I just can’t see how copying Reddit/Microsoft voting forum could become a challenging task and how it would fail.
For one, CCP is using third-party forum software, so anything they want to add has to be available in the software package already.
Second, they already have a ‘like’ system that can be used to get a general sense for how many people may agree with a proposal. Adding a ‘negative’ option on top of that seems unnecessary.
Third, not all suggestions are worth CCP commentary, and ‘obligating’ CCP to respond based on crowd pressure is pretty much guaranteed to become an abused feature that CCP abandons when more effort has to go into cleaning up the ‘votes’ to remove the readily identifiable duplicates than it would take to actually answer any given question.
Finally, and most importantly: CCP has zero incentive to implement a system that would require additional transparency on their part in the form of ‘we have to make a statement about this topic because X unique users cared enough to upvote on this item’.
2 Likes
Oh good here we go again.
Sorry but that a week argument. If the customer(CCP) wants to play for a feature the third party site will deliver. This is how real world business work.
The downvote button was not a requirement but the core reason for it is that I think it would be good for the community and this forum if you could get the negative/toxic/trolls to press the downvote button instead of trashing the thread.
Geezes just google how to stop going for the negative option as your first thought.
What place do you live in where you are not allowed to have bad ideas?
CCP could easily find a number for how many votes a feature suggestion would have to have before they would have to answer it. They could said it would need half the player base or 10 players and why should we not be allowed to ask questions and get them answered. I never said they have to implement the feature if it reaches some magical goal. Just that they explain it with a few rows of text. We cant fix this due to spaghetti legacy code or we can do this but it will take x amount of time.
If a company refuses to listen to their customers they will soon enough not have any customers. This is some 101 class.
I never said or implied that you made such a statement. I literally only addressed your idea as explicitly posted: that they would be forced to comment on a suggestion:
Listening to customers =/= answering questions just because the question is popular.
And they are not obligated to agree with their customers, even when they listen.
Again, this whole concept fails simply because CCP has no reason to want to implement it. If CCP wants to comment on an idea, they will. No formalized ‘we have to answer after X votes’ structure will make them want to answer a question more, and if they don’t want to answer in the first place (and we have seen ample evidence that CCP has no desire to answer questions via the forum) them they won’t paint themselves into a corner where they ‘have to’ do something they don’t want to do.
For all that CCP executives pull some really stupid stunts with their game, they aren’t idiots.
3 Likes
The forum already has the function to add a poll to your post.
- I already knew that.
- I didn’t know that.
0 voters
Never be afraid to ask for the best solution, don’t settle for good enough =)
The importance of “most public votes” is probably minor and, I think, should be minor. What matters are what the specialists at CCP think of any of the posted ideas, regardless of public popularity votes. What’s popular with the public is not always the best solution for the game, technically feasible, etc etc etc.
Considering that ideas in this section cover a wide variety of game aspects, CCP most likely has a system in place for internal review. But that’s me guessing.
1 Like
Your point of view has already been addressed by me in this thread, please read the thread.
Your idea, best idea ? Those that disagree can be put aside as trolls/toxic players ? Doesn’t work that way.
And where did you explain that popularity scores matter or are even appropriate ?
1 Like
How is forcing every player to include a poll in their discussion thread the ‘best solution’? Especially in a forum meant to allow discussion of the concept - the original posted suggestion text may well not end up being the consensus idea on ‘best’ application, even if all participants in the discussion agree to the basic premise being discussed. I’m not going to support a poorly constructed suggestion, but may very well support a rethink of it that addresses concerns raised by myself or other members of the community. Where and how would I vote accordingly? And how would CCP interpret that to quickly assess ideas to ensure they are speaking to the community-endorsed option for these proposed mandatory responses, and not the half-baked initial concept that was heavily revised?
Honestly, why are you even still trying to claim this would be a good thing to add? It’s ridiculous to try and force a company to release information about their development plans at the whims of their customers. Especially if they have not decided how to address those concerns. Just look at the AFK cloak thread for an example of how a situation can take literal years to find a possible ‘we’ll try this next’ path. Would you really want to see a bunch of half-baked ideas from CCP communicated out just to tick the ‘we had to say something!’ box?
2 Likes
Your porously misunderstanding a expression and I don’t think we need to debate whether Reddit or Microsoft forums are good or bad, right?
Does concept of how popularity works need to be explained?
Not sure what scenario you are imagining in your head of what this could be like. But it feels like you are taking it to some extreme scenario that fits your agenda.
I never mentioned those, only responded to your original post.
Does the relevance of popularity need to be explained ?
Here’s a popular idea that will gain tons of irrelevant votes: remove ganking from hisec. Plenty of hisec folk will push that button, at least the ones that visit forums.
Here’s another one that would be popular with another segment of the player base: bring back the original asteroid belts and their mineral content.
A voting system doesn’t measure the quality of an idea/suggestion. That takes specialists with a clear view on the product they want to create and maintain.
I fully understand the wish for more communication from the publisher, however. And the presence of a forum may give the illusion that companies need to respond to popular ideas and questions. But do they really have to ? Can they, without increasing their already heavy workload ? Would their negative answers even be acceptable ? Some people who post ideas on the forums chase every single post that arguments against the idea, calling others toxic, or trolls, or plain dumb. Do you think any other answer but a resounding “yes, good idea, we’ll get on it right away” would satisfy them ?
3 Likes
here we go again with narcissism and thanks for proving my point.
Nobody should be forced to debate people like you.
… as I’ve elaborated in the post, CCP can pick the magic number and RIG the system so they can answer as many or few questions as they want.
Yet here we are. No one forces you, friend, you choose to by 1) posting and 2) especially replying on a public forum. And perhaps you could actually try to debate the additional elements. The alternative is to go via the CSM.
Since you are unwilling to discuss concerns, and just want to ram through a feature that most likely ends with you benefiting from something at the expense of others and the game itself, I guess here’s my downvote.
Have a nice day.
P.S. And thanks for the ad hominems in your posts, you really show a quality there.
2 Likes
pls dont.
really dont. fml.
redit is a ultra ■■■■ storm that only trample waters becouse of this concept.
redit is “simplicity” and nepotism at its finest. its the bane of a democratic society.
pls dont include cyberbully/friendship voting and bot voting.
let all suggestions live free without bot, simplicity and nepotism.
ps. FRACK FRRACKING REDIT FFS…
omfg. redit sucks ass so hard.
1 Like
My point was that nobody should be force to “debate” debate toxic players and their alts in general.
I’ve answer every question that you and your alt have posted in this thread.
Here we go again with the exaggerated drama, I can se from the post and replies you have made with the other alts that you are obviously a suicide ganker and I understand how my suggested feature would scare you and that you might lose your chanse of ganking new players.
To this I can say that you don’t have to be afraid CCP will never remove ganking as a isk sink.
Sorry did you say you don’t like bots and nepotism?
Look at the profiles and connect the likes =)
Edit I had some free time and connected the dots
Yes I know, these squared names are all a part of eve forums “gang of negativity” they pretty much harassing/trolling/derailing a lot of my topics, etc … (and I’m sure others topics as well).
If you argue with them, they twirl around so much that in the end, they are agreeing to your original topic…
They all like to heart each other’s troll posts. and I’m sure some of them are alts etc
IDK, as they are just meaningless “hearts”.
(but in general they have a negative impact in regards of having an “open” discussion, as they can only argue, or nvm… they cant even argue…)
tl;dr.
imagine these fukks actually making a greater impact on the eve forums than they already do today…
That’s why I’m opposed to the idea of a “popularity contest”.
also, the general population is actually really stupid.
also, in eve/eveforums the “general population” is really just 1 dude with 100 account’s, and hes a negative troll and he shouldnt get empowerd
CCP know exactly what eve players are using the same client launcher/computer. I’m assuming that it would be quite eazy to block this type of behavior.