|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Leither Yiltron
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
800
   |
Posted - 2013.12.04 22:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
A few weeks ago I grabbed the opportunity to play a pub match in squad with CCP's Logibro and FoxFour. Up front- that was great fun and great community interaction, 10/10 would listen to Aussie accent again. The other fantastic thing about Logibro's play-with-a-dev outings is that it shows CCPers getting real time experience of how the game's balance feels on the live server. In the past it seemed somewhat doubtful that the devs were getting enough hands-on time with the game judging by how long it took to push certain changes to terrible imbalances through (I'm looking at you dropship missiles).
While I was playing in that squad the topic of conversation happened to come around to forge gunners sitting on towers. This is the most pervasive tactic employed in PC matches second only to uplink spam. For those who have the good fortune of having avoided FG camping, it goes like this:
1. Fly forge gunners to top of tower with dropships
2. Forge gunners use vantage point to smite puny mortals with the wrath of Zeus
3. If enemy dropship tries to get onto the top of the tower, you're holding a forge gun
Imagine my dismay (though sadly there was little shock involved) when FoxFour said that he hadn't heard about this particular tactic. I'm not trying to call out Foxy- it's not even his job to balance things like that and True Grit have obviously worked their asses off pushing the Fac War changes as quickly as they have. What's more important here is that his response illustrates the front end of a back end trend from CCP:
(1) A contentious issue crops up in the competitive parts of the game
(2) CCP does nothing about it for months
(3) Changes are either enacted due to something wholly unrelated or else because the tactic finally leaks into public match play
(4) PC players are left with glaring issues for months and public matches eventually get dragged down the tubes as well
Remember, forge gunners camping on rooftops have been a staple of competitive play since May and it has taken until December to see any real changes to that dynamic. Remote explosives, dropship missiles, Caldari logis, the list goes on...
The issue isn't that these problems arose- they're bound to happen in a game as complex as Dust. The real issue here is that the high-octane environment of PC matches serves as a fantastic weather vane for identifying balance and performance issues that will affect the entire community. That feedback is getting either dismissed out of hand or lost where it could be extremely helpful.
I'm here to point out that everything is much more real when it's real. If you had seen these forge gunners yourself you wouldn't wait around for more than 6 months to fix them, trust me.
So here's the proposal: The last time CCP observed a handful of PC battles in-person performance issues that were affecting all parts of the game were identified and fixed in about 1 patch cycle. After that the observing deal went poof. It needs to become a routine part of CCP's feedback loop to observe battles in this way until a proper observer mode gets into Dust (Soon[tm] 2020).
And that's it. There are some suggested details for the implementation below, but the gist is done. History and plain common sense have shown that this method works, it works fast, and the game's better off for it. It's just one of a myriad of ways we can stop blatant issues from languishing in feedback hell.
TL;DR: Sometime's something's really broken, PC players identify it quickly, CCP don't do anything about it until it becomes an even more widespread issue. CCP need to observe some PC matches once in awhile.
Format:
- 15 v 15 or 16 v 16 matches as necessary to fit a dev character to observe
- We know that CCP can do the above since they did it in the beta tournament
Participant selection:
- Registration through an online form (help ticket style?)
- CCP selects pair of combatants as they see fit
- CPM used as sounding board to get good matchups
- Participants do not fight twice within some given amount of time (ie: once per month max)
Requirements:
- Current participation in PC (or recent participation) by district ownership
- Minimum membership numbers
- Majority of team fielded is from own corporation
- Willingness to lose ISK on the battle - the ISK cost is part of how these things get played
Frequency:
- Monthly if not bimonthly. Anything less the information flow just stinks.
PC Coordinator for RISE of LEGION
Have a pony
|
Leither Yiltron
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
808
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 23:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
Crazy Cat Lady wrote: Fixing PC lag is priority so we can actually compete properly.
I agree wholeheartedly. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1301431#post1301431 I need to bump that thread as a matter of fact.
These ideas go well together. I don't think it's possible that CCP could play a live test with the full lag experience and not want to adopt a baby seal to keep them sane while devoting the bulk of their attentions to fixing it.
PC Coordinator for RISE of LEGION
Have a pony
|
Leither Yiltron
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
822
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 03:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:One problem....
Actually inviting a dev into squad for the PC match will skew the results. The team who invites them will obviously be on best behavior (regardless of if they are the worst offenders any other time) and the other team could get wind of the dev presence (resulting in aforementioned best behavior) ultimately leading to no real progress on the matter.
Solution: CCP observes PC matches in the "Big Brother" (1984 style, not trash TV style) method, selecting matches at random or perhaps with the help of some anonymous snitches. No one would be aware of if they are being observed or not. Those paranoid about "Is CCP watching and going to nerf my 'I WIN' button?" may change their behavior with no real intervention on CCP's part. Those who don't care/realize they're being watched will go ahead with their "bad" behavior, giving CCP an unobstructed view of the "bad" or "gamebreaking" behavior.
Either way, problem solved. They basically tell people act like it's a real PC game, and IF BOTH TEAMS are competitive, nobody will be on a "best behavior" scene. It's up to CCP to select the competitive corps, not the semi casual ones that play like it's a pub.
That's actually why I suggested that CCP select the competitors with CPM oversight in the original post, rather than trying something more democratic.
It's about the science. http://goo.gl/N3TN4o
PC Coordinator for RISE of LEGION
Have a pony
|
|
|
| |
|