Do you prefer a 6mo roadmap with a lot of movement or 2 with little movement? RCCQ#69

[Deringer]

This week's ReachCast Community question courtesy of Smedley is ...

“Do you guys prefer a 6 month roadmap with the understanding that we will be moving stuff around or do you like 2 months?”

As always, respond here or e-mail us at [email protected] or call us at (415)787-3224!

[Edfishy]

6 months. Major progress happens in six month intervals for EVE:Online (another MMO) and so Planetside 2 should be no different.

Unless they expect to go agile, which means when we all complain that MLG makes zero sense in the present state of the game they drop it months in advance. ;)

[OCNSethy]

I have no strong feeling either way... on one proviso; things that are promised, get done... properly

Dont be all "Wow! we're going to do xyz!" and then it doesnt happen or worse, gets done, half assed.

[Ghoest9]

2 month plan that has no bearing on reality

vs

6 month plan that is changed to match reality




who cares?

[synkrotron]

Six months sounds fine for me.

In fact the minor weekly updates could go out to six months for me... It would be nice to play a couple of months without any "issues."

[almalino]

Both.

[Mox]

I am waiting for major updates since a year. I dont care about the roadmap. I believe it when i see it. SOE promised tons of things and never delivered it.

[almalino]

I am waiting for major updates since a year. I dont care about the roadmap. I believe it when i see it. SOE promised tons of things and never delivered it.

Do no say that. SOE delivered some of the promised things. I'm happy casual weekend player.

Sure, for hardcore everyday player this might be not enough what SOE delivers.

[ringring]

I prefer more information and I accept changes will happen.

With that in mind I would cut the difference; a 2 month hard schedule with a following 4 month soft schedule.

e.g. a feature in the hard schedule would be give a 1 month or 1/2 month window for implementation while in the soft schedule the window assigned would be 2 - 3 months that is more flexibility.

[Shamrock]

Stick with the six month plan simply so we get an idea of the longer term dev direction; I agree with RingRing's idea that it makes sense for content to be put within a two month zone to be more concrete, where as outside this time frame there is room for maneuver and that this fact should be explicitly explained so as to remove over-promising / under-delivering scenarios.

[AuntLou]

Option 1: A 6 month calender with the first 2 months being somewhat accurate.
Option 2: A 2 month calender with a list after it showing the next items planned to be put into the calender.

Also a bright blinking neon sign that says "NO PROMISES!".

[kubacheski]

Why not push out a few continents and then we'll talk?

The way I see it, there are 3 major areas that are available for parallel development. Engine, PS2 gameplay, PS2 content.

After release, how far down the "original" roadmap did they get before the content and gameplay teams overreached the engine capabilities and they had to go back to the drawing board and optimize? O:MFG happened for a reason and it wasn't because they wanted to make a good thing better, it was to fix an engine they had over-stressed with needless and bullshit content (MLG anyone?)

How many more O:MFG are they going to have if they keep this up?

The question is loaded. Smed seems to think there will be "movement". I say they've just run around in circles for 8 months and then spent 4 months fixing what they broke.

How bout a year roadmap? 8 months of mostly vapor-ware and 4 months of fixing what they tried to implement. :mad:

[Sonny]

I'd prefer to know what they've got planned for the next six months, accepting that stuff will probably change. It's good to know what they're working on in the mid-term.

[AThreatToYou]

Both move as fast as the new content pipeline, so it does not matter.

[Obstruction]

well in the original 1 year roadmap tons was promised and little delivered.

let's try 2 month roadmaps with less ambitious goals. did you ever see What About Bob?

baby steps to Amerish Lattice. baby steps to Hossin Release. baby steps to Nexus Release. baby steps to Vehicle Refits. baby steps to Functional Warpgates.

[kubacheski]

I love that show. Baby steps and death therapy.

Bob Wiley: "Shit-eating son-of-a-bitch... bastard, douche-bag, twat, numb-nuts, dickhead, bitch!"

I sometimes have Tourettes like outbursts at PS2 when I repeatedly get wacked.

[ShadoViper]

How about they just start releasing content and continents with a resource revamp and inter-continental-lattic.

Then I will care about a roadmap.

[typhaon]

This is such a minor, minor, minor thing...

What we all want are finished features.

[Crator]

Meaning the 2 month RoadMap would generally be set in stone and not change? It doesn't really explain what the 2 month RoadMap would give us in the statement that Smed issued. *With the understanding that the sentence which is in quotes in the OP is what Smed said.

I'd say go with the 2 month RoadMap that is more or less set-in-stone and then list things outside that 2 month scope that will be worked on after the 2 month list.

The items not in the 2 month scope won't have any specification of "when" other then it will be done sometime inside 6 months. Anything in the 6 month scope, but not in the 2 month scope, could be changed out with something else. But if something gets put in the 2 month scope it typically will be done inside that time.

[kubacheski]

But if something gets put in the 2 month scope it typically will be done inside that time.

I love how you qualified this with the word "typically".

[Crator]

I love how you qualified this with the word "typically".

Yeah, that's part of the "Shit happens" clause. LOL

But hey, Smed is the one saying the 2 month deal will be done within that time. Is there any reason to not trust him? {Rhetorical question, please don't answer} LOL