Vrain Matari
ZionTCD
715
   |
Posted - 2013.08.22 02:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
This thread has developed into something awful. Can anything of value can possibly be salvaged from it?
I think so.
There are multiple important topics here. So many that to address them all in one post would be a mistake.
So let's get to the heart of it: Cmd. Wang's response, quoted below.
CCP Cmdr Wang wrote:BARDAS wrote:What are these patch notes that people speak of? Do you by chance mean the arcane scribble that magically appears 24 hours before a change takes place thus preventing any meaningful feedback from the community which could potentially prevent problems before they occur? If so yeah I may have heard about those once a while back. Its a shame we don't see them sooner for the aforementioned reason. How are you going to give us meaningful feedback before you even try the changes? Or is your brain so awesome that you can look into the future? And while we are on the subject of feedback, guys, a few one liners and a catch word here and there really doesn't help. If you really care about improving the game, then please structure your feedback in a way that will: 1. List specific issues and the circumstance when it happened. We then put these in a weekly report and discuss them with the dev team on ways to address this. 2. Provide insight on why you think this is happening, if you can. Translation, explain as best as you can on how to reproduce the error/bug you encountered. The patch notes are there to let players know what changes are coming so they can plan their gameplay accordingly, not so that people can theory craft before hand on how things will work before they actually try it.
In what follows, nothing is personal, just my best effort at a bullshit-free contribution.
I suspect many players, like myself, found this statment deeply disheartening. Why should we? Let's break it down a bit.
The middle chunk first. Points 1 & 2 are eminently reasonable, but they do not address BARDAS' concern. BARDAS is asking for community input and vetting, nixing or redesign of patch contents in the early stages of the design process for each patch. Wang is responding with standard bug reporting instructions appropriate only after the patch is live. There's a disconnect here, BARDAS and Wang are having two different conversations. Why?
The final sentence shows a confusion in the way we're all using 'patch notes'. BARDAS isn't really asking for patch notes, so Wang's misunderstanding is fair enough. BARDAS is asking for the(wildly guessing at terminology here, if you willfully misinterpret me i will kick your ass, readers) pre-sprint design documents. The documents where dev teams decide what to work on and what, specifically they're going to do with each item that is planned for the release of that patch. BARDAS feels that the players could make a valuable contribution at this stage.
The opening paragraph of Cmd. Wang's reply is where the most valuable information is. Again it looks like a pre-patch input vs. post-patch feedback mismatch. And Wang's implication that behaviours emerge from additions and changes that none of us cold predict is true, as far as it goes. Here's the crux of it though: is this a misunderstanding based on two peeps using the same word in different ways, or is this an obtuse refusal by CCP Shanghai to even condider what the community is trying to offer?
It's hard to tell. CCP staff are no doubt stressed and working hard, the office is facing pressure on several fronts. What's disheatening is the fear that Wang's take on BARDAS' request is part of the 'cultural' attitude at the office, based on development practices and other practicalities, and that player input earlier in the product cycle is seen as awkward, inconvenient, resource-consuming and of questionable value.
Whether that's true is difficult to discern from CCP's actions. If CCP feels that players contributions to DUST are valuble primarily as feedback after the fact, they should come out and state that. It would be less destructive to the game than the double whammy of silence and mixed messages we're dealing with now.
Such a statement would be unwelcome to many, but once all parties concerned knew where they stood and what their role was relations would improve. People respect clear honest communication. |