Would be nice to have some more insights here

Some of your points, such as #2 and #3, are obvious. (I mean that as a compliment.)

Your point #1 is much less clear. What if you used your experience as a software developer to construct an argument about why Grey Havens shouldn't take on random volunteers from the Internet? What might go wrong? What are the costs and benefits, and the uncertainties in those costs and benefits?

It seems like so many of Spiral Knights problems aren't just the result of simple technical failures that a designer can "implement" their way out of. It's not just about code. The game is a decade-old heap of conflicting and complicated incentive structures that is, at this point, a house of cards. Decisions made in the days of the game's *beta* are still present now, interlocking with hastily bolted-on features designed as few as two months ago. I find myself thinking, "of course a lot of these systems don't play nice together; they weren't designed together." The problem on the operating table is the size of the entire game, *and* how it's being played, not just any one part of it.

There's a lot of ground to cover that is more nuanced than just getting more hands on keyboards.

The game's initial conception, with mist and energy being the only actual hard gates to crafting, informing (rank) mission design seemingly incentivising gear crafting, now running into problems that emerged as a result of the introduction of orbs? That's just one example.

And mist used to be factored into level progression - when that changed, per-stage loot changed, and crown drop rates changed to offset the emergent differences in in-game economic flow. Per-floor drop values fell and the whole experience was flattened by those changes. This drove everybody to find the highest value single thing to do and keep doing it, resulting in vana runs.

Levels with difficulty design that hinged on trading pips instead of relying on revives and sparks still linger.

The game hasn't *just* accumulated technical debt - like battle sprites not working right? - it's accumulated *design debt.* Hiring new hands on keyboards won't help if a person has no context or access to the core team's design intent, and it isn't something that can just be trained into someone in a few weeks. Even me, listening to veterans and new players alike; I keep coming back to this forum and learning new things about how the game has changed and the only thing I think I can see clearly is how many small changes have been made over time that were *meant* to fix one issue, only to end up worsening something seemingly unrelated elsewhere. I don't envy the people who have to read Nick's mind based on what's currently left over.

It's kind of weird to phrase it this way but I think one of the best things we can do is contribute to ongoing forum discussions, because every single person I've seen make a point so far has something to say about a completely different piece of the game, and - for the most part - everyone kind of comes together with a "Yeah, that too." If nothing else it would, HOPEFULLY, allow a working team of developers interested in, SUPPOSEDLY, restoring the game to its golden age to, IDEALLY, collect a comprehensive list of problems that we all think to be important and then, POTENTIALLY, address them all at once with a more concrete understanding of their interplay.

Like, if nothing else, the best I can say of everyone's input so far is we all have ideas for problem solving, all have different pain points we've identified, and are all willing to "yes to this, no to that" each other's pitches. I think the really hard work here is the kind of work that you can't hire done - and that's the top-down restructuring of a game whose design methodology is best compared to Detroit Agate; Layers Covering Layers.

Edit: Someone else (probably Draycos, Nethorse, Witelite, Thats-Rough-Buddy, Refraizen, or any other of the numerous veterans I've talked to so far honestly) could doubtless write this much better than I could - especially the elements pertaining to things that were added over top of features never designed to support those new game features - but the essence of my point is "I still want to believe a large part of the work being done by GH is research," and offer them the faith that they are at the very least doing SOMETHING, even if it's not particularly discernible right here and now - not because I think they deserve it, but because I haven't had the optimism beaten out of me yet by years of disappointment. I'm sure everyone else has their reasons for not holding their breath - assume for now I'm just willing to be stupid on your behalf.

@Esphael: I want to go ahead and say that I'm grateful to you for arranging your concerns like this. I think I understand them a bit more personally now, and I believe I agree with you. I also think that this approach to assessing whether the right choices are being made vis-a-vis maintenance and communication will be helpful to GH if we suppose they decide to take it as an independent appraisal, but that's on them. [ Edit: C'mon, man. :( ]

@Bopp: No, yeah, that's fair. You're right to say that it doesn't address the actual waiting period. That said, I can't speak for anyone else, but something it would do for me is help me understand what I am still waiting around here for and offering my patience and engagement for. My choice to continue playing supports the game and facilitates activity amongst players - not as much as the really committed members of the community like Disgr-Ace and etc., but a little bit nonetheless.

Another thing I think that this communication would help with is to at least partly temper some of the insistence that nobody in the studio cares at all. I can see the cause behind saying it; a number of times now, I've heard the same complaint that "we want more than 'we passed this along to the team'," because there's a sense in which it feels very dismissive of player concerns when set against a constant and insistent silence. Covert development of a live service's features is also... kind of unusual, honestly. I too can't really think of other games that do this.

Put plainly, "It would keep people like me quiet," because... well, I really wanna know if the game *is* coming back. Answering your last question more directly, though - "What we would do with it is try to steer some of the decisions towards less player-hostile design." A large number of the people that I've spoken to both in game and on the forums believe that a lot of prior and current changes were missteps and mishandlings of balance and player motivations.

Knowing that this dialogue isn't one-directional is valuable to those players especially, because for the most part they're petitioning for (if not the undoing of something that ruined an experience they were having) at least an understanding of why a choice was made, as well as an opportunity to propose a better means of addressing it. The forge box changes most recently are a particularly hot incidence of this. When a change is made in a seemingly ad-hoc fashion, it leaves portions of the playerbase feeling like they're being slighted for having the wrong kind of fun, and this rapidly spirals out into levelling accusations of carelessness, ignorance, greed, so on.

Beyond that, I have this funny feeling that it isn't about being informed - it's about wanting more of a direct line to the team so we can have the experience we want. I personally understand there are extensive limitations on the viability of that - we are also not the designers of the game and they're not our choices to make - but I also think it's reasonable to believe that there's a middle ground that is fair to ask for, where we can have a real dialogue about the game's trajectory.

If nothing else, it'd keep things a bit calmer.

Before responding, first: I truly want to meet you on your terms and I appreciate and acknowledge the (very tangible) frustration you are expressing, but we are not all here to measure one another's intellectual acumen. I really, really don't think it shows you in an entirely favourable light to be so interested in the pursuit of formal and complete argument when a dominating majority of us are just friends trying to talk about a game. I would like to remain friends, indeed with you as well, because you have salient points to make about the game's health and I agree with the most of them. Speaking of fallacy and argumentative folly as though they're the only rules of discourse has its place, but I am not readily convinced it is here.

Regardless, there is, despite the wording, meaning to be interpreted in what Bopp said, beyond what Bopp said, and my response was largely directed at them. I don't believe they are here to discredit you and I certainly don't believe they are ignoring you - especially not if you think my response to you is meaningful, as I would happily give them credit for prompting that perspective from me with their questions.

This (on its face) "test of personal impact" stretches beyond the personal and unrelated, and into your relationship with something you're engaging with as a pastime. I sincerely implore you to meet us at our position where you can; I could understand you telling me at first blush "that's a pointless effort" but it will be worth it. It's all we have in the absence of any other information.

You yourself very openly admit that we are making the effort to fill gaps that GH's communication strategy has left wide open - this is part of that - but it isn't nothing, so some credit should be offered to those of us trying to support and politely interrogate each other through this time where we are all - in various measure - angry, disappointed, excited and hopeful. I invite you to peruse my posts to date; you will see me change my mind like the weather on a lot of things but one thing is constant:

Here, in these forums, we're left to try and figure out what the hell is going on using our keyboards and our biases as dowsing rods. Me too. Even still, I want for GH to speak to us, but I also want to act as a mediator where I can - not because I think I have the authority to, but because I really like this game, man.

I don't like being the guy that says "grey havens bad" or "grey havens evil" or "greedy" or "careless." I also don't want to give them carte blanche to abuse the goodwill of the people who stick around and readily take to these forums in hope of their post finally being the one that brings the game back to life - just like I'm doing.

I really, really like this game. I want it to make it. Sure, "appeal from emotion," but level with me for a minute - I want to get to the days where there are so many of us, you can always land a game of lockdown, or you can hit "join party" and end up with a new bunch of folks every few seconds.

People like Bopp et al. aren't trying to shout anyone down or make a fool of anyone. We're coming at this from a thousand different angles in the hope of meeting in the middle - and you're absolutely right to insist we shouldn't have to. We shouldn't. That's absolutely certain. If I were to generously interpret them at their word, I'd presume they're saying "What's the point? They're not going to listen even if they do talk back, nothing will change." That difference of opinion feels pretty natural - I shouldn't want for it to become a rift, though.

Until things change we shouldn't be baring teeth at each other. If GH is to be believed, all the secret keeping will be over soon. I'm willing to play the fool for another month, for what it's worth, but I still want to hold them to account - in my own unique way, just as Bopp does with their suggestion it won't facilitate inroads to player-driven balancing, and as much as you do with your suggestion that it would, at the very least, bring them into parity with their peers in the market.

Until then, let's try to see what each of us mean through what each of us says. I truly, sincerely believe we all want the same thing in this thread. I'm certain of it.

[small edit: bopp i don't know your pronouns and i'm sorry for assuming; fixes have been made for decency's sake]

That explains a lot. Never mind.

@Vyre If You say so, I trust Your Judgement.

I'm not here for this post... I'm here because Vyre and Bopp are here, Regardless of You.