The Players Board

This game has always had strong community interaction. From the very first issues, the developers listened to players and tried their best to satisfy our desires. When we wanted the ability to change our powers and slotting, they gave us respecs. When we wanted capes, they gave us costume changes, capes, and auras. When we wanted power customization, they did as much as they could.

But recently, many players feel like they are being left out of the discussion. PvPers and basebuilders feel slighted because of the lack of developer attention and the disastrous previous efforts to 'fix' the problems, soloers feel cheated by the lack of content, and even those that enjoy team content are beginning to feel forced into large-scale raids that many feel are against the feel of the game.

I propose a solution:
Have an annual election to elect players to a position on the Players Board. This will function much like a board of directors or Cabinet, but will have no authority status over other players. Instead, the board will essentially be signed into a permanent beta status, and will function as a representative of the playerbase to the developers. The developers would be obliged to consult these players on the nature of future content and on the direction of the game. Because of the nature of this, these players will probably have to sign an NDA.

Essentially, we will finally have our place at the table. Instead of waiting till bad ideas are almost released, such as the empyrean limits on new Incarnate powers or the Super packs, players would be able to say "That's a BAD idea!" before any content gets coded or sent to the test server. Hopefully, this will eliminate complaints of developer deafness and would allow them to still have some amount of surprise for the majority of players.

Any thoughts?

This is a reasonable good idea. Depending on how the Game designers and management interacts with the board it could be very good or another source of contention.

Picking who would be on the board would be very problematic. I can think of 3-5 players I have gamed with and 7-8 from the boards that I think would represent my interests competently. I doubt that half or even a couple of them would be interested in the job. So, picking people, yeah. And how would we as players choose our board? What type of election (and campaign for the job?) would this entail. And lets not forget that just because a majority of people elect someone, and say they are great for representing them, that the elected individual would actually competently do the job.

But in theory it could go very well. Good luck.

Like communism, it's a great concept, but I don't see it working well.

secondary idea: add a "signed" check box and a system that keeps track of it, to the forums. when an idea hits, say, 1000 people, it requires a dev's response and clarification. There obviously would be some type of restriction on it, but it would be nice, so we know we can MAKE them look at somthing if enough people care about it in a positive way.

and/or add a "post view historry" to the daves page and maybe have them flagged as a dev has viewed it.

Yeah, let's bring politics into the game.

[there was supposed to be a gif here of Jim from The Office looking at the camera and shaking his head but at least on my computer it's not loading properly, but rest assured it's pretty darned hilarious and effectively makes my point]

Yes Dark..revert to sarcasm instead of just saying..I don't agree. Good job.

Just because the OP is using the terms elected, board, etc, does not mean it has ANYTHING to do with politics. At the very best, it would come down to in game and forum politics. And you know what? We already have them. Look at how many of the big posters act, like their own opinions can never be wrong. Also get in game channel and sg leaders trying to get more control.

So yeah..we already have game politics. How is having a group of players as a go between to the devs a bad idea? (Neglecting the fact that actually electing them fairly would be very hard)

Its a system where a few people represent the interests of many. I'm no PoliSci major, but isn't that the very definition of politics?

But yeah, stop being Snarky.

Can I vote for UniqueDragon?

I want DarkGob, seems he's got the right attitude right off the bat.

I understand it would bring some politics into the game, but hopefully it would work something like this:

1 Player says "Player X represents me, I nominate him to be on the board."

Some more players second the nomination, and after a certain number (say 100), Player X is on the board. There would be no limit to the number of elected members, and they wouldn't run against each other. I'm not sure whether a permanent election or an annual one would work better, but either way the board system would simply be a way for players to tell the developers "NO!" earlier in the development process, or encourage them to implement player-friendly policies. The board would receive no extra benefits aside from the ability to give their input.

For instance, I would nominate Arcanaville to the board immediately, because I feel her opinion is generally good for the game.

EDIT: I also agree with the suggestion for a required developer reply after a certain number of responses, though I could see it being abused ("we only need 400 more posts for a dev to reply, spam the thread!")

I am absolutely against this idea.

The player-base is already represented by all those willing to come to the forums and voice their opinions. Just because your idea or the idea of 100 people is not implemented does not mean that the devs are not listening to people's opinions.

This would be nothing more than a popularity contest that at it's root is not even needed. People assume because X IDEA is not implemented that no one is listening... and frankly "elected" representatives would have no more say in decisions than the thousands who already frequent the boards and voice their opinions.

So I say NO THANKS to taking my individual voice away from me...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladiamors I love you, I Burnt the Toast!

If there's one thing we don't need, that would be elected representatives.

Y'all forget, this game, and these forums, are *benevolent dictatorships*. They'll listen to everyone, really... but... it's their toy. You either play by their rules, or not.

But what we're not going to do is go all ape and elect people... and then get mad at those people who didn't get Bronies in the game, or webslinging, or Big Red Ball, or a Moon Base, or...

You get the idea.

-1 on this.

Oh, and:

/jranger.
//I will support the voting for UniqueDragon though, definitely.

If I remember correctly another MMO tried this and it didn't work out very well. Most of the player base still felt they weren't properly represented and representatives pushed their own agendas. In my opinion this is a terrible idea.

From I can see, most people think this a horrible idea. Let me clarify some things however:

1. This could be as simple as letting a few responsible players have access to developer ideas in a pre-code stage, giving them a small amount of advice. It could be as easy as sending an email of prospective ideas to a small number of players.

2. This is not a huge leap forward. This is not going to change the game. This will not break anything. This will not allow players to get all the shinies they want. This will not let players campaign for ponies, or for any player agenda.

3. This will, however, a player's to give their stance to the developers in a restrained way. Ordinarily, it would be impossible to ask a 100000+ players what they want and expect an answer, but 100 players could provide simple feedback. This is not "Devs do this", but developers asking "Is this a good idea?" or "Should we implement this in this way?".

4. This would allow lesser represented playerbases, such as those of the base-builders and PvPers, to have a closer connection with the developers instead of being drowned out by the large majority who do not share their interests.

5. This is a FILTER. It allows the developers to get a good sense of player opinion without wading thousands of replies. The devs would still have the ability to do so if they wished, but have one more option to use in order to produce the best possible content. It is just using a smaller sample of players to get a consensus on player opinion.

6. It seems every hates the idea of a player election. Fine. I admit, I did not pretend the response of people to the idea, or the wording of the idea. Maybe if I could have asked a smaller sample of just DarkGob and BlueCenturion, I would have been able to better word my post in a way that appealed to more people. You see the logic?

We already have this feature.. it is called open beta....

I have seen many things change as a result of beta.

And we already have the devs ears. Check out the dev digest if you ever want to see just how much they interact and listen to the player base. I love bases..and yes I am disheartened they have not received more attention BUT with that said...the devs know this is an issue/wish with a minority of the player base..as well as pvp.. etc etc etc. It comes down to MANY things to give players their wishes... and changing bases and/or pvp is constantly addressed by the devs and is not something simple that can be done with the flip of a switch (contrary to popular belief).

What you are asking for is not needed and would simply create more problems than solutions. We ALL already have a voice...right here on these forums. Just because your idea, or Joe Schmoe's or 50 people's or 1,000 people's ideas are not implemented does not mean the devs are not aware of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladiamors I love you, I Burnt the Toast!

I'm sorry if I've offended. My point wasn't to attack my critics, but to rephrase my argument in a better way. It did get rantish at a point though.

I never stated it wasn't politics. That was another poster.

I should have said something like this:

The developers should sent an email of prospective ideas to players before they implement them into the game as another level of screening. Not every player would probably like to know the details of Paragon's inner workings, so player's would flag themselves for this email or have some manner of narrowing down of potential reviewers.

I admit, it was foolish to try and make it political, especially considering the distaste many have of the current political system (and I even tied it into business!). I believed that many were posting in a knee-jerk reaction to the way I portrayed my idea rather than the content, and so I tried to change my portrayal. Obviously, that gave many the idea that I was attacking.

Let me be clear:

I have no beef with the devs. They haven't ruined any of my favorite powersets, or changed anything I've loved about the game. I don't mind any of the new additions to the game. One of the few things I've suggested on these forums, a contest based on speech-making for an anniversary, actually was picked up by the devs and made a reality.

But throughout the boards, I have noticed greater and greater trends of player-rage at developer change. Players are angry that new DA destroyed the fog of old DA, players don't like paying 15 E-merits for new incarnate abilities, etc. Many of these ideas would be as simple to stop as asking us whether we would like it or not, or whether it was the best solution. For instance, they could have said "Hey, we are thinking about redoing DA for Incarnate content. We are thinking a death metal vibe, is that cool?", and players could have replied "It could be cool, but don't kill the fog!"

Basically, it would be an ideas beta. I still think that is a good idea. If everything thinks that the people side of it is a horrible idea, maybe it is.

I have often thought about this idea. I have even thought of just plain doing it myself directly: ask the players for a list of issues, pick the top couple, and then approach the devs on my own dime and see if I could get them to give a focused response that they might not give just randomly replying to forum threads.

But I keep coming back to the fact that there is a segment of the playerbase that is living under the happy delusion that this doesn't happen, and can't happen. That if I attempted to do this, it just wouldn't happen, because of course the devs aren't going to answer me if they won't just post into the public forums. And it might simply be too disruptive to break this illusion.

I could do this at any time, and I would if I thought it would help anything. But that notion that some would berate not just me (I'm used to that) but the devs themselves for participating in this makes it not worth it to me. I'll take the heat for it, but I won't expose the devs to unnecessary irrational criticism.

Its a shame, really. Its not like I don't talk to the devs. Its just that I can't poll the players to ask what I should be talking to them about. So its generally about what I want to talk about, although that's informed by what I personally think are the concerns of the rest of the playerbase. Somewhat ironic that the belief no one can be trusted to represent the playerbase properly prevents me from even trying, but doesn't prevent me from representing my own interests if I choose.

Well, yes. I was at the time banging a drum for dominator changes that were not made for 'us', the players in the core of the event, those players who had not only got permadom, but had gotten it multiple times. It was this perspective - and its unpopularity - that most informed my subsequent opinion and observation of the changes.

The real tipping point in my mind was the porting of Earth. Suddenly, we had a powerset whose up-and-down nature was not there for several core powers. It had two real winners out of it, but by and large, a permadom earth dominator was not getting as much yield out of Domination as say, a permadom mind controller. I like to imagine that it was after its release and the subsequent data gathering that Castle was able to check - or at least gain a data point - that players in general did not mind up-and-down being taken away. Since it's led to the release of Elec for dominators, I think that it's more or less right.

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

A certain space-based MMO (which shall remain nameless) has a thing called the CSM. It's a small group of players who are elected (annually, I think) by the general player populace. They're supposed to listen to suggestions or complaints raised by the general populace, debate said issues amongst themselves, and if there's enough support, discuss them directly with the developers in meetings (which happen on a regular basis). The devs aren't obligated to implement the issues brought forward by the CSM, but it's generally expected that if an issue made it that far, the devs would have to have a very good reason indeed to reject it.

It all sounds like a very democratic process, right? But, just as in real-world politics, the people who run for CSM often have their own (sometimes hidden) agendas, and being players themselves, frequently skew towards supporting qame changes that benefit their own play styles.

For example, that game's message forums have many complaints about certain current CSM members who seem to favor the way large alliances (of which some are members) can totally dominate areas of space, with smaller corporations ("guilds") having little hope of making inroads in those areas.

My point is, a representative democratic process can be a two-edged sword, in both real and virtual spaces. Such an arrangement has the potential to bring about good changes, but it can also lead to results that benefit only a small minority of players.

Of course, the same thing could be said about the player-dev interaction in any game, CSM or no CSM...

I believe Will Rogers once said, "You can please some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But, you can't please all the people all of the time."

Even if I was on globals with one or two of these board member-players, I don't think they're going to be looking out for the interest of the game or me. I would think they would be looking out for whatever is in the best interest of the main toon they're playing at the time. They would be wanting different ways to use judgement when there I am, just giddy about being able to use judgement at all playing a tank. The newness hasn't worn off and I'm not at all bored with it.

A point was made about a very diverse playerbase. The Devs already can be seen reading through various threads - and I do give them credit to be able to recognize rationale argument from inflammatory rhetoric.

However, if I were on the board...nah, I'd just muck things up.

The biggest concern would be the potentially MASSIVE spamming to the board members, "look at my idea". The other concern would be, hate mail because "my idea wasn't taken". Both of those are very real possibilities.

The power of the people would need to be faceless. There should be no individual with the target on their forehead.

further assesing on my concept: prems would get 1 vote "signed" a month and VIP would get 3 a month. If you post an idea and click signed, you use one vote. if you like an idea enough that you want it made, you can use a vote on it.
then, the dev's would know "at a clance" what the people want. At least then, the people would have a way to draw dev attention to something that's important to them.

I would like it if the devs would implament this then, when they're looking to make a power or costume set, or any other changes, they could make a list of choises in a few threads and let the people vote. those instances would not be tracable or postable by players that way the winning set is a surprise.