Now my idea is for a login server poll. Each account gets 1 vote per change or addition to the game. This way the players get to decide what gets nerfed. What gets added and what gets changed. I keep seeing alot of changes to UO and a common reason they state is because players have been asking for this and that. They keep saying the players shape the world and what not. But yet we get no say in what gets added to the game.
Should all changes/additions to Uo be made by the players?
- Thread starter ZippyTwitch
- Start date
- Watchers 3
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
I voted "yes", but with a big asterisk. I think players should vote on what areas of the game deserve attention. However, specific changes: no.
Players are not unbiased and (quite naturally) a little greedy - you'll always get more votes for a buff than a nerf - it sets up a cycle where an overpowered template will get more players and thus vote itself more power. So I think players should be able to vote for "skill balance" as a priority, I would oppose players voting up or down specific techniques for balance.
Also, I would restrict voting to accounts at least 6 months old (to cut down on spamming new accounts)
Players are not unbiased and (quite naturally) a little greedy - you'll always get more votes for a buff than a nerf - it sets up a cycle where an overpowered template will get more players and thus vote itself more power. So I think players should be able to vote for "skill balance" as a priority, I would oppose players voting up or down specific techniques for balance.
Also, I would restrict voting to accounts at least 6 months old (to cut down on spamming new accounts)
Should we? No. Of course not.
The game belongs to Electronic Arts. It's their decision where they want this game to go and where they want to spend resources to improve or change it. Our only part in this is whether we like the game enough to pay to play it each month.
On the other hand, if EA decided to poll me on what I like or don't like about the game or what I'd like added, changed, nerfed, or removed, I would definitely take the time to answer.
The game belongs to Electronic Arts. It's their decision where they want this game to go and where they want to spend resources to improve or change it. Our only part in this is whether we like the game enough to pay to play it each month.
On the other hand, if EA decided to poll me on what I like or don't like about the game or what I'd like added, changed, nerfed, or removed, I would definitely take the time to answer.
T
T_Amon_from_work
Guest
I voted no. As an IT member, I still have cases where users insist they are right, I implement something and I get the "Oh $%^&%R$ I didn't want that!" line.
We - the players, EA customers - are too fickle and wear blinders on too much to make rational decisions for the greater good. Especially if it goes against their playstyle grain or personal preferences.
We - the players, EA customers - are too fickle and wear blinders on too much to make rational decisions for the greater good. Especially if it goes against their playstyle grain or personal preferences.
I find the collective lack of faith in the power of democracy a little disturbing, especially with all the elections going on right now 
Thats idiotic. No. Many players are complete nincompoops who coulnd game design thier way out of a paper sack.
Should devs listen to player input? Absolutly, assuming that the input isnt stupid.
Should devs listen to player input? Absolutly, assuming that the input isnt stupid.
kelmo
Old and in the way
Professional
Alumni
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Dread Lord
- May 12, 2008
- 17,963
- 5,876
- 36,931
Did you ever play D&D? If your GM gave into democracy... Well, that leads to a pretty boring game.I find the collective lack of faith in the power of democracy a little disturbing, especially with all the elections going on right now
I play every other week (well, not exactly D&D but a homebrew game system with a superficial compatibility). The players have complete control over where they go on the map of the land, what edges they cross, what plotlines they explore, what topics they want to research (ie: what parts of the game map, history, ecology, economy or rules mechanics I flesh out). For over 20 years, I've had no problem in finding a steady stream of eager players by word of mouth.
Ironically, you choose the perfect example of why I think democracy in game-design priorities works
Your premise is completly flawed.
You assume that every account equals a unique person.
I can assure you that is not the case. I have 2 accounts, there fore I would get two votes.
I have seen people here claim to have 50+ accounts and some claim to have 100+ accounts.
If your intent is to design by democracy (hint larger than design by committee), then your intent is seriously undermined by the many to 1 relation ship expressed by Many Accounts : 1 Person.
I some how think with the millions of dollars that the Scripters and Gold Sellers make of UO, that they would key in to the Many Accounts : 1 Person and exploit the living daylight out of it to make it even easier to Script and Sell Gold.
I think your Democracy would be bought and paid for by the Scripters and Gold Sellers, lock stock and barrel.
If you think you can key it into something to identify the one, well all I can say is welcome to UO's world in specific and MMORPG's world in general. I can make a yahoo mail account faster than I can make a UO account, I can get a credit card nearly as fast as I can get a UO account. I can fabricate a unique Address way faster than I can do any of the preceding. You have ZERO chance to uniquely identify me. Edited to add: Well when millions of real life currency is involved
You assume that every account equals a unique person.
I can assure you that is not the case. I have 2 accounts, there fore I would get two votes.
I have seen people here claim to have 50+ accounts and some claim to have 100+ accounts.
If your intent is to design by democracy (hint larger than design by committee), then your intent is seriously undermined by the many to 1 relation ship expressed by Many Accounts : 1 Person.
I some how think with the millions of dollars that the Scripters and Gold Sellers make of UO, that they would key in to the Many Accounts : 1 Person and exploit the living daylight out of it to make it even easier to Script and Sell Gold.
I think your Democracy would be bought and paid for by the Scripters and Gold Sellers, lock stock and barrel.
If you think you can key it into something to identify the one, well all I can say is welcome to UO's world in specific and MMORPG's world in general. I can make a yahoo mail account faster than I can make a UO account, I can get a credit card nearly as fast as I can get a UO account. I can fabricate a unique Address way faster than I can do any of the preceding. You have ZERO chance to uniquely identify me. Edited to add: Well when millions of real life currency is involved
Enigma is right, between the family we have 8 accts in this household, of which, hubby and I maintain the "votes". It would be unfair for us to have 8 votes against a person that has fewer. Just cause we pay more money doesn't necessarily mean we or any other multi-account holder should be able to overrule the lone account holder.
Oriana
Oriana
While this is a subtopic for OT....I find the collective lack of faith in the power of democracy a little disturbing, especially with all the elections going on right now
Take a look at the last eight years with our current CiC. That could have been prevented if certain elements didn't have the same say as, say, someone with a valid worldview.
Doesn't that fall under the golden rule?
edit: I do sympathize (a lot) with the one player one vote view and "block voting" gives 2 accounts a little more power than 2 votes, but I'm not a huge fan of the current feedback system either which smells like "loudest clique spamming their demands wins" ... even though I'm sometimes a pretty loud clique of one all by myself
*Shrug* (for those that dont get it, The Golden Rule = Those that have the Gold, Rule)
I am 100% with Oriana.
BUT that is really not the issue.
If this were to happen, you can bet the farm on it would be less than 1 week and the process would be owned, lock stock and barrel by the Scriptors and Gold Sellers.
And I am 100% confident that would not be within the spirit of the OP or the majority of UO players.
I mean, I would never go for the design by committe, let alone design by democracy. I could go for such a system as a means to express opinions. BUT that is still going to be perverted by the Scriptors and the Gold Sellers.
I honestly do believe the majority of players would be right in line with Oriana, the sheer dollars involved will simply silence them.
Well, if the majority votes against democracy on the poll, I think our debate ends with a logical contradiction
Well, if the majority votes against democracy on the poll, I think our debate ends with a logical contradiction
Lol, your post wins the prize Maplestone!
Well, if the majority votes against democracy on the poll, I think our debate ends with a logical contradiction
Assuming that polls have any value anyway.
I suspect that if one dug through the history, I think one might find that the majority if not all polls are a means for venting ones spleen and is not reflective of what one will do in reality.
Just for Humor, what President *chuckle* had the shortest term? Hint: I did not say he was sworn in.
Majority rule in a nut house is a scary prospect....I find the collective lack of faith in the power of democracy a little disturbing, especially with all the elections going on right now
K
Kyrie_Elaison
Guest
I was going to give a lengthy version of my opinion, but given the current voting and the explanation for the other no's, I feel I would be preaching to the choir.
So just no.
So just no.
A big NO, as not everything players ask for is healty for the game.
It's fine with a poll to give the devs an idea of what we would like to see of changes but EA/Devs would always have to evaluate if it's good for the game.
Players comes back after playing other games and miss features they had in other games and ask to have them added to UO.
In my opinion, the last year had been good for UO, we are going the right way now.
The last year, Devs refused to debat changes before they was ready for TC, I think that's a good thing.
It do not mean they do not listen to us, I had seen them pick ideas posted here on Stratics or from focus groups and add them to the game.
It's fine with a poll to give the devs an idea of what we would like to see of changes but EA/Devs would always have to evaluate if it's good for the game.
Players comes back after playing other games and miss features they had in other games and ask to have them added to UO.
In my opinion, the last year had been good for UO, we are going the right way now.
The last year, Devs refused to debat changes before they was ready for TC, I think that's a good thing.
It do not mean they do not listen to us, I had seen them pick ideas posted here on Stratics or from focus groups and add them to the game.
M
Mitzlplik_SP
Guest
I didn`t vote yes or no because while I think the devs should rely on log in polls ALOT more than websites and forums,I don`t think players should have the right to choose what gets added and what does not.I don`t know why there isn`t more log in polls.If the dev`s want accurate infor from their active players its the best way to go.Gettin their info from forums is ******** since the very smallest percentage of players actually go to these or other forums.
Only thing I`ll add to needing a log in poll is the ability to write maybe 200 words WITH the log in poll.That`d be nice IMO.That way they`d get feedback from actual players and not bitter peaple who don`t even play anymore.
Only thing I`ll add to needing a log in poll is the ability to write maybe 200 words WITH the log in poll.That`d be nice IMO.That way they`d get feedback from actual players and not bitter peaple who don`t even play anymore.
Name one other service, people pay for, that they as customers can change or nerf as you put it.
You can't.
You can't.
So if a customer asked for your firm to deliver an M1A1 Tank, 20 M16's, and a truck load of RPG's to their front door, your security firm would do that 100%? If they asked you to take out (kill) all their neigbors and confiscate the guns from all police officers your firm would do that as well?
This is an online game, not a security firm...
They are two completely different areas of work. We are subscribers and we all receive the same services as everyone else in this game, we can't each customize the game to our own liking, that would be completely impossible for an online game. Why would you even try to compare the two?
R
Rainforest
Guest
This may be true. But I am certain there are limits even to that. There are only so many options any company can give and stay with their means and the law.
UO is customizable to a point, in that you can choose what you want to do and when. The poll would be an ok idea if coming from EA for them to get general information. ie color options, vet rewards, how armor displays for certain races (sorry Jeremy). Coming from players, while interesting for conversation and discussions, polls are very biased and mostly from people that haven't a clue as to how things in the code work. But it's definately not a bad thing, having polls, as it may spark ideas the devs never thought of or give them new approaches to older systems.
Oriana
Should EA be asking the playerbase more questions through login polls to get more statistics about how players feel about different aspects of the game? Definitely.
Should EA assume the playerbase knows what they actually want? No.
Even if the playerbase did know what they actually wanted, and EA knew that, should EA ignore factors such as development time, risk of bug introduction, marketing opportunities to non-players, etc? No.
What players think they want is important, but so are many other things.
Should EA assume the playerbase knows what they actually want? No.
Even if the playerbase did know what they actually wanted, and EA knew that, should EA ignore factors such as development time, risk of bug introduction, marketing opportunities to non-players, etc? No.
What players think they want is important, but so are many other things.
C
Capricious
Guest
I don't believe UO should be decided by polls (i.e I voted no). While UO has a lot of great players, it also has a lot of kids, cheaters, etc.
However, I would love to see some random login feedback session/questionnaire of course with the option to "opt-out" should you choose. I really believe if EA doesn't want to mess with forums because of the negativity than they need to find another way to implement a feedback system that prompts us, not that we have to hunt down as players. Our opinions, ideas should be important... just not godly.
However, I would love to see some random login feedback session/questionnaire of course with the option to "opt-out" should you choose. I really believe if EA doesn't want to mess with forums because of the negativity than they need to find another way to implement a feedback system that prompts us, not that we have to hunt down as players. Our opinions, ideas should be important... just not godly.
F
Fink
Guest
No.
In your scenario, large lobby groups full of twinks would decide the fate of the game. When faced with a choice that's "for the good of the game" or "gimme gimme gimme", which way do you think they'll vote?
H
Harb
Guest
Oh my, as someone with a military, security and government background with very strong political views over the last 30 years, there's so much "bait" here I can hardly restrain myself. Democracy is what we defend, not what we practice. Well, sort of.
I vote "No." Most of the pertinent terrain has already been covered.
Dev, past and present, provide a great product. Despite "eaches," it is a diverse game, very complex, carefully balanced, and well integrated. When dev adds/ deletes/ modifies, it is done without individual bias, as it should be. Additions we see today, are already integrated into known features upcoming over the next year, which we don't see. So there are aspects of development we can not have a valid opinion of. Sure, you can make a case that it forces "blind trust," but in a game, we reward or penalize via our subscriptions and continued participation.
The area of development that is neglected is player input, and while unfortunate, I don't believe it's done with any sort of malice and likely is not "intentional." There is a lot of room for improvement here. Jeremy, or any community coordinator as a single person, can not capture all thought on public boards. A team should be able to, but a "team" costs money. "Polls" have tended not to work, but with better focus and concentration could play a more beneficial role. As posters and players, we could do a better job of becoming more subjective, detailed, and less biased. I sincerely believe that if a partnership could be established between players and the dev folks, it would be groundbreaking within the industry and most beneficial over the long haul. I just haven't seen it work - so far!
I vote "No." Most of the pertinent terrain has already been covered.
Dev, past and present, provide a great product. Despite "eaches," it is a diverse game, very complex, carefully balanced, and well integrated. When dev adds/ deletes/ modifies, it is done without individual bias, as it should be. Additions we see today, are already integrated into known features upcoming over the next year, which we don't see. So there are aspects of development we can not have a valid opinion of. Sure, you can make a case that it forces "blind trust," but in a game, we reward or penalize via our subscriptions and continued participation.
The area of development that is neglected is player input, and while unfortunate, I don't believe it's done with any sort of malice and likely is not "intentional." There is a lot of room for improvement here. Jeremy, or any community coordinator as a single person, can not capture all thought on public boards. A team should be able to, but a "team" costs money. "Polls" have tended not to work, but with better focus and concentration could play a more beneficial role. As posters and players, we could do a better job of becoming more subjective, detailed, and less biased. I sincerely believe that if a partnership could be established between players and the dev folks, it would be groundbreaking within the industry and most beneficial over the long haul. I just haven't seen it work - so far!
Uh-huh.. As if players haven't already whined PB, Profs etc etc out of the game.
Needless poll. :loser:
Needless poll. :loser:
A poll is a kind of direct democracy and i don't think it would be a good thing for a game as we need consistency in the decisions taken. You could end up with Gargoyles, riding etheral chickens, with a laser gun in the left hand.I find the collective lack of faith in the power of democracy a little disturbing, especially with all the elections going on right now