1306 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

How does this make sure that not the biggest subcomunity just votes their people and ensures the council working objective and not subjective?

[Lightfoot]

I disagree with most players about PP FLD, in my view you just move laterally to opponents and the PP of FLD is mostly broken up and that FLD weapons have a place in a game with varied gameplay as do their DoT variations. Also disagree that the current Gauss Rifle is in any way relevant to Battle Tech or balanced, and with anyone who thinks the PPC slowdown made gameplay better.

Anyone who shares those views would get my vote. I just see MWO as gradually being turned into arcade mush by player's complaints, who don't understand the underlying dynamics of MechWarrior as a tactical simulation of 31st century battlemechs where Mech Piloting is the skill that keeps your mech alive, not skill at requesting an endless list of weapon nerfs.

[Kirkland Langue]

TopDawg, on 13 September 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

Rather than arguing about who should be on it, it's much wiser to establish what the council actually is and should be and then work from there filling it with the appropriate people. It's useless to sweat details that are contingent on the larger picture as a whole.

To be honest, because PGI didn't lay out any detail about the council - I suspect they'll just ask a few people for ideas and then it will be 100% irrelevant who is on the "council" or what they have to say. The entire idea is likely nothing more than a way to pacify the masses for a couple weeks.

[Nik Reaper]

Here's my votes based on the results, the Warroom podcast, and some others places:
Adiuvo, JagerXII , Siriothrax, Egomane, Magician, Homeless Bill.

[TopDawg]

Kirkland Langue, on 13 September 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

To be honest, because PGI didn't lay out any detail about the council - I suspect they'll just ask a few people for ideas and then it will be 100% irrelevant who is on the "council" or what they have to say. The entire idea is likely nothing more than a way to pacify the masses for a couple weeks.

I don't necessarily disagree, especially with more Clan Mech Packs to be sold. But, I'm not necessarily one to look a gift horse in the mouth, either.

There's a few things to take away from the whole thing, but the community and PGI both have to do their part, and I think the burden is unequally laid on the feet of the community. All that said, I'm still trying to put in appropriate feedback where applicable and help people to try and at least get a good foundation to start from.

I'm one of those players that haven't played in ~1.5 years or more, so I'm fairly out of tune with the community (in terms of who can offer objective feedback, is well articulated, is likely to 'do the right thing', etc) and state of the game at this exact moment (in terms of what's the current meta and which new chassis are worthless/DOA; as the underlying mechanics haven't really changed a whole lot since I quit).

But the underlying principle for a council and what it should be trying to accomplish is, in large part, independent to those things. So, still just tossing my pennies in where applicable.

edit: Fixed my grammar, it was buggin' me lol (and shamelessly plugged my post again).

Edited by TopDawg, 13 September 2014 - 08:25 AM.

[DukeDublin]

Vassago Rain gets my vote.

[Devilsfury]

Livewyr, on 13 September 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

Devils... please read the actual post again. (ECM dialogue thread, page 2, Bottom)

Council comes up with a plan based on community input.
Puts it forth to the community to vote.
Changes things to get as close to possible to community consensus.
Community votes on changes again.
Community vote sufficient: PGI begins their vetting process.

Republic drafting, referendum ratification.

All of this is kind of like our government in the US. Our representatives are suppose to serve the people but 99% of them are douchebags who promise everything but end up serving themselves. Remember all of the "change" everyone was promised? Im trolling a little...but you always have to be careful on a council. most end up self serving.

Edited by Devilsfury, 13 September 2014 - 08:40 AM.

[SmokinDave73]

I would like to nominate DeathlyEyes the Current unit Leader of SLDF/Star league Reborn to be put on the list.

[Hillslam]

No player councils. nobody speaks for me but me.

[carl kerensky]

Kirkland Langue, on 13 September 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

I want a council - the notion of having the entire community try to put together a plan for balancing is utter nonsense. Heck, I'd rather a single individual just develop a system which is coherent than have thousands of people just making noise without anything being done.

If the Council/Single Person gets it wrong, so what? It isn't as though the issue can't be revisited. My real vote is just to Swing at the issue. ECM/LRMs are both currently so broken that the game would be better off with them just removed. It doesn't matter what changes are made, it's not likely to be worse than the current situation.

Speed in action is what is important here. Any action is better than none.

Commen sense statement there. We need this community to be focused and a council / individual is needed. All those naysayers...just give it a try because PGI has opened the door. We follow through and PGI is obligated to as well. A win win situation or else someone is going to have egg on there face.

[M0rpHeu5]

I vote for homeless bill couse he shares my vision of a mech power core

[CheebaMech]

" A win win situation or else someone is going to have egg on there face. "

Where?? /looksaround

All joking aside, yes, for these reasons.

[L Y N X]

I nominate the following;

Roland,
Homeless Bill,
Sandpit,
Roadbeer.

[Fut]

Devilsfury, on 13 September 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

All of this is kind of like our government in the US. Our representatives are suppose to serve the people but 99% of them are douchebags who promise everything but end up serving themselves. Remember all of the "change" everyone was promised? Im trolling a little...but you always have to be careful on a council. most end up self serving.

You're completely right. Let's just hope that all of us game geeks can actually use the system properly, without letting greed and personal gain get in the way,

[rusticatedcharm]

MischiefSC, on 13 September 2014 - 12:34 AM, said:

Can we get a poll on, say, Tuesday? There's people who likely haven't even seen the forums yet and while we're making progress the whole point is to be as inclusive as possible.

We're going to need one for the refined ECM decisions, probably a couple.

Is there an option to get a heavily moderated thread or two? Just to keep the clutter to a minimum so we can get into the nitty-gritty of the ECM mechanics we can best agree on.

It would also be nice if the community could agree on A) the size of the task force, and b ) what type of players (competitive, solo, casual) and in what proportions the task force should be comprised of.

Personally I think 5 is just about right. 7 at the most.

For 5,

2 Solo Players (they make up 50% of the MWO player base according to Karl)

1 Comp player

2 experienced Casual players, or people who generally join the group que.

Edited by rusticatedcharm, 13 September 2014 - 09:20 AM.

[Garandos]

Fut, on 13 September 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

You're completely right. Let's just hope that all of us game geeks can actually use the system properly, without letting greed and personal gain get in the way,

What gain?

Those people get no additional privileges, no free stuff, no means to get their ideas favored, nothing.

All they get, is a pice of paper on which a summed up solution from the community is written and the questionable honnor of handing it to the devs.

All they get, is a **** ton of work, no thank you, and done.

[Nightmare1]

Huh, how have I not seen this thread 'till now?

Nice to see some names I recognize on the nominations list. I think some of them are great, while others are cause for concern.

Overall, I think I'll cast mine behind Koniving. The two of us seem to agree on most forum topics we have debated, and, when possessing differing opinions, he's normally been a courteous debater.

When it's all said and done, I'm assuming that the final ECM poll will be in the Feature Suggestions Thread, yes? Just out of curiosity, why not use a poll here to make it easier to count votes for the Council Members?

[shellashock]

I nominate Koniving.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tkhaw, on 13 September 2014 - 02:36 AM, said:

I don't really comment much, but I would nominate for this council:

MischiefSC

Koniving

Homeless Bill

Roland

Bishop (If he still wants)

Others that were banned though, could contribute through proxies

Also make sure that this is not a permanent position (term limits or I would call it feature limits)

As for the nomination process, possibly extend it to a week? That will give time for people to be informed and involved.

I really hope that this initiative could work...

appreciated, but not in mine, or the community's best interest on this subject. I am not as well versed in ECM as many of the others recommended, not do I have the time or desire to be able to promise the needed work to present an idea for the community to vote on.

I feel I can best serve doing exactly what I am doing now. Commenting as needed, bringing counterviews up as needed, and doing my darndest to ensure that those who are chosen, for this single problem, if anyone is, are the one most likely to put the concerns of the community first on ECM, and not their own agenda. Which is another reason I am a poor nominee. AI am strongly opinionated on many matters, which may easily be construed as bias or agenda, and thus cause a distraction shifting focus from what IS important, the chance Russ has given us, the community to have a say in "fixing" ecm.

That is why we cannot afford to screw it up with Cults of Personality, Rabble Rousers, or infighting. Because if we do screw it up, we likely will not get a chance like this again.

As I stated in another forum, it the PGI Trinity do have an ulterior motive, well looking at how we can't even get a consensus agreement on THIS going, they have to be laughing at us quite hardily.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 13 September 2014 - 09:36 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I see two flaws in the council choices thus far in the thread.

1. Nomination of people who have been banned/regularly post insulting and disrespectful material. The only way to get banned is to deliberately act disrespectfully and in violation of the terms you agreed to follow. Also, getting banned only happens after repeated warning. Anyone who has been banned should not be considered to be a good choice of "community representative" because you have to be a rude person to be banned. I look at many of those names that have not yet been banned and I see people who regularly call PGI idiots, stupid, greedy, etc. Once again, rude people who don't represent me.

The whole "freedom of speech" bit is a disgusting display. Your freedom of speech is not infinate; when's the last time someone told you it was okay to scream obscenities in a packed groceries store at the top of your lungs? This is a company-owned website with young kids present. You should learn how to talk respectfully around strangers.

2. Respect of technology. There have been "fix proposals" that plainly don't consider technical information provided by the devs, and yet they didn't stop promoting them. This council has to present ideas that fully correlate with the game's capacities. I won't get into the details of a non-ecm discussion, but any ecm fix must take the developers' words seriously.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 13 September 2014 - 09:46 AM.