[Debate]Player's Council 2013(-14?)

[exx2000]

As a focus group I believe the only entity who can decide whether the Player Council was worthwhile is Turbine itself. I wouldn't know what to judge on considering that there is near to zilch on what the Player Council has suggested or offered. A major part of the misunderstanding I believe with community members considering the Council as representatives is due to the fact that many of the Council members have actually asked feedback from the same community members both in game , Teamspeak and the forums.

Here is an example : https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthr...siting-Turbine

My view is that if you asked the opinions of your fellow community members then yes you do represent them to a certain extent. That said , the fact that Turbine even needs to implement a focus group when there are a plethora of ways to obtain the same information about feedback / suggestions or what not from various data sources from the whole community is just silly.

How We Were Selected: We applied and were chosen by Turbine based on our application. They took players that utilize every playstyle so we have a diverse makeup of players.

How we represent the "Players": We don't represent specific players but rather a playstyle, such as Raiding, Rp, pvMP, Casual, ect.

What I would like to know is does the whole council actually play still ?

Perhaps maybe this is the reason the veil is closed so tightly for us on the Council. We do not get the personal attacks for what we discuss. Either is we agree with something or rally against it there would be players who are on the oppisite end and use the oppurtunity to attack us. Now I agree there are ways to loosen it a bit but that is in the end Turbines choice ot ours. What we can say, a few of us in this thread have been saying and trying to correct some mis-information which still runs amok. Some choose to not accept the given facts and sadly nothing anyone says or does can change that. What I do know, is that the Council has been productive. We have had tons of discussions on numerous issues with the game and hopefully somethings will change

I don't think people are aggravated at the Council per say but are just sick and tired of being hopeful that something will change and make the game better. For a company that can't even fix minor things like their website data which is prehistoric the amount of change I would expect from the focus group is minimal at best. From what Ive seen most replies are "we are hopeful" , "likely to change" , "maybe in the future".

So as I said earlier the council might be beneficial to Turbine but I don't believe it is beneficial to me as a community member. Should it continue ? Sure if Turbine needs some folks to filter through the suggestion forum go right ahead. It might remove the overhead one or two of their staff I guess. I do know that many if not all Council Members take their job/position seriously and try in whatever way they can to improve the game.

As long as everyone doesn't expect much you won't regret much.

Just my humble opinion.

[Glumposneak]

On the beta forums honestly there was mud slinging on both sides. One side no more than the other.

Yep I agree totally, which is why I said

There were a few people with all points of views getting on their high horses and being vocal and non constructive, but there were also many many more being very constructive

However, as there were so many more threads disliking the changes than liking them, it obviously looked like there was more from one viewpoint than the other, but I did witness abuse against most of those that likes things too.

[Marancil]

Any available stats on how many players actually get in to the Forum as well?

[Palentian]

On the other hand, it could also be that they've realized they can no longer get away with developing and releasing 1 full expansion a year at the current staff levels without this resulting in heavy criticism, but that, rather than investing in more developers, they've just decided to keep the staffing at current levels and delay releases more.

Or they've decided to put the resources into some of the other areas that have been brought up as concerns. Housing, revamping older zones, adding new areas (ala Great River) kinships, etc. These are all things that have been wanted since I've been playing. I don't understand how people can look at one or two "symptoms" and decide "OMG!! Sounds like cancer!!!"

[Palentian]

What I would like to know is does the whole council actually play still ?

Yes we do. I actually play more aspects than I used to. I creep in the moors, and so have become MORE familiar with the problems there. (Not an expert, just better informed) I've started freeping, and have noticed different issues there. I've even started a character on Landy to try and get more familiar with the "traditional RPer" issues. I haven't raided yet, but I think I've learned more about raiding and some of the issues there. When i get a better puter I'll try them out and actually SEE some of what I've been hearing about. I am pretty sure we all still play. Some of us have even expanded beyond our original spheres.

[Palentian]

Any available stats on how many players actually get in to the Forum as well?

Not that I'm aware of. Just as there is no available REAL numbers on total players. Its doubtful that even if T released such info it would be accepted.

[manstan]

Not that I'm aware of. Just as there is no available REAL numbers on total players. Its doubtful that even if T released such info it would be accepted.

I'd still like to see some actual numbers whether I liked them or not.
And I don't mean just forum numbers. Turbine has to have some idea about what of the game is most popular, were is most active, day and time. Even some sales figures.
As I have said quite a few times before, and I am sure most people will agree, you really can't judge a games player base by it's forum.

[Palentian]

I'd still like to see some actual numbers whether I liked them or not.
And I don't mean just forum numbers. Turbine has to have some idea about what of the game is most popular, were is most active, day and time. Even some sales figures.
As I have said quite a few times before, and I am sure most people will agree, you really can't judge a games player base by it's forum.

No, you really can't. I don't think actual numbers are going to be released. From the reaction to certain statements by Sapience, I can say its likely that any numbers he released would simply be dismissed as a lie. I say that because from statements he's made regarding percentage of raiders and PvMPers has already been dismissed as lies simply because the players in those groups do not wish to believe that their numbers are that low. Its doubtful that any hard figures provided would alter that.

[exx2000]

Or they've decided to put the resources into some of the other areas that have been brought up as concerns. Housing, revamping older zones, adding new areas (ala Great River) kinships, etc. These are all things that have been wanted since I've been playing. I don't understand how people can look at one or two "symptoms" and decide "OMG!! Sounds like cancer!!!"

Has it been stated that this is being changed or resources are being put into Housing, revamping older zones, adding new areas (ala Great River) kinships, etc. I would appreciate a link if one exists.

Yes we do. I actually play more aspects than I used to. I creep in the moors, and so have become MORE familiar with the problems there. (Not an expert, just better informed) I've started freeping, and have noticed different issues there. I've even started a character on Landy to try and get more familiar with the "traditional RPer" issues. I haven't raided yet, but I think I've learned more about raiding and some of the issues there. When i get a better puter I'll try them out and actually SEE some of what I've been hearing about. I am pretty sure we all still play. Some of us have even expanded beyond our original spheres.

Which brings me to another question. Have different players in the Player Council been chosen for different subsets of the gaming aspects. Like has Player Council been elected for feedback with Moors , Player B role-playing , etc? If so I do not mean to be offensive but would it not be better to put people who are actually familiar with an aspect than rather have Council members just join so they can do their jobs. If Player A was placed to forward suggestions on PVMP I would have at least expect the player to have been in PVMP before the Council was formed . How do you bring forward suggestions for something a Player Council hasn't done till the last year or so ? If I had to elect a focus group for something I was researching Id bring in the best of the best for each aspect I was researching. It is possible Ive misunderstood this concept in its entirety and in that case I apologize.

[Kelepitra]

During the Helms Deep beta there were so posters (not all) mentioning how they felt content was rushed and wasn't ready for release. There were even threads to delay helms deep because of the issues with it. Turbine.. for whatever reason chose to launch it... but they also listened. In the producers letter it is mentioned that they listened to the playerbase and are slowing down on the expanion cycle of 1 per year to go back and fix stuff ect. (not sure of exact wording). So this is a good thing is it not?

That's like bailing water out of a sinking ship rather than actually fixing the ship itself before it's put in the water.
Which pretty much isn't a good thing nor a solution in my opinion.

[staveisle]

I'd still like to see some actual numbers whether I liked them or not.
And I don't mean just forum numbers. Turbine has to have some idea about what of the game is most popular, were is most active, day and time. Even some sales figures.
As I have said quite a few times before, and I am sure most people will agree, you really can't judge a games player base by it's forum.

Numbers like that are generally going to open up Pandora's Box. In part because it will create pigeon-holing of people into one area or another when in fact many do many different things. In part because you really CAN make numbers say a lot of different things based on your own personal agenda. Something they might not have and would never post if they did is 'do the X% of PVMPers spend as much or more than the X% of RPers?' Does the average raider spend less than the average casual player? Do 'items' that one would consider raider/pvper make more money than the cosmetic items do? How much does it cost to develop a reasonable update or expansion piece for roleplayers, for raiders, for pvpers, etc. You're just going to get everyone drawn into amateur marketing arguments and finger-pointing. It would be a nightmare and one that Turbine has largely (and smartly) avoided. Why they ever chose to engage in any type of discussion that belittled the presence or significance of forum posters, pvpers, or raiders is baffling. Such discussions only serve to make some portion of the playerbase feel alienated and bitter. They haven't made that mistake often which is good, but it's not one they should care to ever make again. The only message they SHOULD be sending is something like "We value ALL of our customers and want to provide the best gaming experience possible for ALL of them. We do have to make choices as to where to allocate our resources and time because we can't do everything we would like. We hope you understand that. We appreciate those that work with us on giving feedback, both positive and critical, so we have help in deciding the continuing direction of this great game. We appreciate the passion of our players and do not like to hear that even a single player is considering quitting. To that end we want to engage you in regular and consistent gathering of feedback and dialogue about what is working for you and what you'd like to see us do better."

If you do want numbers, you can see about accessing some of what Suze tried to gather with the recent survey. I think the totals are still visible (they were at the time so you could see where everyone else fit in with your positions). The reality is Turbine has access to all the numbers and they make their decisions based on them, I think we can all agree on that. If their decisions after a few expansions are clearly not addressing the parts of the game you care about most, it's likely because you've been caught in the area that they decided they could not and would not be focusing on. Your choice then is to accept what they are putting out or find a game that is better suited to you. Turbine's direction clearly changed some time ago and some parts of the game have clearly gotten much more focus than others. None of us will be changing their mind on the relative significance of our playstyle over another. They've already made that call.

Palentian, Turbine doesn't get to use the 'get out of jail free' card and throw their hands up in the air saying 'You wouldn't believe me if I told you.' It's lame even for a standard forum poster. Simply an unacceptable way of communicating for a company running a business that relies in part on good relations with its customers in a competitive market. There are many good reasons that could be given for not posting certain numbers. This reason is NOT one of them.

[staveisle]

Has it been stated that this is being changed or resources are being put into Housing, revamping older zones, adding new areas (ala Great River) kinships, etc. I would appreciate a link if one exists.

Yes. https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthr...-Ahead-to-2014

[Palentian]

Has it been stated that this is being changed or resources are being put into Housing, revamping older zones, adding new areas (ala Great River) kinships, etc. I would appreciate a link if one exists.



Which brings me to another question. Have different players in the Player Council been chosen for different subsets of the gaming aspects. Like has Player Council been elected for feedback with Moors , Player B role-playing , etc? If so I do not mean to be offensive but would it not be better to put people who are actually familiar with an aspect than rather have Council members just join so they can do their jobs. If Player A was placed to forward suggestions on PVMP I would have at least expect the player to have been in PVMP before the Council was formed . How do you bring forward suggestions for something a Player Council hasn't done till the last year or so ? If I had to elect a focus group for something I was researching Id bring in the best of the best for each aspect I was researching. It is possible Ive misunderstood this concept in its entirety and in that case I apologize.

My understanding was that several of us were chosen specifically for our normal playstyle (pvp, rp, raids, etc) We were also chosen because of our post history and how we worded our apps. Many of us have since branched out a bit to gain better understanding in areas of the game OTHER than our norm. For me, I normally duo with my wife and RP (in that each of my toons have their own character and I play that character to the hilt. So don't actually ask Glaam anything, cause he's rude and unhelpful. Ask Korwin.) It just made sense to me to see some of the other problems and issues first hand, so I gave PvMP another shot. (Had a very bad experience the first time and thought I'd never go back. Now I love it.) Our play style counted for more than say........what server(s) we play on. As far as I know, server didn't even enter into it. It was pure dumb luck that each server actually has a player on the council.

[Palentian]

Palentian, Turbine doesn't get to use the 'get out of jail free' card and throw their hands up in the air saying 'You wouldn't believe me if I told you.' It's lame even for a standard forum poster. Simply an unacceptable way of communicating for a company running a business that relies in part on good relations with its customers in a competitive market. There are many good reasons that could be given for not posting certain numbers. This reason is NOT one of them.

Um........perhaps you misunderstood. That didn't come from Turbine. I have no idea why they've chosen to keep numbers to themselves. I was merely expressing an opinion that it wouldn't make much difference in the larger picture and my reasons for forming that opinion. Purely conjecture on my part.

[Glumposneak]

Turbine has to have some idea about what of the game is most popular,

Trouble is, that could give them a warped view.

If many players are unhappy with a certain aspect, they probably wont take part in that aspect.

For instance housing, I know loads of players who would love a housing revamp but in its current state, just occasionally visit it simply for storage. So Turbine could look at those figures and say that housing isn't worth being worked on.

Same with any other aspect, if most raiders have left or are taking a break waiting or hoping for new raids in the future, then the figures will look like no ones raiding

So what seems most popular now, might only be so due to the other bits not being up to scratch, on the other hand, it could be that those that are most popular now, reflect the players currently playing the game and those are the areas that should be concentrated on from a business point of view.

It really is a hard juggling act.

I would say its a fairly safe bet that money spent on instances/raids, housing, PVP etc if done properly (and any store prices set at a reasonable amount unlike the recent housing vault price) will be money well spent from Turbines point of view. However, if they haven't got the resources to say give us raids that are worth doing (eg multi boss, very challenging, great mechanics, the sort that's going to draw many of the ex raiders back) then they might as well decide it's time to let the raiders go and concentrate on elsewhere in the game where they do have the resources to give what is wanted.

I think the game is easily big enough to cater for raiders, pvp and casual players, those that like challenging content and those that like easier content. However I don't think the development team is likely to be big enough to concentrate on more than a couple of things at once, and if the time isn't there to develop these things properly, giving us cut down versions not up to scratch, whether housing, pvp or whatever, will please very few of us.

[kickman77]

That's like bailing water out of a sinking ship rather than actually fixing the ship itself before it's put in the water.
Which pretty much isn't a good thing nor a solution in my opinion.

So than I ask, what in your opinion would be the correct route to go. If releasing one expansion a year was not good because it felt rushed and slowing down on that focus on older content and housing ect. is not good enough what is? Please give an honest reply. Thanks

[Beaniemooch]

So than I ask, what in your opinion would be the correct route to go. If releasing one expansion a year was not good because it felt rushed and slowing down on that focus on older content and housing ect. is not good enough what is? Please give an honest reply. Thanks

I think planning one expansion a year was fine and would still be fine - if they actually did more finishing to the product first. We got very little time to test big battles before they went live. We were wiped so often in beta that it was nearly impossible to beta test the questlines because we had to start over again and again, and after about the 3rd time I said forget it. There was much about the class changes that were not finished when it went live - and anyone who even briefly glanced at the Minstrel forum knew that in spades. Even the dev said we were unfinished and we'd get attention sometime in December at 12.1, which was a good month after the expac was released. If more of the bugs and problems that were actually noted in the beta forums were acted on before the expansions went live it would be nice, because there's nothing more frustrating than going into an instance and seeing the same bug that you /bugged in beta for well over a month still alive and kicking.

Commit the resources to doing it right. That would be good enough.

[Kelepitra]

So than I ask, what in your opinion would be the correct route to go. If releasing one expansion a year was not good because it felt rushed and slowing down on that focus on older content and housing ect. is not good enough what is? Please give an honest reply. Thanks

Not releasing an expansion that's basically still in alpha would be a good idea.
Actually listening to feedback from 'BETA' would also be a good idea.
You release an expansion when it's ready and when it improves the game, not when it's time for the yearly expansion to rake in some cash.

[Glumposneak]

What a sad view of your fellow players you must have.

A quick follow-up on my comments about player council members acting differently is they thought a trip was to be had, while I realise all 7 of you might be genuine people who have worked hard over the year and the trip didn't influence you at all, a comment in a different thread about an entirely different subject shows what I mean about human nature.

We were discussing moderation ideas and I suggested that the best way might be player moderation, where the forum moderators are independent from the owners.

This idea went down badly and reading Beaniemoochs response, I fully understand why.

Their comment was

I modded another forum/fansite where I was a player as well as a mod, and it doesn't make for a friendlier place or more agreeable mod decisions. I ran into forum members in game and would either a) be treated like I was a god or b) be treated like I was the devil incarnate and talked to accordingly. My PM box was inundated with abuse and friends requests

I'm sorry I have such a sad view of fellow players (I don't really) its just that in life I see every week things like Beaniemooch has described. As soon as people knew he had power, they either hated him, or thought he was God and sadly that's a very very common human trait, which is why I said I would be surprised if none of you were slightly influenced by it.

[MrWarg]

Which brings me to another question. Have different players in the Player Council been chosen for different subsets of the gaming aspects. Like has Player Council been elected for feedback with Moors , Player B role-playing , etc? If so I do not mean to be offensive but would it not be better to put people who are actually familiar with an aspect than rather have Council members just join so they can do their jobs. If Player A was placed to forward suggestions on PVMP I would have at least expect the player to have been in PVMP before the Council was formed . How do you bring forward suggestions for something a Player Council hasn't done till the last year or so ? If I had to elect a focus group for something I was researching Id bring in the best of the best for each aspect I was researching. It is possible Ive misunderstood this concept in its entirety and in that case I apologize.

Palentian already answered this pretty well, but I thought I would chime in too. Each member of the council has their own areas of the game they are most interested in e.g. PvMP, RP, etc, however, any council member is free to observe and join in any discussion. So yes someone who has relatively little knowledge of PvMP might see a suggestion and post it for the council and perhaps the suggestion isn't feasible, but that is where those who do have more knowledge of the subject can step in and explain why and we can discuss it. In the process someone who doesn't have a lot of knowledge of that area of the game gets to learn a bit more about it.

[Glumposneak]

So than I ask, what in your opinion would be the correct route to go. If releasing one expansion a year was not good because it felt rushed and slowing down on that focus on older content and housing ect. is not good enough what is? Please give an honest reply. Thanks

It depends on so many factors.

Had they not been redoing the trait trees could they have got it out easily on time virtually bug free? If so, then why cant there be one next year?

If the new mechanic (mounted combat, Big Battles) is what is causing the problems, what about an expansion next year where they don't introduce a new thing like that.

Surely with no one working on redoing the trait trees and designing Big Battles from the ground up, they should easily have time and resources to get the next expansion out?

My concern is that either

a) the same expansion team is starting work on the new expansion now, but have been given double the time to do it, hence will release a much better polished expansion

and if this is the case, where are the resources to work on the housing and other things

or

b) they are putting all resources this year into other things, which means that next year, they will still only have the same amount of actual time to work on the expansion as they currently do now.

I'm really not meaning to be cynical, something simply doesn't add up to me.

[Runesi_EU]

My opinion is that there are a lot of unfinished or unpolished things in lotro, housing, hobbies, LI's, PvMp, kinships etc... that would benefit a lot from Turbine taking the time out from there normal annual expansion schedule to actually try and finish or improve. I hope they do take this chance to do just that.

[Calta]

It did indeed appear that way to me. You also are assuming I'm unhappy with HD in general. I'm actually having quite a blast with the new classes. I have not had a chance to do HD quests (as I'm a cheapskate and haven't been able to yet, but soon) but I'm looking forward to it. This is my own opinion and does not reflect any thing BUT MY OWN OPINION. (Sorry, it seems obvious but usually when I express my opinion it construed as "Shill". Apparently I'm not supposed to express my opinion. )



What a sad view of your fellow players you must have.

As I've said before: If I truly thought the PC was just a PR stunt, I would have resigned a long time ago. I really do believe we are doing a good job. Frustrating sometimes, thankless most of the time. But its worth it to me. Because of my time on the council I gave PvMP a second chance. Love it. I intend to Raid when I get a better computer. The experience really has shown me a lot and educated me in some of the areas I'd ignored before. And believe me, a NDA is frustrating on both sides of it. But I knew that going into it.

May I ask, for the reason that PC members repeatedly told me (among others on Beta) that all was good with HD, there were no problems with minstrels class revamp, that instances and raids mechanics weren't a problem, or the trait trees point allocation made sense, or the dps imbalance didn't exist, or the BB bugs and class problems didn't exist?......and that we testers were just 'unwilling to accept change'. PC members derailed many constructive threads with this type of remark. I got called old and stuck in my ways, change averse, bitterm and- most annoying-'corrected' on my reports of skill bugs that later were verified by devs. Sometimes by PC members. If certain vocal PC members in Beta had been less intent on 'soothing' and painting players of broken classes as the 'vocal minority' and 'whiners' and if they had had actually recently played the class when they responded in Beta class threads, or if they had done the bugged quests in HD, many of us would feel more supportive of the idea you all are doing a good job. Some PC members have changed their postion from being in favour of any and all the changes-others have not. I have no problem with the latter people who like HD and say so. Especially if they give reasons. But I got sick of being told by some PC members, that it was all good for me, a paying player of HD... It wasn't and still isn't. So it cuts both ways-as you know.


OH and to repond to Kickman-I'd be happy to hear on forums from my class dev more than twice in 2-3 months, if the current classes were finally fixed, if healers were needed for anything, if the HD quest line still didn't bug, if I had a class role in BBs, if the landscape had some genuine threats in it, if skirmishes raids weren't soloable, and if the loot system rewarded effort and sucess-not dumb luck. There's your agenda for the next PC meeting


and if I could do instances where I could remove ranged corruptions, my buff skills worked on other classes, my third spec was useful, content needed me as healer, and if I could manage threat as a healer and rez in combat as a buffer...then I'd be pleased

[rannion]

Or they've decided to put the resources into some of the other areas that have been brought up as concerns. Housing, revamping older zones, adding new areas (ala Great River) kinships, etc. These are all things that have been wanted since I've been playing. I don't understand how people can look at one or two "symptoms" and decide "OMG!! Sounds like cancer!!!"

Anyone with some experience with software development will notice the signs that the dev team is horribly understaffed. Last year, the devs were able to one-up management and force them to swallow a deadline extension via the "thousands of bugs have been reported by the player base" argument, but management wasn't going to accept that a second time, so although the release was already later than it used to be, it was not delayed any further regardless of the status of the class revamp, or the BBs. And then there's the fact they're outsourcing the QA to the beta players, who have to report the same bugs dozens of times to be taken seriously, with even cosmetic fixes taking weeks or more than 1 update/beta cycle to be taken up. Does that really sound to you like a healthy product team? It doesn't to me..

[Glumposneak]

Anyone with some experience with software development will notice the signs that the dev team is horribly understaffed. Last year, the devs were able to one-up management and force them to swallow a deadline extension via the "thousands of bugs have been reported by the player base" argument, but management wasn't going to accept that a second time, so although the release was already later than it used to be, it was not delayed any further regardless of the status of the class revamp, or the BBs. And then there's the fact they're outsourcing the QA to the beta players, who have to report the same bugs dozens of times to be taken seriously, with even cosmetic fixes taking weeks or more than 1 update/beta cycle to be taken up. Does that really sound to you like a healthy product team? It doesn't to me..

I totally agree, and of course it's not the devs fault.

But it's also usually a self fulfilling prophesy of doom (in general, not talking about Turbine when I say this),

not enough staff means not enough good content/product being released regularly enough

Not enough good content/product means more users/customers leave.

More users/customers leave, company decided to cut dev costs further.

And round in circles we go