|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
12
   |
Posted - 2015.09.30 07:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:
To Aeon Amadi:
You just so happen to be the guy holding the gun. These concerns aren't about you; they're about precedent. I hope you're able to understand.
Well, I would, but your very next post sort of betrays that lol. Like, it isn't even about the CPM, the shield threads, or anything necessarily wrong with them. It was my "history of being wrong", the fact that I posted the threads, and the fact that I had them closed down when it stopped being about shields and started being about my history of being wrong 
The concerns aren't about me it's the precedent that I know when the usefulness of a feedback thread has run it's course. Geeeeenerally when it stops talking about shields and starts talking about the history of the poster. I mean, couldn't possibly have been more derailed than if you put a buffalo on the tracks and started a picnic, lol. But no hard feelings.
EDIT: Which is hilarious, when you think about it, because the topic transitioning to me being wrong all the time (even in this thread) doesn't acknowledge that there are six other CPM representatives who collaborated their thoughts and signed off on the project. It's sort of insulting to them, really. I wouldn't even be bothered by it if it was solely my idea because I can take the criticism but when you deliberately fail to acknowledge the rest of the CPM... eh. Kinda rude =\
Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog
Skype: nomistrav
|
Aeon Amadi
12
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 07:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
To Aeon Amadi:
You just so happen to be the guy holding the gun. These concerns aren't about you; they're about precedent. I hope you're able to understand.
Well, I would, but your very next post sort of betrays that lol. Like, it isn't even about the CPM, the shield threads, or anything necessarily wrong with them. It was my "history of being wrong", the fact that I posted the threads, and the fact that I had them closed down when it stopped being about shields and started being about my history of being wrong The concerns aren't about me it's the precedent that I know when the usefulness of a feedback thread has run it's course. Geeeeenerally when it stops talking about shields and starts talking about the history of the poster. I mean, couldn't possibly have been more derailed than if you put a buffalo on the tracks and started a picnic, lol. But no hard feelings. Like I said, talk to Breakin. If I had super moderator powers, I would've removed his derailment rather than respond to it. But alas. Points in the OP pre-derailment remain. The threats and the time limits stand only to harm the feedback process between Community and CPM. I hope you reconsider their use.
Nah. The limited duration for feedback was a circumstance of a deadline that needed to be met that we were very, very keen on making. When the threads got derailed, we tried to bring them back on track. It was successful for a little while but they got derailed again so we called it and cut the cord.
It's at this point I'm going to direct your attention to this post specifically, because it applies to this situation far more than you realize: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6057444#post6057444
Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog
Skype: nomistrav
|
Aeon Amadi
12
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 07:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Here's the thing. We're providing you an opportunity to speak your mind about the material that is up for change - our projects that we are intent on fixing. We made rapid iterations on those projects (hence the two threads which saw massive changes based on what feedback we received despite all the chaos) and probably would have done a lot better job if the community had focused more on constructive feedback than the nuance of how it was illustrated, who posted it, etc.
So when we say, "What do you think of this?" and the responses are, "Well, let's take a look at who it's coming from, how long we're going to be talking about it, why we're talking about it, etc" - that doesn't help us at all. In fact it only serves to gridlock progression and changes because we have to go out of our way to try and get everyone back on track and talk about the things we need them to. We simply do not have the time to deal with it. So we can spend three to four pages talking about the extraneous things that have nothing to do with the proposal or feedback in question and simply not have the changes/feature passed (likely the reason shields were never iterated on through most of the last year), or we can focus and actually get some work done.
That decision is largely up to you guys but I'm just letting you know now that complaints over the duration with which we can/will receive feedback is part of that extraneous discussion. I'm not going to apologize for focusing on what we need to achieve progress and if the community wants to condemn me for not apologizing, fine by me, long as the work gets done and the ball gets rolling. I'll be the bad guy if it means we can get this game moving and that's probably why I was elected in the first place. We can either get a change to go through in a hotfix in several days, several weeks, or several months - that duration depends largely on the willingness to engage the discussions. Alternatively, we can do the Uprising thing and just never iterate at all.
Yes, the windows for feedback are limited. Yes, we're going to cut the cord if it starts to get derailed and loses focus. Yes, we do want your involvement, but with an emphasis on constructive feedback. Obviously I don't speak for the entire CPM but that's just the way things are probably going to be, honestly.
Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog
Skype: nomistrav
|
Aeon Amadi
12
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 18:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
Points in the OP pre-derailment remain. The threats and the time limits stand only to harm the feedback process between Community and CPM. I hope you reconsider their use.
Nah. The limited duration for feedback was a circumstance of a deadline that needed to be met that we were very, very keen on making. When the threads got derailed, we tried to bring them back on track. It was successful for a little while but they got derailed again so we called it and cut the cord. It's at this point I'm going to direct your attention to this post specifically, because it applies to this situation far more than you realize: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6057444#post6057444 Everyone can understand the need to meet a deadline. I'm not suggesting that CPM should not meet deadlines. I'm suggesting that CPM should not arbitrarily restrict and/or cut-off community feedback. In response to your second point, CCP Ytterbium is a senior game designer employed by CCP. He and his team very likely possess the special knowledge, training and expertise needed to get it right even if they opted "to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of". The same cannot and should not said for members of CPM (past, present or future). Game Designers are professionals hired to design games. CPM are end users elected to represent other end users. These are very different positions with widely divergent degrees of requisite expertise and accountability. Is it unreasonable to expect that one might not behave like the other? Would it be unreasonable to be alarmed if they did?
What you're suggesting implies that CCP didn't even read our proposal when we sent it; that the experts in question left the design solely to us without even glancing over it.
Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog
Skype: nomistrav
|
Aeon Amadi
12
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 20:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alright.
EDIT: At any point, was there any consideration that the first iteration of the Shield Stats (which is what this is largely about, let's not kid ourselves) was posted on 09-14... the second iteration was made on 09-18... and the hotfix was announced on 09-24..?
Bearing in mind of course that that is quite literally ten (10) days to get Step One, the foundation, of Shield balancing down - which we can absolutely iterate on later. Alternatively, we could have had the feedback go on for several weeks/months and not seen the changes until the next build, whenever they may be, all the while shields are not getting any better. Did we consider this before jumping immediately to "Bad precedent set by CPM2 feedback threads" or did we immediately assume the worst and attempt to go for the juggular?
As a reminder, there's a process here: a) We have to come up with a proposal. b) We have to go over it and make sure it's ready for public consumption and not going to start a riot. c) We have to initiate that proposal to the public and receive feedback on it. d) We have to make adjustments based on that feedback. e) We have to ship it off to CCP.
All of that in <10 days, mind you. I mean, I'm totally down for letting shields suffer a bit longer. Been what, a year or so since we've thrown a bone to them? What's another few weeks/months?
Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog
Skype: nomistrav
|
|
|
| |
|