6 replies to this topic

[Rebas Kradd]

After seeing the plethora of alternative suggestions for...well, just about everything, I'm realizing that the community really has no GUIDELINES for submitting suggestions about things. Things get thrown out there, often very well-explained and well-submitted, but none of them ever get answered, much less implemented. And later on, we'll be listening to Town Halls and get a sense that there are specific design principles or developmental considerations that are causing you to reject our ideas, and we don't know what those considerations are.

Can you give us some set of GUIDELINES that viable alternatives for in-game systems have to follow?


For example, my guess for the criteria that Ghost Heat alternatives would need to meet. A viable GH alternative cannot:

* Rework the engine's underlying systems;

* Prohibit builds or cramp open customization;

* Remove the ability to effectively target components of a mech;

* Revamp the balance landscape of all weapons and force the entire community to relearn the game;

* Create imbalance between classes

* Be impenetrable to new players


Is that an accurate summing up of the problems with Ghost Heat alternatives? I'm perfectly open to having things added or removed, of course; this was just my own ideas combined with some things from PGI's mouth. It would just be nice to be able to theorycraft with an awareness of the obstacles involved.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 03 October 2014 - 04:14 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Shameless bump

Noooo mods please don't delete

[Nathan Foxbane]

Would be nice to have.

[DocBach]

Rebas Kradd, on 03 October 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

After seeing the plethora of alternative suggestions for...well, just about everything, I'm realizing that the community really has no GUIDELINES for submitting suggestions about things. Things get thrown out there, often very well-explained and well-submitted, but none of them ever get answered, much less implemented. And later on, we'll be listening to Town Halls and get a sense that there are specific design principles or developmental considerations that are causing you to reject our ideas, and we don't know what those considerations are.

Can you give us some set of GUIDELINES that viable alternatives for in-game systems have to follow?


For example, my guess for the criteria that Ghost Heat alternatives would need to meet. A viable GH alternative cannot:

* Rework the engine's underlying systems;

* Prohibit builds or cramp open customization;

* Remove the ability to effectively target components of a mech;

* Revamp the balance landscape of all weapons and force the entire community to relearn the game;

* Create imbalance between classes

* Be impenetrable to new players


Is that an accurate summing up of the problems with Ghost Heat alternatives? I'm perfectly open to having things added or removed, of course; this was just my own ideas combined with some things from PGI's mouth. It would just be nice to be able to theorycraft with an awareness of the obstacles involved.

With your proposed restrictions, nothing but the status quo could be recommended, because any other change would be too large to fit your guidelines.

[Colby Boucher]

This needs to happen. Would be much better than waiting for Russ to give a crappy explanation as to why x system wouldn't work.

[Eddrick]

Agreed. Some kind of standard should be made.

[Rebas Kradd]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

With your proposed restrictions, nothing but the status quo could be recommended, because any other change would be too large to fit your guidelines.

Well...honestly, mate...that might be exactly why PGI hasn't budged.

I just wish we knew what they were thinking. I've seen enough veiled reference to their design cornerstones that I can make educated guesses as to what they are. But we don't know.