1306 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Hoax415, on 14 September 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

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.

Hoax.. seriously. Just because you do not see the purpose does not mean there is none. You have been doing nothing by trying to fight everyone on it...

If anything, you are wasting YOUR time more than anyone else that might be on this council. (And now you have wasted a bit of mine.)

[Bishop Steiner]

Some people really only post to be an obstruction, it seems.

[Hoax415]

Some people just post to stroke themselves as they smugly declare majority opinions I suppose.

I was answering a question asked by BaronBastardKiller, what the hell are you contributing?

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?

That's called being part of the discussion. Whereas Bishop Windbag as usual is just saying "anyone who isn't on board with us should go home".

As for you Livewyr, I suppose you can almost taste a council position as long as members are chosen not based on merit but on forum notoriety and popularity so now anyone who isn't gung ho about this foolish exercise is your enemy I guess.

The way this is being run you guys might has well have picked the ten clowns with the highest post count and be done with it. At least that way we would have a variety of perspectives maybe instead of this which is quickly becoming one group of prolific posters dominating proceedings and declaring that they know who from their group should be spokespeople of the whole.

Truly you two paragons of discussion and measured thought are proof that this council will be what saves the entire community. /s

Edited by Hoax415, 14 September 2014 - 08:06 AM.

[TLBFestus]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 September 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

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

Don't you think that THAT might not be part of the purpose of this exercise? A real world demonstration of the difficulties they face?

See, I've never had a huge problem with the way they have chosen to implement weapon mechanics, heat, or damage levels. I simply adapt to the current "balance". Yes, I can see alternatives, but we are all stuck with the same thing so "que sera sera". OK...convergence is something I'd like to see changed, but I digress.

My issue with PGI has always been about the direction they choose, the promises they've broken, and the lack of respect that some of them have shown us in the past.

So being given an opportunity to have input into the game mechanics is a nice thing, but it's not necessarily the crux of the problem between PGI and the community.

Could it improve the game? Yes

Can it improve the relationship between the forum community and PGI? It's a step in the right direction, but there needs to be work in other areas for the real fix to occur. I'm not so heavily invested in weapons balance that it will impact my I attitude towards PGI, but hopefully it will lead to improvement of the community, which should be the real goal. In the end maybe this exercise may be more important for making us experience the difficulty of achieving balance than anything.

[Psydotek]

I like this idea.

I don't like the idea of elitist d-bags with attitudes that are unfriendly to players of any skill level being in any sort of authoritative position. See the MOBA community for good examples.

So someone with good knowledge of Battletech mechanics/lore and has a good attitude especially towards new (or n00b) players would get my vote.

Tentatively voting Homeless Bill. Excellent Battletech knowledge with good gameplay suggestions while remaining neutral towards players regardless of skill level (at least from what I remember reading). I'm pretty sure I don't remember any posts from him ripping into players for any reason.

[Bishop Steiner]

TLBFestus, on 14 September 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

Don't you think that THAT might not be part of the purpose of this exercise? A real world demonstration of the difficulties they face?

See, I've never had a huge problem with the way they have chosen to implement weapon mechanics, heat, or damage levels. I simply adapt to the current "balance". Yes, I can see alternatives, but we are all stuck with the same thing so "que sera sera". OK...convergence is something I'd like to see changed, but I digress.

My issue with PGI has always been about the direction they choose, the promises they've broken, and the lack of respect that some of them have shown us in the past.

So being given an opportunity to have input into the game mechanics is a nice thing, but it's not necessarily the crux of the problem between PGI and the community.

Could it improve the game? Yes

Can it improve the relationship between the forum community and PGI? It's a step in the right direction, but there needs to be work in other areas for the real fix to occur. I'm not so heavily invested in weapons balance that it will impact my I attitude towards PGI, but hopefully it will lead to improvement of the community, which should be the real goal. In the end maybe this exercise may be more important for making us experience the difficulty of achieving balance than anything.

Indeed I do. And all the pissing, squabbling and "we shouldn't do this because" talk is just playing up the perception we can't get our crap together.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

If people stopped answering quote to quote about things that aren't really the topic that wouldn't be the case.

[Hagoromo Gitsune]

Onmyoudo, on 12 September 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Koniving is probably the best person to discuss balance, if he wanted to do something like this.

No. Cause he appealing to Lore which he wants to violate for good of crans.

Edited by Hagoromo Gitsune, 14 September 2014 - 09:10 AM.

[Bront]

Apparently this is what I get for not being active on Reddit. Not even a single vote

A few good names on here at least

[Adiuvo]

How does everyone feel about starting an actual poll on Monday?

[Lukoi Banacek]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 September 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

Indeed I do. And all the pissing, squabbling and "we shouldn't do this because" talk is just playing up the perception we can't get our crap together.

It's probably more than a perception.

31 pages and no closer.

Seriously, we've come "together" on issues before, as has been shown time and again.

Throw up some options on ECM and the related IW/LRM issues as discrete votable chunks and see what the community gravitates toward. It would take less time than trying to settle on what a player committee should look like or who it should include.

Frankly, Egomane locked a thread that had some minor ideas being tossed around via a poll because even he thought that Russ was directing us to create this council, when in fact he did not. He offered it up as a technique to push a community driven consensus on the specific issue of ECM. That simple but very telling mistake by a moderator (btw the thread did not violate ToS) is a strong example of what is wrong with this entire concept right now.

[Sarlic]

Why dont we have a poll Saturday?

Each Saturday the community gets a poll represented with a idea from PGI. Both accesable from the homepage and the forums.

I dont think a council will work..let the community decide on a vote basis. Not based on 5 players or a council.

Edited by Sarlic, 14 September 2014 - 09:17 AM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Adiuvo, on 14 September 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

How does everyone feel about starting an actual poll on Monday?

Well, whomever decides to start a poll on community council membership, please include an option for write-ins.

[Viges]

Adiuvo, on 14 September 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

How does everyone feel about starting an actual poll on Monday?

Good.


p.s.

smurfy for president!

[Hagoromo Gitsune]

I totaly against "any" player concil ftw...

Did you guys forgot why Gauss, JJ's, IS, Crans... etc., was nerfed? Yap, cause of players roll of whine. Andif we gonna let players concil happened say "good bye" to any remains of balance in game.

So.... JUST NO. Request lock on this heresy.

[Sarlic]

Hagoromo Gitsune, on 14 September 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

I totaly against "any" player concil ftw...

Did you guys forgot why Gauss, JJ's, IS, Crans... etc., was nerfed? Yap, cause of players roll of whine. Andif we gonna let players concil happened say "good bye" to any remains of balance in game.

So.... JUST NO. Request lock on this heresy.

JJ nerf was needed.
Gauss nerf was needed.

What are you talking about?

The main difference is how PGI applied a solution, the solution is not good.

But i dont want a council either.

Edited by Sarlic, 14 September 2014 - 09:26 AM.

[Viges]

Hagoromo Gitsune, on 14 September 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

I totaly against "any" player concil ftw...

Did you guys forgot why Gauss, JJ's, IS, Crans... etc., was nerfed? Yap, cause of players roll of whine. Andif we gonna let players concil happened say "good bye" to any remains of balance in game.

So.... JUST NO. Request lock on this heresy.

I guess they can include the option against the council so you and others would have the choice?

[zolop]

Personally I think this is a bad idea as this will turn into a popularity contest in if its was first started for a "council". A vote system for PgI's choices would be better with development into both the faction warfare (with a full repair salvage system) and public matches. MAke two development choices that develope the pub match system and the competitive/faction play. Now that they have a faction system introduced into MWO in the next few months htis is possible.

basically we can vote for the developement choices for pub play and faction/competative system. can develope both into the same time since faction/competative system will be put into MWO soon,

Edited by zolop, 14 September 2014 - 10:03 AM.

[Dragcos]

Personally I like how Warframe did it, pay enough cash into the game, get into the design council. Simple, effective, elegant. In that respect it also helps bring in money for the game as well.

If I had to vote on any player to be in the council Of course I would vote for Dragcos... lol

[Viges]

Dragcos, on 14 September 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

Personally I like how Warframe did it, pay enough cash into the game, get into the design council. Simple, effective, elegant. In that respect it also helps bring in money for the game as well.

If I had to vote on any player to be in the council Of course I would vote for Dragcos... lol

Pay to balance? lol That is a horrible idea.