Ranger Archive

I am not arguing that good service shouldn't be expected. It should be, and in most cases it is the norm. But the fact is, good service doesn't always happen, and there is nothing you can do about it other than stop paying for crappy service.

Let's remember where my diatribe got started. I was refuting the 'we pay so we are entitled to it' school of thought.

Yeah Fodder,

Its seems more along the lines of:

SWG:

• Devs have their ideas about where the game should go and what should be done. They want to design a game


• SOE have different ideas about where the game should go and what should be done. They want a product to sell


• Lucas Arts have different ideas about where the game should go and what should be done. They want a product to sell

EQ2:

• Devs have their idea about where to game should go and what should be done. They want to design a game


• SOE support the dev team. They leave the game expertise to the devs and focus on promoting the game the devs design

Its that simple.

SWG = Game design decisions made by the marketing department (the devs have to sit back and do what they are told)

EQ2 = Game design decisions made by the game designers and then supported by marketing department (devs are in control)

Its a very easy charactistic to spot. Im a markerteer myself, for this year im a marketing manager for beers, wines and spirits in one of the leading UK Supermarket chains and i can tell you first hand marketing decisions do not at allget made to benefit the customer. Revenues andcost are the only things recognisable and everything else just revolves around those points.

Its clear that the devs hands are being forced by the marketeers and its a shame because they havntthe slightest idea or care for what is good for a game, just what is good forgetting $$

Very interesting opinion, Owen. I was going to mention that there are many more variables to consider when developing SWG; limitations that other devs don't have to contend with. You and Fodder brought them to light nicely.

These are the different issues that many/most other games or software for that matter don't have to deal with:

• An outside source of guidelines (Lucas Arts)that I wouldn't refer to as a partner, per se.


• Possibly the largest collection of 'canon,' of any franchise, that they have to adhere to as best they can.


• A huge, pre-established fan base that needs perfection (again, canon).


• ~40 unique professions that need to be balanced against each other. Plus, few games allow for support professions (it's all or nothing in a class based system).

These things certainly change how the devs can do their business.

---

SpecForceRanger wrote:

Tak..

I haven't seen anything in the forums saying the devs are doing a good job with Ranger.

However, I see 90% of people wanting to give them "positive" constructive feedback. And if your feedback doesn't fit into that mold, then we get this reverse logic treatment of how negativity only pushes the devs further away from us or that if we get attention it will only be negative nerf atttention. How much further away can we possibly push the devs??? They already give us ZERO attention.

Ok, examples of how they pay us zero attention...


Despite being outwith the scope of the CU, we got an increase to health AND CL that put us on par with other elite professions.

The original harvesting skill modifiers that were proposed were adjusted to benefit, but not overly so, rangers.

The trapping XP issue was addressed and fixed.

A malfunctioning trap was fixed. There was never any promise to do more, just a suggestion that one dev thought another dev might be looking at the issue.

The fact is, we do ALOT of idea sharing here. For 6 months I've seen basically alot of positive constructive feedback, good ideas, wishful thinking, and congenial threads. And in spite of the couple of positive points that have been noted in this thread, by in large we get 1) no feedback from the devs


Look at the dev tracker. It's not just the ranger board that dev's don't post on in anything like the volume they used to. Why? Because any dev post results in a flood of cut and pasted protest posts and 'why aren't you looking at MY issue' rants. A simple one line response to try and clarify an issue results in page after page of pollution which doesn't get read by the devs and just hacks off whichever community was flooded by the complainants.

2) no attention on every publish. Ok, so we aren't the only profession getting the screw job. That doesn't make it any more right.

I could have SWORN that I saw one of the correspondents hint to the fact that all the traps were going to be addressed in this publish. Including Adhesive Mesh. That did not happen.


GreenMarine mentioned in a post on the Scout boards that, he believed, Blixtev was looking at other trapping issues. This seems to be the point that's been built upon by some people as a promise of a trapping revamp.

GreenMarine wrote: Here

Trapping XP is broken and not working as intended. Success to hit with a trap is based on your trapping skill vs the level of the target. If you hit, XP is then (currently) granted based on your combat level vs the level of the target. This is in error. XP should be granted on a successful hit based on the level of the target, regardless of your combat level. This will be fixed in publish 20.

Problem acknowledged. Problem detailled. Fix promised for P20. We got the fix.


GreenMarine wrote>

- Blixtev fixed the bugged traps for pub 20, I believe.

Note he only says he believes the fix was going in. He only refers to bugged traps. We don't know what scope that statement covers. We assumed it mean 'all bugged traps'. It's not what he says.


There are no posts from Blixtev at all that address any trapping/trap issues.




I should have seen this $%!@ sandwich coming from a mile away. Oh wait, I did. I agree that P-Dart needed to be fixed. But, they needed to fix adhesive mesh with the same publish.

I support new Dell Computers for the Devs. Maybe they are working on old 486 DX 100s? hmmmm, that must be it.

---

---

Owen-Lars wrote:

Oppma Wrote:

"I would simply ask right now that Owen weigh in, and have he and Paks request a simple, informal, chat with a Dev. Any Dev. Just 15 minutes for our correspondents to say "Look, this is pretty simple if you just look at it." I would even be amenable to having the infamous 10 answers to 10 questions format brought back. Where is Thunderheart these days anyway?

I think it's time Paks and Owen go to their forum and ask them simply.."What more do we need to do for you to acknowledge our issues?" Because as far as we know....we have done it all"

---

Problem is man, this is what ive been asking for so so so long now ever since i first got the gig. Paks has asked for it, JB asked for it, Calc asked for it but simply put the devs dont want to do it. In an ideal world i would of sat down with the devs on day one and told them exactly what is wrong but this isnt an ideal world and in our world its not that the devs dont listen, its that they dont do anything about the issues because they dont deem them important. Its the same for so many systems in this game.

No matter how many reports i post, emails and pms i send, there wont be this special time with the devs. I wish we could sit down and just tell them the deal but it hasnt happened and chances are never will.

---

Owen I hope you don't think I was making a run at you there mate. I was actually trying to be calm and reasonable for once. Ask Calc it doesn't really look good on me at first so you may have to reread it. Nothing but respect for you sir. I appreciate all that you do for us.

---

Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Here's where I offend the Rangers that I haven't already. By paying to play, we are not ENTITLED to ANYTHING! How many games (or other software) do you own that has such a wide range of options and continual updates?

---

Microsoft Windows and MS Office, continual updates, automatically pushed supporting both hardware and software fixes usually monthly and they even got a very nice tech support bloke (or quine) to write a script when there was a problem with my version doing funny things with graphics.

City of Heroes is another MMORPG I play, 8 (maybe 9, more then i'm using anyway) characters per a server, devs that actually tell you what's happening and tech support that's uber helpful (i'd note now actually SWG tech support peebs also rock)

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold true.

Oh and additionally ++edit

>>It is not your right to get good service.<<

Here in the UK it is, we have the Sales of Goods act, which includes service so if you get bad service in a resturant you can complain and they are legally obliged to refund your money if it's proved they messed up.

Message Edited by Feefers on 07-20-2005 08:15 PM

---

Feefers wrote:

---

Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Here's where I offend the Rangers that I haven't already. By paying to play, we are not ENTITLED to ANYTHING! How many games (or other software) do you own that has such a wide range of options and continual updates?

---

Microsoft Windows and MS Office, continual updates, automatically pushed supporting both hardware and software fixes usually monthly and they even got a very nice tech support bloke (or quine) to write a script when there was a problem with my version doing funny things with graphics.

Fair enough, but that is on a little different scale, but true nonetheless.

City of Heroes is another MMORPG I play, 8 (maybe 9, more then i'm using anyway) characters per a server, devs that actually tell you what's happening and tech support that's uber helpful (i'd note now actually SWG tech support peebs also rock)

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold true. That is still debatable. That does not prove that you are entitled to service, CoH decided it was in their best interest to provide good service, HOWEVER, I would argue that CoH is not even close to the same size game/staff that SWG is.

Oh and additionally ++edit

>>It is not your right to get good service.<<

Here in the UK it is, we have the Sales of Goods act, which includes service so if you get bad service in a resturant you can complain and they are legally obliged to refund your money if it's proved they messed up.

Alas, this game is not owned by a company in the UK and that act does not apply.

Message Edited by Feefers on 07-20-2005 08:15 PM

---

Personally (having played coh for a while) i think that coh has probly the same amount of people running the development side and much more on the story side for a fact (because of the comic books and stories they are producing off the game) but swg for sure has more programmers.

The part about the uk laws i think he was just making the comment that good service should always be expect and if you dont get it, the company should turn around and make sure they give it. You only have to take a look at the big companies in the world (US, European or otherwise) they all take customer relations to the max investing millions and for some companies billions in customer service.

Microsoft is obviously a big customer service intensive company but you dont even to look that far, you can look at other areas of SOE. With the EQ2 game everything in their power seems to be focused on making the game more fun for their customers and they are investing an awefull lot of time in making sure their players are having fun. Now i will say that SWG does take into account 'some' views of the customers, its on a completely lower scale than it is on even most new age mmo game projects.

Essentially good service should always be expected and companies should always strive to put their customers first above all else. Companies that dont aim for good service and dont achieve it do not reach anywhere near their full potential and i think this summarises SWG as a whole. Some good concepts and lots of systems but it hasnt achieved even 10% of its potential and thats a shame. Heres looking to the future though

Owen,

As an active EQ2'er now i have to say I completly agree with what you said. The posts from the devs are even just fun to read sometimes as well. One patch fixed a bug because, and this is a quote from the patch notes "The death traps were sploiting". They just seem to have more fun over there working.

My guild/PA members and I discuss SWG vs EQ2 on a daily basis. And it really comes down to focus. With EQ2 they have a vision they are holding to. There is no canon to stick to outside of what took place in EQ1 and even though it can be manipulated. You have far less professions over there then here to deal with. So fixes are easier to implement.

Here in SWG we have the Lucas Arts gods to deal with. Nothing can be changed within the story without their overlying approval. Plus there never really was a vision for SWG. At first it was going to be a Role Playing Utopia. Which is why we have entertainers. And the devs told us this during beta that this was the plan. But it changed and never found its footing. And even now it still hasnt found what it wants to be. It has morphed into this BH vs Jedi simulator (heck thats been modified with Publish 20 hasnt it?). And damned the torpedoes they are going with that path. But this means the rest of us are just being ignored while they work out how to get rid of our/merge/make pointless the professions they no longer want.

Plus I think Calc had a point in an earlier post where he said that the powers that be are pushing for a vision for the game. And the devs have their own vision but they are doing what they are being told to do.

Maybe its a matter of management. Because the EQ2 devs seem to be having fun and enjoying their daily grind. Where the SWG team seem more tense and ready to explode.

No man dont worry mate, i posted just a genuine response. I honestly didnt mean to come across any other way, sorry you took it that way. Just saying thats been one of the most frustrating points about the development process, that there is so little communication, even from the devs there to represent the community.

What's all this about no Ranger love in Pub 20? What, did they remove all the Shaupauts from the game or something, and forget to tell Owen?