Reddit Style Voting for Six Month Plan

[Trythios]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

Any time you ask the playerbase for opinions and feedback, there's going to be the same issues with popularity etc. It's not unique to this method. It just tends to be more passive (thus people don't even notice it), as opposed to active meddling in the process. As a developer, you could just have people post ideas in a basic forum and have people comment on them and go over it to see the general views of the playerbase, but it's still going to be subject to the same problems.

The loudest, most well known and/or most spammy people are always going to drown out the more quiet, less well known people regardless of the quality of their ideas.

At least if people are actively rigging votes (for example), it's going to be noticed.

Thank you.

No matter which way they go, discussion or voting. The issue remains the same, the loudest and/or most popular people will sway the result. It's been seen countless times in other MMO's, which is part the reason less than 20% of a games playerbase actually ever read forums, much less post on them.

Either way it comes down to what the developer chooses to use the system(s) for. If a Dev decides to base their design around popular player discussion, it can also go horribly wrong, simply because most of us are biased due to playstyle or vision.

In my opinion, they can use whatever measuring stick they want to gauge the community, as long as they have an overall vision of where they want to with it.

How will they use this ? Well, we don't really know yet, but we have to assume they will do their best to get it right. If not, then it's all a moot point anyway as I said above.

My apologies if this is hard to read or understand - I'm danish, that's my handicap.

-Trythios

[Wahooo]

Originally Posted by Archonzero

Popularity votes for design implementation. Wow, this games going to get horribly nubified even more. All it's going to take are all the negative nelly's that are already disgruntled with SOE to simply stack in on the worst ideas an send this game into a burning tailspin.

Actually I think most of the negative nelly's who are disgruntled with SOE want the game to improve, and the REASON we are disgruntled is because the lack of depth to the game and lack of a fun shooter.

The nubism comes from all of those who want everything easier. A lot of those people that can't see that the changes they ask for will ruin the game, AND make the more skilled wreck them even harder.

Majority rule is a great concept and works in small groups of people who are representing the larger unwashed masses. Giving every individual voice? Bad idea. I've said it before, SOE needs to listen, but they have to be careful WHO they listen to. Every game company gets flak for not listening to the player base... but most of the playerbase are retards that don't know what is good for them. Those few that have great ideas and actually take the time to think about what effect it will have on the game? I just hope they aren't drowned out.

[Rahabib]

I am pretty sure this is just going to be another avenue for player to give input rather that enabling a body of people the ability to enact game play changes via petition.

Its just going to be a way for the developers to put a forum in the game and allow people to vote without having to create an account and post a pointless "/signed" on it.

I dont see how its going to be any more detrimental than a forum. However, I think SOE is just asking for more punishment as you know its going to encourage people to post "make x like PS1."

edit: SOE has done this before: http://share.blog.us.playstation.com/ take a look.

[ChipMHazard]

And here I thought they would decide on their 6 months plan from what needed to be implemented first for the gameplay to improve the most.
Hopefully they will simply use the voting as way to judge what the community wants the most and not what they should implement first.
We'll see just how much of an influence this will end up having.

[Rockit]

I personally don't like Reddit and never visit there. Looks like some early 80's style LISTSERV format. Next thing you know it will be 4chan as the platform of SOE's choice.

[NewSith]

Hamma, change your thread name, keep it constructive... Your site is the icon of constructiveness and objectivity, afterall, so it'll be a shame having this source turned into another instance of mass media.



That being said, the community has no clue what it needs. I mean half of the "metagame supporters" don't even have a clear understanding of what "metagame" in computer gaming is... It will only result in half-assed changes aimed for "result" and not the due "progress" part. Such changes tend to create even more problems. Hence such way of doing things is flawed by definition.

[Rockit]

Originally Posted by NewSith

That being said, the community has no clue what it needs. I mean half of the "metagame supporters don't even have a clear understanding what "metagame" in computer game is... It will only result in half-assed changes aimed for "result" and not the due "progress" part. Such changes tend to create even more problems. Hence such way of doing things is flawed by definition.

Here, here. I am with the Russian on this one.

[SixShooter]

Originally Posted by Javelin

So basic democracy is not your thing?



Why would what the majority wants be a bad thing? Why should small sections of a group have more influence over larger ones?

The problem is that this is the internet and something like this can be easily hijacked by ass-hats and d-bags. This is why the White House actualy had to respond to a petition to build a Death Star (even though that would have been awesome).

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Hamma

I don't like this at all. Votes are exploitable, popularity contests are not the way to decide the six month plan. Let people discuss, read the feedback and decide how to proceed.

This sort of crap is to easily influenced by large groups of people and influential individuals.

I agree completely.

Originally Posted by NewSith

H
That being said, the community has no clue what it needs. I mean half of the "metagame supporters" don't even have a clear understanding of what "metagame" in computer gaming is... It will only result in half-assed changes aimed for "result" and not the due "progress" part. Such changes tend to create even more problems. Hence such way of doing things is flawed by definition.

Precisely my fear.

That said if they do implement a voting system then I'd hope it would be based on something like a maximum BR on an account. Not sure what number would stop people from rigging votes though.

[Hamma]

The main issue with this sort of feedback method is this is the Internet. We don't have accountability here and everyone knows how easy it is to create station accounts.

Edit: I renamed the thread.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by SixShooter

The problem is that this is the internet and something like this can be easily hijacked by ass-hats and d-bags. This is why the White House actualy had to respond to a petition to build a Death Star (even though that would have been awesome).

There is also one extra problem, with democracy in the army (destroying stuff) and/or in building (creating stuff). Democracy results in wrong people coming to power, and destruction in that case may get out of limits, or, for example. wrong person in charge will build a shitty house.


Here's a simplified example.
You have 7 people on a deserted island and all of you have an access to a chopper. Nobody except you knows who can fly a chopper. 1 guy can. So would you blindly select the chopper pilot by vote or actually select a pilot that knows how to fly the chopper?

[Ruffdog]

Nice principle but this will be a car crash. Vote rigging will be rife.
Unless they can tie a vote to a hardware ID or address or something.

So what ever happened to:

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Ruffdog

So what ever happened to:

https://twitter.com/j_smedley/status/258804630522327040

https://twitter.com/j_smedley/status/258806748184465408

This will simply never get onto the voting list. Just like Liberators becoming bombers and Galaxies taking the gunship role. See that's another problem with the voting system. It's locking you into choices that you'd neither select, and for a person that DOES want to make a vote that results in him selecting the "lesser of evils" which is even worse.


EDIT: Trust an ol' Russian that voted for Putin during the election.

[ShadoViper]

Originally Posted by Hamma

https://twitter.com/j_smedley/status/294501298701733888

https://twitter.com/j_smedley/status/294501395539828736

https://twitter.com/j_smedley/status/294501760603672577

I don't like this at all. Votes are exploitable, popularity contests are not the way to decide the six month plan. Let people discuss, read the feedback and decide how to proceed.

This sort of crap is to easily influenced by large groups of people and influential individuals.

The Zerg already decides the outcome of the game IN game.

I'm with you on this Hamma. This seems like it could really backfired, maybe not.

Another alternative off the top of my head, would be a council of plays that we could elect. But once again that could just be another popularity contest and how would That really even work.

On a side note; not to sound arrogant as hell, but I wonder how hard it really must be to communicate and get a general idea of what the community wants? And even then, does it really matter what most want? Half the people don't even understand what it takes to make content or the balance Eco system.

[ShadetheDruid]

I really don't envy developers these days. Half the time it's "why don't devs listen to the playerbase", the other half of the time it's "why are you listening to these people, they're stupid" (from both "sides").

They can't really win.