There is little point, although it does create the illusion of caring what potential customers think.
Those that have all their responses in the majority feel as though this game is "for them!".
Those that don't are told to re-evaluate their ideas.
Take the latest all races can be any class poll. Clearly SOE lost. It was probably unexpected though, then SOE had to fumble a bit to get a good response to justify going against the poll.
I would avoid company specific websites since they are loaded with shills. Stick to 3rd party sites like this one. At least shilling is against laws in the US - not sure about Europe. It's easier to hide shilling on an official site than a 3rd party site. [was an article about this on MMORPG.COM months ago].
The split was fairly even when you look at all the poll options vs people who wanted race restrictions vs those that didn't or didn't with more lore restrictions.
Either way they went would have pissed off a large part of people and obviously with the way they are making the game allowing people to mix/match skills, having a class restricted (especially one that comes out later on after you've picked and played your race and character) would have been a major problem and took away from the entire concept of "making" your own character and class.
People should read "King Arthur's Round Table: How Collaborative Conversations Create Smart Organizations" by David Perkins. In it you will see that there is really 3 types of feedback: negative, conciliatory and communicative. The first two are the types of feedback that we mostly see and are of little to no value in bringing a topic toward common ground, they really only seek to alienate, promote defensiveness, or lack authenticity. If you were to look at the poll you see a lot of this type of feedback.
Sometimes when you ask a question at a round table the yes or no is less important that the why people feel that way. How many times during a math test did the teacher say show your work the final answer is only worth 5% of your score. The trick of a round table is that yes everyone is of equal standing, but their feedback may not always have equal value for a particular discussion. Ever go to an interview and have the conversation switch to random events like woodstock, shuttle challenger, or 9/11 ... You know they can't come right out and ask you your age in an interview, but they can form a good guess based on how you respond to seemingly random comments about events that happened at a specific date.
As others have posted a round table does not ask us "The Gamers" what we want the game to be, but how we feel about a certain aspect of the game, and that they will use the feedback in their decision making process, it is not 100% what we say goes. Remember that not all seats were equal in King Arthur's round table, one was reserved for Arthur and the other was the siege perilous.
People should read "King Arthur's Round Table: How Collaborative Conversations Create Smart Organizations" by David Perkins. In it you will see that there is really 3 types of feedback: negative, conciliatory and communicative. The first two are the types of feedback that we mostly see and are of little to no value in bringing a topic toward common ground, they really only seek to alienate, promote defensiveness, or lack authenticity. If you were to look at the poll you see a lot of this type of feedback.
Sometimes when you ask a question at a round table the yes or no is less important that the why people feel that way. How many times during a math test did the teacher say show your work the final answer is only worth 5% of your score. The trick of a round table is that yes everyone is of equal standing, but their feedback may not always have equal value for a particular discussion. Ever go to an interview and have the conversation switch to random events like woodstock, shuttle challenger, or 9/11 ... You know they can't come right out and ask you your age in an interview, but they can form a good guess based on how you respond to seemingly random comments about events that happened at a specific date.
As others have posted a round table does not ask us "The Gamers" what we want the game to be, but how we feel about a certain aspect of the game, and that they will use the feedback in their decision making process, it is not 100% what we say goes. Remember that not all seats were equal in King Arthur's round table, one was reserved for Arthur and the other was the siege perilous.
An offbeat writer apparently, because many folks like myself are being authentic when we say we don't like the direction EQN is heading. Just because people may sometimes go outside the norm doesn't invalidate their claims, visions, or assertions to the future prospects of a game. Sugar coat it all you want, bring in more writers and quote them.
Anyways, at the Round Table, Lancelot was missing. The vote is always incomplete :P
I guess this is representative of the current Round Table as well. The deciding vote is absent. So SOE makes Lancelot's decision for everyone else to enjoy. Which trumps everyone else's vote, since Lancelot's vote is a huge percentage.
ps: I never got a 5% score on a math test - I would go missing like Lancelot too, although for different reasons than himself. I'm not sure why you injected that into your conversation, unless you are saying people can't evaluate any results properly .. which I don't think is the case.
People should read "King Arthur's Round Table: How Collaborative Conversations Create Smart Organizations" by David Perkins. In it you will see that there is really 3 types of feedback: negative, conciliatory and communicative. The first two are the types of feedback that we mostly see and are of little to no value in bringing a topic toward common ground, they really only seek to alienate, promote defensiveness, or lack authenticity. If you were to look at the poll you see a lot of this type of feedback.
Sometimes when you ask a question at a round table the yes or no is less important that the why people feel that way. How many times during a math test did the teacher say show your work the final answer is only worth 5% of your score. The trick of a round table is that yes everyone is of equal standing, but their feedback may not always have equal value for a particular discussion. Ever go to an interview and have the conversation switch to random events like woodstock, shuttle challenger, or 9/11 ... You know they can't come right out and ask you your age in an interview, but they can form a good guess based on how you respond to seemingly random comments about events that happened at a specific date.
As others have posted a round table does not ask us "The Gamers" what we want the game to be, but how we feel about a certain aspect of the game, and that they will use the feedback in their decision making process, it is not 100% what we say goes. Remember that not all seats were equal in King Arthur's round table, one was reserved for Arthur and the other was the siege perilous.
An offbeat writer apparently, because many folks like myself are being authentic when we say we don't like the direction EQN is heading. Just because people may sometimes go outside the norm doesn't invalidate their claims, visions, or assertions to the future prospects of a game. Sugar coat it all you want, bring in more writers and quote them.
Anyways, at the Round Table, Lancelot was missing. The vote is always incomplete :P
I guess this is representative of the current Round Table as well. The deciding vote is absent. So SOE makes Lancelot's decision for everyone else to enjoy. Which trumps everyone else's vote, since Lancelot's vote is a huge percentage.
ps: I never got a 5% score on a math test - I would go missing like Lancelot too, although for different reasons than himself. I'm not sure why you injected that into your conversation, unless you are saying people can't evaluate any results properly .. which I don't think is the case.
I included the 5% bit because quite often the result of a poll is irrelevant and that the process of how people came to their results is much more important.
A Round Table is not a democracy! They try to talk with the fans about design decisions. Sometimes they may listen, sometimes they may not. But it is up them THEM to decide. When I am writing a book or drawing a painting, I the artist decide. I can ask what you may like to see, but in the end, only I alone decide what I put in and what not.
Just as you are then free to buy my book/pic/game or not.
I fail to see the drama here.
It is nice a company asks us, but we are not entitled to have a say. Sometimes there are professional reasons for doing something which simply outweigh fan wishes.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Originally posted by Wiha Their round table seems to be purely cosmetic. Most likely created as a PR tool.
I agree with this, and I told them so on their Facebook page. They replied saying "more round table questions are coming". These same few lame questions were posted the day of SOE Live, and they are still working through them. Seems like fake outreach to me. I have yet to see any round table questions that matter to anyone.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Guess this would have been simplier if they explain how the polls were going to be used. And if they most votes isn't going to be the direction they go then maybe add more clear cut options instead of several that are somewhat in the middle.
Hope this makes any sense just got off a week of grave shifts so who knows.
The biggest knock against SOE over the years is they don't listen to players, and when they are finally forced to due to declining subscriptions, they only listen to the elite guilds. I'm guessing the entire roundtable thing is a steaming pantload. They are going to do what they want to do no matter what anyone's input is. They just want to string everyone along, to keep interest and build hype, until they make concrete decisions and release more info.
Like I have mentioned, just follow Planetside 2 and you'll see what this round table business is about. It's simply an illusion that makes you think you are involved in development process and decision making, but in reality SOE will do whatever they want, even if it means to hurt the game. Planetside 2 is a perfect example of SOE doing whatever they want to do, introducing weapons & vehicles that are overpowered and make no sense, just so they could sell them to the usual "FOTM" crowd; the people that always buy the latest and greatest op'ed items.
Players have screamed for balance, asked for new content, but SOE chose to keep things unbalanced, keep overpowered items ingame, all for the sake of selling station cash. To those that have said "oh there's still time to fix EQN and to make it what we want, because they're going to have round table and listen to feedback!" Yeah...so how is that turning out so far? All you really have to do is to look at SOE's history. EQN Round Table isn't the first time SOE has done this, Planetside 2 has had the roadmap going since beginning of the year. It was initially applauded and accepted by the players as something wonderful and great. That's up until SOE decided to do whatever they want anyway regardless of player feedback and votes. Again, this includes SOE devs putting in overpowered items in the game just so they could entice players to buy them.
Like people keep hoorahing about EQN Landmark, as SOE has spun it into something positive, making you feel like you are privileged to be able to utilize the same development tools that SOE has been using to create EQ Next. They keep making it sound like you're helping to create EQ Next. But the truth is, they want you to build things because everything players build, they are sold *exclusively* via station cash through the cash shops. The real reason isn't that SOE suits are giving us players their development tools out of the goodness of their heart. They're doing it because they can fill the station cash store with player created things. Player created things are never made available ingame for free by the way, they are station cash exclusive.
So SOE can spin all they want about how the round table is created so players can decide the direction of this game, because remember, "IT'S YOUR GAME!". I don't buy it. I have not seen SOE move an inch with their development process based on player feedback since EQN reveal. At least not everybody's as dumb as their marketing gurus had hoped.
Like I have mentioned, just follow Planetside 2 and you'll see what this round table business is about. It's simply an illusion that makes you think you are involved in development process and decision making, but in reality SOE will do whatever they want, even if it means to hurt the game. Planetside 2 is a perfect example of SOE doing whatever they want to do, introducing weapons & vehicles that are overpowered and make no sense, just so they could sell them to the usual "FOTM" crowd; the people that always buy the latest and greatest op'ed items.
Players have screamed for balance, asked for new content, but SOE chose to keep things unbalanced, keep overpowered items ingame, all for the sake of selling station cash. To those that have said "oh there's still time to fix EQN and to make it what we want, because they're going to have round table and listen to feedback!" Yeah...so how is that turning out so far? All you really have to do is to look at SOE's history. EQN Round Table isn't the first time SOE has done this, Planetside 2 has had the roadmap going since beginning of the year. It was initially applauded and accepted by the players as something wonderful and great. That's up until SOE decided to do whatever they want anyway regardless of player feedback and votes. Again, this includes SOE devs putting in overpowered items in the game just so they could entice players to buy them.
Like people keep hoorahing about EQN Landmark, as SOE has spun it into something positive, making you feel like you are privileged to be able to utilize the same development tools that SOE has been using to create EQ Next. They keep making it sound like you're helping to create EQ Next. But the truth is, they want you to build things because everything players build, they are sold *exclusively* via station cash through the cash shops. The real reason isn't that SOE suits are giving us players their development tools out of the goodness of their heart. They're doing it because they can fill the station cash store with player created things. Player created things are never made available ingame for free by the way, they are station cash exclusive.
So SOE can spin all they want about how the round table is created so players can decide the direction of this game, because remember, "IT'S YOUR GAME!". I don't buy it. I have not seen SOE move an inch with their development process based on player feedback since EQN reveal. At least not everybody's as dumb as their marketing gurus had hoped.
I think you are right.
I will give you yet another example- SWG. After the hugely unpopular "Combat Upgrade" & "New Game Enhancements" here's what Smedley had to say:
"We've learned a thing or two with our experiences with the NGE and don't plan on repeating mistakes from the past and not listening to the players."
So SOE can spin all they want about how the round table is created so players can decide the direction of this game, because remember, "IT'S YOUR GAME!". I don't buy it. I have not seen SOE move an inch with their development process based on player feedback since EQN reveal. At least not everybody's as dumb as their marketing gurus had hoped.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. You must have not been around when SOE cancelled implants in Planetside 2 purely because of player feedback.
This was a big deal considering that not only were implants going to be a source of income for SOE, but they were already completed and ready for live play.
How many game companies do you know that scrap a game feature that they already took the time to develop because most players didn't want it?
The Round Table is a focus group, where they collect feedback on how players feel about an idea. The poll is there to give a general idea what the trend in as well as a quick glance Cliff Notes style reporting of the trend of the topic.
Basically they just want to collect as much feedback as they can for each subject they post. It doesn't mean they will follow what the playerbase votes on. Anyone who thinks just because item A had more than 50% of the vote that it will be written in stone within the games design really needs to learn how a focus group works.
Your input may help sway a decision on a tough subject or cause a refinement of a system. No where did it state "Majority Vote Wins and we will design around the majority rule".
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
A Round Table is not a democracy! They try to talk with the fans about design decisions. Sometimes they may listen, sometimes they may not. But it is up them THEM to decide. When I am writing a book or drawing a painting, I the artist decide. I can ask what you may like to see, but in the end, only I alone decide what I put in and what not.
Just as you are then free to buy my book/pic/game or not.
I fail to see the drama here.
It is nice a company asks us, but we are not entitled to have a say. Sometimes there are professional reasons for doing something which simply outweigh fan wishes.
then they should have made it clear this does not in anyway for sure matter we will do as we decide no matter how the poll goes not try and make it look like hey help design the game participate in the roundtable ~!
So SOE can spin all they want about how the round table is created so players can decide the direction of this game, because remember, "IT'S YOUR GAME!". I don't buy it. I have not seen SOE move an inch with their development process based on player feedback since EQN reveal. At least not everybody's as dumb as their marketing gurus had hoped.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. You must have not been around when SOE cancelled implants in Planetside 2 purely because of player feedback.
This was a big deal considering that not only were implants going to be a source of income for SOE, but they were already completed and ready for live play.
How many game companies do you know that scrap a game feature that they already took the time to develop because most players didn't want it?
All I have to say is: Just wait.
If SOE follows what it does traditionally, they'll just put in unwanted changes 6 months from now and not give two shaets what people want or think. It will make them more money, and that is always more important. SOE might have meant what they said and did, when they said it, but a few months from now that means nothing,
And if you had been around games run by SOE over the years, you'd know this by now.
So SOE can spin all they want about how the round table is created so players can decide the direction of this game, because remember, "IT'S YOUR GAME!". I don't buy it. I have not seen SOE move an inch with their development process based on player feedback since EQN reveal. At least not everybody's as dumb as their marketing gurus had hoped.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. You must have not been around when SOE cancelled implants in Planetside 2 purely because of player feedback.
This was a big deal considering that not only were implants going to be a source of income for SOE, but they were already completed and ready for live play.
How many game companies do you know that scrap a game feature that they already took the time to develop because most players didn't want it?
All I have to say is: Just wait.
If SOE follows what it does traditionally, they'll just put in unwanted changes 6 months from now and not give two shaets what people want or think. It will make them more money, and that is always more important. SOE might have meant what they said and did, when they said it, but a few months from now that means nothing,
And if you had been around games run by SOE over the years, you'd know this by now.
If you were a company and the life of your game depended on making money you might change things as well. As players we don't seem to understand the financial risk game companies take nowadays.
The money it takes to make games today requires them to appeal to the widest audience possible. Especially MMOs. At least SOE has the balls to take the huge risk of making an MMO that is completely different. They are entering the unknown when it comes to EQN, so I expect them to make every decision with extreme caution.
I'm not saying SOE is perfect but at least they are trying to change things and keep the community involved in the process.
The Round Table is a focus group, where they collect feedback on how players feel about an idea. The poll is there to give a general idea what the trend in as well as a quick glance Cliff Notes style reporting of the trend of the topic.
Basically they just want to collect as much feedback as they can for each subject they post. It doesn't mean they will follow what the playerbase votes on. Anyone who thinks just because item A had more than 50% of the vote that it will be written in stone within the games design really needs to learn how a focus group works.
Your input may help sway a decision on a tough subject or cause a refinement of a system. No where did it state "Majority Vote Wins and we will design around the majority rule".
Well you sir get an A when it comes to corporate defense!
Some of SOE's potential customers just don't agree, sweet talk it all you want. If the focus group say's "NO!" .. while SOE says "YES!". Is it still a focus group? How about when the focus group gets tossed to the side as irrelevant, because they don't have the same ideology. Is this a "focus" group? I think not. It's what we in the gaming world call:
So SOE can spin all they want about how the round table is created so players can decide the direction of this game, because remember, "IT'S YOUR GAME!". I don't buy it. I have not seen SOE move an inch with their development process based on player feedback since EQN reveal. At least not everybody's as dumb as their marketing gurus had hoped.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. You must have not been around when SOE cancelled implants in Planetside 2 purely because of player feedback.
This was a big deal considering that not only were implants going to be a source of income for SOE, but they were already completed and ready for live play.
How many game companies do you know that scrap a game feature that they already took the time to develop because most players didn't want it?
All I have to say is: Just wait.
If SOE follows what it does traditionally, they'll just put in unwanted changes 6 months from now and not give two shaets what people want or think. It will make them more money, and that is always more important. SOE might have meant what they said and did, when they said it, but a few months from now that means nothing,
And if you had been around games run by SOE over the years, you'd know this by now.
If you were a company and the life of your game depended on making money you might change things as well. As players we don't seem to understand the financial risk game companies take nowadays.
The money it takes to make games today requires them to appeal to the widest audience possible. Especially MMOs. At least SOE has the balls to take the huge risk of making an MMO that is completely different. They are entering the unknown when it comes to EQN, so I expect them to make every decision with extreme caution.
I'm not saying SOE is perfect but at least they are trying to change things and keep the community involved in the process.
Once, sure.
Twice, ok... fine.
But when they do that same thing over and over and over again, going back on something they said, that is something else entirely.
And no one can SOE has not done that very thing, regardless of the motivation.
And I do NOT believe SOE cares if the community is "involved in the process", because the community is not involved in the process in any meaningful way, SOE is just trying to make it appear that they are.
Right now the Round Table poll about Guild membership is split evenly between people that want to only be a member of one guild and people that want to be members of more then one guild.
The score right now is:
5% I have no preference
12% I want to join more than one guild at a time. They're social groups, and I want as many as I'd like.
46% I prefer to keep it simple: one character can belong to one guild, no more.
35% I'd like different types of guilds - e.g. families, alliances, guilds - and you belong to one of each type.
2% I don't want to see any type of guild system at all.
So based one the prevailing logic in this thread SOE must declare that you get one guild - period. Even though more people actually want to be in more then one guild.
But since the totals are so close 46% for one guild only and 47% for more then one guild then it really doesn't matter what SOE choses. They may have been internally leaning to one guild only and this poll validated that decision. Or they may have been leaning toward the multiple guild line and that is also validated by this poll.
Right now the Round Table poll about Guild membership is split evenly between people that want to only be a member of one guild and people that want to be members of more then one guild.
The score right now is:
5% I have no preference
12% I want to join more than one guild at a time. They're social groups, and I want as many as I'd like.
46% I prefer to keep it simple: one character can belong to one guild, no more.
35% I'd like different types of guilds - e.g. families, alliances, guilds - and you belong to one of each type.
2% I don't want to see any type of guild system at all.
So based one the prevailing logic in this thread SOE must declare that you get one guild - period. Even though more people actually want to be in more then one guild.
But since the totals are so close 46% for one guild only and 47% for more then one guild then it really doesn't matter what SOE choses. They may have been internally leaning to one guild only and this poll validated that decision. Or they may have been leaning toward the multiple guild line and that is also validated by this poll.
Right.
SOE will no doubt spin the poll results in a manner that suits them. And given that their philosophy has generally been to avoid imposing any limitations (NO class restrictions, modern concepts ALLOWED, etc), I bet you they will want to permit membership in more than one guild. Of course they will be Politically Correct with their answer as they usually are.
The Round Table is a focus group, where they collect feedback on how players feel about an idea. The poll is there to give a general idea what the trend in as well as a quick glance Cliff Notes style reporting of the trend of the topic.
Basically they just want to collect as much feedback as they can for each subject they post. It doesn't mean they will follow what the playerbase votes on. Anyone who thinks just because item A had more than 50% of the vote that it will be written in stone within the games design really needs to learn how a focus group works.
Your input may help sway a decision on a tough subject or cause a refinement of a system. No where did it state "Majority Vote Wins and we will design around the majority rule".
Well you sir get an A when it comes to corporate defense!
Some of SOE's potential customers just don't agree, sweet talk it all you want. If the focus group say's "NO!" .. while SOE says "YES!". Is it still a focus group? How about when the focus group gets tossed to the side as irrelevant, because they don't have the same ideology. Is this a "focus" group? I think not. It's what we in the gaming world call:
SHENANIGANS
Call it what you will, but this is how a focus group works. It's not sweet talk, it's fact.
Just because someone may ask your opinion on a subject, it does not mean they will follow it.
Sorry it's just hard for some people to grasp.
It's the reason I avoid polls and focus groups. Every vote and every statement is an opinion and the data usually never skews with the result unless the result was already planned and the data lined up with it.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Comments
"Simple"
MAGA
The split was fairly even when you look at all the poll options vs people who wanted race restrictions vs those that didn't or didn't with more lore restrictions.
Either way they went would have pissed off a large part of people and obviously with the way they are making the game allowing people to mix/match skills, having a class restricted (especially one that comes out later on after you've picked and played your race and character) would have been a major problem and took away from the entire concept of "making" your own character and class.
People should read "King Arthur's Round Table: How Collaborative Conversations Create Smart Organizations" by David Perkins. In it you will see that there is really 3 types of feedback: negative, conciliatory and communicative. The first two are the types of feedback that we mostly see and are of little to no value in bringing a topic toward common ground, they really only seek to alienate, promote defensiveness, or lack authenticity. If you were to look at the poll you see a lot of this type of feedback.
Sometimes when you ask a question at a round table the yes or no is less important that the why people feel that way. How many times during a math test did the teacher say show your work the final answer is only worth 5% of your score. The trick of a round table is that yes everyone is of equal standing, but their feedback may not always have equal value for a particular discussion. Ever go to an interview and have the conversation switch to random events like woodstock, shuttle challenger, or 9/11 ... You know they can't come right out and ask you your age in an interview, but they can form a good guess based on how you respond to seemingly random comments about events that happened at a specific date.
As others have posted a round table does not ask us "The Gamers" what we want the game to be, but how we feel about a certain aspect of the game, and that they will use the feedback in their decision making process, it is not 100% what we say goes. Remember that not all seats were equal in King Arthur's round table, one was reserved for Arthur and the other was the siege perilous.
An offbeat writer apparently, because many folks like myself are being authentic when we say we don't like the direction EQN is heading. Just because people may sometimes go outside the norm doesn't invalidate their claims, visions, or assertions to the future prospects of a game. Sugar coat it all you want, bring in more writers and quote them.
Anyways, at the Round Table, Lancelot was missing. The vote is always incomplete :P
I guess this is representative of the current Round Table as well. The deciding vote is absent. So SOE makes Lancelot's decision for everyone else to enjoy. Which trumps everyone else's vote, since Lancelot's vote is a huge percentage.
ps: I never got a 5% score on a math test - I would go missing like Lancelot too, although for different reasons than himself. I'm not sure why you injected that into your conversation, unless you are saying people can't evaluate any results properly .. which I don't think is the case.
Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.
I included the 5% bit because quite often the result of a poll is irrelevant and that the process of how people came to their results is much more important.
It's OK that you have never heard of David Perkins (http://www.old-pz.gse.harvard.edu/PIs/DP.htm), I did not know much about him until I had him as a professor in the early 90's.
A Round Table is not a democracy! They try to talk with the fans about design decisions. Sometimes they may listen, sometimes they may not. But it is up them THEM to decide. When I am writing a book or drawing a painting, I the artist decide. I can ask what you may like to see, but in the end, only I alone decide what I put in and what not.
Just as you are then free to buy my book/pic/game or not.
I fail to see the drama here.
It is nice a company asks us, but we are not entitled to have a say. Sometimes there are professional reasons for doing something which simply outweigh fan wishes.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
In this case the small majority said 'hey we would like our race and class to matter somewhat.'
Instead the devs reply 'well you are all dumb and we know better.'
The unresonable mob, 'Ninjas and guns ruin immersion and seem silly.'
Devs, 'throwing ninja stars is awesome so stfu.'
I agree with this, and I told them so on their Facebook page. They replied saying "more round table questions are coming". These same few lame questions were posted the day of SOE Live, and they are still working through them. Seems like fake outreach to me. I have yet to see any round table questions that matter to anyone.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Guess this would have been simplier if they explain how the polls were going to be used. And if they most votes isn't going to be the direction they go then maybe add more clear cut options instead of several that are somewhat in the middle.
Hope this makes any sense just got off a week of grave shifts so who knows.
Like I have mentioned, just follow Planetside 2 and you'll see what this round table business is about. It's simply an illusion that makes you think you are involved in development process and decision making, but in reality SOE will do whatever they want, even if it means to hurt the game. Planetside 2 is a perfect example of SOE doing whatever they want to do, introducing weapons & vehicles that are overpowered and make no sense, just so they could sell them to the usual "FOTM" crowd; the people that always buy the latest and greatest op'ed items.
Players have screamed for balance, asked for new content, but SOE chose to keep things unbalanced, keep overpowered items ingame, all for the sake of selling station cash. To those that have said "oh there's still time to fix EQN and to make it what we want, because they're going to have round table and listen to feedback!" Yeah...so how is that turning out so far? All you really have to do is to look at SOE's history. EQN Round Table isn't the first time SOE has done this, Planetside 2 has had the roadmap going since beginning of the year. It was initially applauded and accepted by the players as something wonderful and great. That's up until SOE decided to do whatever they want anyway regardless of player feedback and votes. Again, this includes SOE devs putting in overpowered items in the game just so they could entice players to buy them.
Like people keep hoorahing about EQN Landmark, as SOE has spun it into something positive, making you feel like you are privileged to be able to utilize the same development tools that SOE has been using to create EQ Next. They keep making it sound like you're helping to create EQ Next. But the truth is, they want you to build things because everything players build, they are sold *exclusively* via station cash through the cash shops. The real reason isn't that SOE suits are giving us players their development tools out of the goodness of their heart. They're doing it because they can fill the station cash store with player created things. Player created things are never made available ingame for free by the way, they are station cash exclusive.
So SOE can spin all they want about how the round table is created so players can decide the direction of this game, because remember, "IT'S YOUR GAME!". I don't buy it. I have not seen SOE move an inch with their development process based on player feedback since EQN reveal. At least not everybody's as dumb as their marketing gurus had hoped.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
I think you are right.
I will give you yet another example- SWG. After the hugely unpopular "Combat Upgrade" & "New Game Enhancements" here's what Smedley had to say:
"We've learned a thing or two with our experiences with the NGE and don't plan on repeating mistakes from the past and not listening to the players."
... History repeats itself.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. You must have not been around when SOE cancelled implants in Planetside 2 purely because of player feedback.
This was a big deal considering that not only were implants going to be a source of income for SOE, but they were already completed and ready for live play.
How many game companies do you know that scrap a game feature that they already took the time to develop because most players didn't want it?
The Round Table is a focus group, where they collect feedback on how players feel about an idea. The poll is there to give a general idea what the trend in as well as a quick glance Cliff Notes style reporting of the trend of the topic.
Basically they just want to collect as much feedback as they can for each subject they post. It doesn't mean they will follow what the playerbase votes on. Anyone who thinks just because item A had more than 50% of the vote that it will be written in stone within the games design really needs to learn how a focus group works.
Your input may help sway a decision on a tough subject or cause a refinement of a system. No where did it state "Majority Vote Wins and we will design around the majority rule".
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
then they should have made it clear this does not in anyway for sure matter we will do as we decide no matter how the poll goes not try and make it look like hey help design the game participate in the roundtable ~!
All I have to say is: Just wait.
If SOE follows what it does traditionally, they'll just put in unwanted changes 6 months from now and not give two shaets what people want or think. It will make them more money, and that is always more important. SOE might have meant what they said and did, when they said it, but a few months from now that means nothing,
And if you had been around games run by SOE over the years, you'd know this by now.
If you were a company and the life of your game depended on making money you might change things as well. As players we don't seem to understand the financial risk game companies take nowadays.
The money it takes to make games today requires them to appeal to the widest audience possible. Especially MMOs. At least SOE has the balls to take the huge risk of making an MMO that is completely different. They are entering the unknown when it comes to EQN, so I expect them to make every decision with extreme caution.
I'm not saying SOE is perfect but at least they are trying to change things and keep the community involved in the process.
Well you sir get an A when it comes to corporate defense!
Some of SOE's potential customers just don't agree, sweet talk it all you want. If the focus group say's "NO!" .. while SOE says "YES!". Is it still a focus group? How about when the focus group gets tossed to the side as irrelevant, because they don't have the same ideology. Is this a "focus" group? I think not. It's what we in the gaming world call:
SHENANIGANS
Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.
Once, sure.
Twice, ok... fine.
But when they do that same thing over and over and over again, going back on something they said, that is something else entirely.
And no one can SOE has not done that very thing, regardless of the motivation.
And I do NOT believe SOE cares if the community is "involved in the process", because the community is not involved in the process in any meaningful way, SOE is just trying to make it appear that they are.
And that is called Marketing/PR.
The whole point is to get people talking about EQN.
And so... here we are.
SOE P.R. Department - 1
Target Demographic - 0
Right now the Round Table poll about Guild membership is split evenly between people that want to only be a member of one guild and people that want to be members of more then one guild.
The score right now is:
5% I have no preference
12% I want to join more than one guild at a time. They're social groups, and I want as many as I'd like.
46% I prefer to keep it simple: one character can belong to one guild, no more.
35% I'd like different types of guilds - e.g. families, alliances, guilds - and you belong to one of each type.
2% I don't want to see any type of guild system at all.
So based one the prevailing logic in this thread SOE must declare that you get one guild - period. Even though more people actually want to be in more then one guild.
But since the totals are so close 46% for one guild only and 47% for more then one guild then it really doesn't matter what SOE choses. They may have been internally leaning to one guild only and this poll validated that decision. Or they may have been leaning toward the multiple guild line and that is also validated by this poll.
Right.
SOE will no doubt spin the poll results in a manner that suits them. And given that their philosophy has generally been to avoid imposing any limitations (NO class restrictions, modern concepts ALLOWED, etc), I bet you they will want to permit membership in more than one guild. Of course they will be Politically Correct with their answer as they usually are.
I think it's stupid. I for one am not voting on their stupid polls anymore since clearly they have already chosen beforehand what the outcome will be.
- We'll build this game together.
Yeah, *cough* bullshit *cough*.
Call it what you will, but this is how a focus group works. It's not sweet talk, it's fact.
Just because someone may ask your opinion on a subject, it does not mean they will follow it.
Sorry it's just hard for some people to grasp.
It's the reason I avoid polls and focus groups. Every vote and every statement is an opinion and the data usually never skews with the result unless the result was already planned and the data lined up with it.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"