To the Player Council, What are you all doing lately? Updates?

[Crell_1]

The council is more than capable of doing more than one thing at a time. There are dozens of discussions going on all the time.

Any chance you can peel back the NDA so Council members are free to talk about their contributions to the 'Advanced Riding Trait' you've credited them with in the 11.2 patch notes?

[ShotgunStalker]

The council is more than capable of doing more than one thing at a time. There are dozens of discussions going on all the time.

Rank farming is only one, but along the same lines they are also reviewing and help revise the community guidelines (almost done) and they are hearing from our Senior Customer Service people and GMs about feedback to improve GM/player relations and understanding of what GMs can and cannot do.

What are you talking about? You can do anything!


I BELIEVE IN YOU!

[Sapience]

Any chance you can peel back the NDA so Council members are free to talk about their contributions to the 'Advanced Riding Trait' you've credited them with in the 11.2 patch notes?

No. Part of the reason for the NDA is to protect them. Imagine if they were all treated as well as some people like to treat the devs? No one would ever volunteer to serve on the council again.

What I will say is the team came to the council with basically a 'blank sheet of paper' concept with 3-4 options in a poll. This lead to the council finding an additional possibility that the team agreed was worth considering. Through a series of exchanges and some back and forth discussions on specifics, the council helped the team work out what should be offered and what value to place on it.

Simply put, the council was part of the conversation and planning from the beining, before the first keystoke to implement the items was ever made. Not every suggestion was taken, not every dev concept was taken. The end result can very fairly be called a collaborative effort right down to the final pricing.

[Crell_1]

No. Part of the reason for the NDA is to protect them. Imagine if they were all treated as well as some people like to treat the devs? No one would ever volunteer to serve on the council again.

I'd like to think some of the players, and even your existing council members have tougher skins than that.

Remember that peeling back the NDA only gives players the option to speak, it doesn't force them to speak, or demand it.

What I will say is the team came to the council with basically a 'blank sheet of paper' concept with 3-4 options in a poll. This lead to the council finding an additional possibility that the team agreed was worth considering.

This is interesting. It would be more interesting to know we could if the 'additional possibility' was closer to what we wound up with, or if they decided that one of the 3-4 originally presented options was closer to a better fit.

Thanks for this brief look behind the curtain.

[Tanthilan]

I'd like to think some of the players, and even your existing council members have tougher skins than that.

Remember that peeling back the NDA only gives players the option to speak, it doesn't force them to speak, or demand it.

They may have a thick skin, but they shouldn't need to. The problem with many posters and players for MMO/MMO Forums is that they seem to think that for some reason they have a right to be cruel, disparaging and just plain rude. Maybe I'm just older, but I remember a time when we were taught courtesy and politeness, with the main rule; "If you can't say something nice, keep your mouth shut." There are ways of asking for information, even when you are angry, that are more polite, but I rarely see this used in the forums. Its usually cries for devs to be fired, how stupid they are, how they can't do their jobs, or even how they are trying to cheat the players. So I have no problem with Turbine wanting to keep these players secret. As they are players, from every walk of life in the game, I think they have a vested interest in making the game better, likely read the suggestion forums, and represent us fairly well.

[Crell_1]

They may have a thick skin, but they shouldn't need to.
..So I have no problem with Turbine wanting to keep these players secret. As they are players, from every walk of life in the game, I think they have a vested interest in making the game better, likely read the suggestion forums, and represent us fairly well.

I just think it's abit strange to slap a 'With the work of the Player Council' label on a feature, and not peel back the NDA so we can know what their contributions were.

As it is, it's easy to view this as an opportunity for Turbine to hide behind the 'Player Council' for potentially controversial decisions. After all if Turbine didn't want to risk player's wrath being directed to the Council, why credit them in the first place?

[Sapience]

As it is, it's easy to view this as an opportunity for Turbine to hide behind the 'Player Council' for potentially controversial decisions. After all if Turbine didn't want to risk player's wrath being directed to the Council, why credit them in the first place?

This is silly. Really no other word for it. The moment we 'hid' behind the player's council they'd stop being supportive and helpful and no one would ever participate. Just like any reasonable person, the moment they caught the 'blame' for something they had no part in or were misrepresented they'd righly depart the council in droves.

[Bel-Astarte]

I just think it's abit strange to slap a 'With the work of the Player Council' label on a feature, and not peel back the NDA so we can know what their contributions were.

As it is, it's easy to view this as an opportunity for Turbine to hide behind the 'Player Council' for potentially controversial decisions. After all if Turbine didn't want to risk player's wrath being directed to the Council, why credit them in the first place?

To insist on the right to second guess each and every person's take on a particular feature as it is developed.

What they are doing is giving a little info about how the Council is involved in discussions of development-something that was asked about as the initial proposal was made.

I feel confident any displeasure felt by the players will be sufficiently conveyed without placing a bull's eye on particular council members.

[Fredelas]

I just think it's abit strange to slap a 'With the work of the Player Council' label on a feature, and not peel back the NDA so we can know what their contributions were.

As it is, it's easy to view this as an opportunity for Turbine to hide behind the 'Player Council' for potentially controversial decisions. After all if Turbine didn't want to risk player's wrath being directed to the Council, why credit them in the first place?

I think if you're interested in the ongoing activities of the council or influencing or debating with council members, the best way would be to get selected for the council. The next term begins in January.

I think that at least in this case, it's sufficient to know the outcome of their efforts. It's really more productive to discuss the outcome than the efforts at this point. I'm sure council members will be taking note.

[Crell_1]

This is silly. Really no other word for it. The moment we 'hid' behind the player's council they'd stop being supportive and helpful and no one would ever participate. Just like any reasonable person, the moment they caught the 'blame' for something they had no part in or were misrepresented they'd righly depart the council in droves.

Maybe you'd leave. What others would be willing to do for a chance at early access, a quarterly stipend, and more direct input into the process? What would they put up with? Only they can know for certain. =)

I guess my thought is, there's not likely to be much that enters the game that Turbine isn't going to give the Council a chance to provide early input on, and if Turbine only credits them with things that are looked to be something that's going to be likely overwhelmingly positively viewed or of minimal impact, I'll be disappointed. No one's perfect, and we don't expect this appointed group of representatives to be either.

Looking forward to seeing how 11.3 turns out. =)

[EmyrSelyf]

With all due respect... I still don't think you understand what cheating really is. Taking advantage of a legitimately available "tool" to advance yourself faster is not cheating. I would accept it being "underhanded" in that it does skirt around the "intended" path. However, all the whining about something that isn't really cheating does not further the discussion.

And, again, you are missing the point where it would not matter... every single person in the PvMP is "rank farming" whether by the slow, "traditional" means or a faster way. You must kill X-number of opponents to reach Y-Rank... which is what has given birth to those who figured out they could "abuse" multiple accounts (of their own) to expedite the process.

It's a legitimately available tool to climb.
You can climb up, where an NPC can't get at you, and try to kill them. Yet it is unreasonable, and not fair play, for a ranged class to kill an NPC with that little risk and damage to themselves, and we even have a nice mechanic to try to prevent that in the form of a bunch of swirly question marks above their heads, and they get confused and reset.

It's a legitimately available tool to hop.
We even advertise this tool on the spash screens. You can hop up on buildings until you fall in them and can't get out and lose your character, or until you skirt around the "intended" path and get to someplace in the game world that is out of bounds, yet we all know that isn't allowed and they have a mechanic that trys to prevent that, as well, by teleporting you out, but it can't save you all the time - it doesn't exist everywhere due to limitations.

These are examples of using legitimately available tools to do something you shouldn't. Unfortunately Turbine can't predict every stupid thing players could or will do with what they are given, so a lot of the things you can do with a "legitimately available "tool"" to "skirt around the "intended" path" can still be done. This is where conveniently not ignoring common sense to gain an unfair advantage comes in.

Every PvMP player is not rank farming, unless you momentarily change the definition as it has been used to suit your position. Rank Farming is repeatedly killing player controlled toons that aren't fighting back in a significant manner. Killing a train of 24 reavers, running across the Moors (and lagging out many they encounter), with a hunter is normally about as possible as a level 10 soloing the hardest raid we have. Which is to say, it couldn't be done without player manipulation and the participants involved not acting according to their nature. (i.e. cheating) A non fighting reaver in the moors makes about as much lore-breaking sense as giving a machine gun as a legendary weapon.

[Vandervahn]

Maybe you'd leave. What others would be willing to do for a chance at early access, a quarterly stipend, and more direct input into the process? What would they put up with? Only they can know for certain. =)
...

Smileyface or not, but you did just blanket-insinuate that ALL council members may be corrupt. Because they´d have to be to support the earlier speculation on Turbines business practice in this matter. While it would just take one "upstanding" whistleblower from the council to denounce it.

Do you see what is less probable now?

[Nilsric]

This, in a nutshell. Mutli-boxing isn't on the table. It's not a violation and that's pretty much the end of that portion of the discussion.

Well it is quite clear that multiboxing in a competitive environment such as the Ettenmoors is neither unfair nor is it giving the multiboxing player an unfair advantage.

./sarcasm off

It is such joy to solo and get slaughtered by someone playing six BA's or weavers. At least one of us is having fun....I'm not particularly worried about rank farming (although I think it is really sad) but why Turbine endorses something that is clearly cheating is flabbergasting. Maybe the rules should be changed for the Ettenmoors so it is a violation. Surely this has been suggested in your player council?

[Rainothon]

I think if you're interested in the ongoing activities of the council or influencing or debating with council members, the best way would be to get selected for the council. The next term begins in January.

I think that at least in this case, it's sufficient to know the outcome of their efforts. It's really more productive to discuss the outcome than the efforts at this point. I'm sure council members will be taking note.

True. We know they provided feedback and suggestions on the feature itself and it's pricing. They assisted (patchnotes), and as Sapience says not every of their suggestion was taken nor did they take every suggestion by the devs.

Thanks to Sapience we also know they came up with something the devs hadn't came up with but found indeed worth considering. Without knowing the details that alone is a Good Thing. It's the kind of thing I expect of the Player Council. Nice to see such a process happening. Good job by both the Player Council and the devs.

The assessment of which pricetag is reasonable is up to all of us personally when we decide if we should buy or not. It's also a highly individual decision. And very much a convenience item. Personally I think the pricing is not in the appropiate level, but mostly I simply won't buy it given my specific situation: I'd only use it for alts as my main rides his warsteed exclusively. Price and value are not the same.

If you expect the Player Council to function as a Consumer Authority, your expectations are off base. If you expect the Player Council to interact with the devs on a closer level than this forum and represent what they feel the players want, I'd say they're doing that allright.

[Elderban]

...and they are hearing from our Senior Customer Service people and GMs about feedback to improve GM/player relations and understanding of what GMs can and cannot do.

Maybe this can be expanded to the rest of us since it seems like the can't do much at all and usually only provide "canned" responses.

[MullaramSullaram]

Ill bet its a new PvMP map!

Either that or

A new 12 man, multi-boss raid!

LMAO =)

[Sapience]

Maybe this can be expanded to the rest of us since it seems like the can't do much at all and usually only provide "canned" responses.

The point of the council is to discuss these things with relevant groups. Its much easier to have a conversation when the participants are limited to a smaller group. What comes of it, like the forum reorganization, the advanced riding skill, and other feedback then find their way to the larger community.

[Minquinn]

I've always wondered why the playerbase never came up with their own devised player council. It would certainly be more democratic if we the players voted for our representatives. It could have been devised on something as simple as a community site.

[EU_Orc_Bane]

No. Part of the reason for the NDA is to protect them. Imagine if they were all treated as well as some people like to treat the devs? No one would ever volunteer to serve on the council again.

What I will say is the team came to the council with basically a 'blank sheet of paper' concept with 3-4 options in a poll. This lead to the council finding an additional possibility that the team agreed was worth considering. Through a series of exchanges and some back and forth discussions on specifics, the council helped the team work out what should be offered and what value to place on it.

Simply put, the council was part of the conversation and planning from the beining, before the first keystoke to implement the items was ever made. Not every suggestion was taken, not every dev concept was taken. The end result can very fairly be called a collaborative effort right down to the final pricing.

Have the council had a similar level of involvement/impact on any aspect(s) of the Helms Deep expansion? If they have, the likelihood that I will buy it is significantly increased.

[Whart]

I guess I'm just not seeing anything coming out of the council that I care about, which is fine of course since I'm just one person. I don't PvP, so the rank farming thing isn't something I have a right to get involved in; the forum revamp was an open discussion with the whole community with just a preliminary framework suggested by the council (which really should be the model for changes--I really appreciated the attention to community comments after a council-suggested structure was proposed); I haven't the slightest interest in the horse speed store thingys (or any horse stuff really); and unless there is a concerted effort by the council or some other entity to solicit my feedback on housing or class changes/trait trees, I have to assume that I'll never have any input anyway, so I have to decide to continue playing or not *after* the changes are made.

What I would like to see is not a lifting of the NDA, but a way that the council (or Turbine) could solicit feedback on specific changes proposed by the council from a wider segment of the community, given that part of the point of the council was to bridge that gap a little better. Again, I'd point to the dialogue about the forum structure as a model: the council made suggestions; they were presented on the forums; and constructive feedback was presented from the community, with some of it added to the plan. I'd really like to see that happen with housing and class/trait changes.

[cdq1958]

I guess I'm just not seeing anything coming out of the council that I care about, which is fine of course since I'm just one person. I don't PvP, so the rank farming thing isn't something I have a right to get involved in; the forum revamp was an open discussion with the whole community with just a preliminary framework suggested by the council (which really should be the model for changes--I really appreciated the attention to community comments after a council-suggested structure was proposed); I haven't the slightest interest in the horse speed store thingys (or any horse stuff really); and unless there is a concerted effort by the council or some other entity to solicit my feedback on housing or class changes/trait trees, I have to assume that I'll never have any input anyway, so I have to decide to continue playing or not *after* the changes are made.

What I would like to see is not a lifting of the NDA, but a way that the council (or Turbine) could solicit feedback on specific changes proposed by the council from a wider segment of the community, given that part of the point of the council was to bridge that gap a little better. Again, I'd point to the dialogue about the forum structure as a model: the council made suggestions; they were presented on the forums; and constructive feedback was presented from the community, with some of it added to the plan. I'd really like to see that happen with housing and class/trait changes.

One method for this is random surveys, of which I was one of a number of persons contacted and yes, I replied. It has been noted that Turbine gets its feedback from multiple sources, so I am not concerned about that here.

I think this is/was an excellent example of listening to <> full agreement, while coming to a mutually satisfactory result for the largest subset of interested persons.

[Sezneg]

The point of the council is to discuss these things with relevant groups. Its much easier to have a conversation when the participants are limited to a smaller group. What comes of it, like the forum reorganization, the advanced riding skill, and other feedback then find their way to the larger community.

I must say that if the advanced riding skill came from the council I am impressed; it's well designed as a perk and the way you guys made sure it wouldn't impact the moors right off the bat was a very pleasant surprise when I was reading the details on it.

[Nodwick]

Dear Council members.

Any chance we could get a collective comment from you all, for the bounder token debacle ( as I would call it )

Would be nice to hear what the council has to say about the problems that is with the plaque and how it has been managed by Turbine, as well as giving them some possibilities as to how they could solve it.