1306 replies to this topic

[TLBFestus]

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.

On the topic of polls., they aren't necessarily to be discarded. They can be structured in a way such that if there were 5 options to deal with, well......, for an example, Heat.

Since PGI requires such a high percentage approval, a simple "first past the post" vote would rarely make that yard post, 80%, especially in the case above where there would be multiple options to chose.

So the poll would have to be in several stages.

STAGE 1.

List all the available choices and let the community vote.
This could involve (depending on what polling module can be used, voting for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice as a solution. Each vote is weighted to represent it's value, ie. 1st vote is worth 3 points, 2nd is worth 2, 3rd is worth one.

STAGE 2.

The bottom 1 or 2 options after the initial poll is closed and the votes counted, are dropped from the ballot and the vote is held again after an explanation of the remaining options is again explained.

STAGE 3.

Elimination of the lowest vote capturing options continue until only 1 remains.
This isn't a sure thing, since the threshold is so high, but it does eliminate the weaker proposals/solutions early on and concentrate the vote.

It would be important that those who vote, vote at each stage. They would need to consider options and choices are eliminated, each one taken off the ballot WITH an explanation of what it's weaknesses were.

Personally I think that this could be a good tool used to force players to consider more than one solution and have them really think hard about their choices. For the most part you aren't going to get a huge majority at the first ballot, there are just too many options to split the vote. Having subsequent ballots "concentrates" the vote and forces critical thinking.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

and some people will make it a cult of popularity position to drive agendas.

We have more than 5-9 people qualified to work on and submit ideas on almost any project. Since this is not about driving one's personal agendas or ideas anyhow, the less attractive it is, the better.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Remember folks, don't get ahead of yourselves. This council thing's purpose is just to assemble an ECM change proposal that the vast majority of the playerbase can get behind and present to PGI. It is a one time thing. If it fails, nothing will change, but if it works, it would be a great thing. But again, the goal here is to consolidate the playerbase into a focused voice. The only effective way to do that is to get some good representatives to hash out the proposals and write them up for everyone else to consider and vote on what they'd like to see. Again, the goal is not to have a perfect ECM system, and in fact, all we are allowed to change here (that's the scope Russ has given) is ECM and maybe one or two minor things with a related system like LRMs. So basically, we are not talking about an overhaul of IW. That's way too much of a project at this time anyway.

Also, the voting is only for nominations. All nominees should be on the ballet (perhaps the top 20 listed and an "other-fill in" and an "abstain from voting." We are not yet voting for who should be on the council. And this council is only for this one particular ECM issue with the limited scope that Russ has given them to work within.

[DocBach]

Nominate spiralface, he has experience in game development and some good ideas posted

[wanderer]

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.

Unless you're actually using the advanced heat scale, which goes further and includes such MWO-familiar results as causing internal damage that can kill a 'Mech outright, fry the pilot, or automatically trigger ammo explosions. In truth, a 'Mech actually shuts itself down no matter what at 50, not 30. It's just really, really hard to prevent it. At 32, the heat level is high enough to risk frying the pilot, who is naturally more fragile than the 'Mech even with dedicated life support systems.



This is the sorta thing I'd provide to a council. I don't just know the usual rules, I've kept up with them backwards and forwards.

[PhoenixFire55]

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.

Moderators are proven contributors to the forum, they know it and they put a lot of effort into it. If any sort of council is gonna actually happen, then all decisions and discussions should happen within the forum for maximum publicity. Moderators in this case are the ones that'll be best to organize such discussions. Honestly I think you overestimate the degree of connection between PGI and forum mods. As for being biased, we all are biased, there is no way around it.

[Garandos]

New Numbers are up for Sundays Count!

________________________________

Sidenote:

Russ mentioned to have it run till tuesday, so spread the word!

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3719103

__________________________________________________



My personal thanks to everybody who participates here!
I know, it doesnt mean much, i am just "some guy" from the community, but its noce to see that we can get the ball rolling together!

[Garandos]

On a short note:

I would still like to have TWO Volunteers to help doublecheck the numbers in Tuesday,

i would even think, it would be great if one would be a PGI employee, Nico for example, as he IS our CM

and one Member of the Community, maybe someone with a more solid background in the community then me.

That would show that we (Players and PGI) are seriously working together on this, and it would help, to lay the foundation for the teamwork we are looking ahead to.

[nonnex]

Good suggestion,

Niko indeed should be involved (never mind what was in the past) because he is our CM.
He should get intouch with the community again because we havent saw him the last days around.

Edited by nonnex, 14 September 2014 - 08:10 AM.

[Egomane]

I'd like to comment on my nomination, that I have seen in a post or two, as well as some discussion about it.

In short: No I will not be a part of this council.

I have an idea for ECM which I will provide when the time comes, but I will not be making any decisions.

Long version...
Some users will indeed see me as biased. Independent of my actions. It comes with the moderator status, which some can not ignore and with my defence of PGI and IGP decisions against popular opinion. I would like this whole thing to have as much trust in the council as possible.

On that subject I want to remind everyone to leave your personal grief out of this. Don't make this a smear campaign. Whoever posted the picture link behind my name on the google document, in an attempt to discredit me (well... Just proved my point in the pictured post in some way), please remember that we all want the best for the game, so we can have fun with it for as long as possible.

Edited by Egomane, 14 September 2014 - 05:58 AM.

[headbasher]

PhoenixFire55, on 14 September 2014 - 12:49 AM, said:

Moderators are proven contributors to the forum, they know it and they put a lot of effort into it. If any sort of council is gonna actually happen, then all decisions and discussions should happen within the forum for maximum publicity. Moderators in this case are the ones that'll be best to organize such discussions. Honestly I think you overestimate the degree of connection between PGI and forum mods. As for being biased, we all are biased, there is no way around it.

He is right though the first time something bad happens in the same hemisphere as a council member that is also a mod people will be yelling for their head on a platter and corruption. Think about the enviroment this is being discussed in .

Edited by headbasher, 14 September 2014 - 06:08 AM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

One thing this thread clearly shows to me is it is not representative of the whole community.

That's why from the beginning I have felt the council idea is just bad and the idea of creating one from the forums is even worse.

The only way this could possibly work and be near balanced is if the polling went in game itself because the vast majority doesn't come here or participate.

Far better to have the ingame window direct users to a poll with PGI's questions instead.

Of all the front runners here I see a particular mindset across them and forum popularity does not equate to the whole playerbase.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mudhutwarrior, on 14 September 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

One thing this thread clearly shows to me is it is not representative of the whole community.

That's why from the beginning I have felt the council idea is just bad and the idea of creating one from the forums is even worse.

The only way this could possibly work and be near balanced is if the polling went in game itself because the vast majority doesn't come here or participate.

Far better to have the ingame window direct users to a poll with PGI's questions instead.

Of all the front runners here I see a particular mindset across them and forum popularity does not equate to the whole playerbase.

That's nice.

Also not the option Russ has presented us with. Right now, like most things in life, it is a compromise. Do we gnash our teeth because the method involved is not the one we feel is the best available (a recurring mindset behind a lot of our forum issues and player rage... "my way or no way") or does one take the tools at hand and make the best of them, and see if one cannot manage to make it work, anyhow?

We could, spend forever debating the best ways to approach getting things fixed, and watch the opportunity pass us by, proving to the Devs we can't handle our own crap, or we can focus on what is before us now, make it work, and through our actions, open things up more input in the future.

But if people simply remain obstinate and argumentative, why SHOULD they listen to us?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 14 September 2014 - 06:24 AM.

[Khobai]

I agree direct polling is better. This council thing has no real merit IMO. And this thread IS proof of that. Because players cant even agree that they want a council. So how could a council possibly represent the whole community?

At the very least there should be a poll to determine if the player base wants direct voting, a council, or some other means of reaching a consensus.

Quote

Also not the option Russ has presented us with.

Except Russ never said we needed to form a player council. He just said that we, as the community, should devise a way to reach a consensus. He used a player council as one example of how to do that. But thats not necessarily the only way or even the best way.

Right now the community cant even reach a consensus on HOW to reach a consensus.

Edited by Khobai, 14 September 2014 - 06:31 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 14 September 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

I agree direct polling is better. This council thing has no real merit IMO. And this thread IS proof of that. Because players cant even agree that they want a council. So how could a council possibly represent the whole community?

At the very least there should be a poll to determine if the player base wants direct voting, a council, or some other means of reaching a consensus.



Except Russ never said we needed to form a player council. He just said that we, as the community, should devise a way to reach a consensus. He used a player council as one example of how to do that. But thats not necessarily the only way or even the best way.

Right now the community cant even reach a consensus on HOW to reach a consensus.

and yet.....

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3719083


http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3719103

[Khobai]

Except neither of those are the post I was referring to.

The fact is we shouldve voted on how to reach a consensus before a small handful of people decided to poison the well with the whole council idea.

[The Dreaded Baron B Killer]

what's wrong with a council? Having intermediaries between PGI and the gamers isn't a bad idea no?

or are people annoyed that there will be people ranked higher than them? is this an ego thing again?

[Hoax415]

Its a question of why bother.

The reason koniving is being mentioned time and again is because he's made large posts and done lots of data mining to back them up.

Everyone saw those posts because they rose the the front page and stayed there because people were all talking about his ideas.

We don't need a council to say, this is a good idea that gets people talking. Its obvious.

If Niko did his job as community manager posts of that higher quality of feedback would be summarized and passed on to Russ and Paul already.

But he's too busy monitoring other sites in order to ban people I suppose.

tl;dr
This council's job is to do something we as a forum community were already naturally doing. We don't need a council to review the best threads they already are easy to spot because they reach 5+ pages of positive replies.

[SpiralFace]

Hey guys, just came across this and saw my name on the initial list.

As I have already provided a proposal of my own for consideration by the community:

http://mwomercs.com/...55#entry3719755

I'm not sure if its wise to also put my name into this "Player counsel" for anything beyond consulting on how to present information.

As I kinda have a horse in this race due to my proposal.

I'm open for it if the counsel wants my opinion on anything, I'm just not sure if people want me in that position.

BaronBastardKiller, on 14 September 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

what's wrong with a council? Having intermediaries between PGI and the gamers isn't a bad idea no?

or are people annoyed that there will be people ranked higher than them? is this an ego thing again?

I think a counsel proposing an idea to developers itself can be a mixed bag if they do not have any experience on the matter. But the idea of having the bigger players in the community unite and back a horse of their choosing is big.

Ultimately, if players trust the collective opinions of this "counsel" then I think its going to be important for them to come together and speak as one voice to help drive this thing. (as make no mistake, as people listen to their opinions, they will be the ones signing off on this before its presented.) But at the same time, recognize where they are weakest, and bring on help where they see the need to.

With 80% buy in needed, this is TOO BIG to let ANY kind of ego get in the way. Both through the counsel members and burned players that feel like they want more of a voice.

If you have something to say, be sure to say it. I'm not a heavy forum user like Bishop or Homeless, but that doesn't stop me from writing my own opinion on the matter to pass it off to the community, and I encourage others to do so as well.

Ultimately, the end goal is to instigate change, and if we hope to work with a unified voice, then some amount of organization and spear heading is needed. And if a majority of the people trust the opinions of members on the counsel, then it adds more legitimacy to what is ultimately proposed at the end of all of this.

[Hoax415]

Let me illustrate that point:

http://mwomercs.com/...-broken-the-a1/

over 60 likes on the OP, nobody in thread saying, pls pls keep those stupid looking cancer boxes on the A1!

the community has spoken. This is a low priority but obvious visual fix that is needed. PGI may even already be listening to this as the Raven's recent redo in terms of missiles is much much better looking.

http://mwomercs.com/...ueue-right-now/

A 50 like OP suggesting that the jump jet nerfs and fall damage are too harsh on lights. PGI shouldn't need the council to be told only 15% at most play (except if a new light mech has been released or its people suicideing for some event) lights in solo queue because they have access to the data.

I'm sure you can find lots of other threads, I saw probably 5-6 sorting by volume of replies on ECM and/or LRM balance.