15 replies to this topic

[Felio]

In Ask the Devs 48, Bryan said a main reason so many answers are unsatisfying is because the questions aren't really questions.

Quote

The goal of the ATD is to allow players to ask questions and interact with the developers. What I consistently see is a series of good questions that get solid answers mixed in with leading questions that don’t or get short answers. Questions can be opinion driven, and we usually avoid those as they are not objective.
An example could be – “I don’t like SSRMs, what are you doing to fix them!”
Often the leading questions end up with the most votes, which makes it difficult for us to answer with any depth. This is part of the reason we opted for this format. Even if something gets top vote, we can chose to not answer if the question serves to not further any reasonable discussion. Take this question as another example. The number one voted question was a complaint (and a good suggestion) about the ATD answers.
So that being said - I personally would have no issue with removing ATD altogether. I will discuss it with the devs and see what we can come up with. Question 3 is similar to this one, so I will lump the response in here. Yes, we can look to merge these ideas together.

I thought this was obvious even before ATD 48. People want their suggestions to be read, and because ATD gets a guaranteed response, they clamor to get their "question" in.

But when there is a suggestion disguised as a question, the only possible answer is, when you boil it down, a yes or a no. And if it's a yes, it's something we would have gotten eventually in Command Chair or Upcoming Features anyway. If it's a no, it's probably not going to get answered. If it is, we get disappointed or mad, and we haven't really learned anything of value.

Questions about when we can expect X or Y are better, but only sometimes and not my much. Usually it's about something in the distant future that we already know is in the distant future, and the answer tells us that it's in the distant future.

I suggest the moderators delete these questions from the thread, with strict enforcement. The most overt ones, at the very least. Perhaps there should also be a word limit.

What would be better questions? I've no doubt that if these non-questions were banned, the community would come up with some. But we could ask about things like how something works, why something is the way it is, how something was made, and what trends their behind-the-scenes gameplay data show.

Edited by Felio, 14 October 2013 - 02:26 PM.

[Heffay]

I disagree. I think if someone asks a leading question, PGI should troll the everliving **** out of them, so that the poster gets the derision of the community at large for wasting a question on trying to make a political point.

Let the community police itself.

[Bhael Fire]

I think the voting format for ATD is bad idea.

In theory it seems ok...but not so much in practice.

I think I liked it better when the devs would hand pick a bunch of questions from the thread then answer them, rather than be forced to answer leading and/or invalid questions just because they are popular.

A good question is a good question, regardless if it's popular or not.

[LauLiao]

Bhael Fire, on 14 October 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

In theory it seems ok...but not so much in practice.

Kinda like Democracy.

"Wait, we have to let the idiots vote too???"

[Roadbeer]

I say take it a step further to ban questions (or posting) from anyone who hasn't purchased a dimes worth of MC.

If they're not invested in the game, who cares what they think?

[Heffay]

Roadbeer, on 14 October 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

I say take it a step further to ban questions (or posting) from anyone who hasn't purchased a dimes worth of MC.

If they're not invested in the game, who cares what they think?

Pay to vote!

Or Service Guarantees Citizenship!

[Roadbeer]

Heffay, on 14 October 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

Pay to vote!

Or Service Guarantees Citizenship!

Damn straight.

[Heffay]

Do you want to know more?

[Dirus Nigh]

I'll buy that for a dollar.


Really though, it depends on were and how the question is being lead.

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 14 October 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[Gregory Owen]

Roadbeer, on 14 October 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

I say take it a step further to ban questions (or posting) from anyone who hasn't purchased a dimes worth of MC.

If they're not invested in the game, who cares what they think?

thats how WoW and SWG forums used to work. only subscribers could post. I loved it, kept the whiners away.

[Farix]

Bhael Fire, on 14 October 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

I think the voting format for ATD is bad idea.

In theory it seems ok...but not so much in practice.

I think I liked it better when the devs would hand pick a bunch of questions from the thread then answer them, rather than be forced to answer leading and/or invalid questions just because they are popular.

A good question is a good question, regardless if it's popular or not.

I would suggest changing the criteria for selecting questions a bit. Keep the "voting", but also allow the devs to choose to answer ANY question outside the 15 most popular.

[Bhael Fire]

Farix, on 14 October 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

I would suggest changing the criteria for selecting questions a bit. Keep the "voting", but also allow the devs to choose to answer ANY question outside the 15 most popular.

Sure, if a question gets enough "likes" and it's a valid questionI would imagine that would be a huge factor in selecting it...but I don't think the devs should be obligated to answer a question just because it has the most votes, especially if their answer is just going to be a diluted mincing of words due to the nature of the question.

I'd rather have a less popular question answered with a real answer, if that's the case.

[Roadbeer]

Bhael Fire, on 14 October 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

Sure, if a question gets enough "likes" and it's a valid questionI would imagine that would be a huge factor in selecting it...but I don't think the devs should be obligated to answer a question just because it has the most votes, especially if their answer is just going to be a diluted mincing of words due to the nature of the question.

I'd rather have a less popular question answered with a real answer, if that's the case.

Yes, because that worked so well the old way, when they'd pick the most soft-balled questions they could find "Doritos or Tostitos?"

At least, they are held to 5 of 15 questions that when you "Like" them, you are saying that this is more important than that of what's been asked.

[Bhael Fire]

Roadbeer, on 14 October 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

Yes, because that worked so well the old way, when they'd pick the most soft-balled questions they could find "Doritos or Tostitos?"

Look, if they don't want to answer a particular question, they will invariably just give a fluff answer that skirts the issue.

At least with "Doritos or Tostitos" question I'll know which chips to bring if I hang out with the devs at a party.

[Roadbeer]

Which brings me back to, only paying players should be able to ask questions.

[FinsT]

Felio, on 14 October 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

...
But when there is a suggestion disguised as a question, the only possible answer is, when you boil it down, a yes or a no.
...
What would be better questions? I've no doubt that if these non-questions were banned, the community would come up with some. But we could ask about things like how something works, why something is the way it is, how something was made, and what trends their behind-the-scenes gameplay data show.

> All below - is imho ("in my humble opinion"). Very subjective. <

1. You forgot "may be". Developers are not gods. In AtD49 i posted my question about additional interactive elements (last question on page 6). It's very definitely a "yes or no" question. However, even developers themselves may be unable to be any sure about technical possibilities of complex features, etc. Thus, "may be" may be the only answer they could honestly give.

2. Majority of questions are about future. Two things help to make a good question about future: 1st, clearly defining what length of time into the future the question is about (for example, "during next 3 months", or "in a year from now or less", etc); 2nd, clearly specifying if the asker is interested in personal opinions of developers, - or rather in concrete details of design already wrote down, agreed plans, collective consensus, etc. I.e., whether the question is to "some guys who happen to be PGI developers", - or more like to PGI as a whole.

3. You mention questions about the past and present. These are not frequent yet because most of people who have a desire to post in AtD, - are much upset about some or other features of the game, and they wish additions and/or fixes to address it. Naturally, it's developers who might answer their curiousity. Other people intuitively follow with the general "what's gonna happen with this-and-that" general direction and do more questions about the future. Plus, not so many people are actually interested in details about how things were done in the past; it is human nature to look forward. With all that said, yes, questions about present and past are very few, if any. May be i'll make a good question about "present" - something about behind-the-scenes data sounds indeed very interesting to learn, - if i'll some day have my question about more interactive things in MWO answered (in any manner); for me, it's real big one, you see...

Thanks for putting some good thinking into this, Felio. If we improve quality of our questions in AtD, inevitably quality of answers will rise as well. To this end, your topic helping. Good job!

Edited by FinsT, 15 October 2013 - 04:50 AM.