Shall Anet open GW2 to the community via democratisation?

[Zesbeer]

i would love to see something like this. i think its in anets best interest to do something like this because it would help them know exactly what we who bought there game want from there game.

[Malice Black]

Originally Posted by Zesbeer

i would love to see something like this. i think its in anets best interest to do something like this because it would help them know exactly what we who bought there game want from there game.

They can get all that info from the many fan sites. It's not hard to work out what the assorted GW crowds want

PvP wants a lively meta
Farmers want to farm
Traders want decent shit to sell
Casual/lazy players want easy access to everything
Game players want plenty of quests/missions
Hardcore no lifers want unlimited level cap/grind titles

If a video game company can't work out something that simple, they're in deep shit.

[Zesbeer]

Originally Posted by Malice Black

They can get all that info from the many fan sites. It's not hard to work out what the assorted GW crowds want

PvP wants a lively meta
Farmers want to farm
Traders want decent shit to sell
Casual/lazy players want easy access to everything
Game players want plenty of quests/missions
Hardcore no lifers want unlimited level cap/grind titles

If a video game company can't work out something that simple, they're in deep shit.

well obviously... what i meant is that they should come out and say what do you think if we added this game mechanic and we could give them valuable info about that i think. theres just so many times in games where i think oh wow they fail for adding or doing that this way. or on the other had i think oh man i wish i could do this like i can in another game. its just little tweaks and stuff like that, that i think anet could really benifet from.

[Winterclaw]

I vote for removing all gold and drops and the game letting me pick any weapons or armor I want to use when I want to use it.

I also vote for starting out max level.

[hallomik]

I agree there is a large amount of pointless jibber jabber on this forum (and others) that makes it more difficult for interesting, innovative ideas to get through. On the other hand, once you've hung around a bit, you get a feel for where the different posters are coming from and who have point of view or a "voice" worth listening to. For instance, TMakanin, you, and Savio are people (among others) I will always read with interest when I see a post. Have a little faith in the judgment of others to ignore the pointless.

I'm sure Gaile and the other Anet folk who read the threads have developed a sense for what are the typical overreactions they should ignore versus the more serious issues that need addressing. Look at how fast they jump on exploits like duping when they are identified. Look how long they can go without commenting on issues like loot scaling or the Xunlai marketplace when they choose to. That tells me they have sound instincts.

If I'm wrong, and they have started paying less attention to Guru because of out-of-control flaming, then I think your idea has real merit. If that's the case, though, only they know it, and it's up to them to set guidelines for some sort of player council.

I would personally not welcome such an arrangement as it would say to me something had broken down. It would add an extra layer between me and Anet, and I would feel as if my influence - limited though it be - had diminished.

I would prefer to add mechanisms within Guru to limit the trolling and flaming. The moderators here aren't bad. They have always scrubbed the totally flamey, troll posts I've reported. But I think something like the slashdot karma system would be really welcome. That form of democratization I could go for.

[Avarre]

This would only be possible in the slightest if skilled players were put in the place. The problem with this is that the vast majority are not, and are thus unable to tell the difference. Often it's the players of the game who have the least idea of how to make the game better, and Guild Wars is no exception.

Who would you consider for it? The person who clears the same area over and over and has immense gold? The trader who doesn't play the game itself? The team leader who sleepwalks people along using well-defined skill sets?

Having some sort of representation from the community is good and has been done (alpha testers etc) but not properly utilized. Democratizing it seems to be asking for problems, though.

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by holababe

The Karma system ends up inverting after people start giving +rep or +karma for anything, rather than real contributions.

Do you have proof of that or is it your perception of the thing on slashdot?

Because from what I've read (on slashdot and articles on the topic), it does not seem true. Karma is only one of the three elements of the system, with moderators and meta-moderators. The rules for moderator selection are very smart, making sure that a subtle balance is reached (read the above link I posted), and meta-moderators prevent abuse (and I haven't seen any proof of them being unfair).

I want to mention that on the topic of selecting players for a council of players, there seems to be less problems for PvP ,where I regularly see names like JR or Ensign mentioned, rather than for PvE (as Avarre mentions). It is my belief that it is still possible, and even preferable to the current situation (but I've convinced no one ), by starting the process. What we see in EVE (which is, I realise, a totally different game where player interaction is more rough) is IMHO the beginning of a new process, structure being built not only around the game but in player's mind. May as people said, GW is not a game for that kind of mindset, but IMHO GWG shows that a (small) fraction of the GW population is ready for that.

I want to emphasize the fact that this idea is not exclusive, devs and CRs shall continue to do their job, and this council would work in parrallel (it'd only succeed if it proved better than the other means, or else it die of a natural death).

Lastly, I'd like to mention a phenomenon no GWG where a lot of people are now reacting almost always negatively, preventing any positive effort to be successful by the sheer social pressure. Not only are trolls happier than ever (and mods busier than ever), but there's a range of middle GWGers than post on GWG as a game of e-peen, or who's got the most influential opinion. I understand that GW being only a game, we don't need to be too serious, but then if that was so clear cut, players would be relaxed on GWG, wouldn't they? When a community like GWG grows past a certain critical mass (not only by the number of players but also by the average age in time and post numbers) chaos starts to dillute the contribution. Sure, you can always filter the noise as hallomik says, but as tmakinen pointed out, the pollution levels gets in the way.

I remember great proposals like Chthon's url filtering to combat gold-selling ads. I mention this one, but there are a lot more brilliant ideas floating around. What happens to them? How does Anet show us they're listening and think it's a good or bad idea, possibly explaining us the reasons? It's a lot of positive contributions (and energy) lost in a sea of meaningless proposals.

I thought that such a democractic move would force people to organise, avoid QQs and endless debate, and most importantly start the process of structuring our community. But it does not seem necessary, people are happy with chaos .

Originally Posted by Malice Black

PvP wants a lively meta
Farmers want to farm
Traders want decent shit to sell
Casual/lazy players want easy access to everything
Game players want plenty of quests/missions
Hardcore no lifers want unlimited level cap/grind titles

You seem to think that doing Anet's job is simple and straightforward, and I actually thought of challenging you to propose here a game design that would fit the bill you propose here (but it's a game I won't play here). A lot of these requirements are conflicting, as we can see every day in various threads.

Take the issue of LS removal and the corresponding thread. How is this clear cut? How can Anet make sense of this 57-pages long discussion? Are they going to go through each posts, spend hours filtering it, while this time is very precious to spend on programming or design? How do we transform these 57 pages into something constructive? (I'd say that the answer is: create a job for an economist to study the state of trade, gold income and sinks) And even if Anet is listening, how do we know what they think? (you may say that we don't need to know, we're just customers, and that's fair enough but believe that a bidirectional communication leads to a more stable and long-term relationship)

[Numa Pompilius]

Originally Posted by M'Aiq The Liar

No, if anything, I think A-Net listened too much to players and their gripes for GW1. I'd like to see them insulate themselves from the community a little more in the GW2 era, and do what they feel is best for the game and what they want for the game, not what all of the QQers and trolls think is best.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
I'd much rather have the game mirror the vision of the game designers than the wishes of farmers or whomever complains the loudest (also farmers), because what farmers want is infinite, repetitive, and easy, grind.

[Stockholm]

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

I thought that such a democractic move would force people to organise, avoid QQs and endless debate, and most importantly start the process of structuring our community. But it does not seem necessary, people are happy with chaos .)

People do not engage in fantasy games so they can be forced to organise, most do it to relax and have fun. Normal people have real lifes and are allready organised and don't need virtual organisation on top of that. GW is not a Sim, where you have to build and organise a community, and please don't try to use the player base as your personal Sim.

[tmr819]

Originally Posted by M'Aiq The Liar

No, if anything, I think A-Net listened too much to players and their gripes for GW1. I'd like to see them insulate themselves from the community a little more in the GW2 era, and do what they feel is best for the game and what they want for the game, not what all of the QQers and trolls think is best.

Game designers that insulate themselves from the player base = Game Fail, in my opinion. Listening to legitimate gripes and suggestions (and learning to distinguish those from "QQers and trolls") is essential.

If anything, I think ANet insulates itself a little too much from its player base. I have to give Blizzard great credit for having staffers not only monitor their forums but also occasionally responding (in the forums) to player concerns, suggestions, and grievances. ANet could learn a thing or two from Blizzard on that score.

I think ANet is savvy enough to peruse a forum and be able to sift wheat from chaff. In fact, as I have suggested earlier, I think ANet should set up its own discussion forum for GW2 (as other MMOs do). More than that, if I were ANet, I would monitor said forum and "flag" players (unbeknownst to them) who make worthwhile and constructive posts and keep an eye on what they had to say.

[Gli]

Originally Posted by tmr819

More than that, if I were ANet, I would monitor said forum and "flag" players (unbeknownst to them) who make worthwhile and constructive posts and keep an eye on what they had to say.

I would most certainly not. Players, being players, have an agenda. Players don't have the overarching view of the game one would expect of a development team, nor the objectivity required to make balanced decisions. (Those that do anyway: What's the matter with you guys! We're talking about frigging games here! You're not supposed to analyze them to death! Get a job in the industry or get over yourselves!)

Games like this are already designed by committee; committees of industry professionals. Individual players shouldn't have anything worthwhile to contribute that a development team couldn't think of themselves.

The only player input developers should be dealing with are the broadest generally upheld sentiments. Those affect business. Anything beyond that, is their own job. They should strive to be good at it instead of chasing after the input of a handful of mythical super-players.

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by Gli

(Those that do anyway: What's the matter with you guys! We're talking about frigging games here! You're not supposed to analyze them to death! Get a job in the industry or get over yourselves!)

I was even more laughing when reading your message with a different picture in mind: it's exactly what's happening with modern politics. People are no longer involved and see it from their own little local point of view (nothing wrong here, of course, it's only a problem when you loose perspective and the big picture). It's become a game lead by master players.

BTW, I disagree that all players have agendas (what's mine? ). Some are just more open-minded and others are too careless, while the majorite plays the game and stop playing it when they closed the client. I never, ever said anywhere in this thread that my vision was superior to anyone's. I'm just sad about all this positive energy unfocused and lost in the sea of fansites (though GWG have achieved great many things, kudos to the staff). I thought I may start a revolution (just kidding ) but, well, as some say, "it's the interwebz! get a life!"

trm819: I'm not sure if Anet would go for the fansite solution, how would they avoid the trolling, QQing and other problems that you can see on GWG? Maybe if GWG staff is paid by Anet, they can make a better job?

[tmr819]

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

trm819: I'm not sure if Anet would go for the fansite solution, how would they avoid the trolling, QQing and other problems that you can see on GWG? Maybe if GWG staff is paid by Anet, they can make a better job?

Heh. You can't avoid any of that, but you can learn to skip the junk to see what the valid hot-button issues are. And you can also begin to see patterns in the posters. There are people on these boards whose posts I nearly *always* read, whose opinions (though I may disagree) I have come to respect. There are others who are flame-happy or just plain silly or who QQ a lot. It doesn't take long to discern who is who, really, it doesn't.

Back when I was playing WoW, I would peruse -- and occasionally post -- to the forums there. I was impressed by the occasional Blizzard staff posts in those forums. They took a lot of abuse, yes, but they did occasionally respond to player concerns, sometimes by introducing in-game changes. I have seen many game-based forums where there is actual dialog between developers and players (wow! what a concept!), and I have to say I find that pretty refreshing. On the Mythos forum (a game currently in closed beta), I have really enjoyed the way the beta testers and developers interact on the forum to refine and improve the game. Mythos is going to be a much better game when it finally gets released because of this openness and cooperation.

ANet, in contrast, comes across (to me) as a remote "we know better than you" Great Stone Face in terms of customer relations. GW is a fine game, imo, but ANet's approach to PR is not very good.

I was just looking at ANet's press releases. The most recent one there is dated August 2007. I think that's just lame.

[Savio]

Originally Posted by Gli

I would most certainly not. Players, being players, have an agenda.

Okay, I admit it... I want Arenanet to give female assassins bigger chests. Nothing is more important than that.

Games like this are already designed by committee; committees of industry professionals. Individual players shouldn't have anything worthwhile to contribute that a development team couldn't think of themselves.

This. Although I'm disappointed about how Arenanet makes decisions, given their history of game updates (or lack thereof at times). Still, that's not a problem that increased player-dev interaction will solve.

Additionally I think people are expecting a lot more from a game developer than they should. It isn't necessarily Arenanet's duty to tell us what they do or to let us decide what should happen in the game.

[Fril Estelin]

I thought about this thread again yesterday (sorry for thread-res but I'll re-use it rather than off-topic another thread or create a new one) when someone talked about the "LS removal" thread. Wouldn't it be great to have more precise feedback from Anet on this topic? It may well be that Anet does not want to talk about it (no news on the wiki), but sometimes it'd be great if they were forced to answer our questions (not in the sense that they owe it to us, but rather that it creates a better communication and relationship)

I also thought about good reasons why this idea of player council shouldn't happen when reading this article about what governments could envisage to do with regards to MMOs:
http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cf...re/1871/page/1

Scenario 3: Owned!

And then came the final scenario, the true kicker, the big elephant in the corner playing the harp. This scenario is the most likely to occur in my opinion: What happens when/if the government decides that users own their virtual property?

If end-users own it, they should have a say in it – what if the government mandated that taking player feedback was mandatory?

This, said several developers, is when I’d leave. Not only is this lawsuit-waiting-to-happen, when the first database bug flushes thousands of dollars of virtual “property” down the drain, but this is the end of creativity. If developers no longer have an artistic say in the world and experiences they play, they are no longer composers, just musicians, and that’s not what they signed up for.

[Fril Estelin]

A funny update on this topic:
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild...ucrat_election

Apparently Gw players can vote for buraucrats on the official GW wiki. Note that it's been happening for 10 months already and their power is completely limited to the wiki.

/end of thread-res (mods are going to hate me! feel free to close to avoid +1ing...)

[Fril Estelin]

Time to update this thread with some fresh and interesting news about EVE's Stellar Council. It looks like it's been a very rough first month for this new concept and it sounds like good old politics . I fear they'll need a 2.0 version of the council to make it work, partly because of CCP lack of details for this vision. I'd like to see more of this spawning everywhere, e-democracy in action, but I guess that numbers speak for themselves, 11% of voters is much worse than in real polls. People don't want to be bothered.

http://www.massively.com/2008/06/23/...-one-month-on/

EVE Evolved: Stellar council - one month on

by Brendan Drain Jun 23rd 2008 at 1:30PM

Yesterday marked the one month anniversary of EVE Online's democratically elected Council of Stellar Management. The council was created as a way for the players to democratically decide which game issues are important enough to bring to CCP's attention. Since CCP are unable to sift through the forum for important topics, this gives a way for players to put forward their problems in a constructive manner. The council vote on whether each issue is important or not and compile a list to present to CCP. CCP have the final say in what issues from the list they think need to be addressed and will essentially be using the CSM to focus player feedback into a constructive form they can use.

Since its inception, the CSM has been plagued with problems and disputes. From the beginning, it was clear that a surprisingly small proportion of the playerbase were interested in the whole thing. Only 11% of players voted and of those even fewer actively participate in presenting issues to the council. With such a low voting turnout from the general EVE populace, it was argued that organised alliance voting made up the majority of the votes. Disputes escalated to new heights with the conclusion of the third official CSM meeting but recent meetings have seen vast improvements across the board.

At this one month anniversary, I look back on the problems that have plagued the council of stellar management and how they've been handled.

The chairman:

The public vote for the council's members served a dual purpose. The results of the vote determined both the members on the council and who the chairman would be. With the highest number of votes, Jade Constantine was made chairman of the council for the next six months. Reception of the news was varied, with some players supporting Jade and others predicting that the council would fail horribly under his guidance. Almost immediately, the question was brought up of how a vote of no-confidence in the chairman could be enacted if required later.

The thread pointed out that if the CSM's chairman were to violate the processes laid out by CCP, there was currently no way to replace him with someone more capable. Those that didn't want Jade to be chairman used the thread to ask that he be immediately removed and replaced by someone else. However, the majority of the thread's responses supported the original idea that if the chairman did start to fail in his job, there should be a way of replacing him.

Jade addressed the chairman issue in a later thread, stating that he personally believed the chairman should be elected by a vote between the council members. Although current processes laid out by CCP did allow for him to step down and vote in a successor, Jade suggested that this would involve giving up his seat on the council entirely. Instead, he wants to get the CSM document changed so that the vote is mandatory for future elections. Making his intentions clear regarding his current term as chairman, Jade promised to step down and re-elect the chairman by vote if CCP permit that change during the Iceland meeting.

Why hold a second vote?:

Amidst the discussion over whether the council should vote for the chairperson or not, some players contended that the person who won the chairman seat had already been voted to the position by way of receiving the most votes. The problem with this is that the vote itself should not have served a dual purpose in the first place. People can't be expected to take the chairman position into consideration when voting for council members. Each of the council members was elected based on their plan for what type of player they were going to represent and what type of issues they were going to support. While this is all that's required to be a successful CSM applicant and win the initial vote, the council chairperson needs to have additional qualities that are not guaranteed by receiving the most votes in the general election.

The chairman is a normal voting council member whose responsibility it is to ensure the smooth running of the council. This requires a person who can easily separate their own opinions and agendas from their responsibility to fairly follow the established protocol. Whether they personally think an issue is important or not doesn't matter as each issue must pass through all of the official channels. This is an important concept because if the chairperson has more leverage over a decision than the other council members, that means he has more than just a single vote.

Allowing the council members to elect their own chairperson by vote would give them the ability to choose whoever they think best fits that role. It also allows them to voice their opinion on who they would most like to deal with in meetings, avoiding council members having to deal with a difficult or biased chairperson.

Rabble rabble rabble:

Complaints on the forum about the CSM have not been limited to its chairperson. Goonswarm, the game's largest alliance, managed to get two representatives voted to the council by sheer force of numbers. As expected, threads calling for a vote of no confidence in the two Goonswarm council members started up soon after the results of the debate were published. Complaints about Jade Constantine's handling of the council also began the day of the election results when he was declared chairman.

Jade's opponents claim that he has augmented his role by giving himself powers he is not supposed to have. In the third council meeting, he muted one of the other council members, an ability not outlined in the CSM document. Jade maintains that the council is meant to be making a lot of its processes up as they go along, that as the first council it's their job to work out the fine details and handle new problems as they arise. Jade recently added that he has deferred moderation abilities to other council members in the hopes of avoiding the problem in future. He goes on to suggest that since all voting council members have their own agendas, a non-council CCP employee should be chairperson.

Is the CSM fundamentally flawed?:

The concept of the CSM is a good one but its execution has been fraught with difficulty. A council of advisors who represent the playerbase to CCP could improve EVE immensely and shorten turnaround time on important issues being resolved. Unfortunately, due to low voter turnout, the elected members only represent the support of 11% of EVE's playerbase and so whether or not they truly represent the playerbase at large is still in question.

The council itself was created with vague guidelines from CCP and their influence in governing it so far has been almost non-existent. As a result, unforeseen issues such as how to conclude a vote's success or how to step down as chairperson without leaving the council entirely have been difficult to resolve. The council have had to fill in the blanks in places and build their own rules from the ground up. While this is an interesting foray into development of a political system, the lack of established structure adversely affected the council in its earlier days.

Final thoughts:

In laying down the law and inventing processes as he goes along, chairman Jade has ruffled more than a few feathers. In the eyes of some players, his abrasive personality and handling of the chair have brought the entire CSM into disrepute. Calls for him to be removed from the chair have surfaced on the forums, met recently with surprisingly enlightened efforts on the part of the chairman to keep the council on the right path.

As tempting as it may be to heap the blame for all of the council's problems solely on the chairperson, it is my considered opinion that as much of the blame lies with CCP as with Jade Constantine. If the council members had more direct guidance from CCP in administration and defining the chairperson's roles, most of the problems encountered so far could have been avoided or quickly resolved. Jade's eventual efforts to correct for previous problems and keep the fourth and fifth meetings conflict-free have proven effective and popular.

When initially declared chairperson, Jade left his critics with a strong statement of his intentions. "I've got my eyes on the future here", he said, "and I really want to leave the CSM process stronger and more certain for whoever is elected next time around.". The CSM is currently meeting with CCP in Iceland to discuss the issues raised by players so far and the future looks brighter than ever for EVE's first real foray into democracy.