1306 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Devilsfury, on 13 September 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

All of this is kind of like our government in the US. Our representatives are suppose to serve the people but 99% of them are douchebags who promise everything but end up serving themselves. Remember all of the "change" everyone was promised? Im trolling a little...but you always have to be careful on a council. most end up self serving.

Self serving would be pointless if it requires community consensus to actually enact the changes.

[ZoneWolf]

Will PGI even listen to any "council"?

Or will niko just BAN HAMMER them for giving ideas that arent along PGI's current game schedual/ ideas?

Shouldnt we be concentrating MORE on CONTENT vrs. more game balancing? (I do NOT mean more mechs or maps)

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 13 September 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

Self serving would be pointless if it requires community consensus to actually enact the changes.

Also pointless, since we are talking a one time affair, to look into ONE specific issue, which, as Livewyr says, would still be put before the community as a whole for voting BEFORE being submitted to PGI.

And if, if this works, and we get opportunities to do it again, the only way to minimize agendas, is essentially, no re-elections. Pick your nomination acceptance carefully, because you WON'T be nominated again!

(for instance I really am not,, IMO best qualified for speaking on the ECM issue. So me accepting the nomination would not only be counterproductive to finding a fix, but would mean that if we got to form a committee again in the future, to address scale, or weapon balance, I would not be able to work on that.)

just my 2ct, mind you

ZoneWolf, on 13 September 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

Will PGI even listen to any "council"?

Or will niko just BAN HAMMER them for giving ideas that arent along PGI's current game schedual/ ideas?

Shouldnt we be concentrating MORE on CONTENT vrs. more game balancing? (I do NOT mean more mechs or maps)

lol. Those banned, got themselves banned. Some Through a history of repeat TKs, some through a history of vitriolic, offensive behaviour on the forums, after repeat warnings, sometimes for several years.


If PGI were simply banhammering people willy nilly as you proclaim, half the commenters on this topic, including you and me, would not be here.

Please keep the allegations and rhetoric to a bare minimum so we actually focus on the task at hand on this particular Topic?

[LawDawg]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 September 2014 - 10:10 AM, said:

Also pointless, since we are talking a one time affair, to look into ONE specific issue, which, as Livewyr says, would still be put before the community as a whole for voting BEFORE being submitted to PGI.

And if, if this works, and we get opportunities to do it again, the only way to minimize agendas, is essentially, no re-elections. Pick your nomination acceptance carefully, because you WON'T be nominated again!

(for instance I really am not,, IMO best qualified for speaking on the ECM issue. So me accepting the nomination would not only be counterproductive to finding a fix, but would mean that if we got to form a committee again in the future, to address scale, or weapon balance, I would not be able to work on that.)

just my 2ct, mind you


lol. Those banned, got themselves banned. Some Through a history of repeat TKs, some through a history of vitriolic, offensive behaviour on the forums, after repeat warnings, sometimes for several years.


If PGI were simply banhammering people willy nilly as you proclaim, half the commenters on this topic, including you and me, would not be here.

Please keep the allegations and rhetoric to a bare minimum so we actually focus on the task at hand on this particular Topic?

K, You bailed out......Stop being an attention *****...

[Koniving]

stjobe, on 12 September 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

I'm actually surprised StJobe didn't get nominated at all.
While I actively run and test stuff, break it down, etc. on Battletech and apply a dash of the books, StJobe could probably recite just about every detail from every rulebook, fluffbook, etc. and even provide page and paragraph numbers.

I'd nominate you, though the counting of votes appears to have stopped. (Can't believe I got more votes than Bill. O.o) If nothing else, if there's information that I can't get from creating a scenario and trying it out on megamek or what I happen to have to sort through (and lets face it, the novels do conflict in 'how this works' semi-frequently so official fluff can be handy even though it, too, also conflicts --

Spoiler

case in point LRM minimum range and its reasoning: Original: IS LRMs fire in a high ballistic launch angle, making it difficult to hit targets within a certain range [as the missiles have to make a sharp downward turn at a moving object]. Advanced: Hot-loaded LRMs are 'loaded into the tubes' hot and ready to go, between this and detonation elements of the load inside the launcher if the launcher is hit implies depending on how you read it that either scenarion 1) that LRMs are not armed until 180 meters normally for safety reasons of the LRM user or 2) are not loaded into the tubes before telling the weapon to fire but instead after, creating that 'minimum range' penalty -- which is exactly that, a penalty to accuracy [whether by angle or by firing delay] and not a "you don't do damage here" issue. Regardless of which of the three interpretations you use of the original or the two sequential advanced ones, Battletech books have used all three depending on which author.

, I know where to turn for all the fluff on the subject to sort through for a viable solution or implementation.

Here's to you.

(And wow.. 40. I know I got 28 instant messages not counting repeat ones, but... wow.)

[DocBach]

Koniving, on 13 September 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

(And wow.. 40. I know I got 28 instant messages not counting repeat ones, but... wow.)

The double message post was on accident

[Hoax415]

Prosperity Park, on 13 September 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

The only way to get banned is to deliberately act disrespectfully and in violation of the terms you agreed to follow. Also, getting banned only happens after repeated warning

You mean except for the time they had to change the ToS to encompass 3rd party sites and before they had done that or explained what this new CoC meant they stealth banned people indefinitely without announcement for things they had said on 3rd party sites not here on these actual boards?

Yeah those were totally deserved bans. From our great Community Manager who then made an even bigger ass of himself by violating basic reddit ToS in his misguided attempt to continue to shut down any negative press towards Transverse. Which is what those bans were always about. They knew which posters here would not swallow the party line on the whole "we've been half assing development of MWO and now we bring you Transverse! Become a founder today" announcement. So they banned them in advance and made up some new rule about no badmouthing PGI elsewhere.

***

As to this whole council to fix ECM dog and pony show..

The community can't fix ECM, that's far too complex of an issue that is connected to how lrm indirect fire and targeting, what can the game actually handle and implement features wise to represent things like C3, stealth armor, what can we code TAG, BAP and NARC to do and what can't we code them to do. And so on. Its not just ECM its so many other related systems.

The problem with MWO's development has always been changes that are either never tested by the community so no feedback is available or even worse changes that the community is adamant are not good for the game being pushed through anyways.

Everyone knew the CERLL burn change was going to be awful. THAT CHANGE WAS POST IGP. That was all Russ and Paul. It would result in hitting your own teammates and make the weapon system pointless. It was unfun, bad and would just result in everyone abandoning it.

But PGI did it anyways because they don't listen. Guarantee any poll asking about that change would have been 80%+ against.

Now suddenly its our fault for not being more organized and giving a clear message. We are players not developers we don't have access to all the data they can use to see if ECM is too effective.

We only have our own personal anecdotal evidence to go off. The only thing we as players can say about ECM is: it feels way too important and powerful.

If the Vindicator had an ECM variant how much stronger would that chassis seem to us? Is that messed up?

This whole idea is a joke and that we're discussing ECM instead of issues that PGI knows damn well the massive majority of the community is in agreement on:
-Ghost Heat (bad, stupid, too hidden, too arbitrary, ac2's wtf)
-Convergence (we need it badly, its the #1 contributor to the very low TTK, its meant to be in the game, it makes FLD weapons too good)

Lets ignore those and instead form a council to discuss a very complex issue that really requires a designer's vision, understanding of the underlying game systems and detachment from personal biases to fix.

I'm glad you guys are having fun with this silly idea but its an utter waste of time and after you all buy clan grab deal part deux and CW gets delayed an extra 90 days... look back on how easily they distracted you into fussing about ECM of all things.

Edited by Hoax415, 13 September 2014 - 10:41 AM.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

Less democracy, more dictatorship.

Trials of possession time.

Make all the nominated Pilots duke it out in a Swiss tournament, end the poll at either 30, or 50 pages.

DANCE PUPPETS DANCE!!

[wanderer]

MechB Kotare, on 13 September 2014 - 06:14 AM, said:

I dont like the idea of having few individuals to tell PGI what i want for me.

NO thanks.

PGI, IMHO is incapable of divining anything from the collective multitude.

Seven or so of us players might have a better chance and then relay it. Or, alternatively we can at least then say that even a smaller number of voices goes unheard and PGI is deaf to the playerbase

Quite simply, they will listen and the process of fixing the game will integrate the players to some degree, or they will not and there is a very good chance the result will burn the forum down around their ears from dis-satisfaction with the results. People like me have a better chance of making your voice part of what's fed into PGI's ears than you yourself do, if we end up as a point of communication between Them and Us.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Given that what the council do is act as a go between for PGI and the forums I'm not sure how people can say no; I don't want such and such type of players.....because those people have to take your ideas and complaints ( the community) and fashion it into a plan for ECM that then as to again get your approval.

It's not down to them in the end; it's down to everyone here.

[TopDawg]

Hoax415, on 13 September 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

Snipped for length.

While I almost liked your post (until I got to the end sentiment/tone), I don't really disagree with it. However my conclusion is slightly different (although I would still advocate holding off on buying anything until PGI proves it isn't just another move to try and sell more Mechs!).

Despite all that, I think this would be a time for the community as a whole to come together and show PGI that the playerbase does not agree with some of their design decisions, and that what they're doing is not in the best interest of the game as a whole (and by extension, their wallets, since good games/happier gamers are like to recieve/give more money respectively).

With all that said, will PGI listen in the end? Will the community be able to come together and produce quality suggestions that help everyone and objectively improve the game? I don't know. But I do know there's only one way to find out.

[wanderer]

Lily from animove, on 13 September 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

How does this make sure that not the biggest subcomunity just votes their people and ensures the council working objective and not subjective?

It doesn't. At the moment, your voice in the process is nil: That is, Paul makes all decisions and we suck it up.

This is an opportunity to alter that arrangement. Do you think things will be closer to your desired results from the guy who bases many of his balance decisions on soloing in his own test builds, or someone who actively plays the game across the solo + group queues?

I won't guarantee that whatever ended up before PGI is 100% what you want. That's something politicians do. I will say that I'd work to make it as good as possible, even knowing that the result is a compromise of what will be multiple views on the game + whatever technical limitations from PGI we'd have to work around.

That is, it will be -better-. Promising things will be always as you like them is for guys with fake smiles and business suits who buy 30-second sound bite ads on the local media. That is, artists in the use of bovine fecal matter.

If nothing else, elections of a group of players will also give the playerbase an idea of where they stand and what kind of people the collective think of as able to communicate their solutions (once we hash em all out into one compromise) to PGI. By no means should they be forever- at most a year, at least 6 months, and at least one alternate should be designated if real life causes a representative to be unable to or unwilling to perform their duty.

[Quietruck]

Great! that's all we need now is more "Bureaucracy". Seriously guys, a council? Hey how about a single Mech Pilot Czar. The last thing we need here, especially within a gaming format is more politics. Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge that this game stills needs some serious fixing, but, haven't we learned from anything from real life examples around us. We live in a terminally imperfect world, filled with imperfect people trying to manages the affairs of everybody else around them. Appointed or self appointed it never works out. Eventually it becomes one big mess. Don't get me wrong I understand the possible need for one clear voice to communicate the earnest and most pressing needs within this community, in hopes the we will be better heard.. But remember this, PGI is not deaf, PGI is not blind and PGI is not stupid. They know exactly and precisely what this game needs. But until the change theirs minds and accept our views as the real and valid, then take appropriate actions. They will choose to remain deaf, dump and blind.

[Livewyr]

DV McKenna, on 13 September 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

Given that what the council do is act as a go between for PGI and the forums I'm not sure how people can say no; I don't want such and such type of players.....because those people have to take your ideas and complaints ( the community) and fashion it into a plan for ECM that then as to again get your approval.

It's not down to them in the end; it's down to everyone here.

I think they are more concerned with certain kinds of players just being obstinate.

I can think of one banned player's typical responses to just about anything remotely productive: "GOLD!" or "No, because Paul" (or some variation on that)
Having that act as a go-between.. and you might as well be on an island.

[Hoax415]

DV McKenna, on 13 September 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

Given that what the council do is act as a go between for PGI and the forums

Having players like that is done all the time by all sorts of game devs.

They usually do it quietly through pm's to players they trust to give good useful feedback on what the community will think of some change.

Its not done like this. Except in Eve, which is its own kind of crazy animal and CCP really only felt the need to do it after they had a series of events that created the environment in their community that CCP was listening to some players and playing favorites and ignoring the will of the majority.

PGI could have tagged Koniving or DocBach months ago through pm and just said:

"hey we're planning on balancing clan mechs 1:1 with IS mechs, primarily through making clan tech much less heat efficient what do you think the community will think of that?"

or

"here's a list of changes to the clan weapons, any of this seem like way too much or not at all enough?"

That would be a million times more effective than this farce.

Edited by Hoax415, 13 September 2014 - 10:47 AM.

[Livewyr]

Quietruck, on 13 September 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

Great! that's all we need now is more "Bureaucracy". Seriously guys, a council? Hey how about a single Mech Pilot Czar. The last thing we need here, especially within a gaming format is more politics. Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge that this game stills needs some serious fixing, but, haven't we learned from anything from real life examples around us. We live in a terminally imperfect world, filled with imperfect people trying to manages the affairs of everybody else around them. Appointed or self appointed it never works out. Eventually it becomes one big mess. Don't get me wrong I understand the possible need for one clear voice to communicate the earnest and most pressing needs within this community, in hopes the we will be better heard.. But remember this, PGI is not deaf, PGI is not blind and PGI is not stupid. They know exactly and precisely what this game needs. But until the change theirs minds and accept our views as the real and valid, then take appropriate actions. They will choose to remain deaf, dump and blind.

Thank you for your productive input?

Hoax415, on 13 September 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

Having players like that is done all the time by all sorts of game devs.

They usually do it quietly through pm's to players they trust to give good useful feedback on what the community will think of some change.

Its not done like this. Except in Eve, which is its own kind of crazy animal and CCP really only felt the need to do it after they had a series of events that created the environment in their community that CCP was listening to some players and playing favorites and ignoring the will of the majority.

PGI could have tagged Koniving or DocBach months ago through pm and just said:

"hey we're planning on balancing clan mechs 1:1 with IS mechs, primarily through making clan tech much less heat efficient what do you think the community will think of that?"

or

"here's a list of changes to the clan weapons, any of this seem like way too much or not at all enough?"

That would be a million times more effective than this farce.

I think that is kind of how we got the 6PPC stalker. (Smaller community, with much smaller vocal minority clamoring for reduced heat PPCs...which have mutated into Ghost Heat.)

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

Quietruck, on 13 September 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

Great! that's all we need now is more "Bureaucracy". Seriously guys, a council? Hey how about a single Mech Pilot Czar. The last thing we need here, especially within a gaming format is more politics. Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge that this game stills needs some serious fixing, but, haven't we learned from anything from real life examples around us. We live in a terminally imperfect world, filled with imperfect people trying to manages the affairs of everybody else around them. Appointed or self appointed it never works out. Eventually it becomes one big mess. Don't get me wrong I understand the possible need for one clear voice to communicate the earnest and most pressing needs within this community, in hopes the we will be better heard.. But remember this, PGI is not deaf, PGI is not blind and PGI is not stupid. They know exactly and precisely what this game needs. But until the change theirs minds and accept our views as the real and valid, then take appropriate actions. They will choose to remain deaf, dump and blind.

The sentiments are similar here, Isn't this why they hire Community Managers for? I remember there used to be polls made by them and stuff...but it quickly went to the bucket list.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Hoax415, on 13 September 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

Having players like that is done all the time by all sorts of game devs.

They usually do it quietly through pm's to players they trust to give good useful feedback on what the community will think of some change.

Its not done like this. Except in Eve, which is its own kind of crazy animal and CCP really only felt the need to do it after they had a series of events that created the environment in their community that CCP was listening to some players and playing favorites and ignoring the will of the majority.

PGI could have tagged Koniving or DocBach months ago through pm and just said:

"hey we're planning on balancing clan mechs 1:1 with IS mechs, primarily through making clan tech much less heat efficient what do you think the community will think of that?"

or

"here's a list of changes to the clan weapons, any of this seem like way too much or not at all enough?"

That would be a million times more effective than this farce.

I know units that approached them years ago to do exactly that; with pretty solid references due to be mechanically good at the game and even had several game developers from other companies in it...offering their time and input for free.

[Livewyr]

Koniving, on 13 September 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

Buddy-buddy doesn't mean much. If I disagree with him I have shot him down and tear it apart and he's done the same to me. (Disagreements on how the heat system works is a prime example, there's been a year long fued there). Voting is over anyway. However, it's easy to disagree on concepts and still respect the other person for what they could bring to the table.

Even reasonable politicians can do this. Though I haven't seen too many as of late.

You lie!

[Livebait]

A counsel is fine to have. It makes no real difference who they are as long as the community is able to vote for the deciding changes being offered. The community through voting should be the deciding factor not a counsel.

If a person plays this game but does not bother to come to forums and find out what is going on with this game, then it dose not matter to me if they disagree with changes being made by the active community.

IMO ECM needs to be done exactly as it was in table top. And it would be nice if a few more mechs can carry this device.