244 replies to this topic

[blinkin]

Purplefluffybunny, on 28 April 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Thanks for responding blinkin.



Well, to my mind forums are a lot more than just a medium through which developers can get feed back. It has been shown countless times that what really increase the life span of an online game is the community about it. I see a general forums as a place to do that. Further, general forums are a place where we can articulate more thought out posts that do not really fit the provided categories.

For example, say I wanted to discuss something such as "Is MWO more an arcade game than a Sim?", well so many elements of the game would be touched upon that it is near impossible to pigeon hole said thread when it is general in its scope. Another example would be if I wanted to discuss say, whether x hero mech or x consumable or x game system (that is when they are released), pushes us more towards 'pay for an advantage'.

What if I wanted to reference each of those elements into that one discussion? Yes, I could post multiple threads in each sub-forum for each feature discussed, but then the 'points or reasons' of the argument/thought made, would be so fragmented. I would also run the risk of being accused of cross posting!

Yeah, you could say a lot of these examples have been discussed before but that is the thing, the game is still being developed and new developments mean these discussions change and become relevant again. I think a lot those who cry 'its been discussed before noob' are being a little disingenuous.

It is funny you should mention Roadbeer. I like his posts a lot and he does a good job of cutting through the BS.

your second example can either fit into gameplay balance or even into metagame. your first example is a bit more valid, but there is still an off topic area for everything else (not the subcategories but the main off topic area itself).

if you just want to socialize there are several places in the forums for that. nothing constructive ever happens in the "deep periphery" and the rules down there are fairly loose, or anything beyond the jettisoned communications border.

and for the most part i don't knock down new discussion as long as it seems even slightly constructive. my concern is this absurd notion that we can cram everything into one pile and be able to reliably find anything. this new system is far more conducive to providing feedback to the developers, and one of the primary complaints i see is "no one evar listens evar!!" <-this change is a major step towards fixing that.

edit: i am perfectly fine with having a reasonable discussion, as long as the people i am talking to stick to rational arguments. my methods up to this point are a direct response to the mindless rage and whining. scroll back through some of these threads and objectively look at "your side" even before i responded, you will likely see why i lost all of my patience and respect for this topic.

Edited by blinkin, 28 April 2013 - 06:30 PM.

[Purplefluffybunny]

Cheers for your response Blinkin.

I think I can answer some of the points you raise. With regards to the second example, meta has these lines to define what should be discussed there "Discuss the present meta-game: GXP, MC. CBills, and consumables of MechWarrior® Online". On the other hand Game play balance has this "Discuss the state of Game Balance in MechWarrior® Online™", and when you look at that sub- forum and look at the history of removed threads, well, there is definitely a certain understanding of what constitutes a 'balance' discussion there and it would not perhaps include example two.

Further the mere fact that you suggest that there are two possible sub-forums does, IMO, reinforce my point. You acknowledge that because multiple aspects would be discussed in the second example, it fits in multiple threads. However, on the other hand, clearly the second example could never be said to completely be 'on-topic' for said sub-forums. Do you follow my point here?

For a lot of people, given the CoC, it sets an atmosphere of distrust because it becomes a lot easier to remove threads under the reason of 'Off-topic / not relevant'. This aside we are still left with this idea of fragmented arguments and thread repetition.

The deep periphery serves a great purpose and I see a lot of constructive things happening here. I see people chatting, making each other laugh and even (to be overly up my own arse), in the words of Émile Durkheim, it is 'a place where enough collective effervescence can form to emerge unique tokens and symbolic sets and gestures that signify the bonding of the group and reinforce it, through repeated display'.

OK, that is not a verbatim quote but perhaps you can still appreciate the point! Just look at where some of the images in people's signatures come from. Often in online communities a sign of a healthy one is one where people make signatures for each other, or post 'memes' to make each other laugh or other graphical pieces for identity displays.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 29 April 2013 - 05:55 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

The thing I don't really understand, is if the forums aren't representative of the overall MW:O community. Why not put General Discussion back in and ignore it?

Put it in, let us make our posts and just don't go there. Obviously you can moderate things that break the CoC via reports. But otherwise it's just a place for us to post. The devs can just peruse their sub forums for information.

Why does PGI care about that? If the answer is that you don't like the negativity...well that answers the question of why these changes actually happened.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Purplefluffybunny, on 28 April 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

Cheers for your response Blinkin.

I think I can answer some of the points you raise. With regards to the second example, meta has these lines to define what should be discussed there "Discuss the present meta-game: GXP, MC. CBills, and consumables of MechWarrior® Online". On the other hand Game play balance has this "Discuss the state of Game Balance in MechWarrior® Online™", and when you look at that sub- forum and look at the history of removed threads, well, there is definitely a certain understanding of what constitutes a 'balance' discussion there and it would not perhaps include example two.

Further the mere fact that you suggest that there are two possible sub-forums does, IMO, reinforce my point. You acknowledge that because multiple aspects would be discussed in the second example, it fits in multiple threads. However, on the other hand, clearly the second example could never be said to completely be 'on-topic' for said sub-forums. Do you follow my point here?

For a lot of people, given the CoC, it sets an atmosphere of distrust because it becomes a lot easier to remove threads under the reason of 'Off-topic / not relevant'. This aside we are still left with this idea of fragmented arguments and thread repetition.

The deep periphery serves a great purpose and I see a lot of constructive things happening here. I see people chatting, making each other laugh and even (to be overly up my own arse), in the words of Émile Durkheim, it is 'a place where enough collective effervescence can form to emerge unique tokens and symbolic sets and gestures that signify the bonding of the group and reinforce it, through repeated display'.

OK, that is not a verbatim quote but perhaps you can still appreciate the point! Just look at where some of the images in people's signatures come from. Often in online communities a sign of a healthy one is one where people make signatures for each other, or post 'memes' to make each other laugh or other graphical pieces for identity displays.

Its almost a place for general discussion

[Purplefluffybunny]

Well, I don't think we are going to get any type of general forum now. I just hope that what I wrote about online communities and hinted at in terms of how to foster healthy ones, is read by a 'decision' maker. I could go on with that point but I would break the rules as it necessitates a discussion of a change in procedures with regards to sanctions and warnings, as well as other things.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Purplefluffybunny, on 29 April 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Well, I don't think we are going to get any type of general forum now. I just hope that what I wrote about online communities and hinted at in terms of how to foster healthy ones, is read by a 'decision' maker. I could go on with that point but I would break the rules as it necessitates a discussion of a change in procedures with regards to sanctions and warnings, as well as other things.

Lord knows we talk about that!

[Hellcat420]

give us the old forums back. if i wanted to have to dredge through 50 useless freaking subforums to find what i am looking for id go to a forum that was created and moderated by a crackhead.

[blinkin]

Hellcat420, on 29 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

give us the old forums back. if i wanted to have to dredge through 50 useless freaking subforums to find what i am looking for id go to a forum that was created and moderated by a crackhead.

yes one super huge useless forum that is unreadable is far better!

[Purplefluffybunny]

Hi blinkin!

Have you had a chance to read through what I wrote (post #132)? What do you think?

[blinkin]

Purplefluffybunny, on 29 April 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Hi blinkin!

Have you had a chance to read through what I wrote (post #132)? What do you think?

as long as i am properly understanding you i think i mostly agree. the little bit i don't quite agree with, i can at least understand why you came to those conclusions.

[Purplefluffybunny]

blinkin, on 29 April 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

as long as i am properly understanding you i think i mostly agree. the little bit i don't quite agree with, i can at least understand why you came to those conclusions.

I am happy to clarify anything. Yes, I should post in a less esoteric manner. Thanks for taking the time to read.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 29 April 2013 - 02:39 PM.

[Hellcat420]

blinkin, on 29 April 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

yes one super huge useless forum that is unreadable is far better!

how was general discussion unreadable? oh thats right it was perfectly readable, that is why most people who came to these forums read and used general discussion the most. go troll elsewhere.

[blinkin]

Hellcat420, on 29 April 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

how was general discussion unreadable? oh thats right it was perfectly readable, that is why most people who came to these forums read and used general discussion the most. go troll elsewhere.

yes we should fit all of the front pages from the 88 forums onto one single front page. as i stated once before: math says no.

i am perfectly fine with a rapid feed that keeps up with any of the most recently active topics, but throwing it all onto one crap pile is a bad idea.

[Purplefluffybunny]

blinkin, on 29 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

yes we should fit all of the front pages from the 88 forums onto one single front page. as i stated once before: math says no.

i am perfectly fine with a rapid feed that keeps up with any of the most recently active topics, but throwing it all onto one crap pile is a bad idea.

I am not sure anyone is actually suggesting that blinkin. I for one am not! Besides, before the change we did have sub-forums and not everything was lumped together into the general forum section.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 29 April 2013 - 02:53 PM.

[blinkin]

Purplefluffybunny, on 29 April 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

I am not sure anyone is actually suggesting that blinkin. I for one am not! Besides, before the change we did have sub-forums and not everything was lumped together into the general forum section.

maybe you aren't but i have seen several posts that in no uncertain terms state that we should "get rid of all of these subforums and bring back general discussion" <-i don't know of very many ways to interperate this.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

blinkin, on 29 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

yes we should fit all of the front pages from the 88 forums onto one single front page. as i stated once before: math says no.

i am perfectly fine with a rapid feed that keeps up with any of the most recently active topics, but throwing it all onto one crap pile is a bad idea.

Guess I'm better at sorting through threads? I don't know man, I am at work dodging my boss occasionally walking by, and still had no problems digesting general discussion during the day.

I still find it funny that someone (Roadbeer maybe?) said he had to scroll down 5 pages to find something useful.

Seems that we have a difference of opinion, he seems to think there was nothing good in GD, and you seem to think there was too much? You guys confuse me.

blinkin, on 29 April 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

maybe you aren't but i have seen several posts that in no uncertain terms state that we should "get rid of all of these subforums and bring back general discussion" <-i don't know of very many ways to interperate this.

I don't care if the subforums exist, just bring back GD. If the mods want to move something to a subforum that's their job and so be it.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 29 April 2013 - 02:59 PM.

[blinkin]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 29 April 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

Guess I'm better at sorting through threads? I don't know man, I am at work dodging my boss occasionally walking by, and still had no problems digesting general discussion during the day.

I still find it funny that someone (Roadbeer maybe?) said he had to scroll down 5 pages to find something useful.

Seems that we have a difference of opinion, he seems to think there was nothing good in GD, and you seem to think there was too much? You guys confuse me.




I don't care if the subforums exist, just bring back GD. If the mods want to move something to a subforum that's their job and so be it.

so you interperate "one crap pile" as me thinking there are too many good ideas? i have lingered on the suggestions forum for a long time. even as specialized as it is there are very few posts that are worth reading.

they are moderating, you just don't like it. they decided that as a whole the general discussions forum needed to be canned and that is what they did. now they have reworked the system to streamline game feedback so that the occasional useful posts will be more easy to find (only one layer of crap to sift through at a time instead of 88). they are using tools to aid them in their tasks. <-it is this crazy concept where you use specialized objects to reduce the work load or effort needed to complete a task. they needed to moderate the forums so they used the edit button to redesign those forums thus reducing and redistributing work load and making them easier to moderate.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

blinkin, on 29 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

yes we should fit all of the front pages from the 88 forums onto one single front page. as i stated once before: math says no.

i am perfectly fine with a rapid feed that keeps up with any of the most recently active topics, but throwing it all onto one crap pile is a bad idea.

Your post here kind of contradicts itself. So you are saying everything is terrible from the 88 forums? And having it all in one place is crap? See my impression was that we had 88 subforums worth of information and you just didn't like it all being in one forum?

If it's all crap why even have forums then? Make up your mind.

They did a terrible job moderating GD, and they aren't doing much better now. We've got like 5 general discussion forums now. It's a giant mess.

[Roadbeer]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 29 April 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

Seems that we have a difference of opinion, he seems to think there was nothing good in GD, and you seem to think there was too much? You guys confuse me.

Just as confusing are people who are saying that the MODs should have done a better job of moderating and lock/move threads in GD are the same ones who would cry "censorship", "Fascist" and "hiding the truth" when they were moderated.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roadbeer, on 29 April 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Just as confusing are people who are saying that the MODs should have done a better job of moderating and lock/move threads in GD are the same ones who would cry "censorship", "Fascist" and "hiding the truth" when they were moderated.

Welp I'm not saying that.

I DO think any posts moved should have a re-direct link from the forum it was moved from though. I also think that under no circumstances should posts be deleted unless they are spam or an utter and complete attacking style of post.

I also think that the mods should be very careful moving large threads that seem to have a lot of player interest and perhaps in the interest of open communication leave them alone even if they don't quite fit the forum they are in.