That's probably the special little waffles on the PC ......


PC - they want QOL fixes
Turdbin - howabout some beards and bio shit
PC - you nailed it!

Asheras wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 12:17pm:


So turbine finally took the initiative and gave us what we really wanted, is that what you're saying?

mudfud wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 1:01pm:


Apparently they can come up with gems like those all on their own, yes.

Asheras wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 12:17pm:


Remind me what the actual value of the PC is? If it had no involvement, then there was no value here at least.  Is there any value elsewhere?   I tend to doubt it.

Halfmaniac wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 12:03pm:



Ha!  Apparently this one wasn't even a planned enhancement and isn't in the release.


Quote:

Jesus Backflipping Christ. Just when you think they really can't appear to be any more incompetent, they manage to prove you wrong again.

At least they restarted the servers, so lag might be slightly reduced for a day or two. About the only worthwhile thing to come out of updates any more.

Frank wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:21pm:


The PC is supposed to provide feedback on design changes prior to coding or prior to going to Lama.  The idea is to get feedback earlier in the design process when changes can be made more easily.  Or to just get a feel how something is going to be received.

As we have all seen, by the time something reaches lama, it has already been coded.  Only very small changes can be made at that point.  Mostly, they are looking for bugs.  With Kensei tree, there were some adjustments to the power level made based on lama testing, but even those require a patch.  What you get on lama is pretty much what you are getting on live, outside of some QA/bug fixes.   

The PC doesn't see everything.  Even if they show the PC something, the scope of what changes can be made varies.  Also, keep in mind that everything we discuss is on paper.  We can't test anything either.  Lama is the only place to actually test stuff.   

On the subject of Lama: 

I would argue that quests going to Lama can go later in the design process (as they currently do now).  Since all they do is fix bugs and tweak the HP/damage stats a bit based on reports.  But they aren't substantially redesigning the content based on lama feedback.  One or two weeks before live is probably fine.  (If you actually fix the stuff you find)

Systems stuff (like Kensei tree or other class passes) however need to be on Lama sooner.  It is rare that you can set the power level of this stuff and get all the interactions with all the other systems tested and validated prior to having the player base actually play it.  I liked the Kensei stuff on paper.  In game, though?  Seriously meh.  Ranger was the same.  It played markedly differently than on paper.  (Although in the case of Ranger, it played better, not worse, than I thought on paper)  I think systems stuff they should get to lama 3-4 weeks prior to the target live date to allow more time for testing and tweaking.  Enough lead time they can actually make functional changes.  Not just bug fixes. 

The PC has a role in the some parts of the design process, but it is not large.  If I was recommending fixes, I'm not sure I'd recommend the PC have a larger role in design.  I'd recommend lama have a larger role.

Well, when they disbanded Mournlands they said they were going to put things up on lamma earlier and for longer to get the playtesting/feedback there. Which they did, for 2 or 3 updates.

Meursault wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 11:09am:


I'd be guessing.  I've not heard anything in depth about the design process and why they go to lama when they do.

Frank wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:21pm:

It looks good on paper for them anyway.

Asheras wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 10:31am:

So, the 'value' the PC brings is a small 1% pool of dubious design knowledge bringing their take on how the other 99% of the player base might receive something?  When the same thing might be far better evaluated by actually allowing the remaining 99% to provide a more accurate feedback?  I mean, if this is the feedback they claim that they want to receive, then maybe allowing the people whose feedback they claim to want to actually provide it for them might be a goal, rather than limiting their feedback to a sparse <1%.  Right?

And this has any value at all, how?  Really, I'd love to hear from a PC member or from Turbine exactly what value they expect to derive from the hours they spend on the Player's Council.

Frank wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 10:28pm:


I agree with Asheras's point.  I do not agree that the PC is being used as it should be though.

The PC was intended to provide a focus group of feedback very early in design.  A carefully chosen focus group is meant to represent the broad player base.  Turbine do nothing right, and the PC implementation is as effective as their coding and customer support.  This is what happens when you employ a useless hack fanboi as you PR rep, with no background in any PR/CS related area.
The whole PC and forums are run by a small minded and insecure dictator.

The PC is intended to provide feedback before there was anything on Lama for the other 99% to see.
How else would they get feedback from the other 99%?
The DDO forums only have a small percentage of players?
Even Lama is only a small subset of players?

I don't look at the PC being exclusive and shutting us out of the chance to contribute, because we can apply if we wanted too.
And I would if I thought the PC was anything but a sad joke.
The PC was a good idea, implemented badly (again).