kodiakbear wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:33 am
After asking what they can do to improve for their next KS it must be strange for DF to have their most successful dollar wise KS and third most successful KS by number of backers bringing out such anger and frustration.
If backer numbers and the pledge total had remand as low as Castles for this KS, it might make more sense but by number of backers this was better than City so if so many people pledged why so much anger. I guess people are angry they just can not get it all or just everything they want in one box.
I don't think there's actually too much anger. There is frustration, but I feel the forums (and comments) always have people expressing frustration. Frustration is always extant on the internet and, to some extent, a necessary evil tied into Dwarven Forge's business model (which may be the only model by which they can survive). Look at the posts during the campaign asking why *this* piece was only available with *all those other* pieces, and so on... look at the people who want DF to step back from magnets, or keep LEDs out of base pledges, the veterans who don't want any more floors, etc. This is to say nothing of the frustration that arises between each other, as we post here... well, this is a forum on the internet. Overall, I think it's been remarkably civil.
I would say the vast majority of us are not actually angry about KS5. (Okay, I did express anger that a backer can't get Syssuul without spending $350), Overall we are delighted with the amazing and beautiful creativity that is being made available to us and with the overall smoothness, preparation, and professionalism of KS5. I've never seen so many people say "Best Kickstarter campaign I've ever taken part in!" as I have with KS5. The vast majority of us have depthless appreciation for Stefan, Nate, Jay, and the whole team, and their amazing efforts and teamwork. The vast majority of us (at least those of us here on the forums) are going to be there for KS6 and KS7, and so on... because we know DF will do good things (and because we're addicted to dwarvenite!). We will contribute what we can, though in some cases that may only be token, due to personal circumstances or how we view the campaigns. DF will have our support, but most of us are not rich and they also can't squeeze blood from a stone, so they do need to keep pulling in new backers and finding ways to make their product accessible to more casual gamers. I believe they know this full well, and want to work toward reversing the trend in backer numbers (to which KS5 was a great stride!), which is why Nate started a thread asking about improvements.
This was the best run DF campaign, and one of the best run I've seen overall. But it wasn't perfect, and Nate asked what can be improved. I don't believe he just meant for us to tell him the easy things, like "make the live streams clearer". We are being honest about our feelings, and I hope nobody at DF would expect any different. There were kinks, and there were things that let a number of people down at the end (or in some cases throughout)... not all of us were let down by the same thing, and not all of those things could have been avoided at all, but we all want to express our thoughts and concerns, so that DF can be aware of it, and if not change possibly at least address it.
Further thoughts on improvement:
1.One place there is room for improvement, as @kodiakbear expressed, is about communication. How do you communicate what kind of campaign it will be? How do you communicate during the campaign when the structure will change (when the bonanzas stopped, and when low pledges stopped receiving SGs) -- it's not that the SGs were terribly unbalanced in the end (tho lever chamber and acid bath could use some love), it was how they came out that led to a perceived imbalance -- possibly a consequence of structuring them the way they did, but that's another conversation. One thing that can be improved is how these things are communicated, ahead of times and through official channels, not just in the comments, in order to manage expectations. Managing expectations is the best way to avoid let-downs. People saw force wall pack, and thought maybe there would be an ossuary pack... "no ossuary pack? now I'm sad." (Maybe DF could allow voting on the structure of the packs, to some extent? Which things should get their own packs, which should be packaged together? A pitfall of the packaging structure is that invariably people have to take some, in some cases, many things they don't want in order to get what they do... this does not lead to satisfaction. Voting might help improve overall satisfaction with that process. People might have voted for 8 or 10 elevation block packs instead of 16, a change they realized with the puzzle floors when they released them.)
2. On another note, I've been convinced that DF should seek a more equitable SG approach as many have been asking for. I don't know what works best, but for the people spending thousands of dollars on add-ons should get to take part in the SG fun... they should see the same benefit as those of us who pledge at other levels, or are getting a lot of encounters... in some way, benefits should be proportional to the amount pledged overall. Add-ons have become an increasingly large part of DFs revenues (I think), and that should be rewarded. Given that DF decided to break SGs down by encounters this time, there may be some way to just add in another (in this case a 16th) category, for SGs based on add-on spending. I don't know if the "points" system is a good idea, but there must be something workable. Moreover, while I thought the encounter SGs worked wonderfully, were beautifully thematic, and were complete without SGs, it turns out that a lot of people didn't feel this way. The structure led people to kind of retroactively feel the encounters were incomplete without the SGs, because the SGs were *too* tightly themed to the encounters, as if the pieces couldn't be used without them. Moreover the structure led to perceived imbalances in SGs even for people who pledged at SG-receiving levels. There was a fair amount of "well, this milestone is irrelevant to me, since I'm not getting that anyway." DF had to explain a number of times that there were *more* SGs this time, because it didn't actually feel that way... so if DF was being more generous, but it didn't actually feel that way to backers, then what is the point?
3. For live streams, I love the idea proposed of filming builds on the fly; I think that's a great idea. Another idea might be to ask people to suggest builds, or specific pieces to show off, in the comments of an update prior to the live stream. That way you folks can gather what you know you'll need ahead of time, and maybe prebuild a few sets. There were a number of times a piece was asked for, and it had to be gotten from another room. Those things could have been right there and ready.