1306 replies to this topic

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Let's boil this down to the Basics. How about each house have a rep, one rep for the mercs, and one rep for the clans. That's 8... then one super neutral guy (possibly a banned one) could represent comstar.

[Prezimonto]

I might also suggest, just to get the ball rolling, that PGI take an honest look at who has provided real constructive feedback and approach around 10 players to start the process.

My strong guess is that the same pile of names will come up on their list, as has come up on our list. After that let the posts fill with an internal vote from the council as people get busy and no longer have time or interest. This, mostly, ensures at least several years of solid people are in place.

[buttmonkey]

I would recommend lifting bans and bringing people back into the fold to open up a dialogue. The people I would nominate are currently in excile, and i feel the problems can't begin to be addressed until everyone if included in this.

[Carrioncrows]

I vote for Bishop.

1. Mostly because he is one o the most respected members around here and has shown his ability to argue the Mertis of an idea without it getting personal.

2. Battletech purist, but doesn't let the rules stand in the way of common sense.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tolkien, on 12 September 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

The council also needs to have enough members to represent a diverse cross section (5-7 players at least), a private area of the forums to deliberate undisturbed, and the ability to override developer decisions on features past present or future. Seriously otherwise the council will just be ignored like the secret squirrels were, or the vast majority of the player base was when PGI thought they could get away with it:

how many times you gonna post the same jpeg as you try to push your own agenda?

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Carrioncrows, on 12 September 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

1. Mostly because he is one o the most respected members around here and has shown his ability to argue the Mertis of an idea without it getting personal.

AHAHHAA OMG you're serious right? /wipes tears away from laughter. We do not need council members who feel they are judge, jury, and executioner. It's a collective process. Not the Bishop Steiner Show.

Edited by lockwoodx, 12 September 2014 - 02:16 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Training Instructor, on 12 September 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

Most of the coaches of successful college and NFL teams weren't particularly good players themselves. Same for baseball and basketball.

Some of those guys who get splattered by competitive teams understand more about the game and overall balance than competitive players do. Just because they don't have lightning reflexes and the ability to sit in one position until someone tells them to move and fire at target X doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to analyze and draw correct conclusions about game mechanics, weapon characteristics, tactics, map balance, etc.

Nothing funnier than playing 12 mans and coming across a team talking a bunch of trash, when in reality they're being carried by 2-4 exceptional players. I believe the logical fallacy is false attribution, or something along those lines.

I've now agreed with posts from you, 3rd World and Khobai all within 24 hours.

I must be off my rocker. Or the Apocalypse aproaches.

[Prezimonto]

Last thought:

Given that PGI is looking for 80% consensus from the community, I would suggest the council stick to fairly vague ideas on balance unless PGI honestly wants more detailed proposals.

Right now we know: ECM is a mechanic lots of people want changed. First issue to figure out if the consensus is truely towards a nerf, a restructuring, or a slight change. I know what I am in favor of, but it might well not be the overall point of view, which given our limitations means I'm mostly out of luck. And I'm okay with that, if this means we have a REAL change to give them advice they'll listen to seriously.

[Helmer]

So far we have...


Create Council of TBD number of people (Voted on by the community. Probably need a poll)
Council pares down the community ideas on ECM (An area to discuss ideas.Possibly a private forum or limited to posts from council)
Community Votes on said items
Presented to PGI


Names I've taken down so far . I've excluded a few names of people I know are irrecoverably banned, or are moderators (Not a good idea)


Heimdelight
MischiefSC
IraqiWalker
TheMagician
Adiuvo
Roland
JagerXII
Saxie
Joseph
McGrawl
StJobe
Heffay
Rasc4l
Stalkerr
Redshift2k5
Jody Von Jedi
Koniving
Homeless Bill
TopDawg
Bishop Steiner
DocBach
Wispsy
Livewyr
Gyrok
Peiper
Mustrum Ridcully
ChronoJam
Vassago Rain
Deathlike
Sandpit
Jman5
Novakaine
Bladesplint
Siriothrax


By no means is this anything official or even complete. Just trying to help the process. It's up to you guys to decide.




Cheers.

Edited by Helmer, 12 September 2014 - 04:11 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

I nominate Gyrok in addition to the rest of those I've named because not only does it manage one of the biggest clan factions in the game, but being a developer and lore advocate he can provide a unique perspective to the council.

[Carrioncrows]

lockwoodx, on 12 September 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

AHAHHAA OMG you're serious right? /wipes tears away from laughter

Yes.

You on the other hand I have never heard of.

[Journeyman]

Peiper has taken up discussion on this in the past with forum posts towards PGI and I nominate him for consideration as well as the others in the hat here.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 September 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

I've now agreed with posts from you, 3rd World and Khobai all within 24 hours.

I must be off my rocker. Or the Apocalypse aproaches.

No, just a sign that we are all looking to work togher for a common goal, rather than our own agendas for once.

[Kirkland Langue]

Should create a thread where each of those people may (if they want to run) post a paragraph outlining their general thoughts on LRM/ECM - let nobody else post in that thread, so that it doesn't become cluttered.

[Heffay]

Metus regem, on 12 September 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

No, just a sign that we are all looking to work togher for a common goal, rather than our own agendas for once.

Well, until a decision has to be made at least...

[Metus regem]

Heffay, on 12 September 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Well, until a decision has to be made at least...

Too true, and that makes me a sad panda.

I wonder what it is about game forums that seem to bring out the worst in people....

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Carrioncrows, on 12 September 2014 - 02:18 PM, said:

Yes.

You on the other hand I have never heard of.

I'm not asking for a nomination, nor do I desire it. The only time you hear from me is if there's a flaw to be exposed. I'm very good at that, which is why regular posters find me a thorn in their side.

If the mindless masses want to follow the most vocal voices blindly, you shall reap what you sow.

Edited by lockwoodx, 12 September 2014 - 02:23 PM.

[SinisterSocks]

Heffay, on 12 September 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

Here are another set of restrictions that we should apply to potential members of the Player Council, in order to ensure we only have the highest quality people participating.

1) Nobody under 25. They already have ninja assassin gaming twitch skills. Let them learn some patience before participating in a leadership position.
2) Never been banned. If you can't express dissatisfaction like an adult, see rule 1.
3) College graduate. Prove that you have enough critical thinking skills and dedication to get through a higher education program. Liberal Arts degrees will be taken on a case by case basis.
4) Married at least 5 years with no divorces. If you can't handle a spouse, you will never be able to handle the MWO player base.

That's all I have for now. Will add more if I think of any other good restrictions.

I want to say I agree with this in fear of being called a Goon. I feel in order to nominate anyone we have to first set standard/criteria each nominee must meet. I see a lot of names I recognize but there are tons more people out there that frankly want nothing to do with the forums because all the negativity. Anyway, this set of rules is a good start. We may need a few more though. Thats all for now. but I reserve the right to edit this post.

[Heffay]

lockwoodx, on 12 September 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

The only time you hear from me is if there's a flaw to be exposed. I'm very good at that, which is why regular posters find me a thorn in their side.

You're absolutely right. You'll keep looking for a flaw until you find one...

[Peiper]

Journeyman, above, bugged me and pointed this thread out to me and how PGI MIGHT be considering a fix for ECM.

I revised my original fix to ECM due to changes in the game and what seems to be possible to implement vs. what is impossible (or would take forever). This following idea is outside the box, but consider, if you change ECM, you have to change everything related to it.

http://mwomercs.com/...warfare-scouts/

This is my original idea, which is not too different from the above, current idea. It was popular then, and I expect that it would still be a popular idea. Here is my old proposal and poll.

http://mwomercs.com/...les-considered/

I accept Journeyman's nomination, and would work diligently as representative to change ECM (and other electronic/sensor options) to both fit the flavor of the lore/tabletop and also with consideration toward what MWO is (and it is NOT battletech, but the more it FEELS like battletech should, the better a game it will be!). I would also be willing to meet with/work with a group to hammer out a proposal. I feel very passionately that ECM and informational warfare needs revision, strengthening the role of scouts (role warfare), and providing appropriate countermeasures for other mechs/roles to fit.

Edited by Peiper, 14 September 2014 - 07:03 PM.