Electing A Player "council" Of Sorts
#101
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:31 PM
#102
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:31 PM
#103
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:31 PM
Tolkien, on 12 September 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:
You only think this is a bad idea because you think the forums are too hard on PGI. Wake up, the entire internet understands PGI has failed with MWO so far and that is why their space game has made less than 3% of the targeted goal in the last 24 hours.
PGI needs to start listening to people who will tell them like it is (e.g. Anders, Standing Cow, Vassago Rain) not the hugbox from NGNG. Otherwise we will get more of this:
The forums aren't representative of the player base. Never have been, never will be. The forums only represent the people who have nothing better to do than post on forums.
95% of the player base never even comes here. 95% of the council should match that demographic.
#104
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:32 PM
Heffay, on 12 September 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:
I'm pretty sure at least 3 of the 5 listed there have advocated for PGI to go hang themselves. I don't think we should have a council where the majority of the members are only going to vote "Sell the IP" over and over and over again.
Sooner vote for them than you.
#105
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:32 PM
Gas Guzzler, on 12 September 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:
The council also needs to be able to override the developers past or future decisions. Seriously, otherwise we will end up with another 3pv where 90+% of the voting forum population was against it and it still got rammed through.
#106
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:33 PM
MischiefSC, on 12 September 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:
Every democracy and representative republic in the world is based off of counting votes from the people who care to vote.
If someone doesn't get engaged enough to come to forums and read these threads then... well, too bad so sad.
Random selection is also a bad idea for the same reason no active society does it for governance - you're too likely to get uninterested people or people lacking the basic skills to get an idea forward.
These people are not being elected to have executive authority over the lives of every player in MW:O. This is just the folks we selecting to try and refine down the static and volume of general opinions into something that can reasonably be discussed. The actual ECM changes should get their own popular vote - the point of the council is just to refine down those suggestions into something we can legitimately vote on and speak with a single unified voice on behalf of the community to PGI.
Well then, maybe we should have 2 councils? The House and the Senate. One is elected, one is voted in. Balance of power. And an executive branch to sign or veto the ideas they send forward.
#107
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:34 PM
Heffay, on 12 September 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:
The forums aren't representative of the player base. Never have been, never will be. The forums only represent the people who have nothing better to do than post on forums.
95% of the player base never even comes here. 95% of the council should match that demographic.
If they won't stand up to be counted here, they don't get to complain about the outcome. Just like voting in real life, half the country doesn't bother to show up, they don't get to complain.
Also you are the last person on earth whose opinion I would trust on what is on the minds of 95% of the player base, where to find them.
#108
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:35 PM
#109
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:36 PM
Gas Guzzler, on 12 September 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:
Not a bad idea at all. And if they still can't be bothered to come to the forums, we need not worry about them.
#110
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:36 PM
#111
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:40 PM
So we would have one thread to nominate reps from the competitive groups, casual groups, solo players, battletech lore, and general gaming or whatever. Other wise it just to much noise in one thread.
#112
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:40 PM
I agree with others about needing some way to reach out to non-forum goers in the game client somehow to give them a chance to comment.
#113
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:40 PM
Heffay, on 12 September 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:
The forums aren't representative of the player base. Never have been, never will be. The forums only represent the people who have nothing better to do than post on forums.
95% of the player base never even comes here. 95% of the council should match that demographic.
Ah, there's those statistics again. Remember, the 1% gives NO correlation between forum participation and game participation. It's just a ratio of participation on the forums.
Nice try though.
#114
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:41 PM
As long as ecm is boosted and i can create council at will too im all for it.
#115
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:42 PM
Son of the Flood, on 12 September 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:
I agree with others about needing some way to reach out to non-forum goers in the game client somehow to give them a chance to comment.
The council also needs to have enough members to represent a diverse cross section (5-7 players at least), a private area of the forums to deliberate undisturbed, and the ability to override developer decisions on features past present or future. Seriously otherwise the council will just be ignored like the secret squirrels were, or the vast majority of the player base was when PGI thought they could get away with it:
#116
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:44 PM
3rdworld, on 12 September 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:
That is who should be balancing the game. Random scrubs.
And people wonder why this forum is a complete waste of time.
Most of the coaches of successful college and NFL teams weren't particularly good players themselves. Same for baseball and basketball.
Some of those guys who get splattered by competitive teams understand more about the game and overall balance than competitive players do. Just because they don't have lightning reflexes and the ability to sit in one position until someone tells them to move and fire at target X doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to analyze and draw correct conclusions about game mechanics, weapon characteristics, tactics, map balance, etc.
Nothing funnier than playing 12 mans and coming across a team talking a bunch of trash, when in reality they're being carried by 2-4 exceptional players. I believe the logical fallacy is false attribution, or something along those lines.
#117
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:45 PM
DAYLEET, on 12 September 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:
In case you missed it, Russ basically said "You want ECM changed? Tell me how to do it and I'll do it".
Edit: That link should probably be in the OP, come to think of it
Edited by stjobe, 12 September 2014 - 01:45 PM.
#118
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:48 PM
stjobe, on 12 September 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:
Edit: That link should probably be in the OP, come to think of it
Ok so he was serious! lol. Can't wait to see ecm get useless... seems like a terrible move, if he follows it the mass will be even worse about buffing themselves and nerfing the guy in front of them.
Edited by DAYLEET, 12 September 2014 - 01:54 PM.
#119
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:51 PM
#120
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:53 PM
Quote
Yeah no. The council should have no real power. Because individuals always have biased agendas. I dont even like calling it a "council" as that implies a governing body. I think just "volunteers" is fine.
All decision-making needs to be made by the community itself through polling. All the "council" should do is make sure the best ideas get added to the poll and the worst ideas dont get put on it.
Quote
The benefit is that the better ideas on the forums are more likely to get brought to PGI's attention. Right now theres a lot of good ideas that seep through the cracks. But more than that it can help PGI prioritize what features the community wants more than others.
Edited by Khobai, 12 September 2014 - 02:03 PM.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users