20 replies to this topic

[Belorion]

In light of the recent change based on what the public wanted, and them then collectively changing their mind, lets come up with a way to not waste PGI's time implementing things just to have them ripped back out again.

As a project manager I can tell you the worst is then you get requirements that take up a lot of development time, only to have the stakeholders change their mind and rip everything you just did back out again. It wastes time and money and makes the developers cranky.

Perhaps PGI can preemptively re-hash the plan after a poll and poll again. The earlier in the development cycle that you can QA an item the easier it is to change direction. So with the recent fiasco it would have gone something like this.

Would you be willing to give up assurance of your game mode for shorter wait times and closer elo matching? Yes or No...

The answer was yes. So then a plan is made. Then the next poll.

You the people voted to relax mode assurance for shorter queue times. We want to do this by giving you voting options where you will be weighted to what you want to drop in, but this means that if you select only skirmish that means you may end up dropping in conquest.... is this really what you want? Yes or No?

If they vote is close, even if positive don't make the change. Perhaps implement a 2/3rds majority rule situation.

I certainly don't mind spending money on MWO. I like the job PGI is doing. I don't want them wasting the money I gave them on having to reverse changes that the public says they want.

a critical eye should be cast on all changes the community asks for. Change ECM? It should be overwhelming vote for change. etc etc.

[Jazzbandit1313]

If they made the right decision in the first place to not work on it, there would be no money lost. this may be a special case because it was a 50/50 vote for the feature (pretty much) but still.

[Shalune]

Their mistake is making major design decisions based off popular opinion. I have a lot of qualms with PGI, but there's a reason they're professional game designers and we aren't. Interaction with the community and gathering feedback are crucial, but ultimately I wish they had more faith in themselves.

[terrycloth]

I think the disconnect here was that 'no assurance of your game mode' turned into 'your choice has basically no effect since it's randomly combined with 24 others with no attempt whatsoever to match people with similar preferences together'.

People were probably imagining it as a release valve that would only go off if no Conquest group could be found after some period of time.

[Appogee]

Shalune, on 08 October 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

...there's a reason they're professional game designers...

Wait... you're saying they're professional game designers...?!

terrycloth, on 08 October 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

I think the disconnect here was that 'no assurance of your game mode' turned into 'your choice has basically no effect since it's randomly combined with 24 others with no attempt whatsoever to match people with similar preferences together'. People were probably imagining it as a release valve that would only go off if no Conquest group could be found after some period of time.

Bingo, we have a winner.

Edited by Appogee, 08 October 2014 - 12:45 PM.

[Foxfire]

Another issue is that the poll was open for a short time and only captured a small cross section of the population. If they are going to use polling to help guide them, then they need to use an in client polling scheme to maximize the exposure of such important questions.

[Belorion]

terrycloth, on 08 October 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

I think the disconnect here was that 'no assurance of your game mode' turned into 'your choice has basically no effect since it's randomly combined with 24 others with no attempt whatsoever to match people with similar preferences together'.

People were probably imagining it as a release valve that would only go off if no Conquest group could be found after some period of time.

Symantec difference. It is what they said it would be... people just didn't really think about what that meant.

Exactly the same thing would happen if them implement hard size limitations. There would be a storm on the forums most likely from many of the proponents about how their favorite build is no longer possible.

Edited by Belorion, 08 October 2014 - 12:53 PM.

[Odins Fist]

Belorion, on 08 October 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

"Let's Not Waste Pgi's Development $$"

2+ years into development..

Who is wasting what again..??

[Belorion]

Foxfire, on 08 October 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

Another issue is that the poll was open for a short time and only captured a small cross section of the population. If they are going to use polling to help guide them, then they need to use an in client polling scheme to maximize the exposure of such important questions.

That's all it will ever cross. People don't typically respond to polls.

[Elizander]

If there was any lesson learned here (and most people already know this) is that the community is quite wishy-washy as a whole due to varying opinions.

[Belorion]

Elizander, on 08 October 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

If there was any lesson learned here (and most people already know this) is that the community is quite wishy-washy as a whole due to varying opinions.

So here it would behoove PGI to follow the 2/3rds rule of thumb to make sure a super majority wants the change.

[Foxfire]

Belorion, on 08 October 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

That's all it will ever cross. People don't typically respond to polls.

You get a much better exposure for the poll. Honestly, forums such as these typically only garner a small section of the population until something seriously wrong occurs. You will likely never get a 100% participation but you are more likely to get a higher participation due to greater exposure.

[Belorion]

Foxfire, on 08 October 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

You get a much better exposure for the poll. Honestly, forums such as these typically only garner a small section of the population until something seriously wrong occurs. You will likely never get a 100% participation but you are more likely to get a higher participation due to greater exposure.

Typically polls are a difficult point with development. Forcing polls... no good, but optional polls get a much lower turn out.

[Tezcatli]

For every person that agrees or doesn't mind PGI's decisions. There's hundreds of manchildren that will rip them a new one because they didn't get their way. And accuse them of this and that. And talk about how they're founders and deserve to have their opinions not only listened to, but followed to the mark.

I think it's great what they've been doing. But letting the community decide on specific things is just too much. Especially if they're putting work into it. It shouldn't be reverted less then a week of the change. Let them blow up on the forums and fling their feces. It happens. It's an online pvp game. It should have stayed in longer to see if the screams settle and it's an effective change to begin with.

[Davers]

Maybe they can use parts of what they did, but hide it on the backend so players can't see it?

[Asmudius Heng]

PGI just need to have better ways of communicating with the vast majority of players IN GAME and getting large amoutn of data from everyone and then using the forums as a way to discuss. Right now they dont have enough market research systems to help them understand thier players.

They need to be able to get feedback from players and make thier own decisions based on financial and game design goals.

They have never been good at taking community feedback, this is a step forward and they are learning about it because they admit they just found a live ongoing game that requires community engagement and feedback was a major problem for them.

This recent thing is just a storm in a teacup.

They should indeed not waste time on things that would not work - but they also did not know just how well reducing the 'buckets' would help to create more balanced games. They tried it, and it didnt have a massive impact along with people not wanting to have to play modes they dont want and reverted it.

Experiment successful in they found an outcome and can now look into the issue from other angles.

[Belorion]

I think it did have a big impact, but the player base didn't appreciate the impact it made. When their anecdotal situation doesn't align with what the overall numbers reflect they assume it simply isn't working when that could be the furthest from the truth.

[Lord de Seis]

Russ stated that they are working for a in game voting system in the town halls if I remember correctly, perhaps this will prioritize it's implementation.

My question is with how Transverse went is PGI now so concerned about making any potential mistake that they won't stick to a game decision unless 70% of the community is behind it? I predict that might be difficult.

I would love for Russ to respond to that one.

Edited by Lord de Seis, 08 October 2014 - 08:30 PM.

[Raj]

I've been busy this last month or so what with getting a new job and moving so I haven't been checking on the forums and certainly didn't see these polls unfortunately.

I really do appreciate pgi trying to improve their game experience but this change is a killer for me. I only play conquest and absolutely hate assault. I find assault matches turn into tedious stalemates that favor mech builds I don't utilize. If I'm forced to use that mode I'll just stop playing.

Same with all fps games I play. I don't do tdm.

To answer the OP though...should they have made this change and should those changes be made by community pole? I think gamer communities aren't good at deciding on the minutia of game development. Polls may be useful as a general popularity contest to see what content will make people happy if prioritized but I think fundamental game play decisions have to rest with the developers.

If the devs thought this was a genuine good idea that will benefit the majority of players than that's fine and they should own that decision. I won't begrudge them that, though I won't be playing.

Edited by Raj, 08 October 2014 - 08:56 PM.

[White Bear 84]

Belorion, on 08 October 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

lets come up with a way to not waste PGI's time implementing things just to have them ripped back out again.

As a project manager I can tell you the worst is then you get requirements that take up a lot of development time, only to have the stakeholders change their mind and rip everything you just did back out again. It wastes time and money and makes the developers cranky.

Amen to this.