44 replies to this topic

[Russ Bullock]

Read this thread for the answer.

http://mwomercs.com/...ue/page__st__20

Let's see if both PGI and the community can deliver on something like this.

[SilentWolff]

I like the idea youve laid out Russ. More community involvement along with PGI listening and helping to make the game what the players want is a huge step in the right direction.

Edit. I'd also like to take the time to say that although it doesn't always seem like PGI does listen to feedback, I've found you to be more than willing to listen and respond to people on Twitter. The clan large laser changes you made yourself is a great example of this. I personally would like to see you more active on the Forums doing the same kinda feedback you do on Twitter.

Edited by SilentWolff, 12 September 2014 - 11:18 AM.

[A DRUNK GUY]

I like it.

[SI The Joker]

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?

This sounds fantastic!

Err.... except for that part where the community has not agreed upon anything since the 90s... Did I just hear a pin drop?

In all seriousness though... If PGI is really willing to go this route - I am willing to donate my time/energy/resources (web hosting, database etc) and skillset (developer) to build a small web-based application that could assist in this... but obviously it would be hosted on my domain - outside of MWO which completely goes against my own ideas of how that kind of communication should occur here.

That said... the only other option are polls on these forums... Blech. Unless PGI is willing to let someone come in and write some code to live on their webservers to perform this functionality? Hmmm? Hmmmmmm?

[Russ Bullock]

SilentWolff, on 12 September 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

I like the idea youve laid out Russ. More community involvement along with PGI listening and helping to make the game what the players want is a huge step in the right direction.

Edit. I'd also like to take the time to say that although it doesn't always seem like PGI does listen to feedback, I've found you to be more than willing to listen and respond to people on Twitter. The clan large laser changes you made yourself is a great example of this. I personally would like to see you more active on the Forums doing the same kinda feedback you do on Twitter.

thanks for noticing

[WerewolfX]

You threw the gauntlet Russ, time for the community to try and come together for more than just rioting. Well played.

[Onmyoudo]

I'll be very interested to see if this will work out. It's an excellent proposal from Russ (although maybe 80% is too high?), that hinges on the community really pulling through to make things better for itself. It can happen, like in Amplitude's Endless series, so if it happens here it could be the dawn of a new era. And possible major brownie points for PGI also if such a democratic solution can be found.

[WerewolfX]

Thing is, only time I saw the community come together was changing the icons or they were in full blown riot mode about 3pv.

[FLAKPANZER]

My only concern is the bar set at 80% for a change vote.

[Tezcatli]

FLAKPANZER, on 12 September 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

My only concern is the bar set at 80% for a change vote.

Well it wouldn't mean much if 1/3 of the forum is raging against the decision.

[Solis Obscuri]

It's worth a shot. And it should be a hell of a litmus test - the ECM controversy has people (myself included) who feel pretty strongly on both sides, and it ties into the LRM role/balance issue , which is equally contentious.

[Dark Jackal]

Russ,

I'm all for folks wanting to come together on their own free initiatives and call themselves whatever they want. What I don't want is for people to end up feeling excluded, or worse, being forced into something they did not sign up for their free time here.

After all, part of the reason why folks play your games is that they want to be a part of the fun. People still want to interact with PGI even if you cannot get a community manager to cater to all posts all the time. That's a given on any forum and I'm sure not unknown to the vast majority of posters on this forum.

That being said, I do feel happy that PGI does solicit feedback directly from the active community here. What may not be clear to folks here is that the silent majority that don't interact on these forums day in and day out also have a say and probably the strongest unrecognized voice. This shows in metrics which PGI has sole information on and a better position to give an objective response. PGI knows what people do day in and day out with the live game, what's being used and most importantly what's not being used.

All I ask is that PGI continue to do what it does currently with the community and our efforts here are not drowned out with other activities by members of the community with their own initiatives.

[Rebas Kradd]

Russ, I appreciate the gesture, but I don't want to see ECM's implementation as the focal point here. Just fix UI2.0 if you want to show that you listen. It's shattering your player retention.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 12 September 2014 - 05:05 PM.

[DocBach]

FLAKPANZER, on 12 September 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

My only concern is the bar set at 80% for a change vote.

The 80% majority would be pretty hard to get from the general population. When ECM first hit the game there was a poll with over 1000 voters that had a majority of players say ECM made the game worse, and it didn't come anywhere near an 80% majority.



Still, the opportunity given by Russ to try to give the community a voice in the direction of the information warfare pillar of the game is an exciting prospect and I hope something good can come out of it that benefits the players and game as a whole.

Besides ECM (which has been changed, however not in a way that provides any in depth information warfare pillar experience and just added a laundry list of things to turn ECM off) pgi has listened to the player base on several issues that the community was up in arms against... Even if they didn't take certain features out (like 3pv), they tried to mitigate the features effects in game or changed them completely like in the case of mc modules being superior to c-bill ones.

Edited by DocBach, 12 September 2014 - 05:25 PM.

[Wolfways]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

Read this thread for the answer.

http://mwomercs.com/...ue/page__st__20

Let's see if both PGI and the community can deliver on something like this.

I'd like to know why this needed to happen in the first place. Why wasn't ECM made like the BT TT GECM?
I get the feeling you don't want to face the backlash of players who now only see GECM as an LRM umbrella because of the way you made it in MWO and don't want to lose that protection.

[King of the Woad]

Wolfways, on 12 September 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

I'd like to know why this needed to happen in the first place. Why wasn't ECM made like the BT TT GECM?
I get the feeling you don't want to face the backlash of players who now only see GECM as an LRM umbrella because of the way you made it in MWO and don't want to lose that protection.

I like ECM. I like limitations. The heat limitation took TT from being "just another tt game" to something worthwhile and enjoyable. If ECM is removed, there will be no point to playing anything but LRM and may the most tubes win.

[Jason1138]

if they listened to feedback, we would never have gotten 3pv or ghost heat or UI 2.0 or cockpit glass, or any of that. And we sure wouldn't have MWO devs working on a different game while we're starving for content here

[Jolly Llama]

Jason1138, on 12 September 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

if they listened to feedback, we would never have gotten 3pv or ghost heat or UI 2.0 or cockpit glass, or any of that. And we sure wouldn't have MWO devs working on a different game while we're starving for content here

I completely agree. And they rarely listen to players with any skill when it comes to proposed weapon nerfs.

PGI listens when it suits their interests to listen. Otherwise, we are pretty much on our own. And forget putting faith in the promise of a deadline date. We all know how those turn out.

The whole idea of a player elected council is smoke and mirrors. Just some whine candy so they can say we wanted the changes they are already planning to make.

Edited by geodeath, 12 September 2014 - 06:56 PM.

[FDJustin]

Is this just for the forum community or something? If you're seriously committed to this, and not just trying to prove a point; give us some tools to access the community at large.

At the very least, an in-game announcement on the side-panel feed. Preferably a quick vote tool.

Depending on how many directions people try to drag this, 50% might very well be the majority. If it's something like, 10% want it as is, 22.1% want option a, 4% want option b, 10.9% want option c, 3% want option d, and 50% want option f. You'll never get an 80% consensus rate on something with that many options, but you can get a clear winner.

[1453 R]

Russ,

First of all, thank you. This is a fantastic opportunity you've decided to give to us, and whether we can manage to make the most of it or not, you have my appreciation for the chance. I know how much flak you guys get, I know how much you've worked to improve since the bad old days back in '13, and I'm still grateful to you guys for giving me the chance to play with my old childhood toys again.

I would also like to point out that there are several people already responding to your challenge, with several threads working to organize a proper response to this proposal of yours. Whether we can come through in the end or not, I hope you can see that there's a good-sized chunk of your community who is willing, eager, even desperate to work with you and the rest of Piranha in order to try and make this the best MechWarrior game it can be. Nobody wants this game to come apart, and we're all willing to do whatever we can to help. Perhaps this will turn out to be too much, too fast, but even if that lamentable situation ends up the case, please don't give up on us. We want to help, more than anything.

Thanks again, and have a fine weekend, Piranha Games.