Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

What's the point of Round Table?

superconductingsuperconducting Rochester, NYPosts: 843Member Uncommon

First off- Don't get me wrong. I always like it when devs try to get the community involved. I am also following EQN with great interest. But have you seen the last 2 Round tables?

 

When answering "Should all races have access to play all classes?", they basically justify why they feel it's necessary to go against the plurality of 40% by not restricting players at all. (I personally would have liked to see some restriction as I never like when everyone can do everything)

https://www.everquestnext.com/round-table?poll=all-races-all-classes

 

Then, on the question "How do you feel about modern concepts like guns and Ninjas in EverQuest Next?", although 46% voted that this stuff has "no place in a fantasy environment like Norrath", SOE again says they'd rather allow modern concepts as long as it it fits with lore.

https://www.everquestnext.com/round-table?poll=guns-and-ninjas

 

The rest of other roundtable videos basically read as "Yeah, the fans were in line with what we were going to do already."

 

Now again, I always appreciate reaching out the community in some manner. But what is the purpose of this round table business if SOE is going to do what they were planning on doing anyway? Is it nothing more than a marketing ploy to engage the community a little and get their opinions?

image
«134

Comments

  • sanshi44sanshi44 BrisbanePosts: 1,088Member Uncommon

    1st one - We dont know enough info on the game class wise to make a decision and Devs do so that may be fair enough although i would like race to matter msyelf

    2nd one - 46% said no and 53% is basicly yes in some way or form, 1% doesnt have stong option.

  • SiugSiug TallinnPosts: 1,236Member Uncommon
    Their round table seems to be purely cosmetic. Most likely created as a PR tool.
  • WarjinWarjin Harrisburg, PAPosts: 1,215Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by superconducting

    First off- Don't get me wrong. I always like it when devs try to get the community involved. I am also following EQN with great interest. But have you seen the last 2 Round tables?

     

    When answering "Should all races have access to play all classes?", they basically justify why they feel it's necessary to go against the plurality of 40% by not restricting players at all. (I personally would have liked to see some restriction as I never like when everyone can do everything)

    https://www.everquestnext.com/round-table?poll=all-races-all-classes

     

    Then, on the question "How do you feel about modern concepts like guns and Ninjas in EverQuest Next?", although 46% voted that this stuff has "no place in a fantasy environment like Norrath", SOE again says they'd rather allow modern concepts as long as it it fits with lore.

    https://www.everquestnext.com/round-table?poll=guns-and-ninjas

     

    The rest of other roundtable videos basically read as "Yeah, the fans were in line with what we were going to do already."

     

    Now again, I always appreciate reaching out the community in some manner. But what is the purpose of this round table business if SOE is going to do what they were planning on doing anyway? Is it nothing more than a marketing ploy to engage the community a little and get their opinions?

    50/50 = Tie

    49/51 = 51 Wins

     

     

  • thinlizzythinlizzy perthPosts: 68Member

    Whilst I dont agree with allot of the choices the Devs are making I would HATE for them to just follow along with the voting trend.

    Game design by consensus would be a very very bad thing.

    They may well use the results as a guide, changing things they dont have a strong position on and sticking to their guns when they think there is a good reason, I hope they do.

    It may also help people shift position with the devs over time, rather than just dumping info on the fan base with little or not lead in.

    Then again they may just ignore all the results and piss off the dedicated fans who take the time and effort to get involved.

     

    Only time will tell.

     

    P.S. their class/race stance blows chunks

     

  • GrayKodiakGrayKodiak Nada, FLPosts: 576Member

    I think development by mob is a stupid idea, the devs obviously have a better understanding of mechanics and hopefully a vision for the game.

    In the race/class poll 54% voted yea the rest voted some version of no (2% had no preference) so it wasn't a vast majority for the former anyway, I was of the opinion that there should be no hard restriction but some classes should be harder to get with some races than others. Every game that does the hard restriction route seems to spend so much time in patches due to balance issues that I would rather be spent on content (I know balance is still an issue but when WoW had to balance the Paladin off of the other classes and ensure it was a good mirror of the shaman...no one was ever happy)

  • GrahorGrahor aaaPosts: 828Member

    Designer vision obviously have to trump all the polls. "The point" is that at that moment they gather the information about public opinion, in order to incorporate it into the game BUT only as far as it's not against designers' vision, and, simultaneously, to create a bit of free advertising for the game.

     

    Advertising is important. As long as there is controversy, there are talks and more people learn about the game, and it's perfectly okay for developers to use instruments like "Round Table" to generate that advertising.

  • NaqajNaqaj Frankfurt am MainPosts: 1,673Member
    The round table is a tool to get player feedback. It's not a polling system to enable game design by majority vote, and damn am I glad it isn't.
  • ShojuShoju Hicksville, NYPosts: 771Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Naqaj
    The round table is a tool to get player feedback. It's not a polling system to enable game design by majority vote, and damn am I glad it isn't.

    This.  Especially the last part.

     

  • Burdoc101Burdoc101 Fort Campbell, KYPosts: 281Member
    Originally posted by Naqaj
    The round table is a tool to get player feedback. It's not a polling system to enable game design by majority vote, and damn am I glad it isn't.

    Agreed.

  • SengiSengi HamburgPosts: 350Member

    I don't think they are honestly looking for feedback at the round table. They said, all classes will be available to all races because otherwise it wouldn't work with the class system and it contradicts their design philosophy that you can do everything with a single character.

    They knew all this long before they asked the question, so they already knew what they wanted to do no matter what the community would say. The whole Round Table just exists to keep us entertained. They don't really want to hear our opinion.

     

    It seems they don't even put that much thought into the questions. A while ago they where asking "contested content, yes or no?" Without explaining what the question even meant. If I want to know someone's opinion, I at least make sure that he understands my question. They probably just wanted to keep us busy somehow.

  • SarykSaryk Tallulah, LAPosts: 476Member
    I don’t understand SOE's logic behind the round table. As a developer, it is better to tell people what the software does than ask them what they want the software to do! People accept facts that something will do X, Y and Z. When you ask people their opinion into the development of anything and go against their opinion, they WILL have a negative opinion on said item. Not saying that the project will fail, but it does leave a bad taste.
  • kragekrage Miami, FLPosts: 419Member

    What's the point of Round Table?

    1. A sounding board for their existing ideas, perhaps a place to incubate potential concepts. Not meant to be a tool to guide actual development, thankfully imo.

    2. Here is the biggest reason, because it causes discussion, the more your potential fans discuss the game across different sites they frequent the better. 

    image
  • Creslin321Creslin321 Baltimore, MDPosts: 5,359Member
    Originally posted by Burdoc101
    Originally posted by Naqaj
    The round table is a tool to get player feedback. It's not a polling system to enable game design by majority vote, and damn am I glad it isn't.

    Agreed.

    Agreed +2.

    It isn't a democracy.  It's just there to generate discussion and give the team new perspective on an issue.

    Trusting a bunch of people that probably know very little about your game to make decisions about it, is not a wise idea.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • ReallyNow10ReallyNow10 Pile It High Town, LAPosts: 2,010Member Common
    A Round Table is only round if you're sitting at it.
  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by ReallyNow10
    A Round Table is only round if you're sitting at it.
    hahaha! wat?!
  • syriinxsyriinx New York, NYPosts: 1,063Member Uncommon

    OP does have kind of a point.  It seems their mind was already made up about the race/class issue, so why vote?  if you add up the options for restrictions it comes out over 60% (or more, havent looked at it in ages).  I hate their decision but i understand their logic, the question is why have the poll in the first place?  It wasnt going yo change your minds.

     

    Why have a poll about ratongas and short races, because it would be inexcusable if gnomes, halflings, dwarves, forgloks, and ratonga (or chetari) dont make it in the game as playable races.  the first four are iconic EQ races and the last one is extremely popular in EQ2.  

  • ReallyNow10ReallyNow10 Pile It High Town, LAPosts: 2,010Member Common
    Originally posted by Foomerang

     


    Originally posted by ReallyNow10
    A Round Table is only round if you're sitting at it.

    hahaha! wat?!

     

    The concept of the "Round Table" is the knights can sit at it with the King, as equals.  Used in reference to game design, it would mean some of the players (or beta testers) sit at the table with the devs and have equal input.

    But, if only devs are sitting at the Round Table, and gamers are excluded, then it's not really a "Round Table".

  • jerlot65jerlot65 Lake Mary, FLPosts: 788Member

    They are listening.  But not in the way they advertise.  Which is a good thing.  They are looking at everyone's opinions and might spring up some good ideas.  Think of it as a giant "think tank".

    But if you believe, or even want, them to use round table as a product survey you would be quite silly.

    image
  • DrakephireDrakephire Fontana, CAPosts: 445Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by superconducting

     

    But what is the purpose of this round table business if SOE is going to do what they were planning on doing anyway? Is it nothing more than a marketing ploy to engage the community a little and get their opinions?

    yes.  I'm a fan of EQN, and because of Landmark and the way it would allow player contributions to the world, I erroneously thought these Round Tables would influence EQN as well.  But not really it seems. Nothing more than a charade to make the community feel like it's participating.

  • intrinscintrinsc EGG HARBOR CITY, NJPosts: 91Member
    Roundtables are meant to give everyone equal input. They aren't a platform for democracy. There is always someone that has to make a decision. Even the knights of the round table had a governing head. It's meant to put everyone on equal ground and to express opinions like an open senate, not to give everyone authority.
  • LorgarnLorgarn SwedenPosts: 371Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Naqaj
    The round table is a tool to get player feedback. It's not a polling system to enable game design by majority vote, and damn am I glad it isn't.

    Great, finally someone who gets it.

  • rutaqrutaq somerville, MAPosts: 428Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sanshi44

    1st one - We dont know enough info on the game class wise to make a decision and Devs do so that may be fair enough although i would like race to matter msyelf

    2nd one - 46% said no and 53% is basicly yes in some way or form, 1% doesnt have stong option.

    Actually it isn't quite so clear as you think...

     

    46%   -   No.

    24%  - Maybe if it fits well with Lore.

    18%  -  not sure, should be evaluated on case by case basis

    9% - Yes

    2 %  I don't care.

     

     

    So the clearest result is  NO (46%) ,   followed by Maybe (42%)  and Yes with 9%.  So if only 5% of the Maybe folks don't like the Lore or case by case reason to add it then NO wins,.  

     

    I have to agree with the OP,  it appears as if the Rountable and talk of  building a game bases on the community has strayed a bit into the "We already know what we want" and you can't change our minds....

     

    Remember sadly this is not an Indie game being built on the vision and  passion of a handful of talented folks, it is a MMO being cranked out by a Mega Development house where $$$$ wins over passion, vision and innovations every day.   This is SOE after all and a quick google shows a pretty crappy history of ignoring the community.

     

    Just look at EQ2 and the massively redesign and "WOW"ifying they did right after launch.    Then the game was nerfed to remove group content and world bosses, then they added Mercs to limit grouping even more and finally it was whored out to F2P.    It has become a joke, look at the lastest changes where they just give you a max level character with gear, throwing way 95% of all the content. 

     

    The ideas around EQN sounds great but after EQ1 SOE has an abysmal track record.

     

     

  • laseritlaserit Vancouver, BCPosts: 1,952Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Wiha
    Their round table seems to be purely cosmetic. Most likely created as a PR tool.

    This

     

    Asking the public what they would like in their game is like asking your four children what they would like for dinner.

    "If you make an ass out of yourself, there will always be someone to ride you." - Bruce Lee

  • DrakephireDrakephire Fontana, CAPosts: 445Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Lorgarn
    Originally posted by Naqaj
    The round table is a tool to get player feedback. It's not a polling system to enable game design by majority vote, and damn am I glad it isn't.

    Great, finally someone who gets it.

    Yes, but what's the point of player feedback if they don't listen to it? That's what the OP is asking.

  • syriinxsyriinx New York, NYPosts: 1,063Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rutaq
    Originally posted by sanshi44

    1st one - We dont know enough info on the game class wise to make a decision and Devs do so that may be fair enough although i would like race to matter msyelf

    2nd one - 46% said no and 53% is basicly yes in some way or form, 1% doesnt have stong option.

    Actually it isn't quite so clear as you think...

     

    46%   -   No.

    24%  - Maybe if it fits well with Lore.

    18%  -  not sure, should be evaluated on case by case basis

    9% - Yes

    2 %  I don't care.

     

     

    So the clearest result is  NO (46%) ,   followed by Maybe (42%)  and Yes with 9%.  So if only 5% of the Maybe folks don't like the Lore or case by case reason to add it then NO wins,.  

     

     

     

     

    What they are doing is what 51% asked them to do, cant fault them for that one.

     

    And there is a chance that if 5% of the maybe dont like it, that 5% of the no people will like it.  A lot of those no votes were knee jerk reactions to people that belong int he maybe class.

«134
Sign In or Register to comment.