Asheras wrote on Sep 20^th, 2020 at 6:58pm:


Really because software design and architecture is the exact opposite in my experience. The customer (or if its inhouse, then your boss) lays out requirements they want the system to meet. Whether you are doing AGILE or older waterfall based design philosophies, you still have pretty rigid core system requirements.

And if you are doing AGILE, the whole point is to iterate on customer feedback. You get an early prototype to test and showcase to customers, so that they can help you give them the product that they ultimately want.

With waterfall and older design philosophies, you build out the design for subsystems with a rigid system architecture and before any development whatsoever starts, you get approval from the customer. You do this so they can know how you are meeting the requirements, what they can expect from you, and ultimately give input on things that may not have made the list of requirements but they decide need to be added. You do all this, because in these design philosophies it is much cheaper to iterate based on customer feedback early on.

Either way, a very simple system requirement may be that the level 20-30 process doesn't get more tedious, less balanced, or harder. Level gated destinies seem to suggest that this is not a requirement. At the very least, they could state what their requirements or design goals are for the system. It is literally impossible for them to not have this already if they already showcased a design proposal to the PC.

The general public is the customer. And theres just a wee bit of blah blah blah about customer focus in all the agile garbage if I am not mistaken.

The problem with them, is they ignore what their customers want half the time. And I think that's the crux of the issue here.

I'm not saying it easy to parse what screaming forumites want into a coherent product, but they are famous for "corrupt a wish" which is why I look forward to the ML 8 70% fortification augments in the new system they are working on.

People get pissed, because it looks like they don't listen most of the time to player feedback.

Asheras wrote on Sep 20^th, 2020 at 6:58pm:


A system doesn't have to be fully-formed to answer basic questions like "will EDs be level-gated?" This is a yes-fucking-no question and if they don't know that then they should notice how resistant everyone is to the notion and say "no".

That being said, the other problem is, as others have pointed out: SSG's idea of "Ready to share" is "Fully engineered and coded into the game" at which point if their change is crap they can't fix it.

There is not one fucking reason on the planet why they can't, at the very start of the design cycle, ask basic questions about fundamental changes, get feedback, and adjust their designs accordingly. They could ask the community things like "How would you feel if we level-gated EDs?" and if the player base shouts it down hard, maybe not proceed with such an obviously unpopular change. Of a core change like that is so reviled, no amount of "good design" is going to make up for it.

Technomage wrote on Sep 20^th, 2020 at 7:10pm:


http://www.ddovault.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1592843392/0#0

noamineo wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 12:43pm:


Again, you are removing the Product Owner and stakeholders from the project plan.   That's nonsensical and you know it. 

But, again, Product Owner/Stakeholder <> entire end user base.   I certainly would not start directly querying hundreds or thousands of end users for what they want to see in the new product.  I'd ask for a Product Owner and a few other project team members to come from the customer.  Ones who were key stakeholders over specific parts of the system.  Maybe a sales lead, a manufacturing lead, an accounting lead.   That sort of thing.   

The player base as a whole and Lamania is used for integration testing, systems testing, and acceptance testing.   That is the role of the end user groups in almost every SDLC.

I can't think of a game out there that does it any differently.  I can't think of a single SDLC that involves a large user base earlier in design. 

noamineo wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 4:01pm:


That's not 100% true. It's "only" 95% true.

When things hit Llamaland, it can still be tweaked. But if abilities and/or AP, etc. are level gated when it hits Llama, then it's GOING to be level gated when it hits live. The only question is just how much gating will there be.

Asheras I get what you're trying to say here, but you're just wrong. When SSG makes their product, the players don't need to be involved in every single decision. But when the plans are leaked and there is such a huge negative reaction that SSG ends up scrapping the entire design to start over, then *MAYBE* they should involve us in the design a little bit so that we don't choke on the shit they try to feed us again.

NOTpopejubal wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 4:18pm:



I generally agree.

However, I went back and read what they said before. It may not be all bad. They’re trying to let us buy from multiple destinies (power gain). BUT they have to gate something to limit that power. It’s probably a net nerf at 20, but it might not be that bad, and it might be pretty great at 30.

I’m not sure why I’m optimistic at all, but I’m on a “wait and see” mode myself.

NOTpopejubal wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 4:18pm:


When something reaches Lama, it is there for testing, not for design feedback.   Testing is for finding bugs, not proof of concept.  The biggest disconnect in the player base is that they give proof of concept feedback during the testing phase because they don't really understand what the phases of the SDLC are and what their role in that process is. 

Despite the fact that it isn't a design review, you will get some tweaks based on balance and such, but massive changes in direction aren't happening because this isn't a design discussion it is testing. 

Your second comment is not accurate.

noamineo wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 4:01pm:


That's what testing is.

I thought you worked in software development.  Is it your experience that developers alter design specs based on  testing results?      

Testing is for finding bugs and and making minor adjustments to accommodate unanticipated scenarios when walking every path.

Justanotherlurker wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 2:04pm:

Ah.

Ok.

Thanks.

Ok. So, what we need is a better way to input in the design phase. Is there a good way outside of PC?

PC was never intended to be what the players thought it was.  It was a good way to let the players think they had a voice without really exerting a lot of effort on SSG/Turbine's part.

SSG/Turbine was a bad actor from the beginning in creating the PC.  Not exactly a surprise that they lied about the purpose of the PC.

noamineo wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2020 at 1:30pm:


Yep.  Totally unsurprising given how the game is managed.  I was against duping and such for a long time, until I realized that its mostly a reaction against the grind.  If SSG/Turbine managed their game better and wasn't constantly playing some kind of internal game against its own players, they would maybe get some sympathy from me.