DevStream 20190118, 20:00 UTC

[MagicManICT]

Oops, my bad. I completely misread that statement. (Swore it said "faction.") The label aside (that you can find who the top players in a game are by who has those achievements and such that nobody else has or tried to get, usually about 1% of the population), I think the point is valid. Those that are always grinding for the top usually do so and come back the next world, anyways.

My opinion is completely subjective, as I don't have access to data to form a truly objective opinion or provide information on who does and doesn't stick around. It certainly is going to be skewed because there's quite a number of players that don't pop into the forums here, either because they play with a few personal friends, they don't read/write English, or this type of communication just isn't important to them, or whatever other reason there might be.

[eliminoid]

What if only there was some way to determine the exact size of this fraction of unique players that want reset...
In Runescape there is a poll bulletin board in game, which devs use to put all the planned changes on it. (active) players then vote how ever they want and devs do what majority decide. I wonder if Haven could use this system?

[rhzk]

What if only there was some way to determine the exact size of this fraction of unique players that want reset...
In Runescape there is a poll bulletin board in game, which devs use to put all the planned changes on it. (active) players then vote how ever they want and devs do what majority decide. I wonder if Haven could use this system?

Players dont know what they want. And if they know - they wrong!

[Granger]

What if only there was some way to determine the exact size of this fraction of unique players that want reset...
In Runescape there is a poll bulletin board in game, which devs use to put all the planned changes on it. (active) players then vote how ever they want and devs do what majority decide. I wonder if Haven could use this system?

Sure, would be possible in case only accounts that were continually subscribed (not token'd) the last six or twelve months are eligble to vote.

[eliminoid]

Players dont know what they want. And if they know - they wrong!

That is sarcasm isnt it

Sure, would be possible in case only accounts that were continually subscribed (not token'd) the last six or twelve months are eligble to vote.

Why not token'd tho, whats the difference? They clearly displayed their interest in game and someone bought that token for them, its not like they got it out of thin air.

[Hrenli]

What? Voting? You guys make it sound like jorbtar are making this game for you. Nope. They are doing it for themselves (and that's fine, that's how proper passion project should be anyway).

[Hrenli]

Why not token'd tho, whats the difference?

Because people who want reset wouldn't be subscribed currently. People who really want the world to stay are more likely to be subscribed. People who actively play but sort of don't mind a reset are _probably_ token'd just because they are active and can spend some ingame money just for the sake of it. Giving voters only to subscribers is one of the ways to fiddle with the results.

[Lunarius_Haberdash]

I wonder if Haven could use this system?

How about fucking no? I'd rather have Jorb and Loftar decide at their whim when the reset happens than be subject to the tyranny of the majority. Frankly I think J&L are better qualified to determine when it's time than the player base.

[MagicManICT]

The idea of players voting for various things is asinine. This isn't a game by committee. Plus the small player base means a few people with multiple accounts can heavily influence any vote, AND THERE'S NOTHING THE DEVS CAN DO TO COUNTER THIS! They might catch a few cheaters, but they aren't going to get them all.

[Uriel]

Asking question about devs decision is one thing but voting - no. Let them run their game they way they want.