Create an ombudsman, and/or a player advisory council

[Crell_1]

You could always join the Palantir program, if you want an voice in development.

It's the role of the community team. It's what we do (in small part and amongst a great many other things). Do we read every post? No. Off-topic, for example, isn't a forum that is read 100% every day. However, this forum, class forums, system forums, etc are read daily and in most cases several times a day. Which is part of why we constantly ask people to put the right comments in the right forum.

The Palantir program is most like what the OP seems to be looking for, minus the strict-user-testing that comes as a 'perk'. Unfortunately the Palantir program is currently not open to non-Turbine VIPs. ; This limits the program from the pool of Premium players or Players who may be Codemasters VIPs, which may have a different way of looking at things being considered for development. Strictly Free-to-Play players, really don't belong in such a system, because there's no easy way to verify identity.

At one point +Kheldyr said that it was strictly due to a technical limitation. Has any effort been made to address this limitation, and if so can we get an update on the technical ability for players to be accepted by Turbine from other subscription types? This is no way implies that Turbine may not choose to limit its applicants to VIP for its own reasons.

I do appreciate +Sapience, and the rest of the community team for raising issues discovered by the player base and keeping those concerns in the view of the developer/quality assurance teams.

[Bill_the_Cat]

youre taking the game too seriously

Probably, Its only a game, I just become passionate as we all do about some things. Besides, who doesn't like to put themself out there so that people can take shots?

[hallasan]

I don't see pragmatic merit or rational in this proposal and do not share the OP's contention that it is necessary.

The rationals presented are straw-man suppositions and conjecture passive/aggressively vilifying and attempting to get Turbine to react.

Did have an Inigo Montoya snicker at the random act of inserting EBITDA.

[PsychobabbleJJ]

There is a already great two-way feedback process that happens between Turbine and ALL of its customers, not some biased, unrepresentative "players body". If the customers like stuff they pay for it. If they don't, they don't. This is the only feedback that matters at the end of the day - cut the talk, cut the self-serving opinions and forum grandstanding, what do people actually do when their own money is on the line? And you can bet your bottom dollar that Turbine analyses the impact of everything they do very closely.

[Chiot]

What is an ombudsman going to offer that Sapience doesn't already offer?

[Sardonyx]

What is an ombudsman going to offer that Sapience doesn't already offer?

An ombudsman would be willing to shine a light on things Turbine is doing wrong. CR doesn't.

An ombudsman would not only communicate player concerns to Turbine, but relay how they were received. CR doesn't.

The key is this: an ombudsman is a neutral party. CR is on Turbine's side.

[djheydt]

An ombudsman would be willing to shine a light on things Turbine is doing wrong. CR doesn't.

An ombudsman would not only communicate player concerns to Turbine, but relay how they were received. CR doesn't.

The key is this: an ombudsman is a neutral party. CR is on Turbine's side.

This is true. So where are you going to get a neutral party? Certainly not among the players. Some would be as passionately pro-Turbine as the Turbinites (maybe more so); others would be inclined to gripe at everything they saw. Recruit someone who plays not LotRO but some other game, and he'd be all "Well, in $OTHERGAME we do it THIS way." You'd need to find someone who didn't game at all, and then he'd be too ignorant to be of use.

[Sardonyx]

This is true. So where are you going to get a neutral party? Certainly not among the players. Some would be as passionately pro-Turbine as the Turbinites (maybe more so); others would be inclined to gripe at everything they saw. Recruit someone who plays not LotRO but some other game, and he'd be all "Well, in $OTHERGAME we do it THIS way." You'd need to find someone who didn't game at all, and then he'd be too ignorant to be of use.

It's not impossible to find the right person. But yes, a LOTRO player is not an option. Which is why it's terribly different to do right, and requires serious support from the highest levels of Turbine management. This is also why it will never happen.

[Chiot]

An ombudsman would be willing to shine a light on things Turbine is doing wrong. CR doesn't.

An ombudsman would not only communicate player concerns to Turbine, but relay how they were received. CR doesn't.

The forums here perform both those functions. Why we need an Ombudsman? To decide for us what is important and what is not? Why do they get to make that decision solo?

Things are fine the way they are. We post our suggestions and complaints. Sapience reads them. He decides what is useful and not useful.

An ombudsperson is not going to change that.

[Chiot]

This is also why it will never happen.

It will never happen because it adds no value to either the players or to Turbine. It would create more problems than it would solve.

The system as is works fine. We write, suggest, complain. Sapience reads. Sapiences takes valid workable items to other people within Turbine. Turbine makes final decisions.

An ombudsperson isn't going to change that.

[Zarador]

An ombudsman would be willing to shine a light on things Turbine is doing wrong. CR doesn't.

An ombudsman would not only communicate player concerns to Turbine, but relay how they were received. CR doesn't.

The key is this: an ombudsman is a neutral party. CR is on Turbine's side.

So basically, we would need someone to explain to us what's wrong with the game? That's sorta like having someone review a meal I just ate. I think I can figure out what does not suit me with the game just fine, thank you. Not to mention, players on the boards tend to be fairly vocal in their opinion. Perhaps only a minority of players visit the boards, but that's still a broader opinion than that of a chosen few.

Then we have the point of view issue. One thread explains how a lack of PvP is what is destroying the game, another a lack of raid content, another a lack of fellowship quests and yet another on how all quests should be solo with just fellowship options. Each OP of each thread has it's own following that can demonstrate with their set of convoluted facts how they are right and the other party is 100% wrong.

Did we leave out the back seat programmers? The ones who claim that every change from a complete character overhaul to a graphics engine replacement would take but a few days and cost but a few dollars to implement.

How do you gain that neutral party anyway? For them to be effective, they would need data mining abilities so they could support what the players are really demanding, not just the vocal minority. Turbine on the other hand does that for financial purposes. What zone is underutilized and why? What quest line is the most abandoned? What can we do to change that in a manner that appeases the greatest amount of players and therefore provides the best return on the revenue invested in development.

Then there is the "No one but Turbine truly knows" aspect of project development. Obviously you can't put all the cards on the table for non-employee's so how would they know if something truly is in the works, infeasible, or being worked about in a different manner?

Here is the secret light that shines:

• Turbine makes more money when people are playing their game and enjoying it to a point where they wish to continue playing AND possibly enhance that game with additional items that amount to additional revenue.
• Turbine does not make money by scheming against it's players with plots to make them miserable and thus leave the game.
• While we may have strong opinions on what is important, ONLY Turbine has the ability to data mine and actually determine the direction that the game is going based on the actual figures of player interaction with the game. Anything else is contrived speculation based on our priorities.
• Turbine has in the past admitted making mistakes based on good intentions with poor implementation. When it costs them big money they come to the table hat in hand and admit that they could have done it better.
• If you don't play the game you won't have a clue on how to represent it. If you do play the game, odds are your perspective will be based on what you experience, not what the community as a whole experiences since there are so many aspects and play styles in the game.

My experience in other games with non-employee comunity managers is that they become lobbyists over time. People support them and after a while don't challenge them for fear of the power they might wield. In some games that I have been a part of players were actually banned from the forums for an extended period of time for having a debate with such a representative which would have simply resulted in a locked thread under normal circumstances. The snobbish air about them quickly builds up with the stench of "They made me a community representative, obviously my opinion is of more value to them than yours, shut up and listen to me or get out".

[Bill_the_Cat]

My experience in other games with non-employee comunity managers is that they become lobbyists over time. People support them and after a while don't challenge them for fear of the power they might wield. In some games that I have been a part of players were actually banned from the forums for an extended period of time for having a debate with such a representative which would have simply resulted in a locked thread under normal circumstances. The snobbish air about them quickly builds up with the stench of "They made me a community representative, obviously my opinion is of more value to them than yours, shut up and listen to me or get out".

+Rep, I didn't agree with everything, but several reasonable points were raised, well thought out.

[Sardonyx]

I don't think you understand just what an ombudsman would do.

So basically, we would need someone to explain to us what's wrong with the game? That's sorta like having someone review a meal I just ate. I think I can figure out what does not suit me with the game just fine, thank you. Not to mention, players on the boards tend to be fairly vocal in their opinion. Perhaps only a minority of players visit the boards, but that's still a broader opinion than that of a chosen few.

It's not about what you don't like about the game, or what I don't like about the game. It's about what Turbine is doing wrong.

Then we have the point of view issue. One thread explains how a lack of PvP is what is destroying the game, another a lack of raid content, another a lack of fellowship quests and yet another on how all quests should be solo with just fellowship options. Each OP of each thread has it's own following that can demonstrate with their set of convoluted facts how they are right and the other party is 100% wrong.

Which is an excellent reason why players make bad ombudsman. Was this ever in doubt?

Did we leave out the back seat programmers? The ones who claim that every change from a complete character overhaul to a graphics engine replacement would take but a few days and cost but a few dollars to implement.

And this has what to do with an ombudsman?

How do you gain that neutral party anyway?

Same way any other corporation does. You find the right person and hire them.

For them to be effective, they would need data mining abilities so they could support what the players are really demanding, not just the vocal minority. Turbine on the other hand does that for financial purposes. What zone is underutilized and why? What quest line is the most abandoned? What can we do to change that in a manner that appeases the greatest amount of players and therefore provides the best return on the revenue invested in development.

Then there is the "No one but Turbine truly knows" aspect of project development. Obviously you can't put all the cards on the table for non-employee's so how would they know if something truly is in the works, infeasible, or being worked about in a different manner?

You don't understand. The ombudsman would have access to Turbine internal data, employees and decision makers. We're not talking about a jumped-up player with a forum title.

Here is the secret light that shines:

Turbine makes more money when people are playing their game and enjoying it to a point where they wish to continue playing AND possibly enhance that game with additional items that amount to additional revenue.
Turbine does not make money by scheming against it's players with plots to make them miserable and thus leave the game.

This hardly makes them immune to making mistakes. BP wasn't planning to spill a million barrels of oil in the Gulf either - that's not how they make money

While we may have strong opinions on what is important, ONLY Turbine has the ability to data mine and actually determine the direction that the game is going based on the actual figures of player interaction with the game. Anything else is contrived speculation based on our priorities.

Which is why the ombudsman would have access.

Turbine has in the past admitted making mistakes based on good intentions with poor implementation. When it costs them big money they come to the table hat in hand and admit that they could have done it better.

It took them years to admit that Radience didn't work. That's a pretty pathetic standard. And it ignores such gems as "no plans for F2P", "convenience not advantage", or "you keep everything you paid for."

If you don't play the game you won't have a clue on how to represent it. If you do play the game, odds are your perspective will be based on what you experience, not what the community as a whole experiences since there are so many aspects and play styles in the game.

That's just wrong. Not only is it possible to play the game and be (functionally) neutral, there are huge areas an ombudsman could touch on that have nothing to do with the game. Account security, to pick a recent example.

My experience in other games with non-employee comunity managers is that they become lobbyists over time. People support them and after a while don't challenge them for fear of the power they might wield. In some games that I have been a part of players were actually banned from the forums for an extended period of time for having a debate with such a representative which would have simply resulted in a locked thread under normal circumstances. The snobbish air about them quickly builds up with the stench of "They made me a community representative, obviously my opinion is of more value to them than yours, shut up and listen to me or get out".

That's what you get for picking unprofessional people. An ombudsman is a professional position. A community manager position should never be combined with an ombudsman, anyway. Which, incidentally, is another reason why the current CR staff is unsuited to the role.

[Solarfox]

It's about what Turbine is doing wrong.

And who exactly is it that decides what they are doing wrong?

Same way any other corporation does. You find the right person and hire them.

Then how exactly are they different then a CR or Community Manager? Sapience already does what you seem to think a ombudsman should do. So why hire someone else to do what Sapience is already doing? Provide proof that a ombudsman would provide something Sapience doesn't already and then maybe you'd have an argument to make.

[Eluros]

Then how exactly are they different then a CR or Community Manager? Sapience already does what you seem to think a ombudsman should do. So why hire someone else to do what Sapience is already doing? Provide proof that a ombudsman would provide something Sapience doesn't already and then maybe you'd have an argument to make.

This is a fair point. There seems to be a problem with the idea of an ombudsman on Turbine's payroll. Isn't that a conflict of interest, as others have pointed out?

Now, if an ombudsman was not compensated by Turbine but still treated as a substantial community representative, that might be a different story. However, if the representative was a Turbine employee, I don't see how they could or would be any different than a member of the community team.

[Solarfox]

This is a fair point. There seems to be a problem with the idea of an ombudsman on Turbine's payroll. Isn't that a conflict of interest, as others have pointed out?

Problem is, if the person wasn't on Turbines payroll, then there's no way the person would have full access to the kind of information mentioned here. No mater how iron clad the NDA is, a company will never give away it's most sensitive information to anyone who isn't on the payroll. Because they won't have the kind of control over what happens to that information as they would an employe.

[Eluros]

Problem is, if the person wasn't on Turbines payroll, then there's no way the person would have full access to the kind of information mentioned here. No mater how iron clad the NDA is, a company will never give away it's most sensitive information to anyone who isn't on the payroll. Because they won't have the kind of control over what happens to that information as they would an employ.

Yep, you're right. I agree with you-- I think it's a pragmatically impossible situation. For something like this to work out, I think there'd have to be major paradigm shifts on Turbine's part, and they might not be for the better.

At any rate, things do seem to be working now. Sure, there's some kinks in the system, but overall it's been pretty successful. The amount of arbitrary moderation decisions is relatively low, and the playerbase is generally happy from the way things are going (based on my perception, which may be completely off, for all I know).