Hey guys,
So I’ve been thinking of suggesting this for a while, but what do you guys think of an elected panel of 5 members of the DB community who are really aware of what the community wants/needs in Dirty Bomb development? I’m thinking they would range from people who are already moderators, to people who are involved with the competitive scene, to people heavily involved with the forums, etc etc
I was thinking these 5 people would act as a “filter” or “consultant” group for SD before they release patches, and they’ll help out with development ideas, and help convey to the SD team what the community will want/not want. Obviously it’s impossible to please everyone but at least it would help streamline the process, and avoid pissing off/losing players b/c of “strange” game changes/additions. It’s such a hassle to put out something, piss everyone off, than have to spend MORE time to make the needed changes for the next patch…it’s inefficient to have to spend half your resources in removing/reworking/rewhatever new content. Two steps forward, 1 step back.
I really love this game and only want it to succeed. I think having a community panel that is directly involved with development through providing player based feedback is essential.
I know SD will probably never be 100% transparent with upcoming changes, but I figured this is a healthy middle ground.
Good idea?
A Community Based QA Panel/Committee
Yes. The response to the cobalt trade in speaks for itself.
…or if such group already exists then the members need to be changed 
[quote=“MarsRover;91680”]Yes. The response to the cobalt trade in speaks for itself.
…or if such group already exists then the members need to be changed [/quote]
cobalt trade up, but it goes back to phantom’s release, then the phantom NERF, then… the melee changes… bleh
@derpypenguinz19 Yup yup. Gave him a +1 because it sounds like an awesome idea. 
There’s already such a thing as “Splash Damage VIP’s”, however I’m not sure of the nature of their activity now, or if they are utilized. They were relied upon heavily in alpha (and CBT’s), but I haven’t a clue if they are still active or even spoken to now.
Perhaps it’s time SD got some kind of community focus group - because lets face it, the amount of times they’ve said “we do things based off community feedback” is outstanding, and some trusted/reliable individuals that understand the community’s wants/needs and the game’s needs itself, would be an awesome way to test things.
If we had this - the screw up with the cobalt “trade ins” NEVER would have happened, lmao. :3
I agree, the amount of changes going in the complete wrong direction are too many to be ignored. I’m tired of waiting for some positive change on the devs behalf. It just seems like they do as they please without considering the actual gamers…
wait wait wait… they actually had a group of players to give feedback in Alpha? that explains why the FOUNDATION of this game is so fucking good. holy shit.
The decision to made the trade up costs what they are feels more like a Nexon decision then a SD one in my eyes. It is likely that if the SD VIPs are still being utilized they would not have seen this addition. Unfortunately they are likely still under an NDA so we will probably not get a confirm or deny on that.
On the topic of this thread. While I think that would be a cool idea, it wouldn’t be practical to use the judgements of a small group of users for the overall group. I would rather see something along the lines of just having a PTS(Public Test Server) where all new changes are implemented for testing and feedback purposes. Then all users COULD take advantage of that if they wanted to. Then before the patch went live they could have tweaked it or even decided to hold back just one part of the update while they rethought it.
Then a much larger base of players could be involved in not only the QA process but the ‘focus group’ feedback.
[quote=“kAndyREW;91681”][quote=“MarsRover;91680”]Yes. The response to the cobalt trade in speaks for itself.
…or if such group already exists then the members need to be changed [/quote]
cobalt trade up, but it goes back to phantom’s release, then the phantom NERF, then… the melee changes… bleh[/quote]
Yes yes. I just didn’t want to rub salt into old wounds
I think there’s at least 2 different fields that require different advisors:
- gameplay
- community erm… stuff… - can’t think of how to name it, basically things like cobalt trade-ins and private servers fall into this area
I believe SD said they have a group for 1, but what about 2?
I would image this would be a group that just vetos those more unfortunate ideas, like the cobalt trade-ins. Because c’mon, 2/3 of people in the poll heavily dislikes this idea, plus another 20% with slightly less radical opinion.
[quote=“Ardez;91691”]The decision to made the trade up costs what they are feels more like a Nexon decision then a SD one in my eyes. It is likely that if the SD VIPs are still being utilized they would not have seen this addition. Unfortunately they are likely still under an NDA so we will probably not get a confirm or deny on that.
On the topic of this thread. While I think that would be a cool idea, it wouldn’t be practical to use the judgements of a small group of users for the overall group. I would rather see something along the lines of just having a PTS(Public Test Server) where all new changes are implemented for testing and feedback purposes. Then all users COULD take advantage of that if they wanted to. Then before the patch went live they could have tweaked it or even decided to hold back just one part of the update while they rethought it.
Then a much larger base of players could be involved in not only the QA process but the ‘focus group’ feedback.[/quote]
I agree with this approach, it’s the best all around. It’s one that Gazillion uses for Marvel Heroes (similar size development team and player base) and it works quite well. Most of their changes are due to or based on player suggestions.
What happens is you get to see the complaints and then people trying to justify the changes to the complainers all before it’s finalized. Then after the dust settles you will see a ton of good (and bad)ideas that will greatly improve the experience for the players. Granted not all parties will be happy, but it’s MUCH easier to find a common ground with this method of testing.
The general stance of the community becomes “oh it’s not perfect right now but we know they will listen and for now it’s ‘good enough’”
Which is way more than I can say for the current situation. Which is mostly “wtf I’ve seen at least half a dozen ideas that are WAY better than what you’re offering us right now” “What drugs were you on when you thought X would be a good idea for Y”
It’s fine to have bad ideas, every single person and company has them. But it is almost unforgivable to implement a bad idea thinking it was a good idea. All because of a small sample size of feedback.
This is a big deal in a volatile market where you do not get many chances. The player’s perception of the devs will determine the success or failure of the game, even in a “beta” state.
@MarsRover No game company that is sane would give players veto power on decisions. If they did it would purely be a rubber stamp rather than a useful group. Better to accept their feedback for internal decisions than to pander to that panel or be at their mercy.
A public test server would be a welcome addition to allow community members to assist with gameplay testing before a roll out. It would help create a greater sense of community and potentially squash more bugs.
I still feel like a majority of the gameplay development recommendations and changes should be based on feedback from the competitive community. At its core the game is heavily skill based, with a clear focus on competitive play. Organized community feedback would be best for non gameplay elements IMO (matchmaking, microtransactions, server options, PLAYING WITH FRIENDS, etc.).
Yeah, veto is a too strong word here. I meant to put it quotes Actual veto - hell no. I work at a software company that also gets a lot of feedback from users, so I know how it looks from the other side.
What I meant is a group whose feedback is closely listened to before implementing changes, to avoid backtracking and wasting resources. I can’t imagine that such a group would give positive feedback on the current solution to surplus cobalts. Same thing with private matches - the minimum player limit would be set to 5 from the start.
your second point should be divided into two categories :
2) server management, there’s enough to be discussed on its own in my opinion, like team balancing on pubs, restricted servers (min level, FF on…), server settings, possible community servers… And there’s a lot in this field which are quite tied with gameplay aspects.
3) loadouts, trade-ups and store stuff
Nevertheless, those two points should also be intended to Nexon. I’m sure they have some good strong decisional words about those two fields, as the editor and the people in charge of server management.
[quote=“Faraleth;91682”]@derpypenguinz19 Yup yup. Gave him a +1 because it sounds like an awesome idea.
There’s already such a thing as “Splash Damage VIP’s”, however I’m not sure of the nature of their activity now, or if they are utilized. They were relied upon heavily in alpha (and CBT’s), but I haven’t a clue if they are still active or even spoken to now.
Perhaps it’s time SD got some kind of community focus group - because lets face it, the amount of times they’ve said “we do things based off community feedback” is outstanding, and some trusted/reliable individuals that understand the community’s wants/needs and the game’s needs itself, would be an awesome way to test things.
If we had this - the screw up with the cobalt “trade ins” NEVER would have happened, lmao. :3[/quote]
we’re still there and active, but this cobalt “stuff” has nothing to do with us, hit me out of the blue, unusually horrible move from SD (if it was SD)
Is it? it seems as though the community managers deal with more of the reactions and to pass along feedback. I’m suggesting someone act as an external QA person, a team to filter ideas/patches before they even go live.
But what about MissMurder? She’s doing her job well along with the rest. I honestly think everything is fine. If changes has to be made, it’s probably the playing community that needs a some sort of a up-ya-game.
she’s doing her job great, but from what I can see, as I’ve mentioned in my previous post, the community managers seem to be involved with… just that, managing the community -passing along our concerns with balance, bugs, changes, features, etc etc etc…
what i’m talking about is a team who’s directly involved with development with SD before it even comes live. I’m talking about on a conceptual level, before they even waste time in doing something, have them run it by this committee… sort of like what happened with 2ndary objective missions, melee changes, phantom, etc
So you’re basically suggesting some kind of design council ?
The idea is good on the principle, though IMO that council should be selected by the dev team itself. Also, it should be more than just 5 players, and if possible players that are well aware of the community’s thoughs overall.
I’m all for it anyway.