632 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

DocBach, on 12 September 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

Russ, this is the post a lot of us have been waiting for, for the last two years. Thank you for making it. Looking forward to some positive changes towards ECM and Information Warfare as a whole.

Doc, you around around? You want to be an active part of this? You represent a slice of the community that's been arguing this topic so long most of you faded away. Are you.... around?

[Night Fury76]

Well first give it a day or two for this news to get out to the banned guys.
Second PGI needs to unban them, but they in return have to post a quick i'm sorry message to rus.

why you ask?
Sometimes we all just take it too far, and they got banned, say sorry, move on.
These guys have been around for all of the game, they have a lot of experience that we could use to make things better for all.
Making this game better for all of us is what both dev and player should want.

Player gets a great game.
Dev gets showered in money from a happy player base.

It is just that simple.

Cheers

[MadTulip]

I believe that involvement of the community in the early design process of brainstorming and gathering ideas for new concepts (townhall paul talking about what to do next once 4 pillars are done) as well as revisions (ECM/electronic-warfare) is a very good idea because they are the most experienced with actualy plaing the game and they are the target market as well.

[GaussDragon]

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?

You have no idea how much you have just re-energized my faith in you guys. I wish I didn't have plans tonight because I don't want to waste any time putting this into action.

Seriously, thank you.

[Tank]

ECMs and other countermeasures should stay effective against LRMs, there should be no easy mode weapon or combination in a competitive game. LRMs don't need buffs at the moment.

Regarding "community council", I think it will be a big mess of endless debates electing one and even bigger mess of agreeing on decisions witch to present to PGI. If PGI wants some some of democracy with us players, I may suggest making voting poles on making decisions, best if they will show up in the client GUI.

[jozkhan]

If PGI are really serious about this I say start with Ghost Heat and not ECM

and this cant under any circumstances delay CW delivery date any further.

Edited by jozkhan, 12 September 2014 - 12:41 PM.

[IceGryphon]

zortesh, on 12 September 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

6: ppcs can turn off a ecm for about 3 seconds or so.. this needs upping to say 10 seconds.

Ahh forgot about PPC's
a buff in Downtime would be nice.
4. Yes, I've seen Narc just actually fly through an Enemy at point blank, Thanks Jenga hitboxes/netcode.

[MischiefSC]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

Okay now hold it - For the record I dont view "Islanders" as those that disagree with me or PGI. I have claimed that term now for good humor opportunities. I think were all every one of us on this island together so let's make it work.

On that topic a bit -

If there are some banned folks who seem like they have some valuable contributions to this topic are we able to bring them in to it? Even if they are not unbanned on this forum if that's not a direction you're willing to go. The biggest benefit of this experiment though is in making it clear that PGI is interested and involved in what the community wants (if we can herd ourselves in the same direction on a single topic even if only for a bit) and kick player involvement up a few notches. There are some intelligent (if perhaps a bit too passionate at times) voices that are persona non gratis here now but still might have some useful contribution, if only to make the opinions of MW:Os disaffected diaspora heard.

How reasonable is that?

[TopDawg]

I would suggest splitting the topics here (ECM, improved communication, and forming a council) into separate threads in order to cut down on clutter and maximize the 'efficiency' (is that a thing on an online forum?) for each topic.

With that said, I think a sole representative is a bad idea. While I don't know the numbers of the MWO community, having representatives for varied subject/content matter is a good idea, maybe even up to something like 15 people who can serve as a body and represent the varied interests at play here. Of course, that's much easier said than done.

[BlakeAteIt]

For now, lets drop the goon vs not-goon, founder vs not-founder, pug vs unit vitrol. It wont't help anything. Everywhere else on the forums are used for that.

Spamming this thread with wishlists will be similarly unhelpful. That can be done later.

Let's use the thread to figure out what we are looking in leadership on this and future issues, and to communicate with Russ if needed.

[Livewyr]

I am hoping to get Information warfare and the tied-in weapons involved. (That includes the LRMs)
Tackling in 3 parts:
Identifying problems:
Proposing/refining solutions.
Publicizing and voting on it. (Showing PGI we are very much interested in changes to it.)

[Jacmac]

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

You the community decide how you're 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+%

This sounds OK (80% might be a bit high), but who are the voters? 80% of every MWO player account in good standing? 80% of the active forum that sees a vote post? 80% of a 'council'?

The only really issue in deciding on a given change proposal (excepting the technical limitations of any given proposal) is that the silent majority may not be aware of or bother vote on these things. Would that be a problem to PGI? I don't know and don't really care about the silent majority, but if the votes had to be 80% of every MWO account in good standing then nothing will ever pass.

[stjobe]

Davegt27, on 12 September 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

I am a 30 year fighter Avionics vet ( I retired last Dec) I know about Weapons Control Radar/Fire Control Radar and ECM and RHAW systems

what exactly is the problem with the current ECM system?

It's an imaginary system from a board game set 1,000 years in the future, so it has exactly zero to do with your 30 years of real-life experience of contemporary EW systems.

It also has certain characteristics within that board game's rules, characteristics that are quite unlike the ones it has in MWO's implementation of it. For one, it is immensely more powerful in MWO than it ever was in the board game - it's basically a conglomeration of three (or more) distinct systems into one 1-crit, 1.5-ton box of ridiculousness that really, really makes a shambles of a lot of other systems, LRMs being the weapon system it affects. Role warfare being a design pillar it affects as well as Information Warfare.

In short, it would be really, really good for the game if it was redesigned, and Russ throwing down the glove saying "well, show me how it's supposed to be done then, if you think you know better" (paraphrased!) could be a great thing if we can work it out between ourselves and he stands by his tentative promise to actually implement it.

The paranoiac in me says it's all a sham, of course (and got fuelled a bit by his latest "a good exercise" comment), but I'm trying to keep that guy under control for now.

[buttmonkey]

This is a great move honestly it is. Could have a year ago but better late than never. Think this is the most important statement I have heard here in a long time:) I does remind me however of a certain poll a while back, you know the one, where there a 91% concensus but nothing was done about it. If your'e commited to this and I see change, I MAY even consider playing again and who knows they may even equate to purchases. Time will tell.

Edit: You also NEED to unban all the people that you banned. Those are some of the more passionate people about the game, I would nominate some one like roadbeer

Edited by buttmonkey, 12 September 2014 - 12:55 PM.

[Apnu]

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?

Yes a thousand times yes!

One thing, Russ, do you have an issue if we handle this outside of official MWO coms? Or, are you willing to set up some system were we can make proposals here, vote, amongst our selves on the merits of those proposals and then put a Up-Down vote to the community upon the proposal?

[Gwaihir]

BlakeAteIt, on 12 September 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

For now, lets drop the goon vs not-goon, founder vs not-founder, pug vs unit vitrol. It wont't help anything. Everywhere else on the forums are used for that.

Spamming this thread with wishlists will be similarly unhelpful. That can be done later.

Let's use the thread to figure out what we are looking in leadership on this and future issues, and to communicate with Russ if needed.

Look at this good post.

[Pacific Celt]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

Okay now hold it - For the record I dont view "Islanders" as those that disagree with me or PGI. I have claimed that term now for good humor opportunities. I think were all every one of us on this island together so let's make it work.

There are a lot of us who stay in the background here who are more than willing to help given the opportunity.

[Punkass]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

Okay now hold it - For the record I dont view "Islanders" as those that disagree with me or PGI. I have claimed that term now for good humor opportunities. I think were all every one of us on this island together so let's make it work.

No seriously Russ. There's a lot of people that are either banned or are in self-imposed exile that have a lot of thoughtful ideas to contribute. They are banned or in self-imposed exile because they were some of the first to stand up and be critical of PGI's decisions in the first place, and were subsequently ignored and/or mocked, and then banned. Yes you. They were mocked by you, we have Twitter pics of that. But I digress.

Your idea of a player council should have been implemented A LONG TIME GO. And the idea that players haven't been giving feedback is just plain false. Look at your feedback threads. You know they are there, your developers start those threads. If you had actually read them, then you would have known that 3PV would not have been well received, consumables would not have been well received, and that there were numerous and more graceful alternatives to Ghost Heat.

People made these well thought out responses in your feedback threads because they like the game, still have hopes for it's success, and are still passionate about the Mechwarrior IP. HOWEVER. You guys chose to ignore the feedback and chose to go with a lot of ill-advised ideas anyways. I can't really fathom how that happens other than willful ignorance.

So tell me again. When you guys ignore your own feedback threads that you guys put up yourselves, how am I supposed to believe that a player council is supposed to make any difference at all?

[GaussDragon]

BlakeAteIt, on 12 September 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

For now, lets drop the goon vs not-goon, founder vs not-founder, pug vs unit vitrol. It wont't help anything. Everywhere else on the forums are used for that.

Spamming this thread with wishlists will be similarly unhelpful. That can be done later.

Let's use the thread to figure out what we are looking in leadership on this and future issues, and to communicate with Russ if needed.

Trying to get that started already http://www.reddit.co...s_olive_branch/

[Ozric]

Such developments, many smacked gobs.


Anyway, on ECM, There are several ideas that have been floating around for ages that I think will work. I will add my voice here but I know somebody else will have done a better job of explaining them.

Remove GECM, add ECM - Remove the bubble of love from the ECM. That might be enough by itself. ECM stealth still works as is to the mech carrying it.

Passive sensors - Add the ability for all mechs to run with passive sensors at the toggle of a button. + to sneaking, - to targeting etc