|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1337
   |
Posted - 2013.08.11 22:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
The first Council of Planetary Management would like to take a moment to acknowledge the reality that most in the community are already painfully aware of GÇô that now, more than ever, we stand at another turning point for Dust 514. With the release of 1.3 having just landed and the finishing touches being put on 1.4, everyone anxiously awaits evidence that either the game will start rising to the potential we've seen all along, or continue to struggle with some of the same issues that have frustrated many of us since early beta.
1.4 is the first "normal" monthly release since CCP restructured their development process following Uprising's troubled launch. This restructuring also comes in the wake of their acknowledgement that Dust is in a very unhealthy state and needs serious work in order to get back on track. No one can say that CCP hasn't realized that they need to step up their game in order for Dust 514 to stay competitive in today's market. Since Uprising, CCP has been making obvious changes in the right direction, and they've done a pretty fair job so far at revamping their internal goals in order to tackle the most pressing problems with the time they have available. That said, the fact remains that they're using both time and money to resolve avoidable issues that crept up over the past year, and have led to the current unhealthy state of core gameplay elements.
However, the most dangerous problems have not been fully recognized nor appreciated, despite constant calls for improvement from the community for almost two years. A lack of trust between the developers and the community continues to stand between Dust 514 and its full potential. A lack of communication also persists, and has at least been briefly acknowledged as 'something to improve on' multiple times by everyone we've approached in management. Sadly though, these acknowledgements come with only with the faintest hint of understanding pertaining to the severity of these problems.
The trust issue is not primarily reflected in communication frequency, although the two are directly related. Too many times across IRC, dev blogs, and forum posts, we've heard designers cite their own preferences when describing their work instead of acknowledging what they've been hearing from the community. And without enough trust that early player input is an essential part of examining a designed element for potential problems, CCP potentially risks that they'll have to revisit a system again later. We've often seen them ask for feedback much too late in the process, after a design is finished, and well past the time when a community-spotted problem could potentially be addressed and resolved before becoming an issue on the live servers.
This cycle of releasing content, receiving negative feedback, and revising in subsequent patches is both inefficient and carries a heavy cost in community goodwill. At the same time, we don't expect CCP's designers to adopt a "Customer is alway right" mindset either. The proper proverb to apply here should really be "Two heads are better than one". Instead, the failure to seek community input early in the process becomes harmful, making a vice out of a virtue. There have been cases when CCP requests that players trust their changes will be positive and not over-react prematurely.... the history of Dust has shown that requests for such trust are misplaced and undeserved in the eyes of the community, and it is too unhealthy to allow it to continue any longer.
The lack of structured communication, on the other hand, is an even easier issue to resolve....and yet we continue to receive strange and aggressive resistance to it despite many examples of success elsewhere within the company. When pressed for the reason we don't see consistent communication from the design teams throughout the development process, we hear responses along the lines that they are simply "too busy", or we're asked in return if we'd prefer to have fewer improvements to the game, accompanied by greater amounts of explanation. But we all know this is a false choice that we should never have to make, as greater amounts of communication can only lead to an improved product in the end.
The peer review process is a crucial stage of design of any kind. Without seeking input from others in the design field AND the end user, no product will ever be as good as it could be. The solution here is simple GÇô the public (or at the very least; The CPM) needs to be considered a peer, for the purposes of design review. We're not asking for designers to write extra material and take extra time, we're asking them to share the same proposals they have to pitch to their team internally, and asking for our input as well. This isn't a request for additional labor, it is a request for transparency.
While the resistance here may be that community discussion "slows the process down", it's a simple fact that any communication upfront necessary to bring a feature to a healthy place will displace many times its own weight down the road should a design need to be fixed because of a preventable problem. Efficiency demands that community engagement shouldn't seen as taking a designer away from his daily duties, but as an essential part of them. Small amounts of time spent communicating with the community each day can save CCP weeks, possibly months worth of work down the line. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1337
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 22:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
No one can deny that CCP is repeating work on game systems they've previously designed, released, and found problems with GÇô problems that in most cases were quickly identified and repeatedly brought up by the community throughout the beta period. There's also no denying that the need to rework any part of a product usually means that time and manpower was wasted initially. We're now seeing CCP fix many of these gameplay issues, but if they do not fix the core community engagement problems that allowed those issues to take root in the first place, we'll find ourselves back in the same unhealthy place time and time again.
This isn't to say there aren't a few shining examples of teams working to improve this situation. A few have stepped forward and taken full advantage of the feedback process, and have shown marked improvements in their area of the game. As a result, they become instantly beloved by the community. A few have worked with the CPM and taken feedback from our meetings to heart, coming back to us with massively improved results. However, we simply cannot afford to leave this up to individual efforts. Communication needs to be both standardized and endorsed by management as a "standard operating practice", and applied consistently across the entire development structure..
A proper, standardized communication platform should consist of the following minimum critical elements: Patch notes no later than a week in advance of a release, dev blogs for the major feature changes that require the most explanation, and stickied forum posts with follow-up participation from devs for upcoming feature changes that have yet to reach code freeze. The first two elements of this communication platform have begun to fall in place, but the third is sorely lacking, and it continues to create an unnecessary backlog for designers and unnecessary toxicity for the community teams to manage. Players consistently find stickied forum posts insulting if they're posted up after the time has passed when anything can be changed before a release, as if their opinions are being asked for only as a token gesture.
Balancing passes deserve special consideration here, because we've consistently heard that balance work is not tied to a code freeze, theoretically being something they could iterate much more rapidly on than other systems. Unfortunately, we've also seen resistance to using this powerful tool. Either way, there is enormous potential here being squandered. If CCP can indeed make more subtle balance adjustments on a week-to-week basis, until they hit a "sweet spot", then this should be done.
If for whatever reason this isn't viable (and they choose instead to include all balance work in a monthly 1.X release) than the same standard should be applied for other feature changes GÇô proposed balancing work (including all affected stats) need to be posted and discussed prior to code freeze. This is the communication standard that CCP has set for itself elsewhere in the company, and the standard that the community expects out of Shanghai as well, especially where balance is concerned. CCP can draw upon their own experience with Eve Online to examine the incredible progress that can be achieved with proper communication and community involvement when making balance adjustments.
In the end, we're all in this together. CCP has at its disposal hundreds, if not thousands of players who are able, willing, and ready to do whatever it takes to help improve Dust 514, asking no more from CCP than a chance to participate. The deep levels of interaction between player and developer have been one of the keys to the success of Eve Online that has earned CCP the devout following they have gathered over the past decade. This success is something CCP needs strive to emulate with Dust 514 to foster that same strong relationship with their customers, encouraging them to keep playing and spending money for years to come.
In the meantime, there is no sense in sugarcoating either the fact that the community's patience is at an end, and the attitude problems that have created the current situation remain unchanged. We request, again, that someone in management step up and take public responsibility for ensuring consistent communication moving forward GÇô for the health of the game, and the health of the community. Swift action is necessary in order to successfully convince the community that their participation is still necessary and relevant to Dust 514's future.
At the time of this writing, a very loose commitment has been given to better involve the CPM more closely in planning stages, but we want to impress upon CCP the severity of the larger communication problems and trust issues at hand. Without substance or detail, a simple pledge to communicate more often is frankly not good enough to dissipate our fears and concerns. As a council, we cannot afford to sit idle without hearing concrete plans to for improvement. We are told that there are meetings in the works to form such plans,and we look forward to hearing from CCP regarding this and working with them to create a solid foundation moving forward.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
The members of the Council of Planetary Management |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1407
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 00:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
mollerz wrote:
And that is a couple of examples in a long list. I heard CPM plays on closed servers with CCP? If this is true, is this where you play test future builds?
Oh man, you have no idea how much we wish this were true.
The mere existence of a test server would almost certainly have prevented so, so many issues. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1464
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 01:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vrain Matari wrote:
The fact that the CPM has released a statement like this indicates to me that despite recent restructuring and personnel changes, an unhealthy culture abides. In Reyk or in Shanghai I do not know.
But CCP, you have to find the source of that culture and find a way to change it into something a whole lot more efficacious and a whole lot wiser than what we have now. It's a difficult situation and a big ask, but if DUST is to become the catalyst for bringing New Eden to life, it needs to be done. And swiftly, methinks.
There is a pretty apparent culture difference.
However, I don't think this is the real source of the problem, and the absolute worst thing CCP could do is turn this into a witchhunt. It's not just one person or group of people causing this, the communication gap is a roadblock that exists in the process itself, that needs to be removed at all costs. This is not about placing blame or trying to find fault in any person or team. That doesn't matter. The last thing we want CCP to take from something like this is that there is anyone in the company causing this, who would just become a scapegoat, get fired, and have CCP think they 'solved' the problem.
Now more than ever, CCP needs all of their employees to be at their best. They need to work together with each other and with the community, and any assumption that anyone needs to be blamed or is at fault for this will just take away from any cohesion they might otherwise form as a result of this effort.
TL:DR - This is not a people problem. This is a "Operating Procedure" problem.
|
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1479
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 02:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:
A decent sentiment, but, honestly, CPM0 should have only one responsibility - preparing the infrastructure for CPM1.
You weren't elected, and therefore aren't representative of the players. You're illegitimate, and should have no more rights than any other player - aside from laying the groundwork for a legitimate, representative body.
You guys shouldn't even have the CPM tag on the forums.
A fair enough point.
This is part of the reason we call ourselves CPM0, and not CPM1. But, ask yourself this ; Isn't the core part of the infrastructure, the process by which the CPM interacts with CCP? Establishing a voting process right now would be entirely meaningless, because CPM1 would just have to trudge through all same the roadblocks we're trying to clear for them. There has been progress, albeit slow in regards to setting up procedures that allow us to communicate, but many of these processes are not being used by CCP as well as they could be, which is yet another roadblock.
That being said... any player could say exactly what we have collectively drafted as a group and posted in the OP. Most of it is observations that any outside observer could make. It's simply a statement of how things are, since the information chain & feedback process is the integral function of the CPM institution, and people need to know where it stands. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1536
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 05:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
So, some good(ish) news to report, following up to this.
Prior to even posting this, we poked CCP PR. We wanted them to know we were going to post something that was going to end up being pretty grim, and why we were posting it. Following this courtesy call, emails were sent out and we were contacted by several of the higher-ups, asking what was up to hear it for themselves. We were told this stuff was being added to the agenda of meetings with the higher-ups this week, and that they'd get back to us in a meeting shortly after.
This was pretty much expected, but we're not so much posting this to turn heads at CCP or to make it seem like we're trying to bully them into a response, so much as to acknowledge to the public "This is how things are right now". Our hope is that in the following week(s), we can hopefully have something much more positive to report. We want to keep the players in the loop as much as possible with what we're doing and how it's going.
Now, on to the positive stuff!
After posting this, I had a nice, lengthy talk with CCP Cmdr Wang. We talked about this statement, why we were making it, what our goals were with it, and the conversation progressed into something massively productive, beyond anything I could have hoped. He explained clearly and concisely CCP's internal design process and terminology and planning structures. We talked about the devblog process and how they determine what information is getting out and what precisely the 'hoops' are in order for a blog to land in the communities' lap. We talked about dev & blue posts, and any rules regarding those that apply to information getting out.
We also discussed the hotfix process & how the weekly reports from the community team play into those, and how those fixes are prioritized. We expanded our conversation into marketing, and while I can't get too much into what we talked about here, it was good info and super helpful.
In summary :
CCP Cmdr Wang gave us a MASSIVE amount of insight into many of CCP's processes that we have grievances with, and explained the proper terms to use to best ensure we 'click' with the devs and can communicate with them as efficiently as possible using language and methods that would best allow us to make the impact we're attempting to do. Now, in the meeting later this week with the higher-ups, we'll be completely armed to take best advantage of this opportunity and do the most good. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1540
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 06:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
SoTah Pawp wrote:
Until you guys actually share what the exact details are the community is in the same boat while the CPM takes a step forward. Unless this info is being publicized - nothing is changing.
Until we've used this new information to prepare a solid game plan around the resolution of these issues and brought it forward, there's not much we can share. Like said in the above post : We intend to keep players in the loop as much as possible, but we still need to operate within the NDA.
Even if we can't share the specifics of these processes (Most of which we'll be trying to change to better involve the community as a whole anyways, which we'll push to have the revised ones put out) I can assure you that what Cmdr Wang has given us ensures that we're much, much better equipped to drive positive change, because knowing is half the battle!
Seriously. One of the best, most productive conversations we've had from CCP to date.
|
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1617
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
DJINN Jecture wrote:
It seems kind of easy to me to just mirror the TQ servery in its entirely so that the Dust environment is captured and brought over to the test server. As a solution to the multiple client issues and connecting to the correct server, perhaps its time to rework the launcher to have a CONNECT TO TEST SERVER//CONNECT TO TQ option for people wanting to check out the latest updates to the game that will be released. Considering the launcher already downloads updates automatically, we could play on TQ, get annoyed, switch to the TEST server within minutes/an hour and expect to see what is being considered to fix our frustration. CCP has already proven that they can have us connecting to the test server all through the Closed Beta phase, now it is time to apply that considerable knowledge and make-it-work!
The biggest thing here is that in order to do a test server, the only real way to do it is to stick a second client on the PSN store.
There's naturally a ton of hoops involved in setting this up in the first place, and with the QA/Approval processes, it'd be super tricky to get something on the test server in time to make it pay off from player feedback before a live release of that content. Especially now since they're trying to stick with a monthly schedule. (These are all outside observations, ofc)
I mean, the ability to have a dual-client using the launcher like you suggest is intrigueing. I have no idea if that's even on the table, but I'd imagine it'd pretty much be the same thing as maintaining a second client on PSN, in terms of hoops with sony, since they still need to do internal and sony QA processes for anything getting pushed to the client. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1661
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 06:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
Don't worry too much about a public response just yet.
Later this week when we've had our meeting with the leadership team to talk about this stuff, we (but ideally they) should likely have some news to report about progress moving forward.
Edit:
I don't expect we'll be able to hash out everything and 'fix all the problems' in the chain with one meeting. But armed with the knowledge of the process Cmdr Wang gave us following this statement... I'm pretty confident that we can make a serious dent and get CCP to commit to some broader goals, and we can work out the specifics over the next little while through follow-up meetings. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1750
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 02:51:00 -
[10] - Quote
An update : We're going to be having this meeting with "Upper management" about this in a few hours.
At the end of which, we're going to immediately seek permission to share with the public what ground we've covered, and hopefully have some really good stuff to post here as a result.
It make take a few hours to get something written up as we go back through our meeting notes, so don't expect a super prompt update following, but there will be an update to follow ASAP.
|
|
|
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1766
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 09:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
Okay.
Update #4 :
We have had our meeting. CCP and the CPM hashed our our general feels and talked about the process moving forward. A rough charter for the CPM is being drawn up, which will be a document that details the goals & process by which we interact with CCP in their release planning.
We have no serious goals or commitments from CCP to post at this time, as we need to follow up after the charter is drawn up.... but this meeting was a pretty huge deal. It took /years/ for the CSM to be involved in release planning. For CCP to be willing to involve the CPM in this after merely months, is a /huge/ step. The key thing here is... finding a gentle groove to make this work. This is something we'll be working with CCP on in the future.
So.. The foundation for good news is set. We'll see what the future brings, if things keep looking up.
|
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1778
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 17:45:00 -
[12] - Quote
Aqil Aegivan wrote:
Do you have clear commitments from CCP about what types of interaction between them and the CPM should be in the charter? Not asking for details but if you came away with literally no commitments from CCP then I couldn't care less about this news, the charter, or the CPM's recent efforts.
We have settled on a general direction of where we want to go, and what they want to use us for. The clear, concrete stuff will come when the charter is done, and we have another meeting(s) following that regarding this to discussion the application of the charter in reality.
We're suffering no delusions that this is going to be quick and easy. It's going to be rough for a little while, as everyone settles in and we try to find the best way to make this work. It's hard to find a place to stick the CPM and CCP in as much as both parties would like, simply because of the rapid development cycle. They pretty much have like two weeks of work, a week of polish, then like a week of QA, then launch. For as long as they're doing these monthly releases, taking devs away for bi-weekly meetings like the CSM has, isn't as helpful or productive.
So, they've been laying the process out for us and like I said above... We're going to try to settle on the best stages in the design process to include the CPM, and the best stages to involve the community. The big thing here is that everyone agreed that feedback needs to be accounted for earlier, before something is unable to be changed if a glaring problem is spotted. We recognize though... that sometimes there simply isn't time to rework something in cases like that.
When I said "We have no serious goals or commitments to post from CCP at this time", that should not be read as if this meeting didn't help. It was more to acknowledge that the CPM understands that there's no way this stuff is going to be hashed out in a single hour long meeting. It's going to take work, and it's not going to be perfect at first. The first public stuff we'll be able to post and let you guys know "This is how things between CCP and the CPM will be moving forward" will be once the charter is drawn up. |
|
|
| |
|