Originally Posted by Malorn
Everyone working on PS2 cares deeply about the game and wants to make an awesome experience for you and millions of others.
When providing feedback, it really helps to try to capture the actual problem. What is the underlying issue? How is it affecting your play? And of course what are some ideas you might have on solving it? Lots of forum posts everywhere focus on solutions and don't identify the problem very well. One of the first things you learn in school is that the key to solving problems is first identifying and understanding them. Ideas for solutions help and can generate other ideas, but if the actual problem isn't listed it's already dead in the water. Also, solutions needs to be fit into the game vision, long-term plan, and schedule, so it may take some time before you see results. Because there isn't a response or an immediate change doesn't mean folks aren't listening.
To give an example on a common hot topic...the lattice, or lack thereof. The problem is not that there isn't a lattice (that's a proposed solution that does not fit well into the game design); the problems are that its hard to find a fight, hard to corral players, hard for players to guide other players, and easy to get lost and confused. There are many solutions to those problems, and better ones than a lattice. They will be solved in a way that fits with the longer term game plan and vision. What helps is if players identify those problems and provide examples of how it is affecting their play. Then offering up ideas for solutions is a great way to inspire new ideas. But don't get attached to any specific solution as there are many ways to solve any problem and the best ones may yet to be invented. Instead of drilling in on the lattice which is something that has been repeatedly said doesn't fit and isn't where the team wants the game to go, try new ideas. Explore the problem more, and see other ways we can make finding a fight better, create more fights, understand the tools and information players need.
I'll parrot Smed and cite Henry Ford,
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
When you describe the problem - a need for faster transportation - it helps us arrive at a race car solution. And it's a bit of a waste of time rat-holing on why we want to give you something better than faster horses. The common context for communication is the underlying problems. Focusing on that context is how you stay constructive and really help out the dev team and help make PS2 better.
Being negative just bums us out and isn't helpful. Everyone here has great intentions and is working hard to make you a great game you will play for the next decade. Help us do that by taking the time to think about the issue constructively, the root causes, and giving that feedback. You dont' even need to suggest solutions. Clarifying the problem is a huge help in and of itself.
|
Ok look, we do not want to be negative but we are the customers and we know what we want and what we want to spend are money on and we are trying to tell you.
In fact using the PS community's creativeness we have made this as simple for you as possible, go here
http://planetside-tracker.com/issues/ and work your way down the list, #1 and #2 are obviously the most important and then build stuff on top of that after you finish the list. Then we actually have a game that works and is mostly balanced.
If you continue to go around the problems and around the known solutions that have worked in the past and the community wants so bad then it only tells us one thing. That there is a white board in the back of your office that every one has had to read that Smed has drawn a business plan on that says something like this. BF3 = these $$$ massive profits last year and the investors/board of directors wants PS2 to be like this and that, and not this, and it has to be out by this date no exceptions. With a small note from Smed on the bottom that says: Work with and give the small financially insignificant PS community anything they want except something that would violate or interfere with the original demanded game design drawn above.