36
This topic is locked
N0MAD, on 17 September 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:
And here we have it, PGI has already got the staff position to do what needs to be done, as a matter of fact didnt they just put on 2 or 3 new staff for community management?.
Want community involvement? put up a poll to see who and who doesnt want a council and put that on the Launch page.
Want community involvement? put up a poll to see who and who doesnt want a council and put that on the Launch page.
That makes no sense. Why would people who don't frequent the forums, have no idea who the participants are, or even know what the topic is, be expected to have an informed vote?
Should I vote on the Danish elections? No, I shouldn't I don't even know the language.
Polling the player base on changes to the mechanics is a brilliant idea to be honest, I'm all for it. However, polling the non-forum going player base on a forum issue, is very flawed.
N0MAD, on 17 September 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:
So what is NiKo and his department paid to do?
Programming? Art? Networking? no they are community managers, i seem to have the wrong idea of what this job entails, i always thought it was part of their job to interact with the community and be the mouth/ears for the devs.
Programming? Art? Networking? no they are community managers, i seem to have the wrong idea of what this job entails, i always thought it was part of their job to interact with the community and be the mouth/ears for the devs.
Yes, all three of them (counting 2 for support issues) actually deal more with support than what you're thinking of. Also, 3 people is still less than 3+1. More people means more data can be collected faster.
Rip Snorgan, on 17 September 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:
And please remember, though you may speak, you MIGHT not speak for me.
Respectfully,
-Rip
Respectfully,
-Rip
Thank you for that civil post.
I will say one thing: The Council is not speaking for the player base, so much as taking their ideas, compiling them into an accessible and legible form, and presenting them to the community and PGI. The community, and definitely PGI will have the final say. The council has no say.
If that means that they are speaking for the player base (I always take that phrase with a negative connotation, forgive me if I am mistaken)
PappySmurf, on 17 September 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:
I guess you never thought players might like the way ECM works in the game right now? And believe it is working just fine? It was the same with Jump Jets I liked the way jump jets worked before the nerf now there garbage and not worth the tonnage to install them for heavies and assaults. And I was not even a pop sniper I run 90% brawler builds.
This group or nominees are all from teams on the group queue and are going to take the data they feel is important to them and there player groups they represent and recommending those to Russ and PGI I think it is a sham and a disservice to the total player base.
So basically I vote no to any ECM changes and no to a player counsel be sure to note that in your reports unless Russ wakes up and says (What the hell was I thinking) even considering a player counsel.
This group or nominees are all from teams on the group queue and are going to take the data they feel is important to them and there player groups they represent and recommending those to Russ and PGI I think it is a sham and a disservice to the total player base.
So basically I vote no to any ECM changes and no to a player counsel be sure to note that in your reports unless Russ wakes up and says (What the hell was I thinking) even considering a player counsel.
Again, why are you making stuff up? The Council's responsibility is to get all the data (notice the "all" part), and compile it. If they miss something, or omit something, you can literally post a link to that thing, and call them out on it.
Mechwarrior Buddah, on 17 September 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:
So what the community manager should be doing
Would you be happier if the entire council became employed by PGI, and still did exactly the same thing?
This is the same thing. They are offering us an olive branch, and we're trying to help.
Wine O, on 17 September 2014 - 09:20 PM, said:
Ok, I don't care for the forums much AND I am not reading this thread from page one but I am adamantly against any form of "player council" beyond an advisory-ish (make that a capital ISH) position. If people want to play dress-up and give themselves a fancy moniker - fine. But in no way should they have any say in the end decisions of this game. Leave that to professionals, and by professionals I mean people who get paid.
If you had read the OP, that's literally all it will be. The council isn't going to be making up it's own ideas and designs, and telling PGI to do them while PGI listens blindly.
The Council is going to list the community's ideas, and try to turn them into proper mechanical suggestions. The community gets to view/review the ideas, and PGI eventually decides which ones to go with (possibly with a player vote, not a council vote, notice.).
PappySmurf, on 17 September 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:
I personally feel ECM is not a problem with the game I enjoy how it works and see no need to nerf it or modify it in any way.
I also feel the Jump Jet Nerf was total wrong I enjoyed the way MWO jump jets worked like MechWarrior4 jump jets worked now there just plain garbage and useless unless you run a light mech.
So many aspects of MWO have been ruined to a point the game has become passé by minority groups mostly playing in the group mm queues advising PGI on issues that if in-gamed polled or voted on would never have been done.
I also feel the Jump Jet Nerf was total wrong I enjoyed the way MWO jump jets worked like MechWarrior4 jump jets worked now there just plain garbage and useless unless you run a light mech.
So many aspects of MWO have been ruined to a point the game has become passé by minority groups mostly playing in the group mm queues advising PGI on issues that if in-gamed polled or voted on would never have been done.
You're asking others to understand/feel the same way you do about a topic, yet you are not willing to consider how other people feel/think about the topic? Isn't that a bit on the hypocritical side?
PGI recognized they have made some mistakes, and want to try ways of fixing that. How about we give them a chance, before shooting them down off-hand with no legitimate excuse?
By the way I was personally of the opinion that JJs should have had their TT strength (30 meters jump distance per JJ). Like what was done in MW:LL. That way, you get the ability to use jump sniping, and if you are skilled you can be devastating, but there would be a drawback, and a risk. Instead of the almost zero risk involved with the tactic (now it's nerfed to the ground, in the wrong way)
However, the JJ discussion itself is not related to this topic, so I would urge you to either discuss it in PMs, or in another thread, and I am personally willing to participate.
For the record, I agree that many features got wrecked (JJs, Information Warfare)/implemented despite the community's opposition (3PV, Coolant Flush). However, it looks like PGI is trying to fix that by letting the community have more participation.
Edited by IraqiWalker, 17 September 2014 - 09:57 PM.
