Kiran Yagami, on 14 March 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:
Fine, if you want to talk in only extremes then I will too. Had the skill tree gone live, it would have killed the game completely, everyone would have left and it would have been dead. That's true until proven otherwise.
Is that what folks want?
...do you
honestly believe they're working on a new, better implementation for it?
What makes you think they're going to put any more effort into "re-evaluating" the skill tree than they did into Information Warfare or Energy draw? This is the exact same pattern they've followed for two major game updates now.
Evidence points to the Skill Tree being another failed initiative. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Ghostrider0067, on 14 March 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:
...
How can that be done? How should they go about it? I don't have a definitive answer but am cautiously optimistic they'll figure something out. If that means leaving the PTS open longer, so be it (admittedly I haven't partake in it - so sue me). If it means they do more testing in their side, that's cool. I agree with you in that they need to do something progressive rather than the troublingly regressive path they keep taking.
The PTS is honestly not useful past the first day or two of its release, outside scrimmage teams.
Nobody is on it, matches can take over an hour to fill out if you're not private matching with buddies past the initial 'rush' of twenty or thirty folks getting on and playing.
What needs to happen is much more rapid communication between developers and players, and not just on Twitter or Reddit or all those other goddamn places nobody goes. Here. Ideally there should be daily back and forth between development staff taking a half-hour or so out of their day to give an update on current testing trends, information they've gathered, things they'd like to see if players can check out, their goals for those experiments, and just how the system is progressing in general. And by daily I mean
daily. There should be a stickied 'Daily Report' thread in the PTS forum where a new post goes up
every frickin' day going over the current build, responding to common threads of criticism against it (i.e. the pricing/economy issue for the Skill Tree) and detailing possible plans the PGI team is kicking around to solve them.
Things like Solahma's presentation need to be addressed directly, frankly, and respectfully. Yes, people will still push for those even if Piranha states why they're not currently considering it, but if PGI makes those statements, then Solahma et al. can make adjustments to their proposal in turn.
Even if there aren't new daily builds to update and try on the PTS, we should be getting news on which direction Piranha is thinking of going before they go there. That way they waste less development time on boondoggles and the game shapes up much more quickly and efficiently. Yeah, it means the devs can't Fortress up and ignore the idiots. Here's a solution - ban unproductive twats from posting in the PTS subforum. Make it a special permission privilege that can, and will be, revoked if it's abused. In that way the folks with actual concerns can get their words in edgewise and hopefully make a difference - and yes, I know that means I woulda been tossed from ST PTS 2.0 over the frickin' engine thing. That's my bad and I'll live with the consequences of it.
Also, Russ needs to stop talking altogether. The guy means well, but
damn is he rotten at public speaking...@_@
MischiefSC, on 14 March 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:
I wanted Info Warfare, I wasn't playing when Energy Draw was a thing and I do want a skill tree revamp. I'm also hopeful that PHI won't just abandon it like they did the others. The primary concern however is that in the past when PGI released big changes with a promise of "aggressive rebalancing/updates/fixing" it was left broke as **** for a couple of years. They burned all the trust and goodwill the comminity had over yhe Clans release and the litany of broken promises that was the FW release.
Yes, we want these changes. We just want to see, up front, what the good working version will be because PGI has repeatedly demonstrated that releasing half done features to "fix later" is not something they actually fix later.
They've also repeatedly demonstrated that "pulled for evaluation" means "all right fine, no update for you". I believe I've come down on the side of wanting my updates, even if they're broken and weird.
Aggressive rebalancing is a lie. 'Pulled for evaluation' is
also a lie. Which lie is more palatable? For me, 'aggressive rebalancing' is the more palatable lie, because I'll still be happy (or at least happier) if FutureTech goes through, is wildly skewed, and requires Aggressive Rebalancing to fix. G'head, gimme the Wild West of the Clan Invasion release again. it'll be fun!
But if FutureTech gets 'pulled for evaluation', I might just flip the hell out and shiptoast my way into a permanent forum ban.
I'm not sure I can put up with any more 'pulled for evaluation', and I'd like people to realize that P4E is as much a dirty filthy fib as 'Aggressive Rebalancing' is.