Free Allegiance Forums

This post might annoy some of you, but I am hoping the CC team will see some merit in it.

I've just been perusing the current discussions and particularly polls on implimenting changes to CC. I must say, I cant make a call on most things other than my personal preference...and that personal preference wont necessarily be for the good of this game.

In RL, I've just spent the last 2 days writing 2 reports for a couple of development projects I am working on. As project manager, I am responsibile for providing detailed background information and a proposal for my board of directors to mull over and endorse (or can) my proposals that affect my projects.

We encourage the community to come in here and vote on changes, yet not everyone has been here since beta, or knew why elements of our CC were the way they were, and apart from their personal preferences, they generally dont know what impact their preference will have it is implimented.

Using the Remove TF lead indicator poll or PROPOSAL as an example....I personally hove no idea why all TF ships got the indicators to start with. The initial DEVs had their reasons, and these reasons were surely more than just giving NOOBS the opportunity of no skill kills. These reasons are called BACKGROUND, and it helps people to consider what was before DISCUSSION and evaluating if the proposal is going to work. As a result of considering all the DISCUSSION, the proposal can be considered and the CC teamcan agree on and impliment the RECOMMENDATION.

Maybe this is too much work for you tireless and thankless workers of CC considering you arent paid as handsomely for fixing CC as I am for Managing projects, but more BACKGROUND would certainly make voting in a poll a hell of a lot more valuable.

As an example and using the TF indicators poll (this is now an example, so its probably a load of @#(!...but it gives you the main idea of how you could make the decision a hell of a lot easier to make)


QUOTE PROPOSAL
That TF lead indicators are removed from all ships

BACKGROUND The DN devs granted TF ships lead indicators because TF econ is slow, and tech development takes ages. this enabled TF ships to match it until research times could give them a chance.
it is now apparent that TF is too strong as a result, and particularly once advance tech is reached as evidenced by ........ . Comparison between various factions and tech level is outlined on the attached sheet.
The following posts outline further background and opinions of the community on this matter..
...
...
..


DISCUSSION
It is expected that removing the lead indicators will encourage better player skill and tactics similar to Rix that also is a missileless faction. However, Particle weapon speed and may require further review after implementation of this nerf. Initial Concerns by xxx and yyy may be waranted and should be discussed further in this post.
On the downside, TF early will need to rely more heavily on skill to defend its miners and constructors. However this is no different to any other faction and as the evidence in background has displayed.

therefore, TF indicators should be removed from all ships unless supremacy is the tech. The DEV team will monitor and take submissions on modifying particle speed should this change be seen as too detrimental to the faction.

This proposal is submitted for discussion for the next 7 days

RECOMMENDATION
TF indicators should be removed from all ships unless supremacy is the tech. The DEV team will monitor and take submissions on modifying particle speed should this change be seen as too detrimental to the faction.[/quote]

For what it is worth..thanks for getting to this point

This is an excellent proposal. I think you should join the cc-team and write those reports for the polls. It is not like you really need to know every detail about the issue on your own, as you will profit from the discussion in this forum and the digging of other cc-teammembers on the numbers etc..

Also I am sure the process of decision upon changes of cc will standardize with experience. Right now I am not very comfortable with how the poll-threat just repeats the discussion of the threat, that lead to the poll, as it is kind of redundant.

Vortrog wrote:QUOTE (Vortrog @ May 27 2009, 11:10 PM) ...BACKGROUND Veggie thought lead indicators would be cool. ...

Fixed.

Vortrog wrote:QUOTE (Vortrog @ May 27 2009, 11:10 PM) This post might annoy some of you, but I am hoping the CC team will see some merit in it.

Maybe this is too much work for you tireless and thankless workers of CC considering you arent paid as handsomely for fixing CC as I am for Managing projects, but more BACKGROUND would certainly make voting in a poll a hell of a lot more valuable.

It is a great idea - and giving the time I would definitely like to see this happen - but we don't have any current members on the CC team with the time to really make this happen

l1ngus wrote:QUOTE (l1ngus @ May 28 2009, 06:23 AM) Also I am sure the process of decision upon changes of cc will standardize with experience. Right now I am not very comfortable with how the poll-threat just repeats the discussion of the threat, that lead to the poll, as it is kind of redundant.

It is not redundant.

You post a thread about things you want changed.
I then post a poll to see if it is something that community at large wants changed

OH wait I see the redundancy there

I approve this idea.

Spidey, I think the idea of redundancy is the following.
Without clicking the little arrow, Identify which of these posts is from the discussion of changes thread, and which is from the poll thread on TF lead indicators...

QUOTE I, too, like this idea.

I dislike the idea of changing the way TF guns work, because they should stay unique. Sure, the suggestion is to still have less spread, but it's just not the same.

Faction differences should be differences of kind, not degree. "Faction A *can* do X, and Faction B *cannot* do X;" not "Faction A can do 0.72X, and Faction B can do 0.63X, yay, they're unique!"

The easiest way to balance factions is to chip away at the unique perks and abilities of each. This is also the worst way to balance factions.[/quote]


QUOTE It's because of TF's guns that lead indicators are needed. With no spread on your guns and no missiles (except for SRPs but those aren't very helpful to newbies) TF is the most newbie unfriendly faction in the game. So to kill things you HAVE to have good aim.

This makes sense right? No spread means you can't just aim near the target, you have to aim at the target to be able to hit it. Since most players are not very good at this lead indicators are necessary for voobs and noobs to be able to use TF at all, not just to be good with them.


Also, I was thinking more along the lines of Gunships and their skycaps when talking about turrets. Very fast guns so the lead indicator is very helpful plus the AoE makes the difference between a voob and a vet gunner on a GS or capship near zero.[/quote]

They are both discussing the lead indicators, so really should be in the same thread.

It's enebitable that someone will try and explain why they voted for an option, or ask why an option is missing, and then someone will reply with their opinion, and you will just end up with another discussion thread on the same subject.

The idea of seperate poll and discussion threads isn't redundant, but in practise you end up with two discussion threads, one of which has a poll.

We either need stronger moderating / will power to make the voting threads only contain things like "option X is missing", with a link to direct people to the appropiate discussion thread.
Or (I'm not sure what tools are in the moderator's fun box so this may not be possible) Add the poll to the original discussion thread, and edit in the sumarry and description of options (as suggested in the first post) at the top of the first post (making it clear which parts have been added by the mods)
That way there isn't a second thread for discussion to start in.

At the point where the poll is in the forum we're not assuming that the poll will be voted on by the community at large. We assume that people who have read the discussion thread and have some background knowledge on the for/against/other arguments will be voting, as these are the people that visit the CC forum on a regular basis. That being said, something like this proposal dohicky would be nice for every thing we do. I'm not gonna bother doing it though, I'd rather just explain in the post why we want to change it and why it was implemented the way it was originally.

At the end of all the polling in the forums we will most likely put it up to an asgs poll if it is a major change. The discussions going on in the poll thread for leads right now are mostly rehashes of what was said in the original thread. Unless someone suggests something extraordinarily awesome and different (like only TF enh ships relay indicators) then we can safely ignore most of what people say

I didn't want to say, that the vote is reduntant, but that the discussion in both threats follow the same lines if argumentation.

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ May 28 2009, 09:12 AM) It is a great idea - and giving the time I would definitely like to see this happen - but we don't have any current members on the CC team with the time to really make this happen

The shop I used to work at got closed at least temporarily, and I have no school. Time is all I've got.

Madp and Lingus make a good point: we should keep the discussion to one thread in the future. Whether thats done by putting the poll into the discussion topic or directing/moving all discussion from the poll into the discussion is up to Spidey, although the first option is probably better as anyone voting would already be in the thread they should be reading (the discussion).

Ok, accepted that Madp and lingus hit it on the head about GIVING THE BACKGROUND.
Keep the post in one location, fine. However, I expect there would be a string of bitching, whining and pondering threads that need compilation or at least reference. Its the compilation and summary that will help people make a balanced decision, as opposed to trolling through oodles of posts themselves and potentially getting off track.

As I cant financially support allegiance, I offer my services on trial for preparing the initial post under the CC teams direction...and the true DEVs can edit it as they please or sack me as they please.

Anyway, the offer is there along with Phoenix, although Phoenix may have a better global knowledge that me. Otherwise, GJ for keeping our core going.