WOTC needs to get completely out of the rules creation business. Honestly, there are enough rules from 0e-4e plus retroclones for a lifetime of play.
This attitude, and the widespread acceptance of said attitude as sage wisdom, is what causes games (and ideas in general) to stagnate and die. If D&D does not innovate and compete for its market, something else will.
WOTC needs to get completely out of the rules creation business. Honestly, there are enough rules from 0e-4e plus retroclones for a lifetime of play.This attitude, and the widespread acceptance of said attitude as sage wisdom, is what causes games (and ideas in general) to stagnate and die. If D&D does not innovate and compete for its market, something else will.
At this point, Scott. I think that is exactly what I hope will happen! For me, despair has set in regarding WOTC's ability to innovate and compete. So, I hope that someone else can and will step up.
Kthulhu, 100% agree that the above is non-viable. However, that is not the point of the petition; the bullet points were only possible alternatives to D&D Next. WOTC needs to get completely out of the rules creation business. Honestly, there are enough rules from 0e-4e plus retroclones for a lifetime of play.
There have been enough rules for a lifetime of play since at least 1990 or so. Not just D&D, but so many others. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to improve them.
It's just a silly argument.
Of course, it is a silly argument because it is not even an argument.
Do you really believe that "they" can improve them? The rules are actually the least interesting part of a RPG; it wasn't the great mechanics of 1e that was most attractive because they weren't great in retrospect. It was creativity and uniqueness of 1e that Gary Gygax put into core set from 1976-1979. Instead I getting sucked into yet another edition, one can easily create multiple combinations of the existing rulesets especially from the sets of 0e-2e & 3e-Pathfinder. With all of the 3rd party material from 2000 to the present, the combinations have to be near infinite; whether it is fun, exciting, balanced/unbalanced is completely up to the player.
I just not seeing much creativity, uniqueness, and innovation coming out of WOTC these days. Maybe that is ok, maybe most of it needs to come from the players anyway. Gary's greatest concern was that whatever you played, it was universally recognized as D&D. We have now seen multiple iterations of his framework recognized as D&D.. I will gladly peruse others creative and innovative interpretations; I am just done with any WOTC interpretation; they are like the Microsoft of RPGs. Like Microsoft, they just become tiresome and dull.
WOTC needs to get completely out of the rules creation business. Honestly, there are enough rules from 0e-4e plus retroclones for a lifetime of play.This attitude, and the widespread acceptance of said attitude as sage wisdom, is what causes games (and ideas in general) to stagnate and die. If D&D does not innovate and compete for its market, something else will.
Kevin Siembieda is doing ok with that attitude. Not brilliantly but he has been able to sustain a company. One speculates if he wasn't such a neo Luddite controll freak arse hat he would be doing very well.
Do you really believe that "they" can improve them?
Yes. Especially since they have, already. Repeatedly.
The rules are actually the least interesting part of a RPG;
The rules are critical. That you consider them the least interesting part of the hobby goes a long way in explaining why you see rules innovation as unimportant.
it wasn't the great mechanics of 1e that was most attractive because they weren't great in retrospect. It was creativity and uniqueness of 1e that Gary Gygax put into core set from 1976-1979. Instead I getting sucked into yet another edition, one can easily create multiple combinations of the existing rulesets especially from the sets of 0e-2e & 3e-Pathfinder. With all of the 3rd party material from 2000 to the present, the combinations have to be near infinite; whether it is fun, exciting, balanced/unbalanced is completely up to the player.
Rules design should make every effort to enable and facilitate fun, exciting, balanced gameplay ("balanced" in the sense that the game should operate in an understandable way wherein there is mechanical value in all choices presented as legitimate). There is a long way yet to go in this regard, and probably always will be. That's where the room for improvement is.
I just not seeing much creativity, uniqueness, and innovation coming out of WOTC these days.
There isn't much content coming out of WotC right now, period. There was a ton of innovation during the first few years of 4e, though.
Maybe that is ok, maybe most of it needs to come from the players anyway. Gary's greatest concern was that whatever you played, it was universally recognized as D&D. We have now seen multiple iterations of his framework recognized as D&D.. I will gladly peruse others creative and innovative interpretations; I am just done with any WOTC interpretation; they are like the Microsoft of RPGs. Like Microsoft, they just become tiresome and dull.
I'm not sure where this comment is coming from. Microsoft is a giant, and they pretty much always have a number of cool projects in the pipeline. Windows 8 is a radical change in direction, the Surface tablets look great, their next OS will be released for a fraction of the price of previous iterations, and they have the largest personal computer install base on the planet. Comparing any company to Microsoft is high praise, and any negatives you perceive are heavily outweighed by the pros.
You don't really have much meat on your argument. This looks to me like just another thin attempt at WotC-bashing. And nothing is more tired and dull than that.
It is not really an argument, my position is mostly subjective anyway. It is more of a prediction of failure of WOTC which I may be completely wrong. I have been a customer in the past and do not wish to remain in the future. Performance in the past is not necessarily indicative of performance in the future. D&D brand appears weaker than anytime except at the end of the TSR era.
I just tired of the ruleset changes every five years or so. There are always those looking for next best thing. I guess that I am just too satisfied with all of the existing rulesets. The rules are the least interesting part of a RPG because I really only believe they are guidelines. Rules are rigid; guidelines are mutable. New ideas are great and I am always looking for those. D&D rulesets should be evolutionary not revolutionary. Evolutionary rulesets are easily changeable and linkable to the previous editions.
I could play in any game with any iteration as determined by any GM due to my open and flexible nature. I would even play D&D Next; I just not going to spend any money on it.
The question isn't whether WOTC can possibly come with any improvements to the game;it is always possible, just not likely IMHO. The company has the stink of decay about it. The question is whether I am willing to pay for any of them. The answer is definitive NO! If I am just some radical outlier, no problem for WOTC; however, I don't think that I am.
|
Do you really believe that "they" can improve them?Yes. Especially since they have, already. Repeatedly.
Opinions on that vary. My personal favorite ruleset at the moment is Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules...which is pretty much 0E at the end of it's life cycle (only organized FAR better). So, in my opinion, the rules have been getting WORSE since about 1977 or so, not better.
That's the thing, what ruleset you prefer is a matter of OPINION. You can't really factually state that 4E > 3.5 > 3.0 > 2E > 1E > 0E. That's all a matter of opinion. Some people out there think 4E is the best. Some think 2E is the best. Some people say screw D&D altogether, RuneQuest is the best.
|
|
At any rate, I think the success or failure of D&D Next depends far less on the actual rules, but more on the level of support that WotC provides for it. That was their major failing for 4E...the support for the system has been exceedingly minimal, almost since it came out. Not everyone is going to jump on the DDI bandwagon, and for those that didn't, the support was damn near nonexistent. I can't really comment on what the support WITH DDI was like, because I was never a 4E guy. I'm not saying they have to support a given setting as much as Paizo is supporting Golarion (I personally think that Golarion could actually stand to have it's support scaled back somewhat...I don't think that 12 Player Companion books + 12 Campaign Setting books per year is needed)...but they should offer more than a setting book and a single token module which seemed to be the 4E standard.
|
Kevin Siembieda is doing ok with that attitude. Not brilliantly but he has been able to sustain a company. One speculates if he wasn't such a neo Luddite controll freak arse hat he would be doing very well.WOTC needs to get completely out of the rules creation business. Honestly, there are enough rules from 0e-4e plus retroclones for a lifetime of play.This attitude, and the widespread acceptance of said attitude as sage wisdom, is what causes games (and ideas in general) to stagnate and die. If D&D does not innovate and compete for its market, something else will.
I totally agree with this. Kev's company has a lot of great ideas, but his system is stagnate. And he goes after those who improves it. The best book of his that I ever bought was Monsters and Animals for the Palladium RPG.
WotC is better off to stay in the rules business. Although Gary himself said that if GMs ever got the idea that they don't need rules to play D&D, then the company is out of business.
Do you really believe that "they" can improve them?Yes. Especially since they have, already. Repeatedly.Opinions on that vary. My personal favorite ruleset at the moment is Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules...which is pretty much 0E at the end of it's life cycle (only organized FAR better). So, in my opinion, the rules have been getting WORSE since about 1977 or so, not better.
That's the thing, what ruleset you prefer is a matter of OPINION. You can't really factually state that 4E > 3.5 > 3.0 > 2E > 1E > 0E. That's all a matter of opinion. Some people out there think 4E is the best. Some think 2E is the best. Some people say screw D&D altogether, RuneQuest is the best.
Good point, Kthulhu! My position is largely opinion; I am really not trying to change anybody's mind. S&W Complete is also a favorite for me as well. I love that I can easily add 1e and 2e rules at will to it. Although I never liked the demi-human level limits and multi-classing rules, I either change or ignore as I did years ago when first playing 1e. It also makes playing an adventure like S&W version of Rappan Athuk easily compatible with 0e-2e.
You are also right that support is key which is also why the changing ruleset have been so tiresome because the ruleset is the only substantial items that WOTC sells.
|
|
Well, the day when they gathered data on the sales of the 3.0 PHB was the day that they decided that their rules output was justified. And they started to stagnate.
it was SLOW, mind you. But it slowly increased over the years. No new release of OGC outside of the High Level book, and Unearthed Arcana was the last. A release every month that you couldn't keep up with (I only got a few products: most of them Eberron after 3.x came out).
The people over at WotC focused on the Product in the wrong way. However, the product wasn't good after 2003. There were a few gems, but those are subjective opinions.
However, since Paizo listens to the fans, but their output is consistently . . . This would be a good topic for Paizo Publishing. :)
|
At any rate, I think the success or failure of D&D Next depends far less on the actual rules, but more on the level of support that WotC provides for it. That was their major failing for 4E...the support for the system has been exceedingly minimal, almost since it came out. Not everyone is going to jump on the DDI bandwagon, and for those that didn't, the support was damn near nonexistent. I can't really comment on what the support WITH DDI was like, because I was never a 4E guy. I'm not saying they have to support a given setting as much as Paizo is supporting Golarion (I personally think that Golarion could actually stand to have it's support scaled back somewhat...I don't think that 12 Player Companion books + 12 Campaign Setting books per year is needed)...but they should offer more than a setting book and a single token module which seemed to be the 4E standard.
I think that's fairly untrue, at least at the beginning. I've got a fair stack of 4e books and felt quite happy with the level of support. Theyugot criticised for rules bloat in 3e so people sound like they want it both ways. Their failure to support their settings and to provide adventures, on the other hand, is a fair point. Dungeon was OK but it's not really the source for epic campaign arcs with a single, very specific and not repeated exception.
Some people say screw D&D altogether, Rolemaster is the best.Do you really believe that "they" can improve them?Yes. Especially since they have, already. Repeatedly.
Fixed that for you K.
I have exactly zero experience with Rolemaster. And exactly zero desire to experience it, as well.
You wold be surprised where some of the mechanics for 3rd Ed was adapted from.
D&D is good but the best fun I had GMing and playing was Rolemaster - it wasn't the group as we also played D&D, GURPS, Mechwarior, Rifts, TMNT, Robotech, Maelstrom, Shadowrun, D6 Starwars, James Bond, and some others I can't remember they were all fun games but RM was the most fun for me.
Eh, I didn't really mean offense towards Rolemaster. I just already have more systems that I can conceivably play. Adding another on top of the pile wouldn't really help matters.
None taken :-)
At any rate, I think the success or failure of D&D Next depends far less on the actual rules, but more on the level of support that WotC provides for it. That was their major failing for 4E...the support for the system has been exceedingly minimal, almost since it came out. Not everyone is going to jump on the DDI bandwagon, and for those that didn't, the support was damn near nonexistent. I can't really comment on what the support WITH DDI was like, because I was never a 4E guy. I'm not saying they have to support a given setting as much as Paizo is supporting Golarion (I personally think that Golarion could actually stand to have it's support scaled back somewhat...I don't think that 12 Player Companion books + 12 Campaign Setting books per year is needed)...but they should offer more than a setting book and a single token module which seemed to be the 4E standard.
I agree with everything there - except asking Paizo to scale back it's output; I can never have too much quality material to chose from.
The clearly stated 4e policy of fluff-lite (excuse the term) was the main reason I haven't bought a D&D book in years. It has been a catastrophic error imo.
5e needs setting detail by the barrel load to thrive! A return to love of setting and detail.
The clearly stated 4e policy of fluff-lite (excuse the term) was the main reason I haven't bought a D&D book in years. It has been a catastrophic error imo.
5e needs setting detail by the barrel load to thrive! A return to love of setting and detail.
I'll be very interested in seeing which direction they go with this. Apparently the up-and-coming Menzoberranzan (sp?) is largely edition neutral. I wonder whether they'll make an attempt at providing campaign setting sourcebooks usable with any edition.
.I'll also be very interested to see whether they stick to the digital focus of flavor material they've been using. Rules dont really matter to me, so the D&D:Next talk so far hasnt really filled me with confidence re: maintaining my DDI subscription. There seems to be so much talk about rules modules and options, I'm not sure there's much room left for significant flavor material.
IMHO (<---- please note), WotC killed the franchise. D&D ws great until they went with heavy emphasis on the miniatures/tactical aspect. That was the number one gripe for my friends/players. I expected this from WotC though, miniatures are like boosters and WotC will always have this mindset.
The game is supposed to be a product of your imagination. 1E/2E were always fast to run without having to break out of the story and delay the game while drawing out tactical maps.
I was hoping Paizo would stay away from this model and release a mini-light, less tactical ruleset but alas it follows the OGL and lately they are making counters too, which is a tad scary as it follows the WotC formula.
On the other hand I still love my sacred cows, which is why I love PFRPG instead of 4E (which to this day I still refuse to consider it D&D), the flavor is still intact.
I really don't know what WotC was thinking when they radically altered D&D with the 4E stuff. The only way I would even slightly consider heading back to WotC/D&D, is if they ditched the mini/tactical, stop and map, aspect of the game entirely and stop the munchkin warforged, dragonman looking stuff. Its more Final Fantasy d20 than D&D (ymmv of course).
So a big "NO!" for any WotC petition. They have done enough damage. I would be afraid they would tarnish my old D&D memories if they were to even re-issue old stuff at this point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be afraid they would tarnish my old D&D memories if they were to even re-issue old stuff at this point.
Then I guess you missed these: AD&D 1st Edition Reprints
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO (<---- please note), WotC killed the franchise. D&D ws great until they went with heavy emphasis on the miniatures/tactical aspect. That was the number one gripe for my friends/players. I expected this from WotC though, miniatures are like boosters and WotC will always have this mindset.
Even though they stopped producing miniatures, and continued producing RPG products. WotC has not used 4e or any edition of D&D as nothing but a justification for selling minis.
The game is supposed to be a product of your imagination.
The game was originally designed as an expansion to a tactical wargame. While the game is fueled to a certain extent by imagination, it's never been completely about that, as evidenced by the fact that you have a character sheet. And dice. And, y'know, rules.
1E/2E were always fast to run without having to break out of the story and delay the game while drawing out tactical maps.
Just because you never drew maps out doesn't mean no one else did.
I was hoping Paizo would stay away from this model and release a mini-light, less tactical ruleset but alas it follows the OGL and lately they are making counters too, which is a tad scary as it follows the WotC formula.
It follows that formula because people like these things. They produce these products because demand exists.
I really don't know what WotC was thinking when they radically altered D&D with the 4E stuff. The only way I would even slightly consider heading back to WotC/D&D, is if they ditched the mini/tactical, stop and map, aspect of the game entirely and stop the munchkin warforged, dragonman looking stuff.
Are you sure you know what "munchkin" means?
So a big "NO!" for any WotC petition. They have done enough damage. I would be afraid they would tarnish my old D&D memories if they were to even re-issue old stuff at this point.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
|
|
There is evidence out there to suggest that 3.5 is still the edition of choice for a lot of people.1. Already owns a copy of the 3.5 core rulebooks, or...
2. Have moved on to either 4E or Pathfinder.
Yes. Which is why I put option #1 on the board - They already own a copy of the 3.5 core rulebooks. I'm sure a few will be fanatical enough to want a set with the errata included (although I'd wager new errata works its way in), but...well....I just don't see this being a big seller. I think they would have done better to offer up the Rules Cyclopedia or the 2E core rulebooks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with everything there - except asking Paizo to scale back it's output; I can never have too much quality material to chose from
It's really the Player Companion books that I think could be dialed down. Hell, I already thought they could be dialed down BEFORE the announcement that they were being dialed UP to monthly. Maybe quarterly or biannually. They've already hit most of the interesting topics for that line, in my opinion. Do we really need a Furries of Golarion six months down the line?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do sometimes worry that Paizo is a little too “interested” in introducing cards into the PFRPG. I have never really heard any RPG players actually ask for more cards in their game although Paizo does seem to want people to use them. I’m not sure why, I think Pokeman had something to do with Paizos history?
Critical Hit / Fumble Decks - Brilliant idea. More fun than a chart.
Condition / Buff Decks - Also a great idea.Plot Twist / Chase Decks - Interesting Idea, but not nearly as "must-have" as the above two categories.
NPC / Monster / Face Decks - I'm never going to use this.
Items / Gear / Treasure Decks - I'm even less likely to use this.
These days, a book company doesn't have to warehouse thousands of copies of a product to be competitive. They need only print what is needed to fill orders. The bookbinding industry has changed dramatically since the demise of TSR. They don't have to shut down the machines to change the typeset; it's all done with PDF files these days. Change the source file and you change the book being printed. In the middle of a print run.
The publishing business has changed, but not as much as you have implied. For books at the quality that Paizo or WotC currently produce, POD is not possible. Lulu books are decent, but they are of a decidedly different quality. POD books of Paizo quality would be very expensive, probably 2-3 times as much. Are you going to buy the same books you're getting now, but for $100?
I'd pay 10 dollars for Furries of Golarion.
1) It'll outsell Distant Worlds.
2) No matter the art, it'll upset one faction with regard to the aesthetics chosen and it'll take the place of Paladin moral code discussions as the premiere hot button topic item.
I can't agree with everything in the petition. I certainly don't expect WotC to convert the older materials to every other edition.
But I'll admit that I would like to see some of the older stuff made available again. I think they're already trying this out, to some extent. You could say that the special 1E core rulebooks are a special case, to benefit the Gygax memorial, but I understand that they're also reprinting the 3.5 core rulebooks now (which seems directly aimed at luring back Pathfinder players), and they recently did a survey asking what other 3.5 material we'd like to see back in print.
The publishing world is different now than it was when TSR failed. If TSR had had the option of releasing materials in PDF format, maybe they wouldn't have gone under. I'd still like to have printed materials, but a PDF would be better than nothing - and better than paying an arm and a leg for used, hard-to-find materials on the second-hand market (which, on my budget, works out to the same as nothing anyway).
I'm sure a few will be fanatical enough to want a set with the errata included (although I'd wager new errata works its way in), but...well....I just don't see this being a big seller. I think they would have done better to offer up the Rules Cyclopedia or the 2E core rulebooks.
What about new players to 3.5?
I'm betting people are going to snap this up like gangbusters, and they'll sell out of their print run, which will encourage them to do some more stuff for the ruleset.
I would be afraid they would tarnish my old D&D memories if they were to even re-issue old stuff at this point.Then I guess you missed these: AD&D 1st Edition Reprints
I didn't miss those, I've just been ignoring them (along with anything else WotC). If I did buy them, it would only be if the covers were exact duplicates of the original, minus the dead TSR logo of course. Not crazy about the new covers. Ymmv of course.
The point I was making is that, if the PDF exists, they can print whatever they want at a very low cost, because they already have the infrastructure to do it. The difference between printing a 4E PHB and a 1E PHB is a matter of choosing a different file in the system memory, and maybe a different type of paper or card stock. None of the equipment has to change at all.
Offset printing is a bit more complicated than that. It's not just a matter of dumping in a PDF and cranking out a few copies.
In the old days, it would cost thousands just to re-set the type for each book's print run. They couldn't afford to print a couple of thousand books to supply a market that was running low; they had to print a hundred thousand books, just to make it cost effective.
Those days are gone.
When WotC prints new copies of their current books, they're just not printing one or two at a time. They print orders in the thousands, because they're resupplying outlets, on demand. The difference is that their demand is a lot bigger that an individual's demand.
This is not "print on demand". WotC still uses "traditional" printing processes, and those processes still have a rather significant setup cost.
"Print On Demand" has a very specific meaning, defining a pretty specific process. It doesn't mean that a customer "demands" the printer to print more copies.
Is this really true?
Not really. There's still setup costs, there's still pre-production costs (such as creating plates, if they weren't saved/protected, etc.)
Even these days, I thought you got serious discounts for bulk printing. They may be less than they used to be.
There are, when it comes to offset printing.
For POD, the general assumption is that 1 copy or 1000 copies, the production price is the same, because the setup is nothing compared to offset. Input digital file, output physical copy from digital printer.
Obviously, some POD folks offer bulk discounts, but that's not because it's truly "cheaper" per copy to print 1000 copies POD vs. 1 copy, but more to do with the minimal labor involved and marketing (i.e. bulk discounts are attractive to people and encourage them to spend more).
The publishing business has changed, but not as much as you have implied. For books at the quality that Paizo or WotC currently produce, POD is not possible. Lulu books are decent, but they are of a decidedly different quality. POD books of Paizo quality would be very expensive, probably 2-3 times as much. Are you going to buy the same books you're getting now, but for $100?....
WotC doesn't use Lulu. The idea is absurd. And it has nothing to do with my point.
The point I was making is that, if the PDF exists, they can print whatever they want at a very low cost, because they already have the infrastructure to do it. The difference between printing a 4E PHB and a 1E PHB is a matter of choosing a different file in the system memory, and maybe a different type of paper or card stock. None of the equipment has to change at all.
In the old days, it would cost thousands just to re-set the type for each book's print run. They couldn't afford to print a couple of thousand books to supply a market that was running low; they had to print a hundred thousand books, just to make it cost effective.
Those days are gone.
When WotC prints new copies of their current books, they're just not printing one or two at a time. They print orders in the thousands, because they're resupplying outlets, on demand. The difference is that their demand is a lot bigger that an individual's demand.
And before someone starts talking print runs for different editions, let me point out that when WotC stockpiles large quantities of books the way they do when a new edition is coming out, it is in anticipation of demand, not because doing so is particularly cost effective. As a matter of fact, they lose a little money when they do that, because they have to pay warehousing and handling fees.
You're still not getting it. Paizo and WotC print books by the thousands, if not several tens of thousands. Small print runs (2000 and under is a small print run) cost more money for the higher quality books. Print On Demand is a very specific service, so if you aren't talking about that service, you shouldn't use the term.
Color books in a POD model are expensive. Bigger bindings, glossy pages, etc, all increase printing cost. Doing so on a small scale make that price much higher per copy.
Yes, PDF's and InDesign make publishing easier, but the economies of scale still apply. Go look at some indie games, look at the quality of most of their books and you're going to see a big difference. Burning Wheel books are nice, but they aren't near as fancy as Paizo or WotC. No color, no gloss for starters. I don't know how big their print runs are, but I would be surprised if they were much bigger than 10,000.
|
|
The point I was making is that, if the PDF exists, they can print whatever they want at a very low cost, because they already have the infrastructure to do it. The difference between printing a 4E PHB and a 1E PHB is a matter of choosing a different file in the system memory, and maybe a different type of paper or card stock. None of the equipment has to change at all.
The overwhelming majority of the PDFs for editions prior to 3.X (and even a large number of 3.X products) were NOT up to POD standards. They were scans, and often fairly poor ones. POD based on their PDFs would be horrible.
|
1 week ... 100 signatures.
*watches tumbleweed*
Yeah, even those who enjoy more than one edition of D&D realise that this would be business suicide for WotC.
Now a petition to get WotC to put PDFs back on sale (possibly with the request to add 4e PDF beyond those that were originally sold as PDFs) - that I would sign in a heartbeat.
|
|
This "petition" will at least give the guys over at WOTC a few good laughs.
While I would support a petition for the older PDFs (they will not be likely to publish newer material as PDFs) I am sure that will fall on deaf ears as well. WOTC is a publishing corporation now, part of a corporate empire. That corporation has shown a tremendous fear and loathing to PDFs, so not going to happen anytime soon.
Someday I am sure it will happen, but not soon. Give it 10 more years...
The delivery was very different (and the product was broken into smaller chunks) but they actually published more material for 4E (by page count) in PDF only format than in book form. They actually don't seem averse to PDFs in general, just collated PDFs of a few hundred pages.
Online petitions are useless twaddle, period.
Online petitions are lazy ways to make oneself feel better about being part of something, and they're almost universally ignored, because there's zero effort in it.
Inundate their phones and their mailboxes (electronic, but more impacting, the physical). I'm quite sure you'll provoke a reaction if you organize and don't let up on their customer service folks.
Heck, long distance calls are effectively free anymore, and an enormous pile of letters will get noticed. Someone has to answer the phones, someone has to pick up the mail, someone has to open it. These are things that actually take resources.
Ignoring message board threads and online petitions don't.
I'm not guaranteeing that it'll make any difference, but if you want your "voice to be heard" as it were, personal communication is going to make it farther - the CSR's can't ignore the phone calls (for example), and eventually, it's going to filter up to management.
Just be polite and intelligent.