1306 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Koniving, on 13 September 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

Heh.
-----------
It's like I also disagree with about half the things Bishop says, but I still see the value of what he could bring. I have always seen value...and convolusion in Homeless Bill's biggest idea (the most popular one of the targeting overload as an anti-pinpoint) which I could get very similar results (not for the same reasons but nevertheless similar results) with in a far more simplified version by just converting all mechs to a locked 30 threshold for heat. Even so it'd be possible to go out and get a drink together -- though I strongly suspect I'd be buying.

Even Khobai or Ultimatum X [I know I'm probably butchering this name] I can respect, both of whom had opinions with which I have had incredible disputes over to the point where I've rewritten what would have originally come out as almost benignly hostile responses before returning, trying to see it from his or her point of view and trying again -- repeatedly -- to try and find a middle ground. But just because I can be friendly doesn't mean we'd go conspiring to conquer the world. Though we might eventually settle on an agreement.

The point in general is you can disagree and give counter points whether you like the person or not. I mean even Russ has demonstrated this ability in overturning some of Paul's balancing decisions. The old and new results are things I strongly disagree with, but it's a fine demonstration that opinions can vary, compete, etc., without having to "hate" everyone you're with.

On the mention I had before, the US Senate could debate and eventually compromise on something but Congress, the two sides are so at odds that absolutely nothing is getting done. I can see why 'buddies' can be seen as an issue, but so are 'enemies' that despite each other for the sake of doing so.

Me and StJobe aren't really buddies and we've never spoken outside of debates about what functions this or that has versus what it should have and sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't.

That said however, if I were to choose anyone, the last thing I'd want is a "yes man." I've seen that side of game development and the results are so awful that you might find them familiar. It's a thinking person's shooter and it needs thinking people. Homeless Bill, DocBach, Livewyr, Bishop, and some of the others: these are people that I know actually put some thought into things. Some more than others. They were voted on for a reason and it's not because "I like or dislike this." It's because they study issues, look into what things were supposed to be, and even find ways to make things fit in a way that seems fair even if it's not 100% satisfactory to even themselves.

(Also I did wind up finding StJobe did get some votes. Still surprised at how few though; I mean who else has found ways to break conceptions I've had based on what I could read on BT and do on Megamek? So far no one else has ever been able to directly disprove anything I've derived from a combination of the lore/fluff and the game.)

well, actually thats cuz you refuse to admit it's an optional Megamek heatscale rule for the overload/shutdown over threshold and not true TT.
Otherwise there would be TWO people.

[Koniving]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 September 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

well, actually thats cuz you refuse to admit it's an optional Megamek heatscale rule for the overload/shutdown over threshold and not true TT.
Otherwise there would be TWO people.

In which case maximum alpha strike in the definition of firing all weapons simultaneously potential is simply 30 (technically 29 for maximum safe threshold without a guaranteed shutdown), and for tabletop that is 30 threshold + what you can sink in 10 seconds, with a highly circumstantial argument as to whether or not everything was fired at once (magically hitting as many as 14 separate targets even though many of those can be mounted on the same arms) or fired one at a time over 10 seconds (in which case hitting multiple different body parts on a moving or stationary target makes considerably more sense).

Either way it's still a maximum of 30.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

Appreciate you input, forum support and demonstrated interest in this Russ. I know some are still scoffing, but as you say, folks need to wait and see, that is fine. Just don't derail things for everyone else.

This is an unprecedented opportunity for OUR COMMUNITY, seem a real shame to waste it!

Gremlich Johns, on 13 September 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

I've been with you (PGI) since the beginning. I'm still here (with my 20,000 Founder's MC and Phoenix Premium time), but I've seen where well reasoned and welcome suggestions from groups of players have gotten. Please permit me my scepticism.

He is. What he is asking is to not derail threads with it unnecessarily. You will have plenty of opportunity to tell us you were right, after, if this goes nowhere.

Peiper, on 13 September 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

Remember the Marauder design contest? http://mwomercs.com/...-voting-closed/

that was awesome fun...and one of the last times there was any life in the Fan Creation Forum.

[Gremlich Johns]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 September 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

He is. What he is asking is to not derail threads with it unnecessarily. You will have plenty of opportunity to tell us you were right, after, if this goes nowhere.

My silence when that happens will be sufficient. <B>

[Bishop Steiner]

Koniving, on 13 September 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

In which case maximum alpha strike in the definition of firing all weapons simultaneously potential is simply 30 (technically 29 for maximum safe threshold without a guaranteed shutdown), and for tabletop that is 30 threshold + what you can sink in 10 seconds, with a highly circumstantial argument as to whether or not everything was fired at once (magically hitting as many as 14 separate targets even though many of those can be mounted on the same arms) or fired one at a time over 10 seconds (in which case hitting multiple different body parts on a moving or stationary target makes considerably more sense).

Either way it's still a maximum of 30.

No, you aren't but this is not the place to argue it. You need to step away from Megamek, pick up the Rule of Warfare (lots of PDFs around) and read how the combat turn and heat system work, in TT, not in Dueling System of with special case Megamek rules.

But again, I will let you do that on your times, and we can discuss it at a more convenient and appropriate time and place.

[Lukoi Banacek]

What's funny about this thread is the group of people who have overblown PGI access and clearly sway some of their thoughts on balance already exists in the NGNG crew.

This thread has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that polls would make more sense than a player council at this point.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lukoi, on 13 September 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

What's funny about this thread is the group of people who have overblown PGI access and clearly sway some of their thoughts on balance already exists in the NGNG crew.

This thread has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that polls would make more sense than a player council at this point.

Certainly. But would it be better for the options of those polls to be PGI generated "Unacceptable Options A-C", or Ones generated, by respected, thinking members of the Community, using commnity input, for the Community to vote on?

I think it's a no brainer there.


But hey, if you want, we can go back to closed doors and Paul making all the decisions.

[Kin3ticX]

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.

The Spider-5V is one example of a 'mech that we just GXP through due to its badness. In terms of a pure scout in the game, role warfare unfortunately takes a back seat to raw combat output. It has needed a balance pass for some time now and needs serious perks to be viable. At a minimum, it looks like a sizable CT cooldown reduction and a pitch buff are in order for the 5V. If that is not suitable, just straight up adding more hardpoints would work too.

For the Spider-5K to have a small niche against other choices like the Ember, perhaps the perks system would do some good here too.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 13 September 2014 - 06:53 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

The other spiders are a fine example of Mechs that the lack of useful hardpoint inflation (and now positive quirks) makes no sense. Simply put, without ECM, and the help of broken Hit Reg, the Spider really is not a good mech.

In this case, it's not even so much about the ECM being good, but that the ECM saves an otherwise bad mech, and because of it's speed and hit issues, has a use.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 13 September 2014 - 06:42 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 September 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

Certainly. But would it be better for the options of those polls to be PGI generated "Unacceptable Options A-C", or Ones generated, by respected, thinking members of the Community, using commnity input, for the Community to vote on?

If I thought that might happen, I'd advocate for a player council. A goodly portion of the names proposed here are clearly adversarial types with their own agendas and certainly don't speak for me or anyone else I know of. Many others, while well intentioned, look at the problems of this game one little widget at a time with anecdotal evidence at best, but because they are well spoken, we're supposed to have them advocate for balance?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are folks that could represent this community fairly and objectively and might give an honest effort to it. Some are probably already spoken about here on this thread (imo). But the fact that folks cannot even agree on this concept of who should (i.e. type of person, not named individuals here mind you) after 29+ pages just solidifies to me that the community is too angry and fragmented to accomplish this at this time.

PGI has the ACTUAL metrics we cannot see and constantly speculate about...they could if they wished, actually propose some changes that rely on the actual math vice some of the theorycrafting we spout around here. It would require them to sit down and actually crunch the #'s, see what they actually apply to...because clearly multiple variables affecting synergy of the ingame experience is pretty tough for them...and then look at viable options.

Or they could spend time fixing terrain like small cars and pipes that cause my Mech to get rooted to the terrain, make CW a reality, end the fairly regular dropping from matches etc. I mean I'd love if they could do both, I'm just no longer hopeful at this point.

[Carrioncrows]

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves on the whole 'council for life' thing. Instead I just want a council to take care of the ECM issue first.

Worry about "4 life" later.

[Lukoi Banacek]

I don't see anyone asking for a player council 4life (but it's a deep thread, maybe I missed it).

Regardless...even just for this item, it's a bridge too far.

Polls. Many, many polls

[BlakeAteIt]

Also, people talking about a low vote turnout - It's Saturday, people are outside

[Bishop Steiner]

Carrioncrows, on 13 September 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves on the whole 'council for life' thing. Instead I just want a council to take care of the ECM issue first.

Worry about "4 life" later.

that is all Russ is asking for, a 1 time representative committee to work with PGI to address the ECM issue.

If it works, then we might well have similar opportunities in the future.

But yes, if there are future chances, we need to take measures to ensure the same faces don't represent each time, as that is the way for agenda to get pushed. Even with well meaning players.

IMO, once you have "served" you should be ineligible for future Committees (can we call it that instead of a bloody Player Council.... always does sound like something where people lord over others). It also acts as a brake, of sorts. For instance, I am not really a good choice for this issue, IMO. But there may be future issues, like Mech Scaling, for example, they allow us to make proposals on. Those I might be useful for, and so I would refrain from entering for nomination until a topic I felt I could represent well, was put forth.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 13 September 2014 - 07:19 PM.

[Nyden]

okay, then. My vote:

Koniving and Homeless Bill, tho it looks like they're shoe ins already.

TheMagician, adiuvo and chronojam, tho his ban might be a problem.



Just because people aren't voting a lot does not have to mean people don't care or don't think this is a worthwhile idea. It may (as it has been till this point in my case) simply be that they don't feel qualified to voice an opinion, perhaps because they don't spend THAT much time on the forums and aren't familiar with all the forum warriors. They may still be gathering information.

If your not here to help I would ask that you kindly stay out of the way.

[oneproduct]

I'd like to run for a spot on the player council if I may. The one thing I'd say I'm missing from a typical candidate is a high forum post count, but I do read the forums extensively. Since, as many people pointed out, this will pretty much just amount to a popularity contest I don't think I'll have much luck, but here goes anyways.



Some of my credentials:

• I'm a programmer at Ubisoft. Currently working on Far Cry 4, which is built on a derivative of the Cry Engine. I work with game designers on a daily basis and regularly provide feedback on their designs and estimates on how feasible they are to implement code for.
  
• I'm a former programmer at THQ. But that didn't really last long because I joined shortly before THQ went bankrupt and its Montreal studio and staff were bought by Ubisoft.
  
• I'm a former modder for Dawn of War 2, which is an RTS based off the Warhammer 40k tabletop game so I have experience trying to translate lore-heavy, turn based gameplay into real time gameplay. I also communicated with those who played my mod very frequently through forums and teaser videos. I took suggestions from them and incorporated other community made assets (maps, textures, models) into my mod. You can see a bit of my posts/video commentary here: http://www.moddb.com/mods/killteam http://forums.relicn...read.php?248756
  
• I have been on the top 50 leaderboards for Warcraft 3 random team matches and top 20 leaderboards for Dawn of War 2 arranged team matches, so I have some competitive mindset and experience.
  
• I have around 3000 matches played, a 2:1 overall K/D ratio and around a 60% win rate in MWO. That may not sound that impressive to you, but I think if you look at your own stats I think it'll be better than you think (though likely not as good as pros or people who regularly play in large groups). Most people seem to forget that the matches where they're on the receiving side of a stomp vastly reduce their perceived average kills/damage per match. Plus many of those deaths are from grinding bad variants of mechs just for eliting others.
  
• I watch pro players/tournaments on twitch.tv regularly.
  
• I hang out in Comstar or NGNG teamspeak regularly.
  
• I've spent around $50 on this game, so I'd like to think I'm in a happy place that's not P2W or a whale but enough that I understand how people can get upset if things they bought got nerfed.
  
• I've played mechwarrior 2, 3 and 4, mechcommander 1 and 2, and the battletech card game.

In short I think I can offer a level head, professional (as in job related) experience and some competitive (though not top tier) experience.

[Tkhaw]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 September 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

that is all Russ is asking for, a 1 time representative committee to work with PGI to address the ECM issue.

If it works, then we might well have similar opportunities in the future.

But yes, if there are future chances, we need to take measures to ensure the same faces don't represent each time, as that is the way for agenda to get pushed. Even with well meaning players.

IMO, once you have "served" you should be ineligible for future Committees (can we call it that instead of a bloody Player Council.... always does sound like something where people lord over others). It also acts as a brake, of sorts. For instance, I am not really a good choice for this issue, IMO. But there may be future issues, like Mech Scaling, for example, they allow us to make proposals on. Those I might be useful for, and so I would refrain from entering for nomination until a topic I felt I could represent well, was put forth.

Its like term limits (Ex. the President of the US), but here, I would term it as Feature limited.

I would advocate this to limit the possibility of people pushing their own agendas if their position happened to be 4life.

I won't bar people who have served on another committee or council, but make it so that there is a time period where they could have a break to think things through without the burden of being on one.

I don't envy those on the council, all I can say is... Good Luck.

[MischiefSC]

I would say let's skip limits on how or when you can serve on a committee; some people may have a skill set useful on several topics. Some people may be the sort who would do well on most of them, some only for one.

Limits like that don't serve a lot of purpose given that people who are picked for it don't have any sort of power or authority - they're just getting picked because in general folks trust their opinion or at least trust that they'll do a good job expressing a lot of complex ideas in a way people can easily understand.

[STEF_]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 September 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

But there may be future issues, like Mech Scaling, for example, they allow us to make proposals on.

This is really a must.
After ecm-affair, we really need to give medium mechs the place/function they deserve.
(max height ---> hunchback or wolverine, better quirks/reactivities than heavies, are 2 examples).

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 13 September 2014 - 10:17 PM.

[Tkhaw]

MischiefSC, on 13 September 2014 - 09:37 PM, said:

I would say let's skip limits on how or when you can serve on a committee; some people may have a skill set useful on several topics. Some people may be the sort who would do well on most of them, some only for one.

Limits like that don't serve a lot of purpose given that people who are picked for it don't have any sort of power or authority - they're just getting picked because in general folks trust their opinion or at least trust that they'll do a good job expressing a lot of complex ideas in a way people can easily understand.

I agree with what you said, perhaps this matter could be discussed after we sort the ECM out... first!