Request for a "Player Council", Resurrected DDF, Streamer Representation to Dev track, Focused Feedback or Similar Directed Community Engagement

No need for a special council. Frontier could simply talk to the community a bit more. It would have been easy to find out how the community feels about certain things.

Instead we usually get radio silence until marketing kicks in and big changes are out of the question.

edit: Anyway, this "request" is dangerously close to an Open Letter, so imma head out.
 
No need for a special council. Frontier could simply talk to the community a bit more. It would have been easy to find out how the community feels about certain things.

Instead we usually get radio silence until marketing kicks in and big changes are out of the question.
They don't even manage to get out patch notes before they shut down the servers, and you wish them to dialogue?

😁
 
That sounds awfully similar to what I would expect to be part of a Community Manager's job spec :)

I know, and I used to just assume thats how it worked here as well because its just common sense for anyone with any experience in a similar role*, lets just say my confidence isnt so high now that it is how it works at all but was trying not to sound bitter. And part of the job spec I can understand, not the whole job spec, which some people dont seem to understand and want that personal communication from the early days which just isnt going to happen and isnt the role. I dont expect that at all, its nice when it happens and I watch anything from DB I can find but I dont expect it. It actually annoys me that DB seems apologetic in his recent appearances because imo most salt is caused by lack of comms from the people paid to communicate in the first place and because they only listen to or worse actively respond to narrow groups of people excluding others then it all blows up.....like the whole Hesperus and Discord fiasco and like a DDF or Player Council would.

*Common sense to me but my colleagues at first warned me not to until they learned / I proved it actually meant less work for me and less mess to clear up afterwards by channelling the feedback and responding early meaning I can do the rest of my job, the actual 99% of it, then they all started doing it :) Problem was beforehand anyone new to the role got taught the old ways and it was just the way things were done, even though the same mistakes kept happening and then were blamed on the customer whining not the culture that ignored them and it was all completely avoidable....new people at Frontier seem to get taught to introduce themselves on the forums then never bother again - my perception and my opinion only. I keep hoping someone will break the mould and always welcome anybody who first posts here, streamer or staff or player for that matter.
 
No need for a special council. Frontier could simply talk to the community a bit more. It would have been easy to find out how the community feels about certain things.

Instead we usually get radio silence until marketing kicks in and big changes are out of the question.

edit: Anyway, this "request" is dangerously close to an Open Letter, so imma head out.
Here's the flaw in "Frontier could talk to the community", Frontier say a thing, and 1,000 forum members argue that they are each right. Frontier then do that Picard facepalm meme and ask themselves why they even bother trying to talk to the community.

This is why a Design Discussion Group/Player Council whatever you want to call it, is being suggested. Arguing would be strictly frowned upon.
Have you ever watched Snooker? Snooker has controversies and disagreements, but it's always civilised. IF Frontier brought back a design discussion group/player council and hand picked people to be in it, I would like it to be like snooker, gentlemanly civilised discussion.

They (Frontier) can't use the forum to bounce ideas off of because it's not civilised, it's utter chaos of 10,000 5-year-olds who all think they are right.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 182079

D
I know, and I used to just assume thats how it worked here as well because its just common sense for anyone with any experience in a similar role*, lets just say my confidence isnt so high now that it is how it works at all but was trying not to sound bitter. And part of the job spec I can understand, not the whole job spec, which some people dont seem to understand and want that personal communication from the early days which just isnt going to happen and isnt the role. I dont expect that at all, its nice when it happens and I watch anything from DB I can find but I dont expect it. It actually annoys me that DB seems apologetic in his recent appearances because imo most salt is caused by lack of comms from the people paid to communicate in the first place and because they only listen to or worse actively respond to narrow groups of people excluding others then it all blows up.....like the whole Hesperus and Discord fiasco and like a DDF or Player Council would.

*Common sense to me but my colleagues at first warned me not to until they learned / I proved it actually meant less work for me and less mess to clear up afterwards by channelling the feedback and responding early meaning I can do the rest of my job, the actual 99% of it, then they all started doing it :) Problem was beforehand anyone new to the role got taught the old ways and it was just the way things were done, even though the same mistakes kept happening and then were blamed on the customer whining not the culture that ignored them and it was all completely avoidable....new people at Frontier seem to get taught to introduce themselves on the forums then never bother again - my perception and my opinion only. I keep hoping someone will break the mould and always welcome anybody who first posts here, streamer or staff or player for that matter.
Honestly, I don't expect two-way comms with FDev at all - what I think works well and what they should be doing more of is creating focused feedback threads, and set (and enforce) very strict rules in how to respond (I quite like @Screemonster 's "one post per user" approach). The CM's can then sift through feedback, categorise & summarise it to convey it back to the designers/devs, and we'll see the fruit of that process further down the line (or not if they decide to not go with particular suggestions - it would be nice though to get some feedback on that summarised feedback so we can link to it when someone else makes the same suggestions, to show them why those ideas got shot down).
 
creating focused feedback threads, and set (and enforce) very strict rules in how to respond
Absolutely this.

(I quite like @Screemonster 's "one post per user" approach)

I never amend posts if 1 person 'likes' it as they may not agree with the amendment and seems dishonest. I occasionally add Edits clearly stated but never change the overall meaning for the same reason.

Conversations evolve, if I post on P1 and then amend to include something from P15 the whole thread will become disjointed and unreadable. Thats just the way it is unfortunately. But if they enforce the rules properly they could remove spammers etc and keep it on track and on topic....and EDO discussions on the EDO forum not in General or Suggestions.

And people need to accept when they lost and not carry on with a dead parrot. Again enforcement on that thread is the answer. No means no and not open for discussion on that thread.

Points I have lost and hate but have to accept - UC on FCs, credits becoming too easy to get in general, the game becoming too 'easy' and most consequences removed, FCs being used to undermine players BGS by having a 'station' in a System you are hostile to for rapid easy restock and repair making it much easier to undermine.

Others I haven't conceded yet but getting nowhere at present (if I get an answer Ill concede but while not while its in flux or not answered or maybe not final yet) - FCs not being banned from all CG systems and lore sites of any kind whatsoever, separate or additional SysMap without FCs, FCs not showing as 'human' signals in FSS, no option in settings to make game 'harder' eg an option to choose 25/50/75/100% of rewards or bounties or whatever, casual players losing out on top 75% in CG unique rewards.

Edit: Spelling typo
 

Deleted member 182079

D
During the 2018 Focused Feedback (and Flash Topic) threads there was a "Golden Rule" in place whereby posts would be deleted if they quoted non-Dev posts in the thread.
I think it was covered in the Alpha feedback threads as well, but sure enough a lot of people seem to ignore it (personally this complete inability/lack of discipline to follow some basic rules for the common good winds me up to no end but it's not my forum so I'll grind my teeth instead), not sure how many posts get deleted - and in fairness there are some good discussions arising also but they should probably be held in separate threads (as is also outlined I believe).
 
Honestly, I don't expect two-way comms with FDev at all - what I think works well and what they should be doing more of is creating focused feedback threads, and set (and enforce) very strict rules in how to respond (I quite like @Screemonster 's "one post per user" approach). The CM's can then sift through feedback, categorise & summarise it to convey it back to the designers/devs, and we'll see the fruit of that process further down the line (or not if they decide to not go with particular suggestions - it would be nice though to get some feedback on that summarised feedback so we can link to it when someone else makes the same suggestions, to show them why those ideas got shot down).
I'd be much more in favour of this approach than some arbitrarily appointed "player council" that could never hope to be even remotely representative of the huge variety of opinions, desires and playstyles within the player base.
 

Deleted member 182079

D
I'd be much more in favour of this approach than some arbitrarily appointed "player council" that could never hope to be even remotely representative of the huge variety of opinions, desires and playstyles within the player base.
Apart from it being a huge ego stroking exercise - wouldn't take long before all that "power" would get to people's heads.
 
I'd be much more in favour of this approach than some arbitrarily appointed "player council" that could never hope to be even remotely representative of the huge variety of opinions, desires and playstyles within the player base.
Don't worry. Your opinions are safe with me......

Apart from it being a huge ego stroking exercise - wouldn't take long before all that "power" would get to people's heads.
Asking for only red rose petals to be scattered where I walk and for people to bow at LaveCon is not exactly egotisical.
 

Deleted member 182079

D
Don't worry. Your opinions are safe with me......


Asking for only red rose petals to be scattered where I walk and for people to bow at LaveCon is not exactly egotisical.
I dunno man... I had to let my rose petal thrower let go due to the rona crisis since i'm not really going anywhere these days.
 
As always, I bow my head to your knowledge of the game... but please understand, it's exactly that knowledge that gives me confidence that the developers would benefit from your insight! It's frustrating to know that the voices of players like you do not carry more weight... the name of the game is literally 'Elite', and yet the 'Forum Elite' are not granted access to Frontier's 'Shinrarta Dezhra'!
Frontier pay more attention to the general forums than you might think. Some fairly obscure comments deep into a thread have ended up being implemented before.

Of course, there's no proof - did Frontier do something because of a single comment on page 20, or did they just think of it independently anyway, or was it a really big issue in another one of the Elite communities and they picked it up from there instead? They'll never say, and understandably so. But I've seen enough examples over the years to be confident that they're paying more attention than they'll admit to.

Much better for them to pick out that sort of thing based on its content, rather than who said it, too.



...given that the general forum consensus every time this comes up - from people who rarely agree on anything else - is that a Council would be a really bad idea, I think we can say that Frontier is definitely listening to us on that one ;)
 
...given that the general forum consensus every time this comes up - from people who rarely agree on anything else - is that a Council would be a really bad idea, I think we can say that Frontier is definitely listening to us on that one ;)
I think "Council" is a bad title. That's why I suggested it be called "Design Discussion Group" makes it sound much less privileged and entitled (in my opinion)
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I think "Council" is a bad title. That's why I suggested it be called "Design Discussion Group" makes it sound much less privileged and entitled (in my opinion)
There's already the DDF - which has never been formally disbanded by any notification from Frontier to its members.

.... it's just been idle since 2016.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 182079

D
I think "Council" is a bad title. That's why I suggested it be called "Design Discussion Group" makes it sound much less privileged and entitled (in my opinion)
I'd prefer "Group of Design Discussion" myself.

Whenever I hear the word "council" I think of the one from the 2 silly Matrix sequels.

Or more recently that Handsworth (sp?) council YT sensation episode. Bickering between 'characters' and not much else.
 
A council full of confused old men & people with inflated ego's.
Sounds like we need someone with the required authority:

1776.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom