A robust and useful FEATURE VOTING system

[Penfold]

Overview

Forum-specific. Created by developers. Quantitative feedback. Option list is dynamic. Only available to users subscribed to the forum. Available votes tied to experience with the game. Votes can be re-cast.

Aim

The aim of the proposed feature voting system is to give developers the ability to ask players what they think about proposed new (or even existing) features and receive quantitative feedback that will assist decision making and game development. Such feedback would be particularly useful for Early Access, new or niche games with smaller player bases.

What players would see and do

Players would see a feature voting page with a developer-assigned title pinned to the top of a forum. Inside the page they would see a paragraph of introductory/explanatory text (basically just instructions on how to vote) and then a set of features. Each feature would have a short title, a sentence/paragraph of elaboration, a hyperlink, and a vote casting panel. The hyperlink takes the player to a dedicated, developer-created discussion page where that feature can be discussed at length (no discussions are permitted on the voting page itself). The vote casting panel simply displays how many votes the player has currently cast for that feature, and has basic up/down controls that allow the player to increase/decrease that number.

Players simply scan the list for features of interest, perhaps visit and participate in the discussions for some of those features, and then cast votes for the features they would like to support. (Zero is the minimum number of votes that can be cast — negative voting is not permitted.)

The number of votes a player has available to them to cast is linked to the amount of experience they have with the game. The developer nominates a 'well-rounded' set of achievements, each of which entitles the player to an additional vote. This minimises the influence that new players can have (and prevents fraudulent accounts from voting at all). Further, only players that are subscribed to the forum can vote. When a player unsubscribes, their votes are removed. This prevents "crowdsourcing" of votes from parties who are no longer or otherwise not interested in the game. For you to have votes and for them to count you need to have actually played the game and be subscribed to the forum.

The feature list would be sorted on the number of votes cast in favour of a particular feature — putting the most popular features at the top and the least popular at the bottom.

What the developer would do

Although implementation would be up to the Steam developers, the following implementation method is proposed as it makes the process of setting up feature voting pages trivial for game developers.

A game developer, having read numerous discussions about (or proposals and requests for) a particular feature (or against an existing feature), can create a new post in a forum about a viable feature proposal. In that post they give it a meaningful title and a succinct sentence/paragraph that elaborates on the feature proposal. They then place a custom tag (only available to developers and moderators) at the bottom of the post:

[vote]The title of the feature voting page that this feature will appear in[/vote]

When the page is posted, the title and sentence/paragraph will be used to automatically generate an entry in the feature voting page that is named in the tag. If the feature voting page does not already exist, it is automatically created. The boilerplate paragraph of introductory/explanatory text at the top of that page is also automatically inserted.

By allowing developers to name a feature voting page inside of tags, not only can features be added dynamically to a voting page as developers see fit, but it makes it possible for developers to have more than one voting page at the same time (e.g. one page for new features, one page for feature removals, one page for strategic direction).

If/when a feature finally gets implemented (or rejected), the developer can simply remove the tag from the feature post. This will result in the feature being removed from the voting page and all votes being refunded — allowing players to re-cast them on other features.

So, developers tag one of their discussions to put it into a voting page, and remove the tag to take it out. Simple.

By having available votes linked to experience/achievements, player votes are determined per game rather than per voting page (or per forum), so tags would not be used to specify achievements. Developers already have some sort of 'control panel' that they can use to configure the forums for their game. It would make sense to add a section in there that allows them to nominate the specific achievements that entitle players to additional votes. Thus a player with five qualifying achievements will have 5 votes (in total) to cast between all of the voting pages in all of the forums for that game. Developers could tweak the set as they see fit to determine and balance the experience range that entitles players to votes. This approach can help prohibit players who haven't really given the game a fair go from unduly influencing the voting process.

Summary

Developers benefit from structured, quantitative feedback. A feature voting system (as described above) will help them solicit this feedback from the active player base. Using tagged developer posts to populate the voting page will eliminate most forms of player abuse. Linking votes to experience/achievements and requiring forum subscriptions for votes to count goes further to limit abuse. Together, these measures make for a more robust voting system than is typically proposed. A robust voting system, that is easy for game developers to initiate, and for Steam developers to implement, will benefit everyone. Genuine players will be given a voice — vox fidelis!

Thanks for taking the time to read this proposal.

[Black Blade]

Idle in a game, and get as most votes
I think every one needs to get same voice, no matter time played, as that can be faked by idling

On the over all how ever i think its a nice idea

[76561198188152325]

Well thought out, nicely articulated post.

Unfortunately trumped by what Black Blade said.

[fluxtorrent]

With a minor in "we revoked polls for a reason"

[Satoru]

Polls might be 'ok' if they were purely dev controlled and not a 'normal' feature on steam

[Start_Running]

引用自 Satoru：

Polls might be 'ok' if they were purely dev controlled and not a 'normal' feature on steam

When devs do such pols they usually do them on their own websites.

[Black Blade]

引用自 ஜ Lord ♠ Revan ஜ：

Well thought out, nicely articulated post.

Unfortunately trumped by what Black Blade said.

Only the part of time played, the rest of the things can work well, even more for some Early Access i think

Also as said, as long as the Devs keep the power by them i think it can stay under control

引用自 Start_Running：

When devs do such pols they usually do them on their own websites.

But is that how they prefer it, or is that just how they need to do it, as using the current Steam system for it will be too messy?

[Start_Running]

引用自 Black Blade (Card Idleing)：

引用自 ஜ Lord ♠ Revan ஜ：

Well thought out, nicely articulated post.

Unfortunately trumped by what Black Blade said.

Only the part of time played, the rest of the things can work well, even more for some Early Access i think

Also as said, as long as the Devs keep the power by them i think it can stay under control

引用自 Start_Running：

When devs do such pols they usually do them on their own websites.

But is that how they prefer it, or is that just how they need to do it, as using the current Steam system for it will be too messy?

More than likely. If they wanted something more they'd have asked steam for it and steam would have done it. I think devs and Steam have long since learned that the more they try to involve the user base in anything the more frustratingly retarded things get.

[Black Blade]

引用自 Start_Running：

More than likely. If they wanted something more they'd have asked steam for it and steam would have done it. I think devs and Steam have long since learned that the more they try to involve the user base in anything the more frustratingly retarded things get.

I think some Early Access pogreams, and as you said before:

引用自 Start_Running：

When devs do such pols they usually do them on their own websites.

Will say else way, as it means they do it all ready, just not on Steam it self

[Gus the Crocodile]

Giving devs polls to use if they want to seems a straightforwardly good idea to me.

[Penfold]

引用自 Black Blade (Card Idleing)：

Idle in a game, and get as most votes
I think every one needs to get same voice, no matter time played, as that can be faked by idling

Good point about idling. Perhaps replace that requirement with votes that are earned by certain achievements? The developers could attach "+1 Vote" as a reward for a variety of in-game achievements. So long as the developers chose wisely, idling could not be used to get many (if any) of them and that exploit would be closed.

A side benefit would be that is makes the achievement system more meaningful.

[fluxtorrent]

Why would someone with more achievements be more qualified to give good feedback than someone with less?

The whole reason that polls were removed (besides abuse) is that they don't provide ENOUGH feedback. If you want to add something to a game, start a discussion, and hope that the overwhelming number of childish people on steam don't notice it and the ones looking to provide useful feedback do.

[wuddih]

if a dev or something "superior" needs a poll, they will find a solution .... dunno why Steam has to solve every nifty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ little "problem". what is next? that Steam support build the ikea crap you bought for you?

it makes no sense for many devs either, since many devs are not only releasing on Steam.

achievements will never be linked to any kind of reward or non-ingame triggered features.

[Penfold]

引用自 fluxtorrent：

Why would someone with more achievements be more qualified to give good feedback than someone with less?

I think it's pretty obvious that a player who has (for whatever reason) not managed to make it out of the in-game tutorial would not and should not be in a position to meaningfully cast votes on proposed end-game features. Likewise a player who has never even tried the crafting system should probably not be casting votes on proposed changes to the crafting system. In the real world, we don't let 5 year old children vote in presidential elections for a reason. Enough said.

If the developers choose a 'well-rounded' set of achievements then that should result in the players who have the most well-rounded experience with the game having the most votes, and those who have a more limited experience with the game having fewer votes. Informed opinion is more valuable than uninformed opinion.

The whole reason that polls were removed (besides abuse) is that they don't provide ENOUGH feedback. If you want to add something to a game, start a discussion, and hope that the overwhelming number of childish people on steam don't notice it and the ones looking to provide useful feedback do.

The proposal above suggests that developers add entries to the feature voting page by tagging a discussion that they initiated — thus the discussion you are suggesting already exists and is actually linked to from the entry on the voting page. Sure, some players won't bother reading the discussion. Sure, some players won't bother adding to the discussion. Sure, some players will add unhelpful drivel to the discussion. That's just the way it is — everywhere, not just here on Steam.

Developers have the power to moderate discussions on their forums. If they choose not to, and allow their forums to devolve into toxic cesspits, then no wonder feedback is tainted accordingly. That is, however, not a guaranteed or inevitable outcome. There will always be a group of players willing to contribute thoughtful and constructive dialogue to a discussion about game features. I believe giving those players as many opportunities as possible to do so will result in better games. Discussions are qualitative feedback. Feature voting is quantitative feedback. One is good but two is better.

[Penfold]

引用自 Black Blade (Card Idleing)：

... the rest of the things can work well, even more for some Early Access i think

I specifically had Early Access and small/niche games in mind as being the primary benefactors of such a system. When games become wildly popular, and build huge player bases, community forums transform into a different beast.

引用自 Start_Running：

When devs do such pols they usually do them on their own websites.

But is that how they prefer it, or is that just how they need to do it, as using the current Steam system for it will be too messy?

For many developers, Steam is the primary distribution channel. For some developers it is their only distribution channel. For many new/small games the bulk of the player base may have easier and more convenient access to Steam Communities than anywhere else... so it makes sense to locate the polls where the players already are rather than try work out a way to herd the players somewhere else.

I must admit that I can not remember the 'old' voting system that existed, and did not witness the abuse by the player base that apparently led to its abandonment. This voting system is designed to be trivial for developers to use, be totally under their control and thus not suffer the same fundamental flaw. Although creating a proprietary voting system is still an option, I think many developers would rather be coding their game instead, and would be happier to use a voting system that's built into the same system their player base is using for discussions, guides and so-on.

[Black Blade]

引用自 wuddih：

if a dev or something "superior" needs a poll, they will find a solution .... dunno why Steam has to solve every nifty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ little "problem". what is next? that Steam support build the ikea crap you bought for you?

it makes no sense for many devs either, since many devs are not only releasing on Steam.

achievements will never be linked to any kind of reward or non-ingame triggered features.

Same can be said on just abut anything
Why we need hubs? They can.make there own fourms?
Why we need beta set up? They can find a way
Why we need screenshots? Artwork? Guides? Download the game, why not just buy and let devs find a way to give it out

引用自 Penfold：

Good point about idling. Perhaps replace that requirement with votes that are earned by certain achievements? The developers could attach "+1 Vote" as a reward for a variety of in-game achievements. So long as the developers chose wisely, idling could not be used to get many (if any) of them and that exploit would be closed.

A side benefit would be that is makes the achievement system more meaningful.

Some problems there will be cheating software
And it really matter what the acivments are, like maybe there hard core type, so many will be left out, same problem with offline play