FACTION SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS\n\nINTRODUCTIONFirst and foremost, thank you to everyone who took part in last month's Faction Satisfaction Survey. Your invaluable feedback will help drive improvements to faction standards for the benefit of everyone. 106 people took part in the survey and some of their responses have been summarized below, but please understand that I cannot summarize every single bit of feedback in one post due to the sheer volume of them. With that being said, I will be constantly reading over the results to ensure every bit of feedback is at least acknowledged.\n\nBelow, you can find a summary of the responses, as well as my brief response to them.\n\nFACTION STANDARDSThe majority thought faction standards had improved compared to over 12 months ago, with the rest disagreeing or being unsure. This result shows there's still lots of work to be done and I look forward to raising those ratings with the help of this survey. The majority also thought that Faction Management's expectations of factions were high enough. This tells me the majority agree with the standards we strive for as a team.\n\n\n\nOFFICIAL FACTIONSThe majority were satisfied with the roleplay and topic standards of our official factions, whilst being less satisfied with their activity and the variety of factions on offer. Many criticized the variety of official illegal factions in particular, since there were only two of them at the time of the survey. Since then, two further illegal factions were made official, including the server's first white criminal organisation to earn official status. Some people also argued against there being too many street gangs and, whilst I do understand the concerns around it, I'd also argue it'd do more harm than good to stop people enjoying such a popular type of illegal roleplay. I would, however, like to see more variety and more factions appropriate to the rural environment, but this isn't something that can be strictly controlled for the simple fact I cannot force players to create factions on things they don't want to. \n\nThe activity of our official factions was also heavily criticized. Since the survey, the official faction system was split in some areas so that the perks of it (such as gun crates and drugs) could be awarded at different stages instead of all at once. This was done in the hopes it would give factions more to aim for over their lifetimes and thus encourage more activity. This is a new change which we're still monitoring the progress of and I aim to add more to it in time, including ways which will benefit legal factions as well.\n\nSpeaking of official legal factions, many were critical of their activity. There's a few that have missed the one media post per-week target and I'll be clamping down on that more strictly from now on. One media post per-week requires very minimal effort and everyone should be able to do it. \n\nOther people said that more factions need to be made official and the time it takes to reach official needs to be reduced. I agree with both those views but that's not to say I'll be lowering standards. Splitting the official status into stages will allow us to award basic official perks a lot sooner than before, so factions should be becoming official more often from now.\n\n\n\nUNOFFICIAL FACTIONSThe feedback on unofficial factions was similar to the above; however people were more satisfied with the activity of our unofficial factions. Variety wasn't as satisfactory yet again. A lot of the points raised mirrored those above and so my response to them is the same and won't be repeated here. \n\n\n\nFACTION MANAGEMENTThe majority stated they were very satisfied with the Head of Factions, which is obviously a result I'm happy about. Most of the additional feedback was praise and there wasn't a lot of criticism. Bias came up once or twice but, being completely honest, I really don't see how it's valid. In any case, the admin complaints section is there for it to be addressed if needed.\n\nThe majority were satisfied with administration, although most of the additional feedback was about general admin duties and not faction-related ones, which is what this survey is about. There weren't too many concerns raised besides activity and overall involvement in Faction Management duties. This is something I'm going to look at addressing in due course, possibly by assigning admins as Faction Handlers, much like their Faction Consultant counterparts. \n\nMost people were also satisfied with the Faction Consultant team, although many questioned how much they really do. This is understandable because what they do is usually behind-the-scenes and out of public view and that's something I'm going to change. I'm going to discuss ways to raise their public profile with Management and perhaps more moderator privileges in the Factions section. There were a few concerns regarding activity when Faction Consultants are assigned as Handlers to their respective factions. This is something I may address by adding mandatory reviews of faction progress every so often. \n\n\n\nFACTION RULES & SYSTEMSThe majority said they were satisfied with the faction rules we have in place and barely any points of improvement were raised. \n\nJust like before, many questioned the purpose of the Faction Consultant system. This is understandable given a lot of what Faction Consultants do is behind-the-scenes and not in the public eye. They do actually do a considerable amount; whether it be helping me decide on faction requests and topic approvals or relaying feedback between faction leaders and the rest of the team. In all honesty, Faction Consultants are like unsung heroes in many ways; much of the progress I've made is through working with them, more than anyone else. If they weren't around, I wouldn't get anywhere near as much done. I aim to raise their public profile, like I said earlier, and engage them more with the rest of the community. I may also expand the team and allow multiple handlers to be assigned to the same faction.\n\nThe Faction Topic Approval system was one of the highest-rated in the survey but also faced some criticism. Some claimed it limited creativity and took too long. I can understand the criticism with it taking too long — in some cases, it's taken way longer than it should have done and I'm going to try find a solution to that — but I don't agree with it limiting creativity. The system is there to ensure substandard factions don't get posted until they reach minimum standards. Some have argued that the system should be removed altogether and that we should moderate the section as we did before by closing substandard factions down when they arise, but that didn't work before, hence why the system was added. It's always more problematic to let substandard factions set up and then close them down after they've established themselves. It's easier and less problematic to stop them from beginning at all. \n\nThe Illegal Item Request system and the Property Request system were also highly-praised and not many people suggested points of improvement for either of them. On the other hand, most people were unaware of the Roleplay Reward Request system and questioned its purpose; unsurprising, given the system is in the process of being overhauled and is pretty hidden-away, only being available to official faction leaders.\n\nMost were satisfied with the time it takes Faction Management to complete requests, the effort it takes for factions to earn official status and the perks of official status. \n\n\n\nGAMEMODE & UCPThe majority were satisfied with the gamemode and UCP's current faction features but were less satisfied with the time it took to deliver new ones. Most people said the current features did their job but stated they'd never needed to use the UCP's faction features. In any case, the feedback will be relayed to Development for them to take it on board.