New Changes from a "Players" Perspective...

[Crystal Canyon]

New Changes from a "Players" Perspective....

Everytime there is a new upgrade or changes made to the game, there is a considerable amount of rants and dislikes expressed about those changes. Some even leading to players giving up thier accounts for total dislike of new additions or nerfs.

I realize that the job of the developers is to create new and attention getting suppliments to an already awesome game, but from my perspective, I feel like the decision of which changes and additions are implemented should be directly influenced by the players, aka customers.

How hard would it be for the devs to post thier ideas of new changes or additons and have players actually vote on those they wish to be added or subtracted from the game?

Example:

Devs posted Idea 1:

We would make a One Eyed Purple People Eater that would roam the lands in search of Gms that were actually playing the game and they would be eaten alive and spit back out as a tree stump for players to practice Lumberjacking on.

YES X
NO

I think it would be more productive in the long run to know up front what the majority of the players would accept as a good addition as apposed to the ranting and lose of players due to new impliments that they totally dislike.

I understand that one of the best parts of any new publish is the "surprise affect" of what is actually added. But, if we were given a vast number of ideas of which to choose from (by voting), then the Dev Team could decide for themselfs which ones were added or nerfed.

The whole idea is for the Devs to come up with the ideas, mainly because they do research the economy and what is best for the game, but at the same time give the players (customers) those ideas that the majority would want to see in the game.

 

[Nexus]

Example:

Devs posted Idea 1:

We would make a One Eyed Purple People Eater that would roam the lands in search of Gms that were actually playing the game and they would be eaten alive and spit back out as a tree stump for players to practice Lumberjacking on.

YES X
NO

So your advocating more Rares be put into the game?

 

[DHMagicMan_1]

Most games won't do this for a number of reasons...

1. Surprise... they want to wow you... (not WoW you) and not give info to competitors early...
2. Some plans/ideas don't materialize for a number of reasons... technically difficult to program, time consuming, balance, buggy, funds etc... if they told you people would scream "you promised xxx"
3. Balance partly above but partly many (most) games have many groups of players, PvPs, Crafters, Spellcasters, Tamers, Treasure Hunters, Gardeners etc... The Devs/Company has to come up with plans that benefit different groups at different times... it's not always "Majority Rules"

I'm sure there's other reasons people could add but those are some off the top of my head.

Good luck with this thread, though...

 

[Crystal Canyon]

So your advocating more Rares be put into the game?

LOL...well I hadnt actually intended for it to seem as a rare, but I guess it could be considered that way.

It was only an example, of which at the moment I couldnt come up with anything better.

Now that I think about it though, a One Eyed Purple People Eater eating Gms.....hmmmm

 

[Crystal Canyon]

Most games won't do this for a number of reasons...

1. Surprise... they want to wow you... (not WoW you) and not give info to competitors early...
2. Some plans/ideas don't materialize for a number of reasons... technically difficult to program, time consuming, balance, buggy, funds etc... if they told you people would scream "you promised xxx"
3. Balance partly above but partly many (most) games have many groups of players, PvPs, Crafters, Spellcasters, Tamers, Treasure Hunters, Gardeners etc... The Devs/Company has to come up with plans that benefit different groups at different times... it's not always "Majority Rules"

I'm sure there's other reasons people could add but those are some off the top of my head.

Good luck with this thread, though...

Im sure there are Developers of other games *clears throat* that read UO Stratics daily in order to get ideas for thier own game from players that post ideas to our Dev Team here.

Also, Five on Friday, does give ideas and hints on what is come, as they are actually working on the implements.

The entire idea, as I said, was for the Dev to come up with propositions for new development so that they would know from the start what was to technically difficult, too time consuming, buggy, etc. Thats the point...we dont know what is possible because most of us are not developers and dont know what is possible and what isnt.

I was just reading a post here about a players quitting because of new additions to the game...it is just sad. I was only trying to suggest a method that might detour some of this.

Im just thinking that somehow, EA, does want to cater to the customers here. not just throw out new stuff that may or not be a welcomed addition to the game for most players.

 

[Sir Stain]

I like it Crystal! The developers will say" The customer does not know what they want. Besides we are a corporate monarchy. We do as we please. "

 

[OldAsTheHills]

New Changes from a "Players" Perspective....

Everytime there is a new upgrade or changes made to the game, there is a considerable amount of rants and dislikes expressed about those changes. Some even leading to players giving up thier accounts for total dislike of new additions or nerfs.

I realize that the job of the developers is to create new and attention getting suppliments to an already awesome game, but from my perspective, I feel like the decision of which changes and additions are implemented should be directly influenced by the players, aka customers.

How hard would it be for the devs to post thier ideas of new changes or additons and have players actually vote on those they wish to be added or subtracted from the game?

Example:

Devs posted Idea 1:

We would make a One Eyed Purple People Eater that would roam the lands in search of Gms that were actually playing the game and they would be eaten alive and spit back out as a tree stump for players to practice Lumberjacking on.

YES X
NO

I think it would be more productive in the long run to know up front what the majority of the players would accept as a good addition as apposed to the ranting and lose of players due to new impliments that they totally dislike.

I understand that one of the best parts of any new publish is the "surprise affect" of what is actually added. But, if we were given a vast number of ideas of which to choose from (by voting), then the Dev Team could decide for themselfs which ones were added or nerfed.

The whole idea is for the Devs to come up with the ideas, mainly because they do research the economy and what is best for the game, but at the same time give the players (customers) those ideas that the majority would want to see in the game.

UO is not a republic! If the developers are willing to allow input from the customers
that is fine by me.
But, they < developers> should never let you vote on the progress of the game.
If the developers want to progress the game toward some goal, they
should never let the customers a chance to say no to that goal.
They have a top down command structure when they make plans.
The guy/gal on top makes the final decision about the product.
Listening to too many voices of opinion will ruin anything, or atleast cause
nothing to be done. I now point my finger toward the US Congress, look how
they act. Is this way to do business of designing programs?
Please, rethink what you do. You may stop the game all together just
trying to get what you want.

*stares*
Yahaxithonix

 

[Jhym]

You may want to think about that for a while.

Do you really really really want all of these people voting on changes that will happen?

"Do you want Felucca turned into Trammel"
Yes 75% No 25%

"Do you want Trammel turned into Felucca"
Yes 75% No 25%

Do you want town XXXX to be invaded by tentacled horrors for two weeks?

Yes 18%
No 18%
No, but ettins are ok 18%
yes, but with a guardzone for my crafter 18%
Yes, but only in Trammel 18%
Yes, but only in Felucca 10%


Publish by committee is the absolute worst possible way to run a game, and I'd fire any producer/developer that started it if I was the game owner. You need players to play, not decide which candied llama crests will be added to the cooking menu.

If you don't enjoy the path the game is going, you send in your feedback. If the developers find it useful, then perhaps they'll change. If not, you can always take a break or go somewhere else.

 

[Crystal Canyon]

If you don't enjoy the path the game is going, you send in your feedback. If the developers find it useful, then perhaps they'll change. If not, you can always take a break or go somewhere else.

Thats my point exactly! Alot are choosing to go elsewhere.

Besides the fact, I do think that the last two posters misread my entire idea.

Im NOT saying that the customers (players) generate ANY of the suppliments to the game...Im saying the Dev team does that totally on thier own.

The Dev Team posts thier ideas and what they think is good for the game and then the players essential vote on each of the ideas (that the Dev team has) as to whether to implement them or not.

Im not blonde enough to suggest that all new implements be thought of and suggested by the players...LOL...thats too funny! We might end up with that One Eyed Purple People Eater!

 

[DHMagicMan_1]

I think I didn't misread your original idea. I just don't think it would work. Maybe I didn't explain all the reasons it wouldn't but there are many.

Let's say that there's a publish schedule that allows 4000 hours of "Development" time not counting QA and whatever and they have 17 different ideas that they can mix and match to fill that 4000 hours, if they do all 17 ideas it's going to take 12000 hours so thats out of the question, some of the 17 are interdependant and need to be done together and some only benefit small populations (say gardeners or PvPers or house decorators or whatever)...

No development group would just post 17 ideas (with or without the time estimates) and say which of these do you want, rate them from 1 to 10... because they know that some are "nice to haves" for everyone... some are "important" to small communities... there's all kinds of issues and choices that developers make.

If you were suggesting "Let us choose the year xxx eye candy decorations" that won't have any function but hang on the walls in our houses... that would be a different story... they could hold a contest and let people submit 100 ideas... but when it comes to game balance and changes over time, it's not for forum votes (IMHO).

 

[Crystal Canyon]

I think I didn't misread your original idea. I just don't think it would work. Maybe I didn't explain all the reasons it wouldn't but there are many.

Let's say that there's a publish schedule that allows 4000 hours of "Development" time not counting QA and whatever and they have 17 different ideas that they can mix and match to fill that 4000 hours, if they do all 17 ideas it's going to take 12000 hours so thats out of the question, some of the 17 are interdependant and need to be done together and some only benefit small populations (say gardeners or PvPers or house decorators or whatever)...

No development group would just post 17 ideas (with or without the time estimates) and say which of these do you want, rate them from 1 to 10... because they know that some are "nice to haves" for everyone... some are "important" to small communities... there's all kinds of issues and choices that developers make.

(IMHO).

But isnt that exactly what they are doing now, only without the players input?

They come up with a number of ideas, do time estimates and reality checks...lol, and then they decide which ones to actually go forward with and implement, or at least try to. IM sure they have had ideas that just didnt work out for one reason or another.

It does not matter if they chose to implement or the players vote as far as "how important" new items or skills may be. They make the final decision now and no way can they please everyone with what they decide.

I, for one, am not interested in the planting the new plants, but I know alot of folks are. But "how many" players are going to be interested? How many are going to want to plant them, hunt them, or even use them? (this is just an example) What if they had put it out that they were considering this new part of the game and the majority had said NO, we are not interested? NOt to plant, not to hunt, not to use.

If that would have happened, maybe they would have then come up with something the players would have much rather have had, such as a new artifact drop that was designed to rez pets at your house instead of looking for someone with vet. (nothing against he plants, just and example) But I do believe that most would have wanted the pet rez in house more.

Just think how many companies ask you to do a "quick survey" for them when you call for services or questions. They compile all this information to be able to better serve thier customers. This is the way they conclude what the customers really want and what they are looking for from the business.

I think we could be better servered by more input from the players. Not that I dont appreciate all that the the game delivers, but I think we could do something that could stifle the amount of players we are losing.

 

[eve]

Crystal wrote:
*I think we could be better servered by more input from the players. Not that I dont appreciate all that the the game delivers, but I think we could do something that could stifle the amount of players we are losing.*

Obviously there is some kind of problem going on with EA/Mythic/UO., etc. I find it hard to believe they would just let the game die on purpose, but there have been some very unwise decisions made. UO still has more depth and more potential than any game I have seen out there.

Perhaps the problem is the change of management/decision makers; each time we have a change in names, the game takes off on another tangent of some sort.

Perhaps the powers that be have just tried to stretch the talent too far, trying to cover too many venues.....

What a lot of players want is to get some real live GM's that play and understand UO -- that we don't have to share with any other games. A lot of people have asked for more ingame live scenarios, and not so much the type that involve the whole server.... just lots of smaller ones.

Whatever this current story thing is supposed to be about got lost a long time ago... so either finish it asap (in pub 56? or will it be pushed back again) or drop it......... My feelings are that somebody bit off more than they could chew with this one, and then the resulting chaos has been punted back and forth, with everyone hoping for a miracle.

I sometimes get the feeling we have Jeremy and two other people trying to keep this show together.

further i sayeth not.............. i have vented.......... i feel a bit better.........

 

[Uvtha]

A lot of the players are idiots. I don't want them making game decisions based on consensus. If they wont polls fine, but at best I want them to be just an fyi for devs.

 

[BartofCats]

Crystal wrote: "We would make a One Eyed Purple People Eater that would roam the lands in search of Gms that were actually playing the game and they would be eaten alive and spit back out as a tree stump for players to practice Lumberjacking on."

LOL they would die of starvation in the first day.

 

[Satanatra]

You can't lead while looking over your shoulder. No successful leader ever became revered by asking people "what do you want me to do."

To lead you need a vision - one inspiriing enough for people to follow you. Thats what Richard Garriette has always had and what made UO so great.

I do feel that UO lacks and vision/leadership atm, but turning to the players would be a disaster:

Who should they turn to? the stratics forums? please...... a vocal majority totally out of touch with the casual gamer... (ie the majority of uo players)

The problem isnt that players don't know what they want - it is that there are so many different players who want completely different things. Players also change what they want before you even have time to implement what they wanted...

Using polls to plot your course would be a TOTAL nightmare.

 

[the 4th man]

"Everytime there is a new upgrade or changes made to the game, there is a considerable amount of rants and dislikes expressed about those changes. Some even leading to players giving up thier accounts for total dislike of new additions or nerfs."

These kind of players creep me out.....I mean it's a game...crying and threatening to quit is for 6 yrar olds, right??


"How hard would it be for the devs to post thier ideas of new changes or additons and have players actually vote on those they wish to be added or subtracted from the game?"

They don't have to, does your ISP do that?? Does your cell phone co. do that? Car insurance co? Anyone else you pay for a service??? No.
Guess why......you don't like it, go elsewhere.

Basically sunshine, take it or leave it.....they do the best they can with what they got and they get flak and bs about 75% of the time from a bunch of ingrates.

later

 

[Eslake]

If the developers want to progress the game toward some goal, they should never let the customers a chance to say no to that goal.

I disagree completely. If the devs chose to make it so that the only monsters in the game are Orcs, wouldn't you want to have your say about it?
Just because they're paid to be creative, doesn't magically make their ideas better than anyone else's.

Publish by committee is the absolute worst possible way to run a game, and I'd fire any producer/developer that started it if I was the game owner.

And I would give them a raise.
It is entirely irrational to assume that 8 devs (some of whom don't even play UO) are going to always know better what should be added than the ~100,000 players who actually Play the game.

They don't have to, does your ISP do that?? Does your cell phone co. do that? Car insurance co? Anyone else you pay for a service??? No.
Guess why......you don't like it, go elsewhere.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

My ISP lets ME chose what up speed I want, the down speed, whether or not I want Cable TV with it, and so forth.
T-Mobile gives me about 40 different packages to chose from.
I can chose several different levels of liability insurance, or full coverage, specific additions for theft, vandalism, etc on my car insurance.

The "don't like it, go elsewhere" is actually a perfect demonstration of the concept of red Communism. You take what you are given, and your only choice is whether or not to take it at all.


And even Sunshine - I have venetian blinds, so I can take just how much of it I want. I can even chose to have colored windows if I don't like the sun's exact color.

 

[Emil Ispep]

One Eyed Purple People Eater..

The day i see giant "ONE-EYED PURPLE" monsters running around... yea... Might need to up it to the M rating again... =)