Really, the Advisory Council is just another way of getting more feedback from players. And maybe we'll hear from Star Trek fans who don't like or don't play STO? Who knows?
I know I want people who don't play the game influencing how the game progresses. :rolleyes:
If the devs want to know what their fan base is thinking and calling for, all they need to do is read the forums.
But what if we want to know more from people who don't use the forums? What if we want to hear from Star Trek fans who haven't played STO or don't like STO? What if we want to hear from editorial? Should we not read their reviews until they post on our forums?
-Statistical analysis of what game content is actually played and how often.
-Analyzing what skills we choose, what loadouts we choose, what ships we choose. Stuff that doesn't get used probably needs worked on. Stuff that is used too much probably also needs to be looked at.
-IN GAME (not in forum) surveys of what kind of game systems or content that people who are logged in and playing want.
All threee of those will get them actual, FACTUAL data. If Cryptic actually does want what the players want to drive their development plan then they need to base it off of REAL QUANTIFIABLE DATA, not off what a bunch of handpicked superfanbois tell them.
But what if we want to know more from people who don't use the forums? What if we want to hear from Star Trek fans who haven't played STO or don't like STO? What if we want to hear from editorial? Should we not read their reviews until they post on our forums?
Hint: See my post above. IN GAME. What you are proposing is STILL forum based.
It has been tried before and has NEVER worked. And it won't go away even after it's proclaimed a failure, because these "faux representative player councils" give the Devs and the publisher too convenient a PR meatshield to hide behind from the majority of the actual players.
Do you mean the majority of players who are not on the forums posting feedback or the majority of the players who are on the forums giving feedback? I mean, i hear time and time again how such and so speaks for "everyone" when they post a rant on the forums, but they certainly don't represent me, and don't represent the players who don't come in and post on the forums. I'd almost be tempted to say that this might end up being a very nice shield from the majority of the minority of the people who are on the forums to do nothing but seethe, rant, rave, yell, attack and try to destroy the game.
Definitely. We'll do more in-game. It's a good idea. We already do web-based, e-mail based and forum based polling. We can definitely work on implementing some in-game polls. Maybe stuff out of the launcher, too.
Hint: See my post above. IN GAME. What you are proposing is STILL forum based.
Other than asking every single one of us in game in the middle of a pitched battle what we think of the game it will NEVER be able to get everyone, nor will it be anything other than forum based.
Obviously, if it's useless or in any way detrimental to the health of the game and the stability of the community, we'll shut it down. But we have to try and engage more Star Trek fans and STO players who don't post on the forums, right? Forum users comprise a comparatively small segment of our playing population. We have to at least try to hear others in as many ways as possible.
This is one of those well intentioned yet misguided ideas that spring forth from the liberal left wing of the Cyrptic Deveopment Team.
If you are afraid to post on forums, you're position should not be heard, AT ALL.
Let's face it, nothing brings out more cowards, trolls and spineless worms than online forums. I know I've been the victim of online threats. There is very little potential for retribution and people can pretend to do anything and be anybody. There is a reason that dominant males are allowed to breed in the wild, because nautre has determined that their dna is the most promising for the species. If you're afraid of forum posting. well.. haha. hahahahaa. hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh sorry.
In any democratic scenario, the voices of the most motivated, involved and determined will always be the loudest. As a Jem Hadar soldier would say, "it is the way of things." If you care enough to post on the forums regularly you are involved with the game and want to shape it. If you don't post, you don't care. Actions speak louder than words.
I for one think you have more than enough material provided to you on these forums to work with. We are practically a paying creative team providing you with content and ideas. Perhaps, seeing material placed in game that was lobbied for on the forums will persuade others to speak up. But what I see in greater society is that many people just don't care enough to speak up. There may be some great ideas out there but I don't think it's worth the company's time since the game is not finished.
Sure! Why not? If you want to participate, e-mail that address.
very very bad idea!!!!
emailing the address will not mean you can join. they will let you join only if you have a fan website also be in their little click of friends and have the same way of thinking as they do. if you don't you'll not be allowed to join or given some excuse as to why they don't need you at this time.
i know this from experience. this is exactly how the dreaded NGE in swg was thought up. when the dev's took a select few community members mainly the ones that ran big fan sites. and had them give their feedback on a separate test server that had the proposes changes on it. those few liked it but did not speak for the majority like the dev's thought. and everyone knows the result of the nge when it hit swg.
for this to have any positive effect or success .
this needs to be run directly by cryptic. members cannot be reviewers or have any type of commercial/fan website.
Be made up of common players from with in the game. say 50% from holodeck another 50% from tribble. and these individuals sit on the council for only like 90 days ata time. before a whole new set of player representatives is selected.
The selection should be done by the development staff or elected by other players either the forums or speciel voting booth on the website. when vote is taking place place can be used as place to submit your name or someone you know as a candidate for the next election. and once you have served on the council your name cannot be submitted again for 12 months or something giving others a chance to server on the advisory council.
these so called fans who are doing this only to get more attention and hits on their websites make more profit from them not because they truly care about they game.
they just found a clever way if anything to influence the games direction to be the way they want it to be under the disguise of an idea the dev's happen to like.
This is bullcrap, stinks of favourism to me. A few people are getting to give input now and what about everyone else?
What are their qualifications? How do I know they are acting in my interest? I didn't vote for them, so why should I want to be represented by them?
This is stupid.
I mean don't get me wrong, I'm all for structures in the community that allow better communication with the dev team, because obviously the devs can't listen to every single person.
I'm also of the oppinion that just going with majority rule is bad, because the majority of people who play MMOs just adopt whatever works the best as their playstyle and as such can't be relied on to give input that genuinely makes the game better beyond "quality of life" type things.
However, this just comes completely out of nowhere. It's a few people who are just put out there as an "Advisory Council" who I've never heard of, I have no idea what they stand for, I don't know what qualifies them for the position or anything...
It's just randomly put out there "Here are four people who's oppinions are more important than yours, shut up and like it!"
Of course. We do just that. And we're not going to stop, either.
Ivan-Cryptic,
I just can't imagine how patient you must be to wade through all of this. I lose my patience way too quickly.
on that note, I'm going to continue to post to the forums anything I think of. I'm going to keep plugging away on the Tribble and on the Holodeck. I am enjoying the game enough to keep going.
This is not a good idea. How are these few going to provide help in game input? You have a list of people that dont even have a bone of criticism in them.
How are you going to get them to give an ounce of care for those that see fundamental problems with the game? Their audience are those that dont see a problem with the game or game mechanics or game play issues. The make fun of those that do.
Should have chosen people from in game. That dont post on the forums. Average players. That keep quiet. Not paragons of rose colored glasses.
Get critics in there. People like those from STOked are not critics. They are not and were not a good choice for community representatives. You picked them why? Because they have a blog?
Other games do not need this. They dont have it. And its for good reason. You are setting a small amount of players over all the others with powers to dictate the destination of the game a lot of people play and love.
I may be very critical at times. (look at my posts) I also love this game and the IP. I want this game to succeed. I started using the forums to try to voice the fundamental game play issues of Star Trek Online. I stopped because I realized my voice wasnt being heard and you were focusing on issues like Shield Circles and issues with game immersion over issues that have caused subscriptions and log ins to go down.
What you, Cryptic, need to do is provide more feedback surveys and have devs spending more time talking to players in game about issues and not socializing on TTS. You want to get a good picture of what the players think, you need to take the time to do it instead of passing the buck to a handful of people that are just as biased as the trolls that circulate the forums.
This isnt how good games are made. Micromanaging is not a good strategy to make this game fun. It doesnt work in real life. It wont work here.
But what if we want to know more from people who don't use the forums? What if we want to hear from Star Trek fans who haven't played STO or don't like STO? What if we want to hear from editorial? Should we not read their reviews until they post on our forums?
this is one of the most frightening things i have read in a while (about games) please for the love of all that is holy, don't chance the mythical next cutomer! SOE did this look at them look at the model of failure. Listen to us listen to those whom support your game & company. If you can satisfy us, we can bring in more subs.
Talk to the user through in game means that way you can reach the greatest majority possible of the community, if they can't be bothered to come to the forums they aren't likely to be hitting up hte podcast page.
Talking to those that dislike the game is like asking Terrorists for guidance on the future of america. Its a waste of time and will likely just alienate the people you already have. Stick with the customers you have not the ones that don't want you.
As for editorials well why waste your breath most of what they write is junk anyway.
Other than asking every single one of us in game in the middle of a pitched battle what we think of the game it will NEVER be able to get everyone, nor will it be anything other than forum based.
I (and a few others I think) suggested they add feedback surveys for missions that you would see and fill out (optionally) when you completed a mission. I went as far as to say they should have this on Tribble (test server) only, to ensure that the new in-test content is good (for at least a sub-set of the gamer pop. A nice litmus test you could say.
As with all my posts, it was ignored. I think I'm on their permanent ignore list (I don't think they like my constant jabs at their documentation, lol).
But what if we want to know more from people who don't use the forums? What if we want to hear from Star Trek fans who haven't played STO or don't like STO? What if we want to hear from editorial? Should we not read their reviews until they post on our forums?
You should always take the criticism to heart, and see what you can do. But some people will just not like the game ever. That's how it works. If they don't like it, there's nothing you can do to change it. Even with additions and improvements, at heart it will still be the same game. The most you can hope for is that those improvements will bring those on the fence back home. And you know what? Those on the fence seem to be the ones frequenting the forums.
As to those who haven't played, you should really *not* take their views on the game they haven't played into account. Just focus on improving it, and eventually word of mouth may bring them around.
I have been desperately trying to get a response from Cryptic regarding important issues with dozens of posts in several threads, over a long time period and I was far from alone.
The platform was there already, the pleas were being made but ignored. I don't see this as a route to Cryptic, I was already at the destination. I see it as a road block, a detour, an obstacle, something more between me and the destination.
You won't talk to me, why would I think you would talk to someone else or that they would talk to you on my behalf, and say what I want to say, ask what I want to ask. You wouldn't believe how patient I and other people have been here.
It's too late for me and for a lot of people.
If you are afraid to post on forums, you're position should not be heard, AT ALL.
The only reason I am not afraid to post on the forums is I've got a Celtic argumentative streak that makes Tellarites look passive and agreeable. It is amazing how many people out there won't set foot in the forums because of the vitriol, anger, rants, raves, personal attacks, personal animosity, and down right vulgar behavior goes on in the forums. They're afraid that their ideas and feedback will get drowned out by the din of voices engaging in one or more of the above. If I was less argumentative and less stubborn, I wouldn't be on this forum at all even if I had good ideas to pass along.
I propose that, instead of naysaying, we, the players and forum members, propose to the devs and mods to lets us throw some questions at these so-called representatives, to try and get a feel for what's really going on here. Kind of like those "ask Cryptic" questionaire sessions, but these guys instead. See if they're good enough to be worthy of helping represent the playerbase's interests.
I doubt that, actually. If we do hear from a select few, it will become very apparent. It's not like we're going to hide what people tell the Advisory Council and what the Advisory Council tells you and what it tells us. It's all going to appear somewhere... Facebook, forums, third-party pages, our site. There'll be no secrecy or politicking here.
I understand that and I approve, but it's kind of not true. I mean, our community managers, GMs and CS reps all speak for you, right? No company can afford to have every one of its employees directly engage the entirety of its user base. It's just not possible. So... Companies assign reps in community, customer support, press relations, etc. We're certainly no different.
Really, the Advisory Council is just another way of getting more feedback from players. And maybe we'll hear from Star Trek fans who don't like or don't play STO? Who knows?
I feel for you. It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes isn't it?
I also agree with a post a few back. The release is very badly written. It sounds like a very exclusive council that will not represent everyone. Some took it as if there word means nothing unless they get invited to the council or they know one of these reps.
You could have gone the fleet/house route instead. Letting players know that there will be a council for a rep from there fleet to be a part of. So info that each player cares about will be heard. Maybe it should be re-written or another explanation release should be posted.
Do you mean the majority of players who are not on the forums posting feedback or the majority of the players who are on the forums giving feedback? I mean, i hear time and time again how such and so speaks for "everyone" when they post a rant on the forums, but they certainly don't represent me, and don't represent the players who don't come in and post on the forums. I'd almost be tempted to say that this might end up being a very nice shield from the majority of the minority of the people who are on the forums to do nothing but seethe, rant, rave, yell, attack and try to destroy the game.
Once Cryptic chooses this direction it means they aren't going to listen to anyone not "in the circle" so to speak, be it someone ticked off and ranting OR someone with a well constructed, well supported idea or argument.
Your "representatives" will represent you. Whether they actually do or not. Truth is, even they won't be listened to, which is why the handpicked representatives will end up being those so exalted in their own officially recognized self importance they won't be able to realize they aren't being listened to, since Cryptic is using the "SWG Senate" model for the "council".
When by accident someone picked for it actually has the idea they actually represent something and TRY to actually do it they will be quickly dispatched, banned, silenced, etc, and replaced with a member of the former group. See Tux's saga as a "senator" for SWG. He plays STO. He actually TRIED to do what his job was claimed to be (what SOE always claims when they brag to the press about how they have "player representation) and got that treatment.
Fact of the matter is, I already give this idea a BIG vote of "No Confidence". It hasn't worked, and it certainly hasn't worked in the form that Cryptic is proposing it in. Starting with people not nominated or voted on by we, the players, is starting off with two strikes against it, and your hitter is at the plate, facing Nolan Ryan in his prime, and doesn't even have a bat...
Comments
I know I want people who don't play the game influencing how the game progresses. :rolleyes:
-Statistical analysis of what game content is actually played and how often.
-Analyzing what skills we choose, what loadouts we choose, what ships we choose. Stuff that doesn't get used probably needs worked on. Stuff that is used too much probably also needs to be looked at.
-IN GAME (not in forum) surveys of what kind of game systems or content that people who are logged in and playing want.
All threee of those will get them actual, FACTUAL data. If Cryptic actually does want what the players want to drive their development plan then they need to base it off of REAL QUANTIFIABLE DATA, not off what a bunch of handpicked superfanbois tell them.
There's stability in this community?
Hint: See my post above. IN GAME. What you are proposing is STILL forum based.
Do you mean the majority of players who are not on the forums posting feedback or the majority of the players who are on the forums giving feedback? I mean, i hear time and time again how such and so speaks for "everyone" when they post a rant on the forums, but they certainly don't represent me, and don't represent the players who don't come in and post on the forums. I'd almost be tempted to say that this might end up being a very nice shield from the majority of the minority of the people who are on the forums to do nothing but seethe, rant, rave, yell, attack and try to destroy the game.
True this will probably end in epic failure and turn out to be one big ego trip for people but it would still be fun.
Other than asking every single one of us in game in the middle of a pitched battle what we think of the game it will NEVER be able to get everyone, nor will it be anything other than forum based.
This is one of those well intentioned yet misguided ideas that spring forth from the liberal left wing of the Cyrptic Deveopment Team.
If you are afraid to post on forums, you're position should not be heard, AT ALL.
Let's face it, nothing brings out more cowards, trolls and spineless worms than online forums. I know I've been the victim of online threats. There is very little potential for retribution and people can pretend to do anything and be anybody. There is a reason that dominant males are allowed to breed in the wild, because nautre has determined that their dna is the most promising for the species. If you're afraid of forum posting. well.. haha. hahahahaa. hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh sorry.
In any democratic scenario, the voices of the most motivated, involved and determined will always be the loudest. As a Jem Hadar soldier would say, "it is the way of things." If you care enough to post on the forums regularly you are involved with the game and want to shape it. If you don't post, you don't care. Actions speak louder than words.
I for one think you have more than enough material provided to you on these forums to work with. We are practically a paying creative team providing you with content and ideas. Perhaps, seeing material placed in game that was lobbied for on the forums will persuade others to speak up. But what I see in greater society is that many people just don't care enough to speak up. There may be some great ideas out there but I don't think it's worth the company's time since the game is not finished.
very very bad idea!!!!
emailing the address will not mean you can join. they will let you join only if you have a fan website also be in their little click of friends and have the same way of thinking as they do. if you don't you'll not be allowed to join or given some excuse as to why they don't need you at this time.
i know this from experience. this is exactly how the dreaded NGE in swg was thought up. when the dev's took a select few community members mainly the ones that ran big fan sites. and had them give their feedback on a separate test server that had the proposes changes on it. those few liked it but did not speak for the majority like the dev's thought. and everyone knows the result of the nge when it hit swg.
for this to have any positive effect or success .
this needs to be run directly by cryptic. members cannot be reviewers or have any type of commercial/fan website.
Be made up of common players from with in the game. say 50% from holodeck another 50% from tribble. and these individuals sit on the council for only like 90 days ata time. before a whole new set of player representatives is selected.
The selection should be done by the development staff or elected by other players either the forums or speciel voting booth on the website. when vote is taking place place can be used as place to submit your name or someone you know as a candidate for the next election. and once you have served on the council your name cannot be submitted again for 12 months or something giving others a chance to server on the advisory council.
these so called fans who are doing this only to get more attention and hits on their websites make more profit from them not because they truly care about they game.
they just found a clever way if anything to influence the games direction to be the way they want it to be under the disguise of an idea the dev's happen to like.
Guys, what is up with all the left-field assumptions?
What are their qualifications? How do I know they are acting in my interest? I didn't vote for them, so why should I want to be represented by them?
This is stupid.
I mean don't get me wrong, I'm all for structures in the community that allow better communication with the dev team, because obviously the devs can't listen to every single person.
I'm also of the oppinion that just going with majority rule is bad, because the majority of people who play MMOs just adopt whatever works the best as their playstyle and as such can't be relied on to give input that genuinely makes the game better beyond "quality of life" type things.
However, this just comes completely out of nowhere. It's a few people who are just put out there as an "Advisory Council" who I've never heard of, I have no idea what they stand for, I don't know what qualifies them for the position or anything...
It's just randomly put out there "Here are four people who's oppinions are more important than yours, shut up and like it!"
Ivan-Cryptic,
I just can't imagine how patient you must be to wade through all of this. I lose my patience way too quickly.
on that note, I'm going to continue to post to the forums anything I think of. I'm going to keep plugging away on the Tribble and on the Holodeck. I am enjoying the game enough to keep going.
How are you going to get them to give an ounce of care for those that see fundamental problems with the game? Their audience are those that dont see a problem with the game or game mechanics or game play issues. The make fun of those that do.
Should have chosen people from in game. That dont post on the forums. Average players. That keep quiet. Not paragons of rose colored glasses.
Get critics in there. People like those from STOked are not critics. They are not and were not a good choice for community representatives. You picked them why? Because they have a blog?
Other games do not need this. They dont have it. And its for good reason. You are setting a small amount of players over all the others with powers to dictate the destination of the game a lot of people play and love.
I may be very critical at times. (look at my posts) I also love this game and the IP. I want this game to succeed. I started using the forums to try to voice the fundamental game play issues of Star Trek Online. I stopped because I realized my voice wasnt being heard and you were focusing on issues like Shield Circles and issues with game immersion over issues that have caused subscriptions and log ins to go down.
What you, Cryptic, need to do is provide more feedback surveys and have devs spending more time talking to players in game about issues and not socializing on TTS. You want to get a good picture of what the players think, you need to take the time to do it instead of passing the buck to a handful of people that are just as biased as the trolls that circulate the forums.
This isnt how good games are made. Micromanaging is not a good strategy to make this game fun. It doesnt work in real life. It wont work here.
this is one of the most frightening things i have read in a while (about games) please for the love of all that is holy, don't chance the mythical next cutomer! SOE did this look at them look at the model of failure. Listen to us listen to those whom support your game & company. If you can satisfy us, we can bring in more subs.
Talk to the user through in game means that way you can reach the greatest majority possible of the community, if they can't be bothered to come to the forums they aren't likely to be hitting up hte podcast page.
Talking to those that dislike the game is like asking Terrorists for guidance on the future of america. Its a waste of time and will likely just alienate the people you already have. Stick with the customers you have not the ones that don't want you.
As for editorials well why waste your breath most of what they write is junk anyway.
I (and a few others I think) suggested they add feedback surveys for missions that you would see and fill out (optionally) when you completed a mission. I went as far as to say they should have this on Tribble (test server) only, to ensure that the new in-test content is good (for at least a sub-set of the gamer pop. A nice litmus test you could say.
As with all my posts, it was ignored.
You should always take the criticism to heart, and see what you can do. But some people will just not like the game ever. That's how it works. If they don't like it, there's nothing you can do to change it. Even with additions and improvements, at heart it will still be the same game. The most you can hope for is that those improvements will bring those on the fence back home. And you know what? Those on the fence seem to be the ones frequenting the forums.
As to those who haven't played, you should really *not* take their views on the game they haven't played into account. Just focus on improving it, and eventually word of mouth may bring them around.
The platform was there already, the pleas were being made but ignored. I don't see this as a route to Cryptic, I was already at the destination. I see it as a road block, a detour, an obstacle, something more between me and the destination.
You won't talk to me, why would I think you would talk to someone else or that they would talk to you on my behalf, and say what I want to say, ask what I want to ask. You wouldn't believe how patient I and other people have been here.
It's too late for me and for a lot of people.
The only reason I am not afraid to post on the forums is I've got a Celtic argumentative streak that makes Tellarites look passive and agreeable. It is amazing how many people out there won't set foot in the forums because of the vitriol, anger, rants, raves, personal attacks, personal animosity, and down right vulgar behavior goes on in the forums. They're afraid that their ideas and feedback will get drowned out by the din of voices engaging in one or more of the above. If I was less argumentative and less stubborn, I wouldn't be on this forum at all even if I had good ideas to pass along.
I feel for you. It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes isn't it?
I also agree with a post a few back. The release is very badly written. It sounds like a very exclusive council that will not represent everyone. Some took it as if there word means nothing unless they get invited to the council or they know one of these reps.
You could have gone the fleet/house route instead. Letting players know that there will be a council for a rep from there fleet to be a part of. So info that each player cares about will be heard. Maybe it should be re-written or another explanation release should be posted.
Once Cryptic chooses this direction it means they aren't going to listen to anyone not "in the circle" so to speak, be it someone ticked off and ranting OR someone with a well constructed, well supported idea or argument.
Your "representatives" will represent you. Whether they actually do or not. Truth is, even they won't be listened to, which is why the handpicked representatives will end up being those so exalted in their own officially recognized self importance they won't be able to realize they aren't being listened to, since Cryptic is using the "SWG Senate" model for the "council".
When by accident someone picked for it actually has the idea they actually represent something and TRY to actually do it they will be quickly dispatched, banned, silenced, etc, and replaced with a member of the former group. See Tux's saga as a "senator" for SWG. He plays STO. He actually TRIED to do what his job was claimed to be (what SOE always claims when they brag to the press about how they have "player representation) and got that treatment.
Fact of the matter is, I already give this idea a BIG vote of "No Confidence". It hasn't worked, and it certainly hasn't worked in the form that Cryptic is proposing it in. Starting with people not nominated or voted on by we, the players, is starting off with two strikes against it, and your hitter is at the plate, facing Nolan Ryan in his prime, and doesn't even have a bat...
That was my response to the guy mentioning the part about them being sites for revenue like that matters.