Development Cycle Archive
Thread: Community Relations Follow-up
Helstrum,
Helstrum wrote:
Ok, lets take a look at two examples.
[snip]
I'm not gonna quote the entire post (those that want can scroll up and read it).
Suffice to say..................................quality. That is very likely the type of feedback that will be good for Cal to get.
From what I've seen so far, it is my personal belief that the results of the CURB will more similar to the example of the DE revamp(s) than to your other example.
By that, I mean that it will work out great even though it seems that players didn't get to necessarily hear every little detail about it in advance.
/bow
Respectfully,
You have had the communication that we have not had.
Their communication could be better to the general public.
Bleh to that. Read up a couple posts. Too much pomp and too little perspective. If that's inside information and perspective, I'm not impressed, and I'm not buying it.
Helstrum wrote:
But again, please note that you do have inside information on this, and thus have more faith in these changes then those of us outside the fence have.
Message Edited by BleuDestiny on 01-18-2005 02:23 PM
/bow
BleuDestiny wrote:
TheRealTK421 wrote:
Is that what you expect (honestly)?
There's a big difference between involving the community in providing feedback to design objectives and potential solutions, and what has been the case to date, which is a bunch of unfocused barfing of ideas and problems on the forums.
Err...who are you saying has been doing the 'unfocused barfing'? Players or Devs?
Cause often-times I see it as the former and not the latter.
That lack of focus has been a direct result of a lack of focus and a lack of leadership by the dev team. They have not solicited our focused feedback about specific and alternative solutions. This is easily done.
In a way, they don't necessarily need to....they get feedback aplenty through the categorized forums alone.
You do know that, right?
One way that its done in marketing fundamentals it to conduct focus groups, by getting some randomly selected volunteers to be a sounding board to their ideas before they go into coding.
"Selected volunteers" == Correspondents
Based on what you're telling me, the FRS system and negative XP, as examples of undesired outcomes, and many other crazy design examples, were a direct result of community input. LOL, that is not the case.
Negative XP. My opinion? Try harder not to die. Death has to sting and besomething to be avoided.
Is there a better way to have done it? Maybe. I'm sure they looked at alternatives and decided that negative XP was the best outcome given the time they could devote to such changes. /shrug
The same is sort of true with the FRS. I'm not really the best to comment on that, since I don't have a Jedi toon and don't have any plans too. Personally, I think it was a mistake to ever include Jedi as a playable profession at all.
P.S. I see some have suggested that you're taking a snobbish approach to this, frankly I'm more concerned by the lack of perspective. You honestly mean to say that we'd not be better off by some community input into developing the solutions, while they're being developed, in a reasonable, focused manner being led by the dev team?
I'm saying that such focused input is happening...but perhaps you're not aware of it or just choose not to see it. /shrug
I know that I see a ton of "community input" being brought by Correspondents all the time.
You can't honestly believe that? And if you do, there's no point in arguing with that kind of perceptive ability.
I don't argue. I give opinions. Take from it what you will.
Respectfully,
TheRealTK421 wrote:
/bow
BleuDestiny wrote:
TheRealTK421 wrote:
Is that what you expect (honestly)?
There's a big difference between involving the community in providing feedback to design objectives and potential solutions, and what has been the case to date, which is a bunch of unfocused barfing of ideas and problems on the forums.
Err...who are you saying has been doing the 'unfocused barfing'? Players or Devs?
Cause often-times I see it as the former and not the latter.
Of course its the former, because they have nothing to focus on. Devs aren't coming to the community for feedback saying, here's some ideas we're considering, and some high level design objectives, help us with some feedback, what do you think of this approach??? (Think FRS if it had been presented in advance of being coded - it would never have seen the light of day.)
That lack of focus has been a direct result of a lack of focus and a lack of leadership by the dev team. They have not solicited our focused feedback about specific and alternative solutions. This is easily done.
In a way, they don't necessarily need to....they get feedback aplenty through the categorized forums alone.
You do know that, right? (Dont be a condescending fob, especially when your points are misguided)
They get unfocused barfing of ideas and cries for relief, because their ivory tower solutions, to solve prior problems in the first place, come up short at best.
One way that its done in marketing fundamentals it to conduct focus groups, by getting some randomly selected volunteers to be a sounding board to their ideas before they go into coding.
"Selected volunteers" == Correspondents
Cant have a focus group when the focused ideas have not been presented for input and evaluation,back to the first point. Absent that focus, ie. ideas for people to reply to and give input to, all the correspondents do is run herd on the unfocused complaints and barfing of unfocused ideas; ideas which, absent some kind of design leadership to help community members rally around and form thoughts around, are really a waste of community members' time and disrespectful to the process and their valued contribution (or what should be valued contribution.) And you're telling me that they ran their ideas past the correspondents too? LOL... LOL... so the correspondents are the ones that gave the thumbs up to FRS? HEHE LOL
Based on what you're telling me, the FRS system and negative XP, as examples of undesired outcomes, and many other crazy design examples, were a direct result of community input. LOL, that is not the case.
Negative XP. My opinion? Try harder not to die. Death has to sting and besomething to be avoided.
Is there a better way to have done it? Maybe. I'm sure they looked at alternatives and decided that negative XP was the best outcome given the time they could devote to such changes. /shrug
The same is sort of true with the FRS. I'm not really the best to comment on that, since I don't have a Jedi toon and don't have any plans too. Personally, I think it was a mistake to ever include Jedi as a playable profession at all.
P.S. I see some have suggested that you're taking a snobbish approach to this, frankly I'm more concerned by the lack of perspective. You honestly mean to say that we'd not be better off by some community input into developing the solutions, while they're being developed, in a reasonable, focused manner being led by the dev team?
I'm saying that such focused input is happening...but perhaps you're not aware of it or just choose not to see it. /shrug
I know that I see a ton of "community input" being brought by Correspondents all the time.
You can't honestly believe that? And if you do, there's no point in arguing with that kind of perceptive ability.
I don't argue. I give opinions. Take from it what you will.
Not taking much. LOL. The opinions are lacking perspective on the quality of results thus far in the product lifecycle, and perspective about the value that the community input could have had and still could have around sound ideas if they were presented in a focused mannerto solicit feedback. FRS would never have hit the pavement if the community had had input. But it did not until it was too late to change. That's just one loud example, but a fundamental example.
Respectfully,
Thanks for the laughs. LOL
Message Edited by BleuDestiny on 01-18-2005 03:17 PM
TheRealTK421 wrote:
Negative XP. My opinion? Try harder not to die. Death has to sting and besomething to be avoided.
Sorry, this is really idiotic. The idea of a game is to be FUN. Not to make youy do repetitive boring actions until you quit out of sheer boredom.
Is there a better way to have done it? Maybe.YES, no maybes about it. I'm sure they looked at alternatives and decided that negative XP was the best outcome given the time they could devote to such changes. /shrug
Yes they took their way out instead of listening to the other myriad suggestions/feedback made by teh community. And thats really what these posts are all about. A complete lack of apparent customer care on their part.
The same is sort of true with the FRS. I'm not really the best to comment on that, since I don't have a Jedi toon and don't have any plans too. Personally, I think it was a mistake to ever include Jedi as a playable profession at all.
I always laugh at the players that say this. A star wars game without jedi is not star wars. Like it or not, the chance to get a jedi and play one is the only reason many players bothered with this game and stuck through all the "features" of this lackluster product.
P.S. I see some have suggested that you're taking a snobbish approach to this, frankly I'm more concerned by the lack of perspective. You honestly mean to say that we'd not be better off by some community input into developing the solutions, while they're being developed, in a reasonable, focused manner being led by the dev team?
I'm saying that such focused input is happening...but perhaps you're not aware of it or just choose not to see it. /shrug
I know that I see a ton of "community input" being brought by Correspondents all the time.
Yes, and from what I hear, they too are generally COMPLETELY ignored. Just like the rest of teh player base GENERALLY is. Anyone that has had anything to do with this game, and is rationale, could NOT entertain any other conclusions.
aradz wrote:
Calandryll_SOE wrote:
aradz wrote:
Calandryll_SOE wrote:
Heh. Well we are working on a CU overview update to get things started and serve as a basis for the upcoming Developer Chat and future CU updates. That's in addition to the FF.
The developer chat is scheduled for Wednesday, January 19, 2005 at 7PM CDT. That's 1 Day, 14 Hours, 38 Minutes from this post. I would really like to be able to read this and digest it before the chat happens, so I can ask meaningful questions, rather than stuff that's already been answered.
Please, let us know when this is up.
That's the plan!
Currently at 1 Day, 3 Hours, 30 Minutes.
It's posted.
Ok, you came off a little snobbish in your reply. That's out of character for you. Remember, you're not the only pre-launch and live vet around.
Now, back to the actual point...
I would agree with you more if there was more of a proven history of change and implimtation of said changes. Also, part of the credability problem comes from promises of information. Not actual information releases, but promises of information that never comes. As an example the big Combat Balance doc that was going to happen after the corr summit. Yes, I know that things changed after that and they changed direction on the revamp. SOME things have been promised with no conditions attatched to that promise and then fallen thru.
The main promise that has fallen thru that flustrates many of us is a promise of action. Plans have come, plans have gone, plans have been brought back...
Changes in those plans bother people a lot less if they see progress being made.
If I understand correctly, your position is that the devs should be quiet until have have progress to show.
My position is that I would still like to recieve information from the devs so I have a measuring stick of their progress.
Nononsense wrote:
When Blizzard pushes back the release of a game like Starcraft: Ghost due to programming difficulties, I understand it's difficult to be a programmer.
When SOE pushes out a product too early like SWG, bills me every month, then says be patient we have programming difficulties, I don't give a flying fcuk on a rolling donut about the difficulties of being a programmer.
Do you see the difference? As long as I pay, and problems encountered are SOE's, not mine, and I will NOT cut them slack for it. Especially not after two years.
QFE...or when blizzard has a server problem and gives its customers free play time. See the difference? Anyone that can read the post of TH posts and not get torqued off at the terrible track record of this company...we are talking about a FUNDAMENTAL game system - combat -here that is completely up in the air 1.5 years AFTER release. That is beyond the pale...totally inexcusable.