should blank media use polls to decide features and changes?

[Stinko]

i want to know the vote so i ask

[sweetapples9]

Yes, how else are they going to do it with all these people? They have to go with majority vote, they cant please everyone, so please the masses.

[WindBlqde]

Yes, but they shouldn't give links in - game.

[BlazinIce]

Yes, but they shouldn't give links in - game.

This.

[cmitc1]

no,


people should have to debate, not just drop in and vote.

[Ogeezalo]

If they add more information to their polls so people know more on what they are voting for, than yes.

[Arckas]

Bad practice to make a poll about if their should be a poll, by se la ve.


Going with to say yes on this matter. It's much more time efficient to look at numbers and reach a majority to see what the community gauges and wants.

[orangeandblack5]

How about they do exactly what they did, but require an explanation to your vote by having no poll but instead letting the community discuss and have "votes" be in actual posts

Bam way better

Anyways, arguing that polls should be taken to please the masses is stupid. If that were the case, guess what role would likely be added next? Firefighter.

[Arckas]

How about they do exactly what they did, but require an explanation to your vote by having no poll but instead letting the community discuss and have "votes" be in actual posts

Bam way better.

Easier said then done.

[orangeandblack5]

No, it's not. Simply disallowing a poll is all they needed to do to make the post a bit better.

Even better would be writing (or getting a community member [such as Nelly/Naru/you] to write) a short introduction to the topic, explain WHY this is an issue, and some previous fixes and changes that have been previously discussed. Hell, going a step further and letting people on the forums discuss the topic initially, then advertising it for more community input would go a long way, with almost no extra work from BMG.

[genericnpc]

They have to go with majority vote

Spoiler: hahahahaha

[presidentjeb]

ironic much? lmao

[Arckas]

No, it's not. Simply disallowing a poll is all they needed to do to make the post a bit better.

Even better would be writing (or getting a community member [such as Nelly/Naru/you] to write) a short introduction to the topic, explain WHY this is an issue, and some previous fixes and changes that have been previously discussed. Hell, going a step further and letting people on the forums discuss the topic initially, then advertising it for more community input would go a long way, with almost no extra work from BMG.

Actually, you are right. That does sound like a good idea and using us staff to do that work would be an excellent decision.


The hard part I was referring to was moderating the influx of people drawn due to the advertisement of the discussion who say "No" or "Yes". We have an adequate amount of staff to handle demand for discussion currently, but that thread is a different story entirely.

[alex1234321]

I think so, but they have to do the poll right. First, I think the link should be in the Ranked post-game lobby, so only those who play Ranked would see it. Also, voting should be done in the thread and votes without reasoning should be rejected.

[fornycation]

Yes

BUT the poll needs to include reasons for and against the change so people can make an adequate decision.

[Arckas]

Just throwing this out here- I don't think it's very reasonable to expect 4000+ people to properly hold a discussion and not vote until they give reasoning. You can't stop someone from using a poll, so it's one or the other.


No poll if you want a mandatory discussion which makes it beyond harder to gauge what the community wants. Everyone has their own ideas.
Poll, but you can't have mandatory discussion

[sweetapples9]

How about they do exactly what they did, but require an explanation to your vote by having no poll but instead letting the community discuss and have "votes" be in actual posts

Bam way better

Anyways, arguing that polls should be taken to please the masses is stupid. If that were the case, guess what role would likely be added next? Firefighter.

There are thousands of people who play this game that would put in their input. Listening to everyone's opinion and to why they picked yes or no will go no where. If majority of people picked a side, like in the Spy poll, with majority being over 3000 people and the minority being about 500, it says a lot for what the community wants.

Even if YOU don't agree. I bet if the majority was NO on the poll, a lot of your answers here would be different.

Who is BMG paying to read and record every post for votes? ROFL.

[Megalomancer]

How about they do exactly what they did, but require an explanation to your vote by having no poll but instead letting the community discuss and have "votes" be in actual posts

Bam way better

Anyways, arguing that polls should be taken to please the masses is stupid. If that were the case, guess what role would likely be added next? Firefighter.

There are thousands of people who play this game that would put in their input. Listening to everyone's opinion and to why they picked yes or no will go no where. If majority of people picked a side, like in the Spy poll, with majority being over 3000 people and the minority being about 500, it says a lot for what the community wants.

Even if YOU don't agree. I bet if the majority was NO on the poll, a lot of your answers here would be different.

Who is BMG paying to read and record every post for votes? ROFL.

I have a bot I could set up, it'd receive PMs and mark down the answers.

[testaccount1234]

Are we going to use the poll to decide if BMG should use polls to decide features? Because it's really ironic.

[ScardyBob]

Say No to Forum Polls

1. "Game design by majority vote" just doesn't work. There is no good way to simplify the complex decisions in a game like ToS to a series yes/no, multiple choice questions. You're more likely to screw things up and piss more people off than if you just internally weighed the pros/cons of changes while incorporating ideas/opinions from forum posts.
2. Forum polls are not representative of the playerbase. Lets be honest, the vast majority (prob 90%+) of ToS players don't visit the forums. The ones that do usually have a strong opinion on something (typically negative) or have a problem that needs fixed (bug reports).

[orangeandblack5]

How about they do exactly what they did, but require an explanation to your vote by having no poll but instead letting the community discuss and have "votes" be in actual posts

Bam way better

Anyways, arguing that polls should be taken to please the masses is stupid. If that were the case, guess what role would likely be added next? Firefighter.

There are thousands of people who play this game that would put in their input. Listening to everyone's opinion and to why they picked yes or no will go no where. If majority of people picked a side, like in the Spy poll, with majority being over 3000 people and the minority being about 500, it says a lot for what the community wants.

Even if YOU don't agree. I bet if the majority was NO on the poll, a lot of your answers here would be different.

Who is BMG paying to read and record every post for votes? ROFL.

lol

1: Literally no other game development company on Earth has community polls that directly affect the game, and lots of other games have turned out fine.
2: If the majority was yes on the poll, which I agree with, I would still argue that it's a stupid system. Because it is.
3: Just have people vote with a /support or a /nosupport. You can then do a quick search and subtract one post from however many come up for each side. Easy peasy.

[Julien8080]

Yes and No.

BMG should use polls that make you post a short argument of why you feel that way. If you just vote without an argument, or have ridiculous reasons (e.g. don't change it cuz its fun right now), your vote wouldn't count. I don't know why this seems like too much to ask of people, if you want to make a difference, you should at least be able to defend your stance rationally.

I mean, most unbiased and rational observers would see that the Spy change is objectively a good idea, and should be implemented immediately, once they had all the facts. That can be seen in the thread, where the people arguing against the change mostly just said "no", or stated flawed arguments, e.g. "Mafia is already too OP" (No... it really isn't), "If you get rid of this, Spy is useless" (oh, come on), or just didn't post any reasoning at all. In contrast, a great deal of "yes" voters posted rational arguments to why this is a good idea, e.g. a OP role getting nerfed, UP Mafia getting buffed, benefits to meta.

However, the majority of the voters didn't think about the benefits to the game, they mostly just saw a role getting nerfed, and reacted how you would expect them to. I guarantee you, if this was a buff for Spy, people would bandwagon the hell out of it, even though that is possibly one of the worst things you could do to Spy. There is plenty of evidence in the Spy change thread about people actually thinking about the change, and changing their opinion to "yes". However, I found absolutely no evidence of people changing their opinions to "no" after thinking about it. The thing is, most people didn't really stop to think about it. Most of them just clicked "no" and went back to playing. A big part of why most people voted "no" was because most people don't understand why this is a proposed change. If BMG included some of the reasons why this was suggested in the first place, and that Spy could still see visits after the change, I think there would be significantly less confusion. People would think "Oh, I get why this would be good. I'm sure glad I read this and understand why this change would be proposed instead of seeing a nerf and instantly reacting negatively!"

This is why we need to have polls in which people must post reasoning along with their vote, or it is counted invalid. It's not that hard to do. It will make people think more in depth about it, which is always good. If people are not willing to write a short argument explaining their thoughts, why should they deserve to have a vote in this? As for the efficiency of counting every argument, do you really think that every single person that voted will make an argument? I find that distinctly unlikely. Besides, you could do what orangeandblack5 said, and scan for /support or /nosupport after deleting every invalid post. It's not really that hard.

[SpellChecker]

How about they do exactly what they did, but require an explanation to your vote by having no poll but instead letting the community discuss and have "votes" be in actual posts

Bam way better

Anyways, arguing that polls should be taken to please the masses is stupid. If that were the case, guess what role would likely be added next? Firefighter.

There are thousands of people who play this game that would put in their input. Listening to everyone's opinion and to why they picked yes or no will go no where. If majority of people picked a side, like in the Spy poll, with majority being over 3000 people and the minority being about 500, it says a lot for what the community wants.

Even if YOU don't agree. I bet if the majority was NO on the poll, a lot of your answers here would be different.

Who is BMG paying to read and record every post for votes? ROFL.

lol

1: Literally no other game development company on Earth has community polls that directly affect the game, and lots of other games have turned out fine.
2: If the majority was yes on the poll, which I agree with, I would still argue that it's a stupid system. Because it is.
3: Just have people vote with a /support or a /nosupport. You can then do a quick search and subtract one post from however many come up for each side. Easy peasy.

/Support or /Nosupport is basically voting yes/no on the poll.

[alex1234321]

I'd do it for free.

Same

[HDeffo]

Why not use polls but only people with x number of games can vote in them? The most educated players on what should or shouldn't be changed would likely be the ones who have played a lot. 100 or 150 games sounds reasonable.