available and generally realistically aligned personal expectations.
E4: Changed words in the above from such with negative connotations to such without.

E5: In addition to my initial question in this post:
Ramasee wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:36 pm Both what Natherul has said and what I have said are true. There were more than one lead that had an issue with us, but it was only one lead that did the veto. Yeah we **** up v1 proposal for WL; we had a v2 and it wasn't the leads or Yali keeping us from proposing v2. (Natherul was on this group as well)
I've read this part roughly 15 times, trying to figure out the hierachy of things. Either this is a severe case of beating around the bush (see emphasis) or I am just dense beyond saving.
Also, define 'having an issue with us', shouldn't it be 'having an issue with the proposal'?
One of the incidents happened before I was brought into the group. We all agreed to leave names and identifying details to ourselves.

The incidents involve either removal of rights?responsibilities not sure how to describe it or the addition of oppressive rules. Basically we all entered this group with a defined set of conditions and all of the important ones were either changed or found out to be false to begin with.
Our process kept us from going too far with something that was mechanically impossible. We also weren't vetoed out of spite (at least I don't think so, I can't read minds). Basically we were interfering with a person's vision but would not be told this vision, and this person did not want to code for us. (Which is mostly fair given that he or she is a volunteer) this person is the only one capable of doing what we want. I offered to learn from this person in order to lighten his or her load so that he or she would not have to code things they didn't want to do. Understandably this was denied (thanks apoc server!)

So basically it was impossible for the balance group to get anything accomplished, and we didn't want to push through the resistance and step on more toes to get it done. So we left.

As for the second part it is entirely possible for leads of other departments (there currently is no balance lead) to have an issue with our groups existence, our process, and our outcomes. And for those same people to eventually at least accept and be willing to roll with it. This is no different than some of our player community.

Yaliskah did put Dan and Jon there in a forcefulish manner. At least from what I gathered, I could be wrong. The general hierarchy should be public somewhere.

Anyways tl;dr is if you want to contribute to the project do so. I just don't recommend trying in the same area (balance) or the same way (community involvement)

Pretty much expected to happen, even before all happened. Nevertheless, thank you all for efforts and contributions, i know it probably doesn't matter, but at least i wanna say thank you, and i want to let you know that at least me (but i'm pretty sure many others) appreciate your efforts in trying to actually make proper Balance. /cudos
Image
The Unlikely Plan
YouTube

Saltos
Posts: 15

Re: Balancingteam, Developers and the community

Post#85 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:13 pm

Where are my manners, my apologies.

I, too, want to thank you folks very much for your efforts.
Especially those that replied to my inquiries, it's quite enlightening so to speak.
The avatar of Salt and Shitlord'ery.
Take me seriously and you'll lose your mind, matey.

User avatar
carlos
Posts: 241

Re: Balancingteam, Developers and the community

Post#86 » Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:05 am

Xergon wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:11 pm
Ramasee wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:35 pm
Spoiler:
Saltos wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:53 pm

As someone working HR this one stuck out to me. I do not intend to poke a hornet's nest, so I'll keep it as general as possible:

Of what kind of nature were these incidents? I am primarily asking, because this loops back to my initial input here on the topic of 'recruitment'. It is, in my opinion, only fair to give people a genuine heads-up as far as these things are concerned.

E1: To clarify, for the sake of drama-prevention:
There is a difference between a project failing because of technicalities, and a project failing because of its work environment. Hence my question about the nature of these incidents.
E2: Considering how heated the situation appears to be, let me clarify further:
Technicalities: "We have spend x hours, and it got veto'd because of tech/time restraints."
Work environement: "We have spend x hours, and it got veto'd out of spite."
E3: To clarify even further:
Both of the following events are equally soul-crushing:
a) Putting your all into a task and failing because of discrepancies between unrealistic (for whatever reasons) personal expectations and means available.
b) Putting your all into a task and failing in spite of means available and generally realistically aligned personal expectations.
E4: Changed words in the above from such with negative connotations to such without.

E5: In addition to my initial question in this post:


I've read this part roughly 15 times, trying to figure out the hierachy of things. Either this is a severe case of beating around the bush (see emphasis) or I am just dense beyond saving.
Also, define 'having an issue with us', shouldn't it be 'having an issue with the proposal'?
One of the incidents happened before I was brought into the group. We all agreed to leave names and identifying details to ourselves.

The incidents involve either removal of rights?responsibilities not sure how to describe it or the addition of oppressive rules. Basically we all entered this group with a defined set of conditions and all of the important ones were either changed or found out to be false to begin with.
Our process kept us from going too far with something that was mechanically impossible. We also weren't vetoed out of spite (at least I don't think so, I can't read minds). Basically we were interfering with a person's vision but would not be told this vision, and this person did not want to code for us. (Which is mostly fair given that he or she is a volunteer) this person is the only one capable of doing what we want. I offered to learn from this person in order to lighten his or her load so that he or she would not have to code things they didn't want to do. Understandably this was denied (thanks apoc server!)

So basically it was impossible for the balance group to get anything accomplished, and we didn't want to push through the resistance and step on more toes to get it done. So we left.

As for the second part it is entirely possible for leads of other departments (there currently is no balance lead) to have an issue with our groups existence, our process, and our outcomes. And for those same people to eventually at least accept and be willing to roll with it. This is no different than some of our player community.

Yaliskah did put Dan and Jon there in a forcefulish manner. At least from what I gathered, I could be wrong. The general hierarchy should be public somewhere.

Anyways tl;dr is if you want to contribute to the project do so. I just don't recommend trying in the same area (balance) or the same way (community involvement)

Pretty much expected to happen, even before all happened. Nevertheless, thank you all for efforts and contributions, i know it probably doesn't matter, but at least i wanna say thank you, and i want to let you know that at least me (but i'm pretty sure many others) appreciate your efforts in trying to actually make proper Balance. /cudos
+1
Starfkr


User avatar
Acidic
Posts: 2045
Contact:

Re: Balancingteam, Developers and the community

Post#87 » Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:29 am

After the things in this thread and the random patch this weekend I have to ask what is the plans for the short term with patches ?
Just now feels like the direction is completely off, connection with community given up on and changes are done on whims of maybe is a great idea to just try and pee of everyone so we don’t get so much negative feedback in the future as they will just leave.

User avatar
Zizzelfizz
Posts: 189
Contact:

Re: Balancingteam, Developers and the community

Post#88 » Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:59 am

The game is offered to you for free, all the performers do it in their free time, and you make a drama of it yourself if it's not for your nose. If you do not like it, nobody stops you. but I bet after a few days since you came back here and cries in the forum. If I were here dev, I would have disappeared long ago. what some of you imagine. and then the trolls who are not even 20 post here, but most of them are crying, I think it sucks.
Image

Ads
User avatar
Acidic
Posts: 2045
Contact:

Re: Balancingteam, Developers and the community

Post#89 » Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:07 pm

Zizzelfizz wrote: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:59 am The game is offered to you for free, all the performers do it in their free time, and you make a drama of it yourself if it's not for your nose. If you do not like it, nobody stops you. but I bet after a few days since you came back here and cries in the forum. If I were here dev, I would have disappeared long ago. what some of you imagine. and then the trolls who are not even 20 post here, but most of them are crying, I think it sucks.
Yes the game is free, yes we all respect the devs and team(as can see from manny posts on that by myself and others)
Yes it has gone far in the right direction
Yes I have chosen to play
Yes ....

I would also like to ask if there is a forward direction as I read the reversion of the BW m2 as so lost in space that I’m flabbergasted by the lack of understanding of what the community has posted on both sides. This alone is sufficient to make me doubt things. I can understand issues with grandiose WL redesign and also readjustment time.
In short the direction from this alone concerns me and suggests a lack of reality check in WB vs WB area

User avatar
Lileldys
Posts: 666

Re: Balancingteam, Developers and the community

Post#90 » Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Ramasee wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:35 pm Basically we were interfering with a person's vision but would not be told this vision, and this person did not want to code for us.
Yikes, wonder who that could be? :o

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests