Ranger Archive
Thread: No more Why do the Devs ignore us threads...
Calculus_Entropy
Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:25 pm
#14
The forums are not here to **edit** about how the devs hate us. Never, anywhere, didI condone how BH and Jedi behave. This thread is not about BH or Jedi, it is about Rangers.
Squidwalker wrote:
OK not that I don't blame you, and not that those posts get annoying after time.
But you just went and threw in the stuff about going against forum guidelines. There is nothing in those kinds of posts that is against forum guidelines. And if there was, then how come the jedi and the BH forums, to name 2, are full of hate, whines, complaints and blatant flames against the devs? The devs have stated in the past they will never reply to a post that is just flaming them. Yet, jedi get months of attention, and BH get attention(good or bad they got it) and all they did is whine and complain.
Phenix1050
Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:52 pm
#15
Can I still make snide remarks to people who ask about AFK camp macros or how to grind through our proffession?
DarthDominus
Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:51 pm
#17
The DEVs clearly do not ignore us ...to ignore would imply therewas initially aninterest, but that it is put aside. In my time as a Master Ranger, I've seen only nerfs and changes which diminished our minimal worth as a profession.
I reserve my right to complain in a mature fashion.
Owen-Lars
Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:49 am
#18
Nice Calc
/agree
Its still ok to post new ideas aimed at the devs though right?
KellenNW
Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:56 am
#19
Green fields? What planet are you on? All I see are harvestors!! 
I think Squidwalkers' post summarised how a lot of people are feeling very well. I don't condone flaming the Devs, in fact it annoys me to see so many threads doing so (especially in the Chimaera forums - we've had terrible lag issues for over a month and every third thread is flaming the Devs for this), but he has a valid point - we're a nice bunch of people and its not got us anywhere yet. 
I won't flame the Devs, but I would like some in depth response and acknowledgement from time to time. That's the problem with online games, you feel isolated from the people on the other end of the connection. Rangers tend to like isolation, but after a while it drives you mad.
How about a 'tactical nagging' thread? Can we start one of those?
VeriBeri
Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:01 am
#20
Calc, I have to (respectfully) disagree with you on this. Here are my reasons:
1. Curtailing of free expression of ideas, even when self imposed, cause more problems than occasional emotional or childish outburst. Here the point is not that those kind of comments are useless (they are), but efforts to stifle those comments would cause harm. As we all know, in real life, the issue has been settled long ago in favor of the free speech. Let's not take a step backwards here.
2. Those comments shouldn't really detract anyone from enjoying the prof as it is, because they can just choose to ignore them.
3. As for the best way to bring improvements about, lets put ourselves in the shoes of the SWG manegers: they have to allocate limited resources in order of (commercial) benefit to SOE and Lucas. With limited numbers and no obvious demographic potential, Rangers (and ex-Rangers) need to be courteous but active promoters of improvements for their profession. Insistently commenting on the _need_ for improvements is the first step on this road, and you know how all the journeys start.
4. After the first step, what kinds of arguments are most likely to work in our favor? They need to make commercial sense, some examples:
"ranger prof is an important part of most role playing games, we need a functional ranger prof in SWG to lure more people from XXX"
"with wilderness and hunting as one of the main components of the gameplay, we need an enjoyable ranger prof to get the best return from our investment in related art assets and code"
"a well crafted ranger profession would be a nice complement to combat and certain crafting profs, both in pve and GCW contexts"
I am sure others can think additional, better arguments.
I believe that after the JTL expansion, the resources will be even more limited as they will need to maintain two completely seperate game systems. Therefore, either campaigning for more development resources (more overall dev budget from SOE, ideal solution for everyone but hopeless) or getting more of the available resources allocated to ranger prof is necessary to get anything at all.
I apologize in advance for any offence or annoyance by comments my cause.*bow*
1. Curtailing of free expression of ideas, even when self imposed, cause more problems than occasional emotional or childish outburst. Here the point is not that those kind of comments are useless (they are), but efforts to stifle those comments would cause harm. As we all know, in real life, the issue has been settled long ago in favor of the free speech. Let's not take a step backwards here.
2. Those comments shouldn't really detract anyone from enjoying the prof as it is, because they can just choose to ignore them.
3. As for the best way to bring improvements about, lets put ourselves in the shoes of the SWG manegers: they have to allocate limited resources in order of (commercial) benefit to SOE and Lucas. With limited numbers and no obvious demographic potential, Rangers (and ex-Rangers) need to be courteous but active promoters of improvements for their profession. Insistently commenting on the _need_ for improvements is the first step on this road, and you know how all the journeys start.
4. After the first step, what kinds of arguments are most likely to work in our favor? They need to make commercial sense, some examples:
"ranger prof is an important part of most role playing games, we need a functional ranger prof in SWG to lure more people from XXX"
"with wilderness and hunting as one of the main components of the gameplay, we need an enjoyable ranger prof to get the best return from our investment in related art assets and code"
"a well crafted ranger profession would be a nice complement to combat and certain crafting profs, both in pve and GCW contexts"
I am sure others can think additional, better arguments.
I believe that after the JTL expansion, the resources will be even more limited as they will need to maintain two completely seperate game systems. Therefore, either campaigning for more development resources (more overall dev budget from SOE, ideal solution for everyone but hopeless) or getting more of the available resources allocated to ranger prof is necessary to get anything at all.
I apologize in advance for any offence or annoyance by comments my cause.*bow*
DND_Cas
Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:02 am
#21
we're a nice bunch of people and its not got us anywhere yet
Nor will it - at least until the core game is fixed.
poser00002
Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:31 am
#22
On a side note falmes can be a good thing. It shows how people really feel about things. I know i have seen on the gcw board alot of flames just out right bitching. THis has to do with the way things the devs do things. Yes it might not help as in right away but if enough people **edit** about something, it is more likely to get fixed or changed. Jedi is one thing that was for the most part bitched about untill crons went in. Then that got alot of hate so they changed it. BH, commando both had flames to nerf change and they got changed, bh a few times. If the devs dont see how people really feel they just think everything is fine and dont give it two thoughts.
With ranger i think we should be pushing it on the devs more to look at us and fix us or get us on a time table to fix us. We have been broke for a year and might be a year befor we get fixed if we just seat and wait and do nothing. We lose more rangers every week and that will not help to get us fixed. at some point if we dont get a fix ranger will just die and get no love ever. They will say there are not enough rangers even there so when spend the time to fix a feild with such a short amount of people.
Ranger board is one of the best boards for being so nice but that might be hurting us in the long run. Smuggler, bh, jedi, cm, doc, id, ent field all have gotting love as they are all over the field and not so nice on there boards and they get fixes faster. Just a small note.
Sorry if it is a little off just woke up lol
Vorpaks
Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:36 am
#23
I agree with Calc on this one. Frankly I rather wait a year for changes then have our board resemble the BH or (shudder) the Jedi board. The BH board actually has Garvas rules and regulations STICKIED. That is a big yellow caution sign for me - you do not want to go there.
The only time I ever click on the flame posts is when I am in a grumpy mood and want to yell at someone lol. Ya, I know. Not helping.
Otherwise I just ignore them. I wish there was a button I could press to make them dissapear for my screen so there is more room for the interesting/informational posts.
The only time I ever click on the flame posts is when I am in a grumpy mood and want to yell at someone lol. Ya, I know. Not helping.
Otherwise I just ignore them. I wish there was a button I could press to make them dissapear for my screen so there is more room for the interesting/informational posts.
Fodder650
Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:46 am
#24
Im sorry but thats why we are here in this situation. So many people doing petitions and flames that the only way things got done was from the people yelling loudest. That means those of us who want change. But dont scream and speak l33t are ignored. Just because it works doesnt mean its the way it should be
Un4tun8
Tue Jul 13, 2004 7:10 am
#25
Well, the first of this these questions does sound childish and does not seem to belong here. But...
The whole purpose of these forums is for players to communicate to developers!
Communication from developers to players occurs through in-game and SOE web site announcements.
Communication between players occurs on many other forums (allakhazam, swgcraft, swgcreatures, etc.) and Usenet.
So why does this particular forum exist if not for developers to get feedback from players? And to get that feedback they should read the forum. And to directfuture interactionthey should express their opinion on previous feedback. That's how communication works.
Questions 2 and 3 are fully legitimate (not that I ever asked any of them).
Calculus_Entropy
Tue Jul 13, 2004 7:38 am
#26
For the record, I never said anyone couldn't rant/flame/etc. I stated that "THE DEVS HATE US" (and other phrases) were not productive, and would be requested to be deleted.
You guys can talk about whatever you want. Bring on the new ideas, bring on the flames (but don't expect everyone to be all fuzzy towards you if you do bring the flames). I am not trying to censor anyone, there is just one type of thread that has no hope of ever doing good, and that thread includes any of the 3 questions I mentioned before.