1306 replies to this topic

[Roland]

One thing I would suggest regarding player councils is that no single unit really should have more than one voice on such a council. One player from a unit is more than capable of representing that unit's position on balance issues.

[CyclonerM]

I agree on having 1 from each segment of the player base.

My suggestion is this division for five people: 1 BT veteran, 1 Competitive player, 1 "Science" guy, 1 "Casual" and 1 "Vocal player". However, you can also cross out the "Casual" for another "Vocal player"

[Quietruck]

The multiple disagreeing posts here on this topic has accomplished nothing but to prove my point. That councils, boards, advisory groups, what ever name tag give it, can not possible be efficient, or speak for every one. Why, if no one can agrees here how do you think it will go if you all should actually do choose the members of such a group. I guarantee you people will split separate groups backing there candidate or opinions as to what should be done. In the end it will only cause division. Just as we have had in this very forum now and for years. This is a warning, if we heed to it, then it will be productive. Otherwise history will repeat itself.

Edited by Quietruck, 13 September 2014 - 06:00 PM.

[LCCX]

I'd like Livewyr, Homeless Bill, and DocBach on the council.

[Eboli]

I would vote for Konivig.

For quite a while Konivig has taken his personal time to make videos and personal reviews of various chassis in order to help players in what they need to be aware of. He has sound reasoning thus is why I have confidence that he would make a good representative from a player's perspective.

Cheers
Eboli

[Prezimonto]

https://docs.google....O_PY/edit#gid=0

I want to bump this link again. There's space on it now for each person to tell us if they really do want to spend the time, effort, and inevitable heartache on this committee. I'm not against us doing this in any way, but I do want to make sure that the people who end up doing it are invested and aware that it's not going to be cake walk.

On that note StJobe's name has come up several times and I also agree he'd be an excellent choice.

[Alistair Winter]

The council shouldn't have more than 5 members. "A camel is a horse designed by committee". I.e. if you have 9 people, you'll probably have to make a lot of compromises and you risk ending up with a diluted product, instead of something with a clear vision and simplicity.

My nominations:

• Adiuvo (Both a comp player and a dedicated light mech pilot, both perspectives being critically important)
  
• Roland (Smart dude who, to me, represents the Islanders in a good way. Critical, but not trolling.)
  
• Koniving (Very dedicated guy that talks a lot to new players, knows their perspective)
  
• Homeless Bill (A constructive guy that has suggested good ideas in the past)
  
• St Jobe (Probably a good representative of the old TT guard that doesn't fall into the white knight or "TT fundamentalist" crowd. Another constructive guy)

I feel this council would represent the MWO community in a good way.

[HRR Mary]

Based on their past history of articulating well thought feedback, innovative solution, and deep understanding of not only this game, but the mechwarrior franchise, here are my nominations :

- Roland
- Homeless Bill
- Koniving
- Amaris the Usurper

[ChairBorneRanger]

DeathlyEyes!

[CyclonerM]

Quietruck, on 13 September 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

The multiple disagreeing posts here on this topic has accomplished nothing but to prove my point. That councils, boards, advisory groups, what ever name tag give it, can not possible be efficient, or speak for every one. Why, if no one can agrees here how do you think it will go if you all should actually do choose the members of such a group. I guarantee you people with split separate groups backing there candidate or opinions as what should be done. In the end it will only cause division. Just as we have had in this very forum now and for years. This is a warning, if we heed to it, then it will be productive. Otherwise history will repeat itself.

I know, but if we chose only representative from a single context, like only competitive players, they would not quite speak for everyone, though they might agree with each other

[TLBFestus]

PhoenixFire55, on 13 September 2014 - 01:11 AM, said:

Koniving.
Sandpit.
Bishop Steiner.
Deathlike.
Colonel Pada Vinson.
Roland.
TheMagician.
MangoBogadog.
ugrakarma.
Adiuvo.
mwhighlander.
kaffeangst.
Proton.
Eglar.
JagerXII.
ShinVector.
Siriothrax.
Egomane.
Biruke.
Hayashi.
Homeless Bill.

I'm sure I missed a lot of worthy people.

Let these (and whoever else is added) gather up and then they can pick a group of 5-10 representatives. The important thing is that (already been said) the selected people represent competitive and casual players alike, as well as all regions - Europe, Asia, America, Australia, etc.

I do not think Moderators should be included. At best they have a connection with PGI and a perceived, if not actual, bias.

But hey...I'm not even a big supporter of the whole idea, so carry on.

[Joseph Mallan]

TLBFestus, on 13 September 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

I do not think Moderators should be included. At best they have a connection with PGI and a perceived, if not actual, bias.

But hey...I'm not even a big supporter of the whole idea, so carry on.

At my work The Rank and File usually have a Management rep involved. It expedites answers from top brass. So long as the Mod knows he is part of the whole and not in charge (Unless elected).

Alistair Winter, on 13 September 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

The council shouldn't have more than 5 members. "A camel is a horse designed by committee". I.e. if you have 9 people, you'll probably have to make a lot of compromises and you risk ending up with a diluted product, instead of something with a clear vision and simplicity.

A horse would dies in a Desert where a Camel will survive. That was one smart committee.

[Carrioncrows]

Russ Bullock, on 13 September 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

I have heard a few requests to wait until around Tuesday for a poll, sure that is fine with me.

There as also a fair point for those concerned about having a group speak for them, remember they will need to present a full proposal and you the players will read it and get to vote. So I think you can feel secure in knowing that the proposal is really going to have to speak clearly to a portion of players.

We will also discuss that 80% more to ensure it isn't just those that spend time on the forums but that they have significant play time which are stats I can easily gather. We will figure that part out.

As to the PPC conversation that just popped up, super tempting jump in and share all the history and logic which I am sure many would love to hear. But first things first, staying on topic we have chosen this ECM subject as our test case. I happen to think it is a great starting point.

I to do not care for the fact that many groups including competitive ones won't take any spiders except the ECM version. That to me does smell not quite right, never has.

Pretty common knowledge but it boils down to 2 points besides just ECM

1. Range
2. Hardpoints

The 5D has the most weapons hardpoints that can fit the most range.
Most popular loadouts are the ER PPC's, Er Larges, or some combination of that. This is because lights can't survive in close at the beginning of the match, too much firepower on the field. Late game is where lights get powerful.

Hardpoints - the 5D has not only the best hardpoints but allows people to take the PPC. Which has been pretty much the stable weapon of energy engagements.

5D - Best hardpoints
5K - 1 E hard and 4 B that are just mguns
5V - 2 E that are CT and limited firepower.

I love the Spider-5V but it simply doesn't do enough. I know I am not the only one who has been asking for this but if you would give the Spider 5V - 4 energy hardpoints (2 CT, 1 LT, 1 RT) it would have a massive uptick in popularity as the "Combat" version of the Spider and begin to knock the 5D off it's throne.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Cross-posted from the ECM Dialogue thread:

A player-elected council would be a terrible idea. There is absolutely no chance of fair and equal representation for the playerbase as a whole, and it would basically amount to a forum popularity contest.

I propose instead an opt-in lottery. Have players opt into the system, just like the tournament system. Then, PGI breaks down the list according to geographic location, join date, total playtime, money spent, Elo, Faction, and whatever factors they might deem important. Then they would randomly draw from these lists to create a good representative of the playerbase.

PGI would pick a few from each group and notify them via email with confirmation link a few days before the first meeting. Those who fail to reply within 24 hours are replaced with another until the full council is complete.

Council meetings occur once or twice a week at different times to account for players in different time zones. A PGI staff member presides over each meeting, providing moderation, taking notes, and acting as liaison to the dev team. Meetings would be held with some kind of free chat program in an invite-only room.

New members would be chosen every month, with a new opt-in each time. Previous members are disallowed from opting in for one month, and no-shows and non-participants blocked for three.

This system would be more fair and representative than a simple election, and I think some cross-pollination between the player populations would help bring the community together.

[DONTOR]

Jager XII

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Russ Bullock, on 13 September 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

I to do not care for the fact that many groups including competitive ones won't take any spiders except the ECM version. That to me does smell not quite right, never has.

This.... I can get behind.

[Vimeous]

It's weird.
At first players were just happy, even amazed, they could pilot Battlemechs on a computer. As games developed players went as far as modding games to add more features or extended content. Now with F2P games which are constantly evolving that ability to write gaming wrongs is gone again and we players are not a happy bunch.
Our beloved IP is being messed with and unlike the past now we can shout about it loud enough to derail even the most determined and focused developer. Even if it means fundamentally harming the future of the IP on the platform we know and love.

With this in mind I ask:

• Those elected remember they represent the vocal minority in this game.
  The low number of votes so far are direct testament to how few actual players visit the forums.
  
• As an extension, any voting system where players are asked to determine the future path of the game is made part of the game interface.
  The forums and any form of social media are visited by so few players they risk being highly unrepresentative. In-game exposure is the only way to quiz the full player base.
  
• A minimum level of votes is set for any vote to be valid.
  This is to prevent small player groups having undue impact. It also stops PGI being forced to exhaust resources on changes to existing features (at the expense of new content) when only 500 players bothered to vote.
  I would propose 50% of the active player base but PGI would need to publish those numbers for transparency (commercially unlikely) and 30% is about as much as any national election seems to engender.
  
• Inactive players cannot vote.
  Frankly if you love the franchise that much and you want to see it do well get off your high-horse and back in the game. Most of us are simply glad there is a BT-based game, if you ain't playing that isn't you.
  Something like a 10 game within 1 week of vote (or since last patch) minimum to discourage massive alt-account voting unbalancing the results.
  
• New players cannot vote.
  Played 100 games? Sorry but you're barely scratching the surface of both the game as it stands and the lore it is based on. This is similar to forums preventing For Sale posts without 100 genuine posts.

It's late and my brain has shutdown - no doubt there are more concerns about this process to air but I'll can it there for now.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

Ever think those say "no I don't want" are providing a counterpoint for others to consider? Some people already are trying to whitewash their actions with Propaganda, it's in the community interest for bullcrap to be smoked out. If the people are still nominated, at least it is by a hopeful informed Forum Community.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

and almost as effective as kicking and screaming against any attempt at progress might be, because it's not the way we think it should be done....

Oh wait..........



Yeah. So we have limited options. Either be part of the solution we are offered, or not. But if not, stop trying to crap on everyone else who would rather have something, than nothing.

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.

reasonable politician........

those are a real thing?

[Tekadept]

Bloodwolf for President!