Interesting Article RE player feedback in MMOs

[Zarador]

I am certain there are plenty of people like this involved with Turbine's development team already, they're just bound by NDA. Just because we don't know who they are doesn't mean Turbine isn't talking to somebody before they develop/release content. I'm sure they don't just throw a dart at a dart-board and queue up whatever project it lands on next.

Just like I am sure that they use data mining to determine zone usage and perhaps even correlate that with player responses. Much as many complained about the LL revamp, it was a great improvement for many. I'm certain they looked at the amount of players bypassing the original version or doing it when it was trivial and determined they needed a change. They did not spend a ton of money making those changes because the system was working fine and the majority of players (like the arguments claimed) had no issues with the LL area.

Data is a valuable tool that provide indirect player collaboration. Where are they going and what are they doing? Where are they not going and why are they not doing that content. Surveys may lie but data is fairly reliable.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I would venture to say that they are also looking at the skirmish system to see what route players are taking. If enough players are completing their class quests by using the 2,600 point items obtained in skirmishes they just might ask why they are not going to CD and getting the item in a group instead. Same with other items offered by skirmishes. Why are they willing to do 20 hours of skirmishes instead of two hours of something else. How can we make that "something else" either more accessible or have more appeal?

[Indy-in-IN]

I'd never get an invite. I tend to look at the bright side of most things. If they hooked my up on a trip to Iceland, I'd be their biggest fan!

[Zarador]

I'd never get an invite. I tend to look at the bright side of most things. If they hooked my up on a trip to Iceland, I'd be their biggest fan!

And....if you spent a week there you could double the countries economy (ouch)

[Darej]

This makes me think of people who scream across the counter in McDonald's when their order isn't right. To me this would be a deal breaker. If you can't act like a professional/adult, then I guess having a childish temper tantrum is more important than providing constructive criticism.

Overall, it's very interesting to see what they're doing with the CSM. It'd be neat to see it in action.

one thing to remember is that most of the devs at CCP are Icelanders...they are a whole different breed over there.

so ya...what works for them might not work for the Bostonians at Turbine...which makes sense...and there is nothing wrong with that.

what ccp is doing would probably not work at blizzard either.

now Rash i think it is very mature that they could have such vocal exchanges and still be able to go out afterwards have dinner together and get drunk together.

it is a mature friendship that allows one to do such things.

[Darej]

What's the point? I'd win.

only cause margaret isnt here.

[Aexea]

So, if CCP is letting players influence how the game is developed and progresses, that must mean that most of the people that play EVE REALLY DO think that mining asteroids is viable endgame content...

All joking aside, I think it's pretty darn cool how you can pay for your EVE subscription with ISK.

[delphinius81]

Just like I am sure that they use data mining to determine zone usage and perhaps even correlate that with player responses. Much as many complained about the LL revamp, it was a great improvement for many. I'm certain they looked at the amount of players bypassing the original version or doing it when it was trivial and determined they needed a change. They did not spend a ton of money making those changes because the system was working fine and the majority of players (like the arguments claimed) had no issues with the LL area.

Data is a valuable tool that provide indirect player collaboration. Where are they going and what are they doing? Where are they not going and why are they not doing that content. Surveys may lie but data is fairly reliable.

But data is also open to (wrong) interpretation. At some point, you need outside sources to independently verify what you are doing. Game devs are hardly independent in the matter. In fact, players aren't either. Both groups have too much bias in some direction. I wonder if you could start a company that just did systems analysis and evaluation for unreleased MMO content.

[BerensBane]

So, if CCP is letting players influence how the game is developed and progresses, that must mean that most of the people that play EVE REALLY DO think that mining asteroids is viable endgame content...

All joking aside, I think it's pretty darn cool how you can pay for your EVE subscription with ISK.

You can also purchase ISK from CCP with real world $. That's a heck of a MT.. How many want to see that in LOTRO???

[Raugly]

Turbine had been planning the same thing. Unfortunately, Warner Brothers told them how silly it would be to hold it in Iceland when the staff is in Virginia (?) and totally nixed the idea.


More seriously, though, this seems to be primarily a public relations stunt, a way to get attention and possible subscribers from new avenues. I don't know how things are handled on Isengard, I would think it would be much more effective to hold discussions with the same players on a regular basis, allowing much better input to current development.

[willwheels]

However if you read between the lines on all of these reports about their CSM the thing I notice most is even with this level of player interaction, CCP still gets shouted and yelled at by players so how is this making the game better? Obviously if players were happy and satisfied then there would be no need for finger pointing, fist pounding and shouting.... right?

Of course they do, they're MMO GAMERS -- essentially the most demanding, fickle, and hard-to-please demographic on Earth. Did anybody really expect them to say "wow, this is everything we ever dreamed of -- THANKS!"?? lol

Exactly. Also, people play these games for many reasons, and it's pretty much impossible to please all of them at the same time.

[IamAkkim]

I could just meet them at Lambert's or Chipotle's on Rte 1. I would even buy them lunch!

Sounds like a lunch idea.. head over there and look for people wearing Turbine swag and hope it's not just other players lol!! =)

--Akkim

[lf2536]

I honestly hope Turbine never does this. for various reasons, but mainly because the forum community does not represent the entire LOTRO community. also, while the player base should have a voice it should never directly affect development the way CCP are doing it unless the company deems and idea worthy. lastly, this CSM thing is just a fancy name for a focus group and those don't really tell you anything new since they are hardly reprsenting of a community that number in anything between thousands and millions of players, depending on the game.

input is always a good thing, and Turbine's questions every other week or so are a great way to gather information and I applaud Turbine for doing do, but letting the players directly affect your product sounds counter-productive since players are always interested in adding things that might not be viable, commiting to adding them is bad business since if you fail to achieve what you promissed you'll just get people yelling "but you promised us X and gave us Y, you don't listen /ragequit".

[GregJL]

This makes me think of people who scream across the counter in McDonald's when their order isn't right. To me this would be a deal breaker. If you can't act like a professional/adult, then I guess having a childish temper tantrum is more important than providing constructive criticism.

Yes, aren't you glad no members of our community ever act like that?

[Zarador]

Yes, aren't you glad no members of our community ever act like that?

All this reminded me of a community member of high standing in Everquest II that was invited with some high level Guilds to attend a developers meeting at a fan fair.

When they returned they were very difficult to live with since everything they said must be fact since SoE entrusted them with their opinion. I don't think they had an objective opinion after that right up until the time they left the game and started posting in blogs everything that was wrong about the game. From ultimate fan to borderline ban in one simple meeting of the minds.

Of course, none of us could ever comprehend the game or play it in the manner that they knew it was intended to be played. Every change came from the powers of the heavens and must be applauded with glee.

[rocketeer8015]

You can also purchase ISK from CCP with real world $. That's a heck of a MT.. How many want to see that in LOTRO???

No you cant. I played EvE, bought some gametime with ISK(the ingame currency) both before and after it became officially supported by CCP and there is no way you can buy ISK directly from CCP.

The system is very very simple actually. Imagine i told you to give me 5 Gold, and i will send you a 30 day gametimecode per email. The only thing CCP did in the beginning was telling players that you are not allowed to cheat people when doing this, simply because RL goods are involved and thats called fraud and they want no party of that.

The current system basicly is one step further technically, they allow PLAYERS to convert gametimecodes into ingame items, which you can trade normally, and turn into gametime again(you enter a GTC into a special menue ingame, get a token into your inventory, rightclicking token allows you to add the gametime to your chars account).

The one rule is that these tokens are NEVER created by CCP or just created out of nothing, they are always created by a player converting a GTC. So CCP doesnt create the ISK, they DO obviously create the GTC though.

I know many people think thats morally the same as selling ISK for $, but its not CREATING ISK for $. Economically thats a huge difference, one is akin printing money(with all the repercussions like inflation) the other is just shifting around money already existing in the market(you may have 200m ISK more at the end, but another player has 200m ISK less). Its accepted by the players because a) it doesnt create money, SOMEONE had to work for it and b) they guy ending up with 200m less ISK ends up with 30 days more gametime, personal choice wether thats a fair deal or not(200m is an example, price is entirely made up by supply and demand).


Regarding the CSM:

The CSM delegates are not chosen or filtered by CCP apart from some restrictions on how many times a delegate can get elected and wether he is actually able to attend the meetings(you need a passport and be allowed to leave your country and enter iceland). It is the players responsibility to make sure they are represented. I.e. if your a passionate raider/pvmp/soloist you would lend your vote to someone who campaigns for that. If you feel strongly about a certain class shortcomings you would lend your vote to someone campaigning for it.
Last i checked that system worked surprisingly well.

Also the delegates cant raise issues as they want, there is a special part of the official forums where players can vote on threads. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard...readID=1252529 is an easy example. Its about getting bigger textfonts in the game, if you have an account you can reply to the thread and tick a box to show support, then the thumb appears, and your support gets counted. On page two you see someone who is campaigning for a CSM seat adding her support, so if your serious about fonts you would support her, here is her campaign thread http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard...readID=1304643 for example. So you see they take this VERY seriously, both the devs and the players.

Sorry for the long text, just wanted to clarify things a little bit because i find the actual mechanics behind both systems quite interesting.

[be0wulfe]

Meh.

There's a time and place for catharsis, as long as it's constructive and not consistent.

[Caelven]

A player council is a really bad idea.

Going to have to leverage the Matrix universe here, but I think it's a useful analogy.

There is a whole class of questions that arrise while playing an MMO that I've taken to calling "Red Pill" questions, that is, questions which have the
potential to inform the player about what is really going on in the game design, but for each of thses questions there are also "Blue Pill" answers,
that is, answers which allow the player to remain ignorant about the forces that they are subject to.

The "Blue Pill" answers tend to be nearly the same for all questions, the standard ones are:

"It's because the devs are ignorant."

"It's because the devs are lazy."

"It's because the devs don't care about whether the game is fun."

"It's because the devs don't care about whether the game is challenging."


Pretty much, if you hear one of these answers, you are hearing the process of willfully falling asleep. It wouldn't be a problem really, except there are so many folks that talk, volumes really, in their sleep.

So what are some of these "Red Pill" questions? I will offer just a few:

"Why do Hope tokens only stack to five?"

"Why is there no Kazad Copper in Lorien or Mirkwood?"

"Why is there no skirmish camp in Mirkwood?"


As regards stack size, I will offer this one tidbit which might not seem obvious to non-programmers: Stack size is just an integer value, it's a setting they could easily change at any point. Look at Skirmish Marks, what is the limit? Well, I forget, but I suspect that the real limit for stacks is probably 32535. I do not beleive there would be any technical reason that Hope tokens couldn't stack to the same amount as Skirmish Marks.

So why don't they? Well, any Red Pill answer would likely inspire a storm of firey Blue Pill replies, so I leave it as an excercise for the reader.

But my point is this, until a player can give Red Pill answers to basic game issues they are pretty much unable to offer any opinion which could improve the game, except inadvertantly. And once a player is capable of giving Red Pill answers, well, then insight is often going to boil down to experience, and frankly, the Devs have more experience and are going to come up with better answers most of the time.


Am I really saying that there is no value to player feedback? Not at all, I am saying that there is dubious value to having any group of players appear to have any "right" to "assert" feedback except at the pleasure of the devs.

Now, I have certainly not been shy about offering "feedback" in the past, and I have no certain way of knowing if any of that feedback had any effect.
But I do think I got it right about the process which led to the sorrowful state of the Minstrel class pre-Moria patch 1, and looking at the class now I suspect that it may have gotten a systematic reveiw which resulted in the Mirkwood version. I hapened to cvall for that review, but if it happened, it certainly wasnt becauseI called for it. (But because I worry a lot I also suspect that the class was pushed back outside of the arc of the ten year ccombat plan, with the idea that instead of nerfs, the class will come back in-line by a slower progression of buffs.)

But if this happens to be the case, any value in the feedback did not come by virtue of being a player, it came from professional job skills applied to a hobby. That is only accidentally "player feedback".

I do not want to play any class designed by an angry mob. I do not want to play any game that attempts to address Blue Pill answers. I do not want to waste the devs time by forcing them to deal with a group of players who are "elected" to have more right to affect the game.

In a word, yuck.

Caelavin

[Kraggy]

As regards stack size, I will offer this one tidbit which might not seem obvious to non-programmers: Stack size is just an integer value, it's a setting they could easily change at any point. Look at Skirmish Marks, what is the limit? Well, I forget, but I suspect that the real limit for stacks is probably 32535. I do not beleive there would be any technical reason that Hope tokens couldn't stack to the same amount as Skirmish Marks.

So why don't they? Well, any Red Pill answer would likely inspire a storm of firey Blue Pill replies, so I leave it as an excercise for the reader.

Good example, let's look at it.

It's a perfectly reasonable question, why are some stack sizes small and others large?

In this particular example, the devs. may say that it's done to make the use of tokens something to be thought about instead of simply popping one because they are, for the course of the instance run in question, effectively in unlimited supply.

Another example would by "why are we limited to 50 inventory slots", again, devs could reply along the lines that they deliberately want to make players have to choose: yes, I know the more popular theory is to do with database loading etc., I'm ignoring that possibility for the purpose of this waffle.


In both these and a myriad of other examples a "blue pill" answer as you put it would probably result.

Why?

'Blue pill' answers will result when the devs. don't offer an explanation that is reasonable in the eyes of the players. If a player perceives something as being boring, tedious, infuriating, whatever, he will only be placated, or at least come to a grudging acquiescence, if the justification for his boredom/frustration/whatever to HIM sounds reasonable and something he can see the value of in terms of how HE views the game and what it expects him to do.

Lack of a reasoned explanation .. or, sadly, as usually happens on these forums lack of ANY explanation from the developers .. is bound to lead to a "blue pill".

Clearly, some "blue pills" will result anyway on the "can't please all the people" premise, the proportion of "blues" to "reds" is a reflection of how the audience perceives the reasonableness of the explanation.