Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Congratulations to Squad Leaders!!!
Unfortunately, when the Devs finally get around to acting on sorely needed problems,very much like the CU,they come up with with the wrong solutions. Yes there are some good changes, but the change to allow non-group leaders to use SL abilities is a posion pill. The profession is better off as is, even as borked as it is, rather than turning it into a Bard or Paladin. Personally, I think they would be better off removing the profession all together, rather than going forward with the proposed changes.
jphillips1868 wrote:
Unfortunately, when the Devs finally get around to acting on sorely needed problems,very much like the CU,they come up with with the wrong solutions. Yes there are some good changes, but the change to allow non-group leaders to use SL abilities is a posion pill. The profession is better off as is, even as borked as it is, rather than turning it into a Bard or Paladin. Personally, I think they would be better off removing the profession all together, rather than going forward with the proposed changes.
Have a question?
Don't Paladins normally just give off an "Aura of Holyness Bull Crap", ie some innate ability that the Paladin's group benifits from?
I can see why you are angry at the Leadershipchanges but face facts,your a paladin profession now. The only diffrence with the revamp is that more people want your Paladin skills and it will be exploited to all hell with multiple SL's in the group.
PyscoJuggalo wrote:
it will be exploited to all hell with multiple SL's in the group.
you'd think the people that designed the game could see that.
You see, in most software-related companies, they have a default procedure for an FMEA (failure mode effect analysis). Depending on company policy, this is either required only on mayor changes, or also required on any small change they make on the software.
This process just means, people sit together, speak about possible effects of the change, about risks for the ongoing operation, possible conflicts with operation plans, etc. They write down the issues they see and evaluate them in severity, probability of occurance, chance of detection and sometimes some more parameters. After that, they know they have checked the issue and have some insight what has to be changed and where are risks which can be taked and fixed in the future, in case something goes wrong.
This method, of course, is not absolutely save, there always is the risk that you forget the one-in-a-million risk of a failure and exactly that will strike you down. But you can massively reduce risks and optimize before implementing something.
Unfortunately the new SL concept gives me the impression that it was designed by some marketing person who never before heard of this (or any similar) process and also doesn't care for it. At least that's what i assume, because would they have done so and still come up with the currently presented concept, this would give some bad testament on their ability to think in terms of their customer base (especially the power gamer faction) and wouldn't give them an a-grade in terms of clever foresight.
Anyways, i don't mind so much, we're here for that, we're thinking over the problem and brining up what we think to be problematic. We even deliver a variety of concepts and suggestions on how to resolve the issues in a way which both are able to balance the game and should be comparatively easy to implement. The painful part is that latest statements (and general experience when comparing bug-reports from recently released publishes with the bug-reports of TC before those publishes were released) indicate that our oppinion is not really taken into account before the things went live and turn out to be a catastrophy.
Message Edited by Sylow on 09-11-2005 03:07 AM