It's a very well written idea, but I honestly don't feel it would work as well as the OP suggested, nor do I feel its necessary. Dev communication is for the the most part, very good over all. We'd all like a constant flow of new information, but the fact of the matter is, it takes longer to design and implement changes than it takes to explain or discuss them. The devs let us know what's in the works for the most part as far as "almost certainly going to happen". They simply can't discuss pipe dreams or things that could easily fail to work as intended, simply because we're FAR too good at taking what they say as a definitive promise.
Honestly, I don't think there's a problem of not being heard. We voice a lot of complaints and suggestions, and we get a lot of responses. We don't get a response to everything, and we don't get everything we want, but that's expected given the rabid nature of fans. Heck, _Castle_ even bothered to bounce Defiance ideas when he needed to wrap his head around the problem. That's a pretty phenomenal level of communication. You just can't expect the devs to respond to every single suggestion or complaint.
Well written suggestion, I just don't see that there's a real problem to worry about.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see it working here exponentially better than it did in SWG. Wouldn't you agree to that?
[/ QUOTE ]
Efficiency is a big part of how useful any feedback mechanism is. I'm really not certain that many AT issues get missed by our dev team, so I think my point is, that an added layer of administration just bogs things down.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this response raises even more questions for me. I'm also not sure you answered the question that you quoted. If I missed it, I appologize. But again, for the sake of curiosity, do you see that system, if implemented here, working better than it did when it was used/abused by SOE?
With regards to administration leading to inefficiency, that's an age old argument against or for bureaucracy. However, I'm not advocating another layer of adminstration, I am suggesting a formal system for organization and advocacy. I'm not sure what administration would need be created other than possibly adding some more workload to Ex Libris's position, though admittedly, it would also reduce her workload in other areas. Only she, or those responsible for overall involvement/coordination could make a determination if it was worth it I think.
Again, it's just a suggestion. In fact, since nothing is permanent, they could simply decide to try it out, and if it didn't bring enough positives, it could be done away with. No one would be fired, so in essence, if nothing is ventured, then nothing is gained.
It would be worth a shot at least, and I think that the goal in this case, a better game play experience for me and you, is worth that.
For my $14.95 a month, it's worth it at least.
[ QUOTE ]
I've already run into line of communication issues between what gets reported to NCSoft and how that info makes it back to Cryptic (or not) and what gets reported directly to Cryptic via these forums. I'm not certain an added layer of player volunteers would be that helpful in straightening those things out.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it would be helpful. You'd be eliminating (or seeking to do so through reduction) a large middle-man, namely NCSoft customer service. Obviously, people will still petition in game, but you would see less posts in the technical issues and bug threads about common known issues with regards to particular ATs or power-sets. I think streamlining the communication process further will only speed things up in the long run, thereby making it more efficient in the long term, despite any organizational woes or start-up hitches.
[ QUOTE ]
I think if the core issue you're trying to solve is filtering out the signal to noise ratio of the forums, a more efficient way to do it by educating the playerbase.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is one of the goals yes. Educating the player base may be more efficient, but my friend, you're implying that such is possible, or even probable. It's been my experience that 'teaching' the playerbase is as tenuous as a razor's edge. More efficient, yes. But a pipe dream.
As a prime example, Arcanaville, myself, Dark_Master, and others have attempted to educate those on the Brute and Scrapper forums that Dark Armor is probably the best secondary for survivability. No matter how much effort we put into educating, perception remains reality. Humbly, and with all due respect, this suggestion may not be the most efficient solution, but of the two, it is far more realistic a proposition in my mind.
[ QUOTE ]
Official threads tend to do the same thing. That's not to say they don't wander afield at times, but they do get a generally better grade of response than the day to day forums.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I think creating a top issues thread in every Archetype forums would do more help than harm. It would probably give people in the Brute forums an outlet to say "Fury in PvP still does not function as advertised". Instead, every month we have a new thread with 10 pages of responses.
Getting rid of those types of, while meaningful and important, redundant type of discussion couldn't be all that bad.
[ QUOTE ]
And then of course there are the dedicated problem solvers in our community. People like BillZ, Arcanaville, and many many others, who are already de facto filling the role you're trying to formalize.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not entirely. My motivation, or at least 'why' I am advocating this suggestion and in fact made it in the first place, is to ensure that people like those you named not only are able to continue to discuss their problem solving with the playerbase, but could also, should they so incline themselves, have a more direct line of communication, and a formalized communication, both to the devs, and from the devs.
But as Arcanaville will easily admit, she cannot be in the Brute, Scrapper, and Blaster forums all the time. Her particular area of interest is in defense and the mechanics of it, at least from what I have seen. I am just advocating that in order to better ensure that no AT gets overshadowed or forgotten, that having dedicated 'spokespersons' or at least organizers within their own forums cannot be necessarily a bad thing.
At least, I think it could help more than hurt. It's worth a shot at least, and unless I or someone else can come up with a bonafide objection that has consequences outweighing those benefits, I think the pros outweight the cons.
[ QUOTE ]
I just want anyone who is willing to to step up and do the good work and make the statements, without worrying about turf wars and formalities, and precedence. Right now, anyone can. With formalized correspondents, that's not guaranteed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll have to disagree with the first part of your statement. I think right now there is a lack of posting from anyone or everyone who wants to do it because there already are turf wars, precedence, and formalities. Have you read the thread: "Defense: and Termination Regression" in the Brute forums?
Thats an excellent case of precedence and turf wars if there ever was one.
So, if the current system does not prevent that, then I doubt it would be enhanced by the inclusion of a Correspondent, quite the opposite in fact.
The forums can be an 'unforgiving' and 'new user unfriendly' place sometimes, especially to those who are lurkers or don't often post. Sometimes, they are vehemently shouted down and out by other posters using the information from the more helpful ones you named above. Information can be used to help, or to hammer.
I need not even go into the non-functionality of the 'search' function on the boards. It's hardly user friendly and almost requires its own research to use above mere functionality.
Not all questions or concerns in all posts are addressed on their merits either. My suggestion will not change that of course. Some are in fact redundant, some are not, but are often similar enough to others that they become so. My suggestion would improve that though, at least I feel that it would.
Also, if I haven't expressed it by now, thank you for your comments and your concerns. It is an interesting discussion, and hopefully something positive will come of it, regardless of anything else.
[ QUOTE ]
My only fault with it is there's a bit too much "rose-colored glass" between the OP's account and my memories of the day to day workings of the correspondent program. That's not just my old disappointments in the game of the dev team talking, I paid close attention to it across the boards, because for a while I wanted to be a Correspondent. I saw it accomplished very little other than add a layer of smoke and mirrors at the expense of overall player morale.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, speaking on belhalf of a two-year correspondent (reference Felton Kel, board name: SeaRaptor), I guess your observations from the outside aren't exactly the same as those from the inside as an actual former correspondent.
True?
Again, let's not get sidetracked on the merit of a suggestion based on a parallel of it not being as successful as it could have been in a galaxy far, far away.
My perceptions were different from yours. Duly noted. Now, lets move beyond that and discuss the relavence of the suggestion here, in the only area where it needs to concern itself with.
[ QUOTE ]
I think this response raises even more questions for me. I'm also not sure you answered the question that you quoted. If I missed it, I appologize. But again, for the sake of curiosity, do you see that system, if implemented here, working better than it did when it was used/abused by SOE?
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't state the answer directly, but no. I see them both ending up being equally ineffective, for different reasons.
SOE misused it. Cryptic probably already gets all it needs and more by dint of being active and involved with an active and involved playerbase. I see the Correspondents as slowing down the process, not smoothing it out.
As it is now, the devs ask us about what they want to know about. That cuts down on unreasonable expectations and frustrations. Having an institutionalized correspondent system tends to imply their reports have a priority for upcoming changes (no matter how often you state otherwise that there's no promises implied). Like EvilGeko said, many of the things we bring up, are going to end up with the same sort of response, which is a big picture response.
Correspondents by their very nature are good at ferreting out minutae, and the game is at a stage where, apart from persistent bugs, the minutae wouldn't net significant improvements for the amount of work. To me that means setting the Corrs up to fail, and I don't want to see that.
Do I think there are ways the forums could be organized to be more helpful for Devs and players alike? Of course I do. I devote more of my time than anyone will know to that. I'm just basing my response to this on my own assessment of the way the communication channels are running, and I see it blocking or slowing the flow more than I see it smoothing it.
You're right, it is an interesting discussion, that's why I called it to Lighthouse and Ex Libris' attention after my first reply. You and I may not agree, but that doesn't mean their understanding about the communication flow at higher levels may not see this as something that would be useful.
My pride isn't on the line. I am willing to be wrong. However I see the entire process as working better when it's less formal, given the thinness of the barriers between dev and player that we've worked so hard to achieve.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
[ QUOTE ]
I see the Correspondents as slowing down the process, not smoothing it out.
[/ QUOTE ]
~ Infinity Heroes ~
Dark Voltage - 50 NRG/NRG/EM Blaster
Shure Shot - 50 Arch/NRG/MM Blaster
Silent Shadow Blade - 50 Katana/SR/BM Scrapper
Uphir - 50 Fire/Fire/Fire Blaster
AT representatives, yes.
Having it be a player, no.
The very real power and responsibility of filtering information from the playerbase to the developers, and being the spokesperson from the developers to the players, should not fall to anyone not on the company payroll.
THanks for clarifying that for me, and I do see your point.
I even concede it's very credible. I find myself wanting to agree with you, and in a way, I already have numerous times in the thread, that the system as I've suggested is in no way necessary.
Especially not as it may have been neccessary with regards to the former game we were both a part of.
However, despite that, I think it 'could' help, hence my suggestion. And with that, I'm willing to let my points speak for themselves.
It is exactly as you said. It's for the folks within the Community Relations department to decide if they would benefit from such a arangement.
I'll keep answering questions for those that want or call for clarification, but I think I'll rest my case with the following:
If there are no objections, besides the disagreement to whether it is implicitly needed or not, I think it would be a good thing to at least give a chance to work.
The other problem I have with this idea, is that this is what they pay Lighthouse and Ex Libris for. Seriously, I don't see why they couldn't perform this role. It seems to me that having two full time staffers working on community would be enough to get information to the community and in a manner that the powers that be want.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
The other problem I have with this idea, is that this is what they pay Lighthouse and Ex Libris for. Seriously, I don't see why they couldn't perform this role. It seems to me that having two full time staffers working on community would be enough to get information to the community and in a manner that the powers that be want.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree it falls under the scope of their jobs, I will say that 100% of their duties is not the forums. They have other things they do, so I can see there being some value in making sure the good info they need is making it out of the forums and to them. I see correspondents as less bringing the tablets down from the mountain, as representing what we want to the devs. But even then I see it as more bureaucracy than this community needs, hence the source of most of my objections.
As for Deus' point about giving it a try and seeing if it helps, I will say that any effort to improve relations and communications requires an expenditure of what a politician would call political capital. An attempt and failure can hurt things much worse than never attempting it. There's been a lot of forum changes in the last several months, with the Scoop, PvPEC, PERC, and some other discussions that have been happening in different areas. Part of me doesn't want to spread the efforts too thin, or change too many things too quickly, so that the things that have a legitimate shot at working, get that fair shot. Every project has a certain amount of overhead, and the only people that can decide if there's room for more would be the Community Reps, but that is a legitmate concern. Anything we do should be a solid effort with a reasonable plan for success.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
[ QUOTE ]
I must admit I have never cared to have one player set in a position of even modest authority over other players, or given the role of intermediary/filter/gatekeeper who decides what is and is not presented to the vendor.
[/ QUOTE ]
/signed. twice. in big bold scratch-n-sniff letters. with glitter.
Agreed. It's clearly stated, and well thought out. My only fault with it is there's a bit too much "rose-colored glass" between the OP's account and my memories of the day to day workings of the correspondent program. That's not just my old disappointments in the game of the dev team talking, I paid close attention to it across the boards, because for a while I wanted to be a Correspondent. I saw it accomplished very little other than add a layer of smoke and mirrors at the expense of overall player morale.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill