I must admit I have never cared to have one player set in a position of even modest authority over other players, or given the role of intermediary/filter/gatekeeper who decides what is and is not presented to the vendor.
My scrapper doesn't need an AoE. She IS an AoE.
vl;gr.
Very long. Good read.
A well executed plan would be nice.... Now how to get people to actually go for it...
Please read my FEAR/Portal/HalfLife Fan Fiction!
Repurposed
While I certainly wouldn't mind this, and I do think that it would help with communication with the Devs, I do have one, small problem with it. Now, please take this as a criticism that would hopefully allow us to make the idea better in the end, and not as a dismissal of the entire idea.
But what happens if, after being voted in as a correspondent, the person takes off for a year? I'm not saying that many would do this, but it could happen. Would there be a way to re-elect the position? I mean, if the AC goes missing after 6 months serving wonderfully at their post, what happens?
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
I should think the actual mods would need a means of touching base with player volunteers, and absolutely would need the authority to suspend or remove one for vanishing, going ballistic, etc. Scheduling new elections (or whatever mechanism would exist for installing a volunteer) would then proceed under moderator control, which I would assume applies to non-emergency elections as well.
Recognizing runners up or deputies who take over if the primary volunteer fails could be in place, but deputies might get bored with waiting, or leave, or start muttering "Now is the winter of our discontent..." or something.
My scrapper doesn't need an AoE. She IS an AoE.
For 1 million inf, I will vote for anyone.
Who's payin'?
[ QUOTE ]
I must admit I have never cared to have one player set in a position of even modest authority over other players, or given the role of intermediary/filter/gatekeeper who decides what is and is not presented to the vendor.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would humbly recommend that you reread the entire post. At no point were the words, intermediary/filter/gatekeeper, or any other such suggestion even remotely alluding to the idea of 'power' or 'authority' used, or in fact typed to imply.
I did however use the words: liaison, go-between, organizer, and spokesperson.
The position, as I have seen it first hand, would be more of a job you 'wouldn't' want to have.
It would require a lot of work. A lot of time. A lot of effort, and a lot of, much like I've already seen, unappreciated patience and resolve.
The position would be largely an organizational one. There is no 'authority' in the position as I've suggested it. You couldn't even imagine any into it, because the fact that it would only exist as a duty, on the forums, or perhaps in other venues, would preclude far too much transparency for there to be anything remotely 'abusable'.
Cynicism aside, I fail to see any reasonable objection to the suggestion based off of a baseless fear that creating such a position would allow one player to exert undue 'authority' over another.
We're not talking about electing a representative to make laws, as much as we are talking about nominating someone who can, and would want to, shoulder the burden of being a workhouse on the forums, and a passionate advocate for their chosen favorite archetype.
Much like people already do within the various AT forums, and in the guides section, this would simply be a way to ensure that every player who wishes to be heard, could be, and in an organized manner, without having their concerns buried under a mountain of confusing and jumbled posts.
Personally, I have no problem with that.
No way. We don't need a Tanker Czar or Dominator Dictator. Last thing I'd want to see is a player deciding what is or isn't important for the devs to hear. If the Dev's want input from players, they ask and the players respond. We don't need someone to filter it out for them. Let them do it themselves.
Remember guys and gals its a game if someone kills you when you are grabbing a badge you do not die in real life. - Beef_Cake
Favorite i9 post:
Lady_Sadako: Devs: have you actually taken down the new Hami?
Positron: We never defeated the old one.
ir0x0r: Weak!
How does one differentiate the decision that a given suggestion, issue, or position be presented to the developers or community reps from the decision not to present a position that the volunteer disagrees with or dislikes?
It seems to me the proposal was to have the volunteers doing a digest or summary of ideas for presentation to NCSoft/Cryptic, no? Is he just a copy editor, cleaning up typoes and taking out "pie," "no," etc. from the discussion?
Does someone have to sell the volunteer on a suggestion for it to be passed upwards?
What are the criteria for "top 5" issues? The volunteers preferences? Are there metrics or is it intuitive, or both?
I must admit, it seems to me that using soft-core words for a hard-core concept doesn't lessen the impact when it actually goes into effect.
My scrapper doesn't need an AoE. She IS an AoE.
[ QUOTE ]
While I certainly wouldn't mind this, and I do think that it would help with communication with the Devs, I do have one, small problem with it. Now, please take this as a criticism that would hopefully allow us to make the idea better in the end, and not as a dismissal of the entire idea.
But what happens if, after being voted in as a correspondent, the person takes off for a year? I'm not saying that many would do this, but it could happen. Would there be a way to re-elect the position? I mean, if the AC goes missing after 6 months serving wonderfully at their post, what happens?
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, since we are only discussing a suggestion, allow me to suggest another one.
The way we handled this is manyfold. First, the player base is naturally going to nominate someone they feel comfortable in fulfilling the position.
Naturally, people that post often, are accurate and respectful, and otherwise knowledgable about their ATs respective issues and concerns, will be highly nominated by their fellow players.
By definition, these posters/players will be in a position to disclose wether they even want the position, or in fact if they can manage it. Again, we're not forcing it on anyone. But with the issue you raised, the person in the position needs to be responsible for it.
The way we handled this in SWG was very simple and straightforward. The Correspondent simply informed the Community Relations department of any absences or intentions to quit/leave the game, or to vacate their position as correspondent.
Since the ultimate decision is left up the the Development staff and administration element, they could simply select an interim person to fill the position.
Actually, quite easily I can think of several ways to address this problem.
Special election.
Go with the runner up.
New nominations.
Ask for volunteers.
etc, etc.
Its not so much of a problem in my mind because I can think of many possible and immediate solutions. However, that does not precipitate that it won't, or will in fact happen. I have seen it happen before, and it was dealt with.
Not everything happens overnight of course, and people would need to remain patient while the position was filled by a immediate and unexpected vacancy, but I don't see it as crippling the system.
Again, there are many possible solutions, and I would think it best left to the actual staff of NCSoft to come up with a solution that best serves their needs, as well as the needs of the player base.
QR
I think this is a well thought out idea, but I have the following concerns:
Player elections will not work. The correspondents should simply be selected by Lighthouse and Ex Libris after expressing interest. Democracy is a wonderful institution, but it's too slow for this purpose.
To be honest, I'm not sure the devs are ready to commit to the free flow of information on their end to make this work. Ex Libris solicited a list of questions and then there was no answer back.
In addition there are long standing issues in many of the ATs that the devs simply will not address. Tundara just got an answer back from Castle on the very, very old issue of Frozen Aura that basically stated, "You guys do OK so I really can't take the time to fix Frozen Aura right now." Honest, but really I think that if that's the answer on a lot of issues people will get discouraged.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
In addition there are long standing issues in many of the ATs that the devs simply will not address. Tundara just got an answer back from Castle on the very, very old issue of Frozen Aura that basically stated, "You guys do OK so I really can't take the time to fix Frozen Aura right now." Honest, but really I think that if that's the answer on a lot of issues people will get discouraged.
[/ QUOTE ]
While true, since I have been on that topic for a very long time, we've gotten much more detailed responses in PMs that we haven't been allowed to share. Having someone that the Devs trust to relay the information may allow us to reveal more information to the public from PMs, which might help to passify the ravenous public.
Not saying this would happen, but I know that Castle has usually given me much more info in private conversations than he's put in the tanker forums.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Very well thought out post, and not something I would be against. I think each AT has their own little community and those that post there frequently know the difference between the real issues and the trivial issues. If it is player voted, then I don't see any issue with this, especially if they can get yanked out for whatever reason.
I'll have to think about it for a bit more before I say one way or another, but the concept is solid.
Cyclone Jack
-= idspispopd =-
[size=1]Arc ID: 3155 - Project Prometheus (Seeking Feedback, now with less invalidation)[/size]
[ QUOTE ]
How does one differentiate the decision that a given suggestion, issue, or position be presented to the developers or community reps from the decision not to present a position that the volunteer disagrees with or dislikes?
It seems to me the proposal was to have the volunteers doing a digest or summary of ideas for presentation to NCSoft/Cryptic, no? Is he just a copy editor, cleaning up typoes and taking out "pie," "no," etc. from the discussion?
Does someone have to sell the volunteer on a suggestion for it to be passed upwards?
What are the criteria for "top 5" issues? The volunteers preferences? Are there metrics or is it intuitive, or both?
I must admit, it seems to me that using soft-core words for a hard-core concept doesn't lessen the impact when it actually goes into effect.
[/ QUOTE ]
You do it in a transparent fashion.
I am not suggesting that we create a private forums for player correspondents to communicate in secret with the developers.
As I said, I've seen this from experience. This isn't simply abstract and untested potentiality.
Your suggestion, about what metrics would be used?
Simple. A forum post. People would post their ideas. The correspondent would tabulate the top 5 sugggestions, and list them on the front page.
There ya go. What is so shady or complicated about such a system of organization? The developers and the player base would have the information right in front of them.
If someone wanted to go behind the correspondent to 'make sure no errors were committed' then that would of course be their prerogative. I would suggest that someone doing so would be a overly cynical and paranoid individual, but that is not to say that someone won't do it immediately. People are obviously going to behave according to Murphy's law. This suggestion won't do away with something as natural as human distrust.
So yes, a digest or summary would be a job the Correspondent should and could do, and transparently enough in the open to avail the conspiracy theorists. (though nothing will satisfy them obviously)
The criteria for "top 5 issues" would not be volunteer preference. You assume that the volunteer would have the power to affect such player posts, or get rid of suggestions he didn't want. I'm not suggesting or implying such a thing. You, for instance, could as easily read every post in such a thread calling for top 5 issues to be discussed. You could tabulate your own results. The same as the correspondent would. The correspondent would collate all the different suggestions. Of course, being a human being, he would have his own, but that is not to say he would 'make' his own suggestions to the devs in lieu of the top 5 as decided by the player base.
Any system is abusable, I'll admit.
But we still have policeman walking the streets with guns. Some, are still going to turn out crooked. So why then not scrap the idea of Policemen entirely?
Obviously, the instance of corruption is much smaller than the alternative.
Let's use common sense here as well. Occam's Razor applies.
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing negative ever came from creating player correspondents, as far as I was ever aware.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not addressing only this line of the post, but the basis of my response stems from this.
You and I have vastly different takes on the correspondent program and what it accomplished.
From what I saw in over two and a half years, all the correspondent program did was further isolate and alienate the players from the development of the game. The people selected as correspondents did a fine job, however by and large they were became the targets and there was very little actual flow of information in either direction.
This development team has always been hundreds of times more accessible than the swg teams. ANY player can send one of them a message, and have a good chance of getting a response back. I can site numerous examples of when the devs have gone the extra mile to stay in touch, and numerous times when they do listen closely to the community and players.
Splitting correspondents just filtered the information flow, and it gave the illusion that to get anything heard you needed to be a partisan of one particular AT or interest group. It also promoted the continued balkanization of the playerbase, where the community fought with each other over who "deserved" the devs attention more than they worked together to make the game better for everyone.
Our Archetypes are largely OK. In swg most professions were broken in some profound way. Most of the development work was centered around trying to fix and adjust them (still is). Here the main thrust of development is for new broad based additions to large groups of players. The focus of development has little to do with specific interests of specific groups. However when there is specific development, the dev that is doing it is just as likely to go to that section of the forums and address the community him/herself (e.g. _Castle_ and Blaster Defiance).
Correspondents worked hard. Correspondents took a lot of heat from the community. You say the devs listened to them, and I say the Combat Upgrade still got dropped on the community without much input from the community, and the NGE was even worse. It outright eliminated most of the work the correspondents had done. I went back and perused the SWG forums last month, and I still see Correspondents there, working hard. However I look at their issues lists and see things still there that were there 2 years ago, and I see things that were not broken and working fine added.
So, I just say in conclusion, that you say it worked there and it could work here, and I say it didn't do that much there and it isn't much needed here.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
[ QUOTE ]
I am not suggesting that we create a private forums for player correspondents to communicate in secret with the developers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, this wouldn't be a bad idea either, though. If the AC positions are created, having a forum for them to discuss issues with themselves and the Devs might not be a bad idea.
The reason for this? A lot of times the ATs have the same powersets. What might not work for one AT might work for another AT, and discussing that in a place where all of the ACs can see it before it goes to the Devs would allow for them to make sure it doesn't get changed for the AT the power works fine for.
Also, it would allow the ACs to come together and discuss what they think should be the order the Devs try to tackle things. If there is a bug in an entire AT, then they can say that that should be worked on before an animation change for a particular power, or something like that.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[ QUOTE ]
QR
Player elections will not work. The correspondents should simply be selected by Lighthouse and Ex Libris after expressing interest. Democracy is a wonderful institution, but it's too slow for this purpose.
[/ QUOTE ]
yes, I think this is how it will most likely work. In my original post i use the term 'voting', 'elected', and 'nominated' interchangably.
That is to say, it would behoove the player base to 'nominate' a player to the position. This would help express not only support of those inevitably selected, but would increase player involvement with the process, and hence increase satisfaction and contentment.
Of course, the person would have to submit the fact that they are interested in applying for the position, then to be selected by Ex Libris, or some arm of the community relations department.
Obviously, since it is a voluntary position, and with all that entails, a person could simply decline such endorsement from the players or posters.
For example, I would nominate Living Hellfire for the Blaster Archetype Correspondent. I also know he has the option of refusing such nomination. Though, with enough players asking him to take on the task, he just might.
Of course, it would still be up to him to submit his willingness to accept such a nomination. And upon such acceptance would still be up to him to submit such to the Community Relations department for consdieration.
I think leaving the ultimate decision up to the NCSoft of course, is paramount. They must have some way of instituting controls and safeguards to protect their interests as well as the players.
However, it would be easy for them to make such a decsion. They simply need base it off a person's qualifications, their post history, how helpful or respectful they have been, etc.
The history is there for all to read.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not suggesting that we create a private forums for player correspondents to communicate in secret with the developers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, this wouldn't be a bad idea either, though. If the AC positions are created, having a forum for them to discuss issues with themselves and the Devs might not be a bad idea.
The reason for this? A lot of times the ATs have the same powersets. What might not work for one AT might work for another AT, and discussing that in a place where all of the ACs can see it before it goes to the Devs would allow for them to make sure it doesn't get changed for the AT the power works fine for.
Also, it would allow the ACs to come together and discuss what they think should be the order the Devs try to tackle things. If there is a bug in an entire AT, then they can say that that should be worked on before an animation change for a particular power, or something like that.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is true, and I will be completely honest, I didn't want to be the one to suggest it.
Suffice it to say, in SWG we had exactly that, and of course, we had the discontented minority crying foul the instant something didn't happen they way they desired.
As I said, the position was often thankless and demanding. It was the moments of accomplishment, fleeting as they were, when it became worth it.
Lemur, I agree that the correspondent positions did not address the real problems with SWG
In fact, the real problem with that game was not the mechanics, which could be fixed, but a dissalusioned administration that hamstrung its developers as suredly as the sun sets in the west.
I don't want to go off into a tangent about what was wrong with SOE, and John Smedly, the then president of the company, but let it suffice to say that, when the same system failed there to a discommunication between the players, and the developers, I do not see that happening here.
NCSoft, and the development staff have shown themselves to not be as dissalusioned as those at SOE.
At no time could a developer such as _Castle_ does for NCSoft and Cryptic communicate as readily and easily as he does with this player base, as he could have for SOE.
For this company, which I feel is more in touch with their paying customers, I feel this system could live up to it's potential.
I see it working here exponentially better than it did in SWG. Wouldn't you agree to that?
There's a monthly "Scrapper Issues" list which has been maintained with exemplary fairness by WanderingCat for, like, three years. It acheived many of its goals and was in no way a formal position.
Castle read the first ... something like three thousand... responses to "What should be done with Defiance?"
I don't know if we need a layer of filtering here.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
They did this in DAoC. Might still be. For all I know, it was very successful, but I'm 3 years removed from that game now, so I don't know what's up now.
It does create some drama among the payers, though. The general players give their ideas to their representative, and the rep is responsible for bringing the issue to the Devs. The rep tended to get a lot of flack when the Devs didn't like the ideas. Sometimes they got the blame as well.
Could you imagine what would have happened to the (fictional) Regen Rep over Issues 3 thru 6? 
[ QUOTE ]
I see it working here exponentially better than it did in SWG. Wouldn't you agree to that?
[/ QUOTE ]
Efficiency is a big part of how useful any feedback mechanism is. I'm really not certain that many AT issues get missed by our dev team, so I think my point is, that an added layer of administration just bogs things down.
I've already run into line of communication issues between what gets reported to NCSoft and how that info makes it back to Cryptic (or not) and what gets reported directly to Cryptic via these forums. I'm not certain an added layer of player volunteers would be that helpful in straightening those things out.
I think if the core issue you're trying to solve is filtering out the signal to noise ratio of the forums, a more efficient way to do it by educating the playerbase.
When we're bug hunting in Closed Beta and in Open, the bug threads have specific instructions on how to report, and that helps increase the useful feedback by a wide margin.
Official threads tend to do the same thing. That's not to say they don't wander afield at times, but they do get a generally better grade of response than the day to day forums.
And then of course there are the dedicated problem solvers in our community. People like BillZ, Arcanaville, and many many others, who are already de facto filling the role you're trying to formalize.
I just want anyone who is willing to to step up and do the good work and make the statements, without worrying about turf wars and formalities, and precedence. Right now, anyone can. With formalized correspondents, that's not guaranteed.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
QR
I like your idea and the presentation was excellent. I just don't see the need for the position. It seems the Developers do a great job in knowing what "we" want in/out of the ATs (as long as it fits the balanced vision) and I think they do a decent job are telling us their motives to any changes. I am satisfied with the level of information given to players about the specific ATs so I disagree with your suggestion.
Still a nicely structured read.
[ QUOTE ]
Could you imagine what would have happened to the (fictional) Regen Rep over Issues 3 thru 6?
[/ QUOTE ]
I laughed at this. Still laughing, actually. That would rank up in the top 10 worst jobs ever.
As for the OP, I'm tending to lean more towards disagreeing. The main reason is simply the open communication the players have with the Devs, and vice versa. At any point in time, I can send a PM to a Dev and get a response. Granted, they will not respond to everything, and sometimes they can be a little short. Statesman once responded to me with "Hmmm. Interesting." (it did fit the what I sent him) They are busy people, but they do take the time to read every PM and respond to the majority of them. I've sent Castle more PMs than I can count, and I would say he responds to about 90% of them. Granted, these are usually quick, short and to the point questions, but they do take the time to answer them.
If there was a mediator, I don't see what they could do that we don't already do.
Cyclone Jack
-= idspispopd =-
[size=1]Arc ID: 3155 - Project Prometheus (Seeking Feedback, now with less invalidation)[/size]
[u]Archetype Correspondents[u]
First, let me begin by saying that this is simply a suggestion. This thread is not a call for votes or support. With that being said, here is my suggestion:
I would like to see a group of positions created by the Community Relations director for NCSoft, and the City of Heroes/Villains official forums. The positions created would be filled by an elected player, chosen annually, to be nominated (and in reality voted upon the player base) by the players, with the ultimate approval and confirmation of such nominee being decided by the Community Relations Department or perhaps the developers themselves. The positions would be for Archetype Correspondents.
Now, what does the term Archetype Correspondent mean? What do they do? What purpose would all this serve?
<ul type="square">[*]One: an Archetype Correspondent, or AC, would act as a sort of go-between or liaison between the developers of the game, and the player base. An AC would be responsible for bringing and organizing top-issues, concerns, suggestions, and ideas to the developers, and from the developers to the player base. They would act as a sort of advocate for their particular Archetype. They would represent the wishes and ideas of the player base. They would also assist the developers in better communicating with the player base on issues of importance, or forthcoming concern.
[*]Two: the Archetype Correspondents would represent their particular forum and chosen archetype with professionalism, good communication skills, and positive and constructive discourse. They would compile a list of player issues on the forums. They would keep track of potential bugs within their chosen archetype, and bring these forward to the developers within an organized and efficient manner. They would compile a list of Top 5 issues (or something similar) that would represent the majority of their Archetypes player base and submit these bi-annually (or something similar) to the development team for review. Most importantly, they would act as an informed, concerned, and mature outlet for not only player concerns, but developer concerns as well. Imagine the Archetype Correspondent as a translator, and simultaneously, a representative diplomat.
[*]Three: The purpose that would be served by implementing the idea of creating an Archetype Correspondent, is an overriding need and desire for better and more frequent communication. Communication is vitally important in the world of MMORPGs. In fact, it is the medium by which all ideas, problems, praise, and feelings are transmitted. The ACs would simultaneously work to represent the player base to the best of their abilities, and to make things much more enjoyable for everyone. The Developers would be unburdened with having to sift through the entire forums to discover problems. Now they would have problems or concerns submitted to them in an organized means. It would not only facilitate communication, but it would better the existing communication lines now in use. It would also give outlet to those customers (the players) who have legitimate concerns or desires. Conversely, it would also help eliminate redundant or unreasonable concerns from overshadowing legitimate ones. There are many many positive benefits that I can see (and have seen in other climates) resulting from such a decision to implement a position like this one.[/list]
Therefore: I think it would be an excellent idea to create player Archetype Correspondent positions.
How to go about this? This would just be my suggestion.
First, a bit of background:
[u]The history behind the suggestion.[u]
Or: it worked then and there, why not now and here?
Since this idea is not something brand new to me, or possibly to others, let me give you some background on where this idea was started, why, and what it resolved and how. The idea actually came to me from something I carried with me to this game from the MMO I played just before I started playing City of Villains when it went into its beta trials in 2005. That other MMO was Star Wars Galaxies by SOE. In that game, instead of archetypes, there were professions, and on the official forums, each profession had a correspondent that filled the role as I have already briefly described it. The position was created, because and out of the desire to streamline and provide outlets for communication on the official forums.
This served several purposes, and the positions created had many benefits, of both primary and secondary effect. It gave a sense of purpose to the player base and at the same time gave them a sense of immersion and enjoyment in being able to directly contribute to the future of the game they paid to play. It gave players a measure of comfort and satisfaction to know that their concerns and ideas were being addressed in an organized and efficient manner. It also helped the developers of the game in numerous ways: perhaps the most important way ended up being that it brought focus and clarity to often confusing and tumultuous proceedings. (Whereas before, developers had to constantly feel like they were required or mandated by the players to pour over every forum post in order to understand their customers better. Not only was this an unrealistic request, but a toothless ultimatum at times.)
Believe it or not, creating the position also alleviated a burden on their customer service department. Little secondary benefits, and changes (all of which were positive) like these, were simply bonus positive benefits that came about as a direct result of creating the positions and filling them with knowledgeable, respectful, mature, and helpful players. Nothing negative ever came from creating player correspondents, as far as I was ever aware.
So, from this experience, I took something with me and now I find myself wondering why such a position doesnt, or more to the point, hasnt been implemented for this game, and its creators and players.
In this thread I would like to discuss this suggestion more. I would also like to encourage each of you to review my suggestions, feel free to make your own, or ask any questions you may have concerning my suggestion or anything I have written about here.
[u]The Specifics[u]
Or: The way it worked, and could work again.
Lets assume for a minute that my suggestion isnt so much of a suggestion at all, but rather a trip down memory lane for me, and a interesting story for you. For those of you who have prior experience with SWG, this is also more of a trip down memory lane.
Once upon a time, A friend of mine named Wes, was a Calamarian named Felton Kel. Felton Kel was a Weapon-smith. He was also a two year running Weaponsmith Correspondent. Now, why was he a Correspondent? Because he was passionate about the game he played, passionate about the profession he had chosen, but even more importantly, because he was passionate about helping people and helping them have fun along the way. This is what Felton Kel did as a Weapon-smith Correspondent:
He organized a topic in the Weapon-smith forums called State of the Smithy. In this thread he asked people to post their top 5 concerns, gripes, complaints, wishes, wants, or musings about the Weapon-smith profession. After he had given people about a month to do this, he had one of the forum moderators sticky the post, and he reviewed the entire thread. He single-handedly (or finnededly?) sorted through the entire 176 pages of the topic and labored for weeks to compile a list of the top 5 issues of his fellow players. Once he had done this, he posted his results.
Then, at the annual meeting of the Correspondents and the head honchos over at SOE, he submitted these top 5 issues along with his other fellow Correspondents. Much was discussed during the meeting, and much was promised or disavowed. Meeting over, Felton Kel returned to the boards and communicated to the player base any positive answers that he was allowed to take back to his fellow players. No promises were made, but just the knowledge that someone was listening, and taking action, was enough for most. Things went well.
Then a few months after, the correspondents were invited to a Developer Sandbox. This was a very special honor. The correspondents were invited to preview the newest issue of the game before any other player had even seen it. Because these individuals had the interests of their fellow players at heart, and were intimately familiar with their professions and their unique concerns, each correspondent was uniquely qualified to give the developers powerful and immediate feedback in the sandbox alpha for the upcoming issue. The result was a resounding success.
Not only were the developers better able to work on important issues, but now that sorting through the clutter had been reduced for them, and brought to their attention by the Correspondents, they could concentrate on fixing and changing the things that people really did want to see. The majority of the player base rejoiced in the new changes for the most part. Of course, as with life, there were some sour apples, but at least most players thought, along with the developers, that good things had happened.
Everyone won out in the end.
The developers were hailed as genuinely concerned, in touch with their players, and as virtual heroes for faithfully addressing their concerns and implementing much needed change. The players were happy, and the developers were happy for them.
So ends the story.
[u] What I feel the implementation of this suggestion could spell for City of Heroes/Villains?[u]
Lots of good things.
In summary:
<ul type="square">[*] 1. It would enable better communication and allow an organized system of communication to freely and discreetly address player issues and concerns, in a way that would better serve the players, and the developers.[*]2. It would alleviate the burden on the developers from having to sift through the entire forums when they wanted to address or discuss problems or issues.[*]3. It would provide both developers and players with an organized method of discussion. Much like the Developers Digest highlights the developers feelings and thoughts on the state of the game, the Correspondents Digest could present an organized, well written and communicated, method of doing the same for the players.[*]4. It would provide an outlet to the players for discussing the game play they are most concerned about while remaining constructive, respectful, and effectual.[*]5. It would help address issues as they relate to the agreed upon importance. This would allow more important issues to be decided upon by consensus, and though such decision would not ultimately satisfy everyone, it would be definition be democratic, and fair to all parties and all ideas.[*]6. It would allow the player base to feel empowered and to feel as if they were directly contributing to the future success of the game.[*]7. It would improve customer and community relations. Potentially such discussions, easily referenced, would also alleviate some customer service issues from occurring, thus saving all parties not only time, but resources.[*]8. Creating Correspondents would increase participation in the discussion process and planning process of the game. Players would be afforded the opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful way while discussing issues, instead of discussion for discussions sake.[*]9. It would significantly reduce forum clutter. Every day there are new threads with not so new suggestions. Creating centralized and prominent topics for such discussion at designated times would not only reduce clutter, but facilitate less forum maintenance. Again, this would save time and resources for all parties.[*]10. Last, but certainly not least, this would provide the developers with a development tool that is frequently sought out by successful perpetual game designers, but often barely glimpsed. Real time qualitative feedback and QA. Now, not only would closed beta testing be an option, but more importantly, dedicated player testers with defined testing parameters and areas of focus/concern could provide instant and qualitative feedback to the developers with discreet, specific, and highly developed observation and testing methods. Data and feedback on existing and new bugs/problems could be delivered within every new issue, as well as before implementing target changes or fixes. [/list]
In closing, I encourage all of you to review my suggestion and make this topic a place to air your own suggestions, support, concerns, and questions with regards to the idea of Implementing Player Archetype Correspondents.
Thanks for reading.