Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Landry Skins
We should have an election with one representative from each network. Then one from the independents.

The only problem i can see with this is rage by the independent users making some accusation that the networks are getting special treatment.

Originally posted by Matty The Drone
The only problem i can see with this is rage by the independent users making some accusation that the networks are getting special treatment.

True but they can suck it up or form their own network.

A network has their personal ideas and group of people. They bring different ideas and methods to playing the game, which would benefit the game as a whole. Independents will obviously have scattered opinions and will likely be alone or close to alone on their ideas, or else theyd be in a network or have others that would support them.

I know a lot of good agents are against networks and I understand their side of that. But there is no "definite" opinion of the independents, which makes it hard for them to have a larger or even fair role to the networks.

Originally posted by Matty The Drone
The only problem i can see with this is rage by the independent users making some accusation that the networks are getting special treatment.

Originally posted by Landry Skins
True but they can suck it up or form their own network.

A network has their personal ideas and group of people. They bring different ideas and methods to playing the game, which would benefit the game as a whole. Independents will obviously have scattered opinions and will likely be alone or close to alone on their ideas, or else theyd be in a network or have others that would support them.

I know a lot of good agents are against networks and I understand their side of that. But there is no "definite" opinion of the independents, which makes it hard for them to have a larger or even fair role to the networks.

1 Representative from each network and a few independents including a few knowledgeable Dot Builders relays to....
The general public/customer.

Originally posted by SikoraP13 DTD

My Ideas for an Implementation Strategy

-Members of the focus group should be publicly known

-Focus group should take a survey every 10 days of the season.

Every season between day 40 and day 48, Bort should address the concerns of the focus group publicly in a state of the sim address.

Private forum for the focus group to discuss and get further input/have further discussion with Bort/Admins. The topics of these discussions that decisions have been made for will be presented in the state of the sim address each season.

Focus group participants will be responsible for being active in the forums, and providing updates in the discussion forums as to what is being discussed in the private forum.

Again, this is just an open discussion and I am shooting from the hip a bit.

Just a couple thoughts on the above bullet points (I thought the others were pretty straightforward and mostly agreed with them)

-I am not sure if I agree with publicly acknowledging "focus group" members... we can, but I think that they could be hounded by people and I wouldn't want to make a user uncomfortable due to user harassment
-Every 10 days is probably too often, by the time you sent out a survey, a new one would be due. I was thinking maybe once a season or as issues/new items come up
-Bort probably doesn't have time for a "state of the sim" address each season, especially if there haven't been major changes. I think a different Admin could step up for the discussion in his place
-I don't think a private discussion forum would be necessary, the users would just randomly receive surveys sent to their email that they would be expected to fill out (that's how I pictured it in my head anyway)

It sounds like some of you want something a bit more extreme, while others would be more willing to accept general overall improvements in customer communication/site feedback.

what is this?

Originally posted by Matty The Drone
The only problem i can see with this is rage by the independent users making some accusation that the networks are getting special treatment.

I agree with this statement.

Originally posted by Landry Skins
there's no "definite" opinion of the independents, which makes it hard for them to have a larger or even fair role to the networks.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with this statement, we have done mass surveys were 80-90% of the people answered certain questions the same way. I am sure that you could find that even in your network there are users with different opinions. If not, then are they just going with the group? What if certain groups try to push for changes that would adversely effect their rivals. This is feeling a little bit Game of Throne's-esque.

I think that a network electing a communications person is a good idea, someone who can keep them updated on changes/announcements in their PF. It's a good idea and something their members would probably enjoy. On our end we can do a better job communicating things, but we will always have to treat everyone the same, regardless of their coalition, network, etc.

Originally posted by foshizzel17
what is this?

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=5120828&page=1

Originally posted by EllisBell
Unfortunately I have to disagree with this statement, we have done mass surveys were 80-90% of the people answered certain questions the same way. I am sure that you could find that even in your network there are users with different opinions. If not, then are they just going with the group? What if certain groups try to push for changes that would adversely effect their rivals. This is feeling a little bit Game of Throne's-esque.

I think that a network electing a communications person is a good idea, someone who can keep them updated on changes/announcements in their PF. It's a good idea and something their members would probably enjoy. On our end we can do a better job communicating things, but we will always have to treat everyone the same, regardless of their coalition, network, etc.



I actually tried doing something along the lines of a players association a few seasons back. I had gotten as many heads of the coalitions that I could in 1 private forum and had Catch22 in there on a regular basis to answer questions and concerns from the coalition heads that were in that forum. basically it didn't work very long because a couple people just wanted to argue with Catch22. and a few others just basically trolled to no end. so it was a epic failure.

The idea that TN is proposing has merit. but there isn't much of anyway to do it without some group or someone getting butthurt. for something like TN is proposing to work. it would mean whoever the people assigned to do the jobs. would have to take it very serious and really work to keep peoples trust. because as most of the admins and higher ups in GLB have seen once the paying customers trust is lost. then it is a uphill battle to win that trust back. personally I am all for something like this to help the users and improve the communication between paying customers and admins, mods and the GLB brain trust.

Originally posted by hatchman
I actually tried doing something along the lines of a players association a few seasons back. I had gotten as many heads of the coalitions that I could in 1 private forum and had Catch22 in there on a regular basis to answer questions and concerns from the coalition heads that were in that forum. basically it didn't work very long because a couple people just wanted to argue with Catch22. and a few others just basically trolled to no end. so it was a epic failure.

The idea that TN is proposing has merit. but there isn't much of anyway to do it without some group or someone getting butthurt. for something like TN is proposing to work. it would mean whoever the people assigned to do the jobs. would have to take it very serious and really work to keep peoples trust. because as most of the admins and higher ups in GLB have seen once the paying customers trust is lost. then it is a uphill battle to win that trust back. personally I am all for something like this to help the users and improve the communication between paying customers and admins, mods and the GLB brain trust.

I agree here 100%....this group would have to take their roles seriously....there's no room for it not to be taken serious.
Break the chain of trust and the chain gets shorter and/or is replaced with a stronger link

Originally posted by Team Nucleus
I agree here 100%....this group would have to take their roles seriously....there's no room for it not to be taken serious.
Break the chain of trust and the chain gets shorter and/or is replaced with a stronger link

but that is sort of where this idea will never work. most different groups, coalitions or networks in GLB work against one another. so basically asking each group to join together. and not let the past problems between the groups and so on get in the way is almost impossible. in reality there would be some people that took their roles seriously. and then there would be some that made a joke out of everything and basically trolled the idea to death. or pissed the other people off enough to make the endeavor fail. while I think the idea has merit. I just do not see it being something that would work. because there are just to many people that are more interested in tearing things down and ruining them. than working together on something to improve the game overall for everyone.

Originally posted by hatchman
but that is sort of where this idea will never work. most different groups, coalitions or networks in GLB work against one another. so basically asking each group to join together. and not let the past problems between the groups and so on get in the way is almost impossible. in reality there would be some people that took their roles seriously. and then there would be some that made a joke out of everything and basically trolled the idea to death. or pissed the other people off enough to make the endeavor fail. while I think the idea has merit. I just do not see it being something that would work. because there are just to many people that are more interested in tearing things down and ruining them. than working together on something to improve the game overall for everyone.

No offense but all groups, coalitions or networks problems set aside...
This is for the betterment of GLB...nothing any group would gain or lose from contributing

Originally posted by Team Nucleus
No offense but all groups, coalitions or networks problems set aside...
This is for the betterment of GLB...nothing any group would gain or lose from contributing

that is easier said than done TN I tried this idea when I was running the DWO. and man it was a pain in the ass just trying to get the different group heads to talk like grownups and not have everything turn into flame wars. like I said if there was a way to make it happen the idea has merit. I just think you would have to get the perfect group together to actually work together. and that will be dang near impossible on this game in my opinion.

Originally posted by hatchman
that is easier said than done TN I tried this idea when I was running the DWO. and man it was a pain in the ass just trying to get the different group heads to talk like grownups and not have everything turn into flame wars. like I said if there was a way to make it happen the idea has merit. I just think you would have to get the perfect group together to actually work together. and that will be dang near impossible on this game in my opinion.

Guess my question is... what would there be to flame...all these groups, coalitions or networks would do is relay information down among the rest of the people in the groups and so on.
Anything a group, coalition, or network wants to bring up to the developer/admins attention can be done directly.
Don't need to be discussed with anyone else unless you'd welcome the flaming and know it might be coming.
I really see no issue here