1306 replies to this topic

[Stormwolf]

So, have any players been elected yet?

[Bishop Steiner]

Stormwolf, on 15 September 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

So, have any players been elected yet?

just nominations, poll goes live today or tomorrow. IDK when it closes.

[Zyllos]

It has been brought to my attention that I was nominated by individuals in this thread, thus I think it is fair for me to post some suggestions I have given in the past to get a clear direction I coming from:

http://mwomercs.com/...weapon-changes/
http://mwomercs.com/...for-spectating/
http://mwomercs.com/...55#entry3167155

These are just a few I will link.

[Bhelogan]

Just to add my vote to some of the nominees :

Homeless Bill
Konivig
Adiuvo
Roland
Peiper
Sandpit
Roadbeer
Heimdelight
DocBach
TheMagician
Jman5
Heffay
Joseph Mallan
Redshift2k5

[Zyllos]

HRR Mary, on 15 September 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

Simple answer : Roland, for example, advocated for TT values during Closed beta, and I'm sure many others have as well.

Most of the people you are advocating against have a longer history in this game, and this franchise than you know of, hence have an interest in this that goes waaaaay beyond an Ego-driven powertrip.

Where is HRR Insanity? I liked most of his suggestions and would like to nominate him if he is still around (noticed his last post was April).

[Bishop Steiner]

Zyllos, on 15 September 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

It has been brought to my attention that I was nominated by individuals in this thread, thus I think it is fair for me to post some suggestions I have given in the past to get a clear direction I coming from:

http://mwomercs.com/...weapon-changes/
http://mwomercs.com/...for-spectating/
http://mwomercs.com/...55#entry3167155

These are just a few I will link.

important stuff, though since i can only assume that for the sake of clarity, when the polling starts, we will be using new Topic, with the premise and Mission Statement for this Task Force/Committee clearly spelled out in the OP, and then I would assume whatever resume, if any for each nominee?

This topic is already too long and rambling, TBH

[Garandos]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 September 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

just nominations, poll goes live today or tomorrow. IDK when it closes.

See OP, its Tuesday as of suggestion by Russ, which is based on player wishes

[Bishop Steiner]

Garandos, on 15 September 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

See OP, its Tuesday as of suggestion by Russ, which is based on player wishes

cool, as you can see, that kind of feed to the point of my post right above this.

I think for actual nominations/Polls we need a need, clean, well spelled out topic. This one started as such, but much edit and cut and paste has occurred, along with 38 pages of ...stuff. Also, how long will polling be open?

Poll topic should also probably be a "Poll only" one, since having a repeat of the griping on this one seems somewhat pointless. Opposition has already been voiced, and duly noted.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 15 September 2014 - 07:39 AM.

[Revis Volek]

Terrible list and terrible idea....good in theory but I don't see it working the way we think it will.

These guys will have to "speak" for ALL of us. I don't know any of them or have had a conversation about where they stand, where they want this game to go or what they will do with this. Agendas can get pushed and people who head this "council" will always get a bad rap if things go wrong. I don't see anyone wanting this responsibility and to have to be the voice of the QQ'ers and Flame Throwers.

A BUNCH of names on that list are also rather negative and rude players who I do not want speaking for me nor do I think they would have anything beneficial to add to the game.

[HRR Mary]

Zyllos, on 15 September 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

Where is HRR Insanity? I liked most of his suggestions and would like to nominate him if he is still around (noticed his last post was April).

Ins quit completely the game after the Phoenix pack, being disgusted by the lack of listening/discussing by PGI at the time.

He would be my first candidate, as he has a long history of designing sound concepts, and excellent understanding of the intricacites of both TT and Mw games.

[Zyllos]

HRR Mary, on 15 September 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

Ins quit completely the game after the Phoenix pack, being disgusted by the lack of listening/discussing by PGI at the time.

He would be my first candidate, as he has a long history of designing sound concepts, and excellent understanding of the intricacites of both TT and Mw games.

Sorry to hear that.

I quit from the December 2013 to the July-August 2014 timeline myself.

[nehebkau]

Wow. Just wow.
I would seriously reconsider what criteria you are using to pick people. You are choosing people with so much bias on how things should be done when, in reality, you should be picking people based on their ability to listen, consider arguments and make recommendations.

Hell, the best commissions I've worked with have had most of the people on it know NOTHING about the subject matter, recognized it, and took the time to consider, learn and reflect on the issue. And the worst, i mean: "Unable to come to a decision make cogent recommendations and even finish the project" ones I've been on have been loaded with subject-matter experts. You know, there is a reason they try to pick members of a jury who are untainted by previous exposure to the case -- knowledge breeds arrogance and bias which leads to bad decisions.

[Lala Satalin Deviluke]

DarthRevis, on 15 September 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

Terrible list and terrible idea....good in theory but I don't see it working the way we think it will.

These guys will have to "speak" for ALL of us. I don't know any of them or have had a conversation about where they stand, where they want this game to go or what they will do with this. Agendas can get pushed and people who head this "council" will always get a bad rap if things go wrong. I don't see anyone wanting this responsibility and to have to be the voice of the QQ'ers and Flame Throwers.

A BUNCH of names on that list are also rather negative and rude players who I do not want speaking for me nor do I think they would have anything beneficial to add to the game.

nehebkau, on 15 September 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

Wow. Just wow.
I would seriously reconsider what criteria you are using to pick people. You are choosing people with so much bias on how things should be done when, in reality, you should be picking people based on their ability to listen, consider arguments and make recommendations.

Hell, the best commissions I've worked with have had most of the people on it know NOTHING about the subject matter, recognized it, and took the time to consider, learn and reflect on the issue. And the worst, i mean: "Unable to come to a decision make cogent recommendations and even finish the project" ones I've been on have been loaded with subject-matter experts. You know, there is a reason they try to pick members of a jury who are untainted by previous exposure to the case -- knowledge breeds arrogance and bias which leads to bad decisions.

As expected... voices AGAINST are already winning.

• - for Council is still 47%
  
• - against is 50%
  
• - 3% still play MWO and give a 0 fk.

[stjobe]

Lala Satalin Deviluke, on 15 September 2014 - 07:11 AM, said:

Oh, c'mon stop talking like a Jane Psaki, we not believe ya not even on 0,0000000000001%. And those "various forms in different medias" are just a Facebook, tw4tter and some random You-Tube channel. You are not serious aren't ya?

I think he's referring to the fact that many of us has played BattleTech since the mid-80's (personally I started in 1985 with 2nd Edition), and many of us have also played just about any computerized version of the universe (not only MechWarrior 1-4, but the Crescent Hawk series and Mech Commander), and so on and so forth. There's some old hands from the MUX days around, and a lot of posters seem to be playing MekTek).

[Gallowglas]

Man, reading through these posts really drives it home...we're a truly dysfunctional lot. Agreeing on anything is going to be a chore. I hope that something positive comes of this, but I despair that there are too many trolls in the mix who are intent on undermining everything, regardless of source.

Edited by Gallowglas, 15 September 2014 - 08:41 AM.

[Heffay]

Gallowglas, on 15 September 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

Man, reading through these posts really drives it home...we're a truly dysfunctional lot.

Looks like we got an optimist here!

[Hoax415]

I'd like to second some of these newer nominations who may not have the name recognition of the crazy prolific posters who are dominating this proceeding so far:
Fupdup
Villz
DV McKenna
Carl Avery
chronojam

All of those are certainly more representative of our community as a whole than guys like Jager or Heimdelight who are almost assuredly just getting name recognition votes because nothing about their posting personas suggests balanced or fair individual.

We already have seen what happens when the "competitive" community has the backdoor access to balance. They didn't head off the insane pay2win cash grab that clan mechs represented and many accuse them as being at the heart of the PPC meta though I don't know if I buy that conspiracy theory.

Edited by Hoax415, 15 September 2014 - 08:45 AM.

[Gallowglas]

BTW, I'd like to nominate (or second the nomination of) Roland, Homeless Bill, Joseph Mallan, and Roadbeer. I may not always agree with everything they've ever said, but I appreciate the thought that goes into their posts.

I'd also like to personally advocate that while the TT should be used as a baseline for discussion and kept in perspective for development, it shouldn't get in the way of balancing mechanics. The TT, while fun, wasn't always perfect, nor does everything translate into a FPS perfectly either.

P.S. I would have nominated Bishop had he not wussed out on us

Edited by Gallowglas, 15 September 2014 - 11:37 AM.

[Pht]

Gallowglas, on 15 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

I'd also like to personally advocate that while the TT should be used as a baseline for discussion and kept in perspective for development, it shouldn't get in the way of balancing mechanics. The TT, while fun, wasn't always perfect, nor does everything translate into a FPS perfectly either.

As long as you realize that there's a valid counter-argument based upon something besides slavish adherence/delusions of TT perfection by people who ALSO want the game to be fun and want it to be a first-person mechwarrior experience. Said discussion should happen at (a hopefully) more civil level in the PC, based upon the original sources on the topic instead of the usual FUD and catchy electioneering sloganism.

... and because these forums suffer from "post too much stuff to fast to maintain continuity"

Quote

From someone stuck on the outside who is otherwise not decided... and as the dirty old obstinate troll nobody likes looking from the outside in:

If the PC does get formed, it's first duty should be getting all of the people on it to post up clearly worded definitions of what they mean by good "balance" - and than they should come to a majority/super majority agreement on what makes for good "balance" that the group WILL accept (in order to have teeth, this must be a thing the individuals HAVE to accept to be in the group). Which obviously doesn't mean you can't have dissenters, but the dissenters would have to consider things based upon said definition. Also, the PC should NOT be bound to use the same defintion of "balance" that the developers adhere to. It's a PLAYER council, for INPUT.

This definition would than HAVE to be posted publicly in the forums; for input AND mostly so that people know exactly what they're getting with the PC. Without this nobody could know what they were getting from the PC.

Without this initial process of deciding on a defintion of "balance," the PC would be nothing more than a smaller representation of the forums... and because smaller, a less representative group. There has to be a reason to have the PC beyond "a group to help absorb the responsibility for decisions."

The PC should be billed as having the decisional power as to *what ideas they will consider.* This should NOT mean that ideas that the PC refuses to consider should be considered unviable - rather that those with such ideas should soldier on in the normal fashion for their ideas (and do so civilly).

Second, everything the PC does should be done in the open, with the obvious exclusions of their private interactions with the developers, their PMS, and their initial discussion of "what is good balance." The player council is for better interface with the players primarily. That said, their discussions where they hash things out initially should, at the VERY least, be somwhere where only THEY can post; or in a private sub-forum, with the discussions in them made public after their positions are decided and approved.

Also, the PC shouldn't be used as an excuse to remove discussions of balance and the game in general from the forums, not even for the most unpopular ideas (as long as said discussions are civil, obviously).

Last of all ... those representing the players at large in the council, besides being on the PC and the duties that the PC strictly involves, SHOULD HAVE NO other privileges. The reason for this is simple - the point of the PC is to have PLAYERS represented - so if the PC winds up being a "notch above" the players beyond their PC duties, you won't have players represented - you'll have the PC council itself represented. This would obviously mean that the NGNG crew and certain other individuals would be UN-nominatable (such as moderators).

http://mwomercs.com/...council-how-to/

Edited by Pht, 15 September 2014 - 09:11 AM.

[D Day]

My nomination is also for Lusankya.
He would look at the ECM system objectively to make sure it is well rounded and balanced.