Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What's the point of Round Table?
superconducting
Member UncommonPosts: 871
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?
Comments
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.
50/50 = Tie
49/51 = 51 Wins
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
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)
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.
This. Especially the last part.
Agreed.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Great, finally someone who gets it.
Tweet at me - Visit my website
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.
This
Asking the public what they would like in their game is like asking your four children what they would like for dinner.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Yes, but what's the point of player feedback if they don't listen to it? That's what the OP is asking.
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.
I think you could be confused about the definition of Maybe....
42% of your assumed YES votes rely on "if"... If the voter thinks it fits in the Lore, if a specific use case is evaluated favorably.
So you have 46% players who chose a definitive NO answer vs 9% definitive "YES" with the undecided 42% in the middle
Given the very small "definitely YES" responses it would be wildly speculative to assume all the undecideds are really Yes in disguise.
In a word: Marketing.
(Plus undeserved hype, as well.)