632 replies to this topic

[Fut]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

<Snip>

What do you say?

I say that this post just made me a little hard.

Exciting stuff happening around MWO these days. Very exciting.

[Ultimax]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Okay how about this, this is what many of you have been waiting for:

Well first a question: Do you think you the community can come to an agreed upon consensus? One in which if the changes are implemented everyone says great job PGI on listening to us now we feel great about ECM and your ability teo listen to feedback?

If the answer is Yes then I suggest the following:

You the community decide how your going to present a proposal, nominate a peer that you feel has the best handle on this, put together your own player council whatever you like but present a proposal that your peers vote on. The vote would likely need to be far greater than just 51% in favor. Perhaps something more like 80+%

At that point PGI will analyze the proposal, if we see any technical problems or balance problems that we feel perhaps you didnt see, we will point those items out to you. Then if necessary you can adjust your proposal and put it to a vote again, if successful PGI will again analyze and repeat if necessary until we have a final design solution for implementation.

PGI will then communicate how long it will take to implement with full explanation as to why, and we will patch the changes in upon the agreed upon delivery date. Once complete if this whole process has gone smoothly and civily we will proceed with doing things like this far more frequently or at least for other areas of the product that are controversial.

What do you say?

I say that's an excellent idea and opportunity.

There is probably already a few decent proposals floating around now.

[Khobai]

As far as ECM goes I would like to see the following changes:

1) ECM no longer gives stealth to friendly mechs and only stealths the mech its equipped on (ECM would still increase missile lock-on time for nearby friendly mechs though).
2) LRM balance pass: mostly with regard to indirect LRMs being too accurate and LRM screenshake being too high.
3) Passive sensor mode added to the game so mechs without ecm still have a way to gain stealth (but with the disadvantage of not being able to target enemy mechs or share sensor information with allies).
4) Possible addition of other stealth equipment like NSS and stealth armor.
5) Balance pass on all the counters to ECM (if ECM is significantly weakened it no longer needs 6 different counters)

Quote

NO, we don't have C3.

C3 in the board game is a complete sharing of sensors, and lets a unit connected by C3 get the same targeting bonuses for range based on the proximity of a spotter, allowing 'Mechs in a network at long ranges to shoot as if they were in short range.

Probably the best idea to implement C3 in MWO would be to take a page from the Clan Targeting Computers and have bonuses scaled to how close C3 'Mechs are to an enemy; the closer the spotter, the faster projectile speed to make fire against it from long range more accurate.

Yeah weve discussed this before in another thread. If I recall what I suggested was along these lines:

1) All IS mechs would get C3 slave computers for free.
2) IS mechs could optionally equip a C3 master computer (5 tons and 5 crits)
-C3 master computers would give all IS mechs in the same lance the equivalent of a level 2 clan targeting computer.
-C3 master computers would also come with an integrated TAG
-C3 networks could be jammed by ECM (likewise if the master computer is destroyed the bonuses are lost)
-Command Console would also buff nearby IS mechs.

Essentially clan mechs would be more powerful individually while IS mechs would be more powerful collectively and have to rely more on teamwork.

Edited by Khobai, 12 September 2014 - 11:15 AM.

[Livewyr]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Okay how about this, this is what many of you have been waiting for:

Well first a question: Do you think you the community can come to an agreed upon consensus? One in which if the changes are implemented everyone says great job PGI on listening to us now we feel great about ECM and your ability to listen to feedback?

If the answer is Yes then I suggest the following:

You the community decide how your going to present a proposal, nominate a peer that you feel has the best handle on this, put together your own player council whatever you like but present a proposal that your peers vote on. The vote would likely need to be far greater than just 51% in favor. Perhaps something more like 80+%

At that point PGI will analyze the proposal, if we see any technical problems or balance problems that we feel perhaps you didnt see, we will point those items out to you. Then if necessary you can adjust your proposal and put it to a vote again, if successful PGI will again analyze and repeat if necessary until we have a final design solution for implementation.

PGI will then communicate how long it will take to implement with full explanation as to why, and we will patch the changes in upon the agreed upon delivery date. Once complete if this whole process has gone smoothly and civily we will proceed with doing things like this far more frequently or at least for other areas of the product that are controversial.

What do you say?

Holy mother of <something>! I say SPLENDID!!!!!!!!!

I will rework some proposals I have made and invite a few people I know personally to the thread. (I may not end up being "the peer" but I will go headlong into this regardless.)

[EvilCow]

Of course it is a good approach, the problem will be creating such a council, may I recommend selecting people from registered units considering:
1) Number of (active, old, paying) members
2) Geographic distribution

Once formed such a council could be reused for similar hot topics.

Good move anyway.

[fil5000]

Well this is a very positive move.

[Livewyr]

You have NO idea how much this is a boon to my faith and trust in the new/improved PGI presence. (And fortunately, it just so happens, starting this month, my finances are taking an upturn so I will probably be able to support the game even more!)

[AssaultPig]

The community has no mechanism to reach consensus. I mean I appreciate that you want player feedback, but that just seems like a pipe dream to me.

I think ECM could continue to work more or less as it currently does; it's flagrantly overpowered as it is, but that could be fixed with a couple of minor tweaks:

1) Remove its lock-on time penalty. If I can target a mech with ECM I should be able to lock it.

2) Prevent it from stacking. If I carry equipment designed to let me target through ECM (BAP, Tag, counter ECM, etc.) I should be able to do so.

[Jonathan Paine]

Holy...... Yes, yes I'd love to have ECM reworked and to have an actually meaningful use for the Command Console!
My basic position would be breaking ECM functionality up into two different pieces of equipment and to require stealth armor (with the heat penalties) to get the complete functionality we have today. However, for a mech with the complete setup up, I would expect it to work better than just ECM right now.

[Fut]

Livewyr, on 12 September 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

You have NO idea how much this is a boon to my faith and trust in the new/improved PGI presence. (And fortunately, it just so happens, starting this month, my finances are taking an upturn so I will probably be able to support the game even more!)

You said it man. Can't help but continue to send messages to my friends (non-forum goers... for some reason) every time I see something positive from the Devs. They've received quite a few of these messages these days.

Also, congrats on the financial good fortune.

[Bilbo]

Khobai, on 12 September 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Yeah weve discussed this before in another thread. If I recall what I suggested was along these lines:

1) All IS mechs would get C3 slave computers for free.
2) IS mechs could optionally equip a C3 master computer (5 tons and 5 crits)
-C3 master computers would give all IS mechs in the same lance the equivalent of a level 2 clan targeting computer.
-C3 master computers would also come with an integrated TAG
-C3 networks could be jammed by ECM
-Command Console would also buff nearby IS mechs.

Essentially clan mechs would be individually powerful while IS mechs would be collectively powerful and have to rely more on teamwork.

This could work in a 12-man premade. In the pug queue it would be crippling for IS lances and by extension the team. I don't see players whose mechs could afford the tonnage taking the master unless it were required by their group.

[Snowseth]

What is the group being measured for 80+%?

80% of people who vote in a poll? (Gotta say, nope)
80% of people active on the forums? (maybe?)
80% of active players? (would need active player counts from PGI)

Overall, this is a fantastic idea that directly engages the community in the process.

But what is the forum and what is the minimum number of people to get things rolling?

What should be the minimum number to ensure a majority of players aren't ignored, even if they are non-voting?

[Chavette]

As to what will be the consensus, I suggest a vote system similar to the tournament, with us having to vote on ideas doing 1 on 1s each bracket, then with a quater, semi, and final cast.

[fil5000]

Snowseth, on 12 September 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

What is the group being measured for 80+%?

80% of people who vote in a poll? (Gotta say, nope)
80% of people active on the forums? (maybe?)
80% of active players? (would need active player counts from PGI)

Overall, this is a fantastic idea that directly engages the community in the process.

But what is the forum and what is the minimum number of people to get things rolling?

What should be the minimum number to ensure a majority of players aren't ignored, even if they are non-voting?

I think Russ wants the community to figure that out...

[Khobai]

Quote

This could work in a 12-man premade. In the pug queue it would be crippling for IS lances and by extension the team. I don't see players whose mechs could afford the tonnage taking the master unless it were required by their group.

Not necessarily since the commander can rearrange lances based on who has master computers and who doesnt. And we already know CW is going to segregate IS and clan mechs so they dont drop together on the same team. I think it would work fine in PUGs.

Edited by Khobai, 12 September 2014 - 11:17 AM.

[kesmai]

Touché Russ!
I draw my hat. The message between the lines is clear.

My guess is this won´t happen, not because of pgi, but because of the playerbase.
No need to wonder why.

and NO the barrier is not too high. the base of "80%" should be reasonable determined.
Like : Player base on weekend xy.
...

Trial for a poll system?
like a base of 1000, 2000, 5000 yays or nays maybe??

Edited by kesmai, 12 September 2014 - 11:17 AM.

[ThisMachineKillsFascists]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Okay how about this, this is what many of you have been waiting for:



You the community decide how your going to present a proposal, nominate a peer that you feel has the best handle on this, put together your own player council whatever you like but present a proposal that your peers vote on. The vote would likely need to be far greater than just 51% in favor. Perhaps something more like 80+%





What do you say?

Most of our councils are in the exile.

First you have to unbann those known passionated ppl who are well known by community in order we can elect them.

Those ppl are known as sandpit, vassago Rain, Raodbeer, victor morson , Chronojam, Mister Blastman and many other i forgot to meantion

Edited by ThisMachineKillsFascists, 12 September 2014 - 03:31 PM.

[Bilbo]

Khobai, on 12 September 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

Not necessarily since the commander can rearrange lances based on who has master computers and who doesnt. And we already know CW is going to segregate IS and clan mechs so they dont drop together on the same team. I think it would work fine in PUGs.

My point is, space is precious on most IS mechs. 5 tons and 5 crits is asking a lot. I'd be curious to know how many people have re-equipped the command console at just 3 tons and 1 crit.

[Livewyr]

ThisMachineKillsFascists, on 12 September 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Most of our councils are in the exile.

First you have to unbann those known passionated ppl who are well known from community in order we can elect them.

Those ppl are known as sandpit vassago Rain Raodbeer victor manson and many i forgot to meantion

They are looking for constructive people.

[Bolow]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Okay how about this, this is what many of you have been waiting for:

Well first a question: Do you think you the community can come to an agreed upon consensus? One in which if the changes are implemented everyone says great job PGI on listening to us now we feel great about ECM and your ability to listen to feedback?

If the answer is Yes then I suggest the following:

You the community decide how your going to present a proposal, nominate a peer that you feel has the best handle on this, put together your own player council whatever you like but present a proposal that your peers vote on. The vote would likely need to be far greater than just 51% in favor. Perhaps something more like 80+%

So does this mean if 80% of the community thinks Niko is a toxic idiot you'll get rid of him?