Commando Archive

---

ArjunThakur wrote:

Why don't you ask us before submitting your report?

I don't agree with any of your special attack/accuracy submissions at all, nor do many people. Our class is very, very powerful and you are really asking to get us nerfed.

Correspond with the community BEFORE you make a report, don't just let us know what you have submitted, that's wrong.

---

Abrasive comments, like yours, are one of the reasons. It's very difficult to have a meaningful dialogue with someone when their comments are abrupt and rude. I'm happy to answer questions about why I did or did not do something but downright criticism doesn't help anyone.

Next, I DO correspond with the community before submitting the report. You need to understand that I don't create the issues in the report, I gather suggestions, complaints and issues brought up in a multitude of posts in the commando forum and private messages sent to me. These are not my submissions, they are yours, so the report is nothing but input from the commando community.

Posting each line of the report in the forums for discussion would result in the report never being submitted. We could argue points forever and never come to an agreement as to what should be submitted. Case and point- the new titles. This one small issue took several days of voting anda fair amount of time to tally. In the end, people have made it clear that they're not happy with the new suggested titles even though you all voted on it.

My job, as correspondent, is to represent all of you and serve as your voice to the DEVs. There are drastic differences of opinion among commandos as to what, if anything, needs to be addressed. At some point, I have to gather your concerns and move the process forward. That takes leadership and it means having to put up with your criticism even though I'm not being paid for my efforts. I intend to show leadership, to continue to listen and do the best job I can and to do my best to let bitching roll off my back....

---

Tamrael wrote:

Ah, lets see... First off, if you still want 'em, Synn, here's some weaponry for you:

---

Thanks for the information, Tamrael. I am reading it, though there's not much more I can do until we get some response regarding the first report. The way things currently work, I'm supposed to submit a report, wait for a response, then submit my reply/rebuttal, as Garibaldi did before me. I may be able to add or change items when I submit my reply or, if they are something completely new, submit another report.

SOE is currently in the process of hiring an "Assistant Community Developement Manager" to work directly with the correspondents. This person will communicate directly with the correspondents, then take their issues to the actual code writers. Honestly, I'm frustrated by having another middleman between the correspondents and the coders but SOE wants things set up that way.

I've been pushing to have teleconferences in addition to the written reports so that there can be some discussion,to avoid misunderstandings, and t speed the process. I'll keep pushing but am not sure if SOE is going to allow this.

So, at the moment, we need to wait until we receive a response from the DEVS or the new Assistant Community Developement Manager before anything more can be submitted. I'll keep reading your suggestions, though, and keep you posted.

---

Nerfbath wrote:

But the issue is what you submitted needed to be debated and argued instead of arbitrarily gathered by you

---

Nerfbath, I'm going to patiently try and address some of the issues you've brought up. First, I did not "arbitrarily" gather the issues. In addition, they had been "debated and argued" for some time. A great many of the points, for example, had been compiled and posted by Ivoni awhile ago.

---

you should have done the respectful thing and posted your intentions to this community, given us one week (or a fair amount of time) to debate these points, *then* submit the report to the dev team

Again, these points had already been debated and kicked around for some time, even before I became correspondent. Do you really think there would have been a consensus after another week?If so, then explain to me why people still complain about the titles selected for change. They got to vote on those, yet people are still unhappy.

For every point on the list that you disagree with, I can point to someone who likes it. Perhaps you should decide what points should be submitted and how many. Since you seem to know how everyone feels about the submissions, surely you could submit issues that everyone would approve of...

OK, all sarcasm aside, I'm more than willing to post the issues before submission from now on. Hell, it'll make my job easier. After the week you've asked for, I know that the issues will still be hotly debated and I won't have to submit a report. If you want me to wait until everyone has come to agreement, I'll be waiting a long time.

---

You can shrug it off and say it's your position and right to do what you did, but you'll only further alienate those like myself who now have lost their respect for you.

Please point out to me where I ever said that it was my "position and right" to do what I did. I've made it clear from day one that I'm only here to pass on commando issues to the DEVs and to represent my fellow commandos.

---

I truly wish you would work with us more instead of taking the road of superiority and your "right" to dictate what is best for this community.

Again, in what fashion have I been superior? When have I stated that it is my "right" to dictate what is best for the community?

---

I don't see his response to you as abusive or hostile - it's legitimate criticism over your actions. What you're doing is hiding behind your title instead of simply admitting you could havedone this better.

If you can't tell the difference between a polite comment or suggestion and a blunt, rudely worded one, then I can't help you. There IS a difference between constructive criticism and bitching. Asking politely for me to post the issues before submission is fine. Accusing me of "hiding behind my title" is over the line.

I volunteered to be correspondent because I have worked to become a commando from launch day. I stuck with the profession even when we were weak in combat because I like the role playing aspects of the profession and I thought commando had real potential.

I have a real life, so the "title" itself means very little to me. All it does is give me an opportunity to try and improve the profession so that my fellow commandos get more enjoyment from the game.

So, when someone is doing their best to work for you, there's no need to try and vilify them as some pompous, uncaring ass, just because you disagree with the way they did something. A polite suggestion goes a lot further than personal mud slinging.

---

You did a grand job with the titles, even though there was disagreements. I see no reason this has to be different.

Again, you applaud the way titles were handled. There are still people who are unhappy with the titles submitted, though. No matter what is submitted or how the process occurs, there are still people who are going to complain and hold me personally responsible for not doing things their way.

If the majority wants the issues posted prior to submission, that's fine too. I think you'll find that it will result in a quagmire, however. Here's an example (and numbers are for example only). Forty-one people like issue #4 and twenty-eight people hate it. So we go with #4 but that precludes issue #6 even though most people seemed to like it. Since most people voted for #6, they also voted for issue #10, which facilitates issue #6 and is invalid without it.... And so on.

This is the last message I am going to respond to which I feel crosses the line. If people want a response or have a question or suggestion, I'll be happy to answer it- as long as it's polite and constructive. If not, I'm going to pass it by.

Well Synn,

Thank you for the response but I can see you're going to stand by your decision instead of working through us. We'll have to agree to disagree, but you're alienating commandos such as myself who now look forward to when you are replaced as our correspondant because you're unwilling to adapt or potentially admit you could have handled this better. We're not asking you to do anything that's out of control, or limiting to your position - we're asking you to post your intentions of what you're going to send to SoE on behalf of this community. That's not an unreasonable request - even if people get into an endless debate it is then you who can use your position to decide *with* the majority what will be sent to SoE on behalf of this community.

Let us drop this issue, but please, in the future do us a favor regardless if you agree or disagree - and post here what you're going to send before sending it in. Garabaldi did it just fine, and you know what? Despite your belief it worked just fine (and more effectively than your approach.) There is a historical basis for this, and while we're not asking you to be as good a correspondant as Garabaldi, we're asking you to work with some tested and proven methods.

Hmm that didn't come out as I wanted it too - I didn't mean to sound so harsh. Anyway, my only request is that you try to post your intentions just once and judge the results for yourself in regards to these types of issues. We did work through most of our issues on Garabaldi's rought drafts, pointed out flaws in reasoning, and worked out better arguments. As you said, there were indeed people who didn't agree, some who even rejected the entire argument. But we went by the most logical arguments, along with a majority of reasonable requests.

If you feel it doesn't work after giving it one shot, then I won't make any more objections. As I said, I could have made some arguments about what you submitted, and I'm sure others could have too. I know for myself, I have absolutely nothing against you- you're an intelligent person, my only issue is how you handled your position. So give it a shot please.

While I don't think your comment deserved a 3 Sev (as comment ratintings in threads like this are pointless) I think you're making a large assumption that you represent the silent majority. The fact is, neither you nor me represent, nor know what the silent majority thinks.

---

MasterSynn wrote:

---

Gyrtris wrote:
Er... I've gone through 125 (one crate) of C-22 grenades the other day and I have to say that their area of effect does work, because I'd target a lair and hit all the critters that are within the blast radious...

---

Thanks for the info, Gyrtris. I'm getting conflicting reports on this, though. If nothing else, the code writers need to look into this. If it turns out to be working fine, then no harm is done.

Several of the items submitted in my report don't necessarily require change, just examination by the DEVs and coders. Some may be working as intended but an explanation saying so would go a long way towards clearing up any misunderstandings.

---

Just thought I'd throw in what I've observed on area effect damage. I've played around with some of the heavy weapons with charges, despite not having certs for most of them yet, and I have yet to see one deal any damage to surrounding creatures. What I HAVE seen however, is in a dungeon I've actually dealt area damage to static STRUCTURES when I fired on a creature. At least that's what it told me on the combat tab. I've taken this one step further and attempted damaging a player house (my own and a friends of course ) and haven't had any positive results, no hits not even a sign of a miss. The only reason I say that is to stop people from wasting time and charges trying to blow up peoples houses

nice job, Synn. I don't care to see your posts/reports before you submit them... i'm sure you're as capable of gathering information from the boards as I am, and you probably care more. Actually, I know you do since I don't want your job. Personally, I like your tactic of asking for something right off the bat that you know will be refused -- it allows the devs to feel powerful (people are more giving when they feel in control), shut you down on this (the least important thing) and then compromise by giving you the other requests that you really want.

I'm really surprised that any adult (who's ever had a job) would question your tactics and decision making, and actually expect you toget their approval before you do YOUR job. Actually, ____________, i'm sure that no adult has.

Keep up the good work!

As I stated to Nerfbath, I will post submissions prior to sending them in from now on, even though I think this will simply delay things due to impossibility of achieving agreement on needed changes. I can'tsubmit another report until we get some feedback on the first, however.

I've been asked by the DEVs what the number one issue is right now for commandos, so I did sticky a thread seeking input. I am following the thread closely and appreciate all the posts.

That being said, I would like to point a few things out to Nerfbath and others who've demanded that all submissions be posted and debated first. I only counted items on the first page, though everything will have to be tallied before submission.

FROM THE "WHAT IS OUR NUMBER ONE ISSUE" THREAD (page 1)

• Improve the HAR speed and accuracy


• Make HAR AP1


• Overhaul Commando completely


• Broken area of effect on grenades and weapons


• Change HAR Animations


• Change HAR specials


• Make Master Commando more wothwhile


• Fix HAR tree


• Replace HAR with heavy repeater


• Overhaul grenades


• Move LP specials into commando tree and away from pistol tree


• Improve charged weapons


• Merge flamethrower and HAR trees


• Create commando missions on terminals


• Add melee specials to commando


• Overhaul Field Tactics tree

Also note, that 1/3 to 1/2 of those who responded didn't give one issue, they listed multiple items. Again, this was from the first page alone.

My point? This is one issue and yet there are MANY different opinions. I appreciate all of the advice and ideas in the thread. Can you imagine, though, what would have happened had I posted 20 items for debate? I think this thread alone is proving that debate can be endless.

I intend to honor what I said to Nerfbath regarding posting submissions prior to mailing them off. Since I believe that this will spark a huge amount of debate with an extremely wide range of ideas, however, I'm going to need help in honoring my commitment. I need an official clerk/tally person in order to track the debate generated by soliciting input on these issues. Counting the votes on commando titles alone took several hours. So, who should assume this lofty position? I hereby nominate:

Nerbath

Yep, time to put your money where your posts are, Nerfbath. I would appreciate it if you could start by keeping a running total of the suggestions for our "Number One Issue". Please tally the input every couple of pages and post the ongoing tally in that thread.

I really do care about everyone's input and will be reading the thread regularly. On the other hand, we've gotten 92 responses in three days. I predict that number will be even larger when report submissions are posted,chaos ensues, and we can't agree on what to submit.

So, Nerfbath, are you willing to help make the process you've called for work? What say you to Commando Accountant?

I just wanna be able to run around with a pyromaniac or arsonist title

I think commando is definitely on the right track, i have played many many professions since launch, but none pulled me in and made me think "this is it!" like commando has. I look forward to more in the future. Thank you MasterSynn


~Iria - Corbantis
Commando - 3/1/4/4
Scout - 4/3/4/3

Its pasted Sept 24th why haven't they responed yet ?

I agree with everything posted, that would make commandos/master commando worth being..