Angepinnt The Current Albion Online Round Table

    Diese Seite verwendet Cookies. Durch die Nutzung unserer Seite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies setzen. Weitere Informationen

    • Round table needs to be public, even if they don't listen to everyone's feedback, we need a way to hold the members of round table accountable for their actions.

      Devs having a group of players to tell them issues and feedback about the game is good, considering these devs don't seem to play the games themselves. But we need to make sure this group of player is being fair. If people are worried about spoiling their image trying to push their agenda in the round table, they should NOT be on the round table.

      The round table is meant to make the game better, not to make the game better just for themselves. The only way to do this is to give every access to at least see what's going on in the round table.

      As it stands today, no one is even sure what the round table is doing, no one's even sure who's on the round table. And best of all, who the hell knows what they're suggesting? A guild leader is meant to represent the guild, and transparency will allow the guild members to hold their leader accountable for their action, as a guild leader that do not have their guild members best interest at heart doesn't deserve to be a leader, let alone be put on the round table that can decide where the game goes.

      We saw this issue already with the NDA patch notes, when a long time ago we only had a private select group of people that know these changes before hand, and the amount of advantage it gave them. Shortly after, this NDA patch note was made publicly, and I think it only has done good to the game. The Round table needs to have the same change done to it, make it public to view, but not everyone can post unless they're selected.
    • Gank schrieb:

      Syndic schrieb:

      Transparency is never bad, it should be viewable by the public and representatives should be accountable to the people they are representing.
      I disagree.
      I disagree with your disagreement? What's the harm in giving the general AO public read only access?
      [url='https://tinyurl.com/y7d4nfx5']AO Quick Reference Guide[/url]

      Referral Key: https://albiononline.com/?ref=R563G747A9

      Trial Keys: PM at [EB]Grimhawke#9254 on https://discord.gg/dcH32z
    • Grimhawke-EB schrieb:

      Gank schrieb:

      Syndic schrieb:

      Transparency is never bad, it should be viewable by the public and representatives should be accountable to the people they are representing.
      I disagree.
      I disagree with your disagreement? What's the harm in giving the general AO public read only access?
      Sensitive information or discussion of ideas that expose flaws in certain systems. A not so recent example comes to mind when someone brought to the attention of SBI the transmutation price changes, and the journal salvaging through the RT.
    • Gank schrieb:

      Grimhawke-EB schrieb:

      Gank schrieb:

      Syndic schrieb:

      Transparency is never bad, it should be viewable by the public and representatives should be accountable to the people they are representing.
      I disagree.
      I disagree with your disagreement? What's the harm in giving the general AO public read only access?
      Sensitive information or discussion of ideas that expose flaws in certain systems. A not so recent example comes to mind when someone brought to the attention of SBI the transmutation price changes, and the journal salvaging through the RT.
      Those things should be raised in the bug reports forum. I'm not even on the round table and knew about both of those issues.
      [url='https://tinyurl.com/y7d4nfx5']AO Quick Reference Guide[/url]

      Referral Key: https://albiononline.com/?ref=R563G747A9

      Trial Keys: PM at [EB]Grimhawke#9254 on https://discord.gg/dcH32z
    • Grimhawke-EB schrieb:

      Gank schrieb:

      Grimhawke-EB schrieb:

      Gank schrieb:

      Syndic schrieb:

      Transparency is never bad, it should be viewable by the public and representatives should be accountable to the people they are representing.
      I disagree.
      I disagree with your disagreement? What's the harm in giving the general AO public read only access?
      Sensitive information or discussion of ideas that expose flaws in certain systems. A not so recent example comes to mind when someone brought to the attention of SBI the transmutation price changes, and the journal salvaging through the RT.
      Those things should be raised in the bug reports forum. I'm not even on the round table and knew about both of those issues.
      Neat
    • GluttonySDS schrieb:

      Access to round table shouldnt be based on points ranking -- it should be based on fame rankings... active and large guilds should be on there, not a 8 man guild who has 3 terris and generates enough points to hit silver.
      I don't disagree with that. To add on that access to round table and season points, should be heavily tied to a guilds financial well being. Guilds that generate wealth should be ranked higher than guilds that don't.

      Generating wealth can be a sum of gathering + pve + pvp fame with modifiers as in pvp fame weights more than say gathering.
    • Syndic schrieb:

      There's already guilds on the round-table with 3-4-5-6 representatives respectively, while other guilds have 1.

      Why not have it voted by the community directly?

      Players should decide who they want to represent them based on the merits of the person not because they happen to hold a GM position in a guild.
      but then you get 15 reps based on your guild / alliance size
      *

      -

      The Albion Wiki needs your help!

      -

      *
    • Syndic schrieb:

      There's already guilds on the round-table with 3-4-5-6 representatives respectively, while other guilds have 1.

      Why not have it voted by the community directly?

      Players should decide who they want to represent them based on the merits of the person not because they happen to hold a GM position in a guild.
      The RENT strat not working as intended, time for a change in approach?
    • This discussion might have been valid in the past, but i dont think people realise they are more representet than they might think.

      There is 80 players or so on the roundtable, of which 50 is the top 50 guilds in the previlus season and 30 are chosen for constructive feedback or a particular interest like evonomy or crafting.

      I very much prefered the more closed round table because there you could have “potential feature “ Discussions to a much larger degree. With 80 people where maybe 20 participates and 60 lurk then everything gets public immediatly making the devs stop using it for those types of considerations - because the community is simpmy unable to have discussions or knowledge line that and the game gets worse due to this.

      It used to be a place where ideas could ve tossed out from devs and discussed. If they did that today every idea would be all over the forums aka “oh have you heard they are doing xyZ - are they nuts” creating forum drama
      Over what is supposed to be “what if”
      Discussions.

      80 ppl is not a closed forum, and this whone talk about this and that person gets the game designed as they please couldnt be more wrong, and the upcoming patch is the bedt proof that the territory owning guilds certainly dont dictate anything :).

      Its not a small forum at all, and the cast majority of points in this very long thread is simply wrong.

      And how people can know the details of nimue patch and still think that Syndic controls content through round table is just dumb. This patch is a nightmare for outland land owners.

      And lastly as for the minority deciding the the majority, then id answer “The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter”.
      /Frank

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von Sinatra.SUN ()