1306 replies to this topic

[FartSniffer87]

I VOLUNTEER AS TRIBUTE!

[musketti]

My vote goes to VXJaeger

[Paavo Perusjuntti]

As my first post I'm going to vote VXJaeger.

[MischiefSC]

Also, please read the thread. The council/task force isn't voting for anything, they will have no authority of any sort. They're just going to gather and condense player recommendations into something the community can vote on and debate it intelligently in a way everyone can see without 50 pages of static. Players will, obviously, debate this as well. We'll probably have a second round of refinement based on that.

There is no 'no council' vote. You can choose to not vote on the ECM recommendations in which case you're voting to prevent 80% consensus and sinking the offer from PGI to have players involved in game changing decisions. There is no option on the table from PGI for any other option.

If you want to introduce changes to ECM and start a dialog with PGI on player driven changes to game mechanics, this is the avenue we have to do it. If you don't, then, well, you don't really have to do anything.

[EboneezeeR]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 September 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

LORE is not the rules. The TT DEVS will tell you that in any language you need to hear it in. AND I have a Dragon Magazine that reviewed the TT from around 83-84? Started playing a year After StJobe though.

TT is not a Lore, so ain't rules too. If you pretending to be so smart lad, you should know that PGI to increase TTK doubled the armor in MWO. Which is so wrong. And that become a corner or even the base stone of screwing balance in game.
And now you dare to apply to TT rules after such crucial mistake? Well lad... Moon will most likely hits the Earth than I'll vote for such peoples like you.

You guys just got NO RIGHTS to represent a players community.


My vote goes to Ronald and Hagoromo as Council Inquisitor, I hope Hagoromo will be put in there to watch your arses.

Edited by EboneezeeR, 15 September 2014 - 11:15 AM.

[Muaziz]

musketti, on 15 September 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

My vote goes to VXJaeger

One vote for VXJaeger aswell.

[elde]

I vote VXJaeger as well.

He started MWO in the closed beta, and made Aseveljet the biggest finnish (nordic too I think) MWO gaming community there is. The community is growing, accepting all kinds of players, and it's competitive team is doing great in RHOD EU.

VXJaeger is a sensible, educated and social player with a passion towards BattleTech and MechWarrior. You couldn't choose better than him to represent the MWO player base.

[UnsafePilot]

I feel like this needs restating:

MischiefSC, on 15 September 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

This isn't a place to vote; the vote is going to be tomorrow.

[Muaziz]

UnsafePilot, on 15 September 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

I feel like this needs restating:

UnsafePilot, on 15 September 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

I feel like this needs restating:

Source?

[UnsafePilot]

Muaziz, on 15 September 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Source?

A little further up the page:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3724565

[Diplomat99]

My vote for VXJaeger

[Cherewas Ondairn]

VXJaeger +1

[Gallowglas]

One thing that does concern me is the idea of ballot-stuffing by use of multiple accounts. The recent spate of posts raises the specter of that possibility. Mind you, those might be legitimate votes of confidence (and if so, carry on), but vote spam from 1-post accounts would be worrisome in actual voting.

Edited by Gallowglas, 15 September 2014 - 11:34 AM.

[stjobe]

Diplomat99, on 15 September 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

My vote for VXJaeger

Perhaps you VXJaeger fans should take the time to read both Russ' post and this thread; you're not voting for Player President, and this is not the place to cast your votes anyway - just to suggest names to be added to the poll once it starts tomorrow.

Edited by stjobe, 15 September 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[EboneezeeR]

TheB33f, on 15 September 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

I VOLUNTEER AS TRIBUTE!

YAY, I VOTE FOR B33F!
Cause at least than game become unpredictable like a monkey with grenade.

[Pht]

RetroActive, on 15 September 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

Relax. It is all my opinion, which I am entitled to. I don't like the idea of adhering to table top rules for this game as I don't think some of the rules sound very fun.

It's nice to see some intellectual honesty on this topic instead of the usual immature FUD and name calling.

So, what about putting the maths that represent the battlemech's ability to get its weapons aligned to hit what it's pilot is tracking into the game doesn't seem fun to you? ... it seems fairly odd to me, because what maths get used are directly controlled by the player's skill and choices... and the maths go from "i am a mental midget trying to do the impossible and thus my mech can't hit the impossible target I want" to "I paid attention and I put a gauss slug into my target's leg at twice the rated range for a gauss rifle because my target was dumb enough to not move" - http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Quote

Just because someone is capable of writing a well thought out wall of text, does not mean that I agree with it or that it seems like a valid solution to me. Also, I think that a lot of the people I am referring to have a very strong agenda that they have ALWAYS been pushing.

It's all my opinion, man, which you will never change. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Funny irony. You're point out that others have strong opinions that they push and than ... strongly push your opinion.

It's possible for people to change their minds, you know. How can you or anyone else decide any given position is worthy of your support ... if nobody ever puts their position out there consistently? You weren't born holding all the opinions you do now.

Gallowglas, on 15 September 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

I don't mean to sound snarky or dismissive, but how would you adopt the TT rules to address travel time of shots? How would you address shot accuracy? Would you be patient enough to wait for a 10-second CD? How would pulse lasers translate? Don't you think the inability to strictly follow the TT rules on these things (in many cases because they were only meant to address turn-based action) might cause cascading balance issues which might cause some divergence from TT rules?

Travel time - not necessary for the real time implementation. No, I'm not joking. Not necessary. Either the weapons hit or they don't, based upon player skill, and what conditions occurring when the shot is made, conditions controlled by ... player choices. How slow or fast weapons fire is visually drawn is a variable that can be tweaked till the weapons fire makes visual "sense" for player feedback in-game.

"Shot accuracy" - it's addressed as it should be. How well the player knows their mech's capabilities and how well they can track their chosen target with the reticule on the screen. What maths (maths that represent the MECH's combat capabilities) wholly depends on player skill and choices.

"10 second recycle" - heat is the mechanic that controls for all weapons, even non-heat generating weapons; excess overheat degrades your 'mech's ability to align the weapons (myomers don't respond well to overheating and get sluggish, jerky, and unpredictable, amongst other heat caused variables). If you want a recycle faster than 10 seconds, add the approrpriate level of heat. Slower recycle, subtract heat. Obviously you'll need the overheat consequences in the game - consequences which are only possible if the maths representing the 'mech's combat capabilities are in the game.

"pulse lasers translate" - just fine, as you'd be using the maths and rules they were built for.

"In many cases meant to address turn based..." - This is nice, and all, but the rules translate quite well into real time, which isn't a butt-pull; I have access to the rules and the maths themselves, and ... what a shock... when I looked to see if they'd translate in a way that retained human skill and human choices as the controlling factor for outcomes they did. Working in the original sources instead of here-say is much more useful. Do they all translate perfectly and are they without any flaws ... DUH... NO!

EboneezeeR, on 15 September 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

TT is not a Lore, so ain't rules too.

False. I got curious on the topic and asked the people that maintain the BT Intellectual Property and found out that the lore at large is controlled by/"contained within the box of" the tt rules and maths - and for the 'mechs in particular the tt and the tech essay in techmanual. This, from the guy that wrote said article in the techmanual and the BT line developer: http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

Quote

If you pretending to be so smart lad, you should know that PGI to increase TTK doubled the armor in MWO. Which is so wrong. And that become a corner or even the base stone of screwing balance in game.

We know they picked up the weapons and armor damage numbers but not the rules and maths those numbers were built to work in, and most likely because they mistook part of the maths in the tt system as representing human skill instead of battlemech combat performance. Even in the position I'm in, I'd like to see them take a mulligan on this, which seems more possible now with their current business setup.

Edited by Pht, 15 September 2014 - 11:42 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

EboneezeeR, on 15 September 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

YAY, I VOTE FOR B33F!
Cause at least than game become unpredictable like a monkey with grenade.

What are you saying! That can only end badly!

The Monkey with a Grenade if you were wondering.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 15 September 2014 - 11:43 AM.

[EboneezeeR]

Pht, on 15 September 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

False. I got curious on the topic and asked the people that maintain the BT Intellectual Property and found out that the lore at large is controlled by/"contained within the box of" the tt rules and maths - and for the 'mechs in particular the tt and the tech essay in techmanual. This, from the guy that wrote said article in the techmanual and the BT line developer: http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html



We know they picked up the weapons and armor damage numbers but not the rules and maths those numbers were built to work in, and most likely because they mistook part of the maths in the tt system as representing human skill instead of battlemech combat performance. Even in the position I'm in, I'd like to see them take a mulligan on this, which seems more possible now with their current business setup.

SARNA dude only SARNA... the copyright, plus some company called Harmony Gold. That false "battletech" statement/source you can throw in a rubbish bin.

Joseph Mallan, on 15 September 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

What are you saying! That can only end badly!

The Monkey with a Grenade if you were wondering.

Well I go rights to vote, aren't ya? So, mine goes to ...TheB33F!

[Razimir]

I vote for VXJaeger.

Edited by Razimir, 15 September 2014 - 11:49 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Shibas, on 15 September 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

So instead of making a thread to create a discussion of a particular issue; you instead are discussing the course of action to discuss making a thread to create a discussion of a particular issue.

It's not taking away the developers time, but taking away the communities. Instead of having a discussion on those matters, it's on matters of this council.

Also, why is providing a negative response to a course of action considered a trolling comment?

When the negative response is actually not helpful or constructive in any real way.

Especially considering there are threads full of ECM suggestions, fixes, and tweaks that go back to when ECM got launched, or even before.

We're not dealing with a brand new ground-breaking issue here. ECM has had a LOT of talk about it over the years, and we have that to work with, and use as a start.

EboneezeeR, on 15 September 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

TT is not a Lore, so ain't rules too. If you pretending to be so smart lad, you should know that PGI to increase TTK doubled the armor in MWO. Which is so wrong. And that become a corner or even the base stone of screwing balance in game.
And now you dare to apply to TT rules after such crucial mistake? Well lad... Moon will most likely hits the Earth than I'll vote for such peoples like you.

You guys just got NO RIGHTS to represent a players community.


My vote goes to Ronald and Hagoromo as Council Inquisitor, I hope Hagoromo will be put in there to watch your arses.

1- This is not the time or place to do the voting. Please listen to Mischief when he's talking.

2- Increased TTK was requested heavily all the way back in closed beta. Since running by TT rules meant mechs were dying within seconds.

3- When talking about TT balance against MW:O, pretty much no one brings up double armor as a problem, since it increased TTK, and made the game more enjoyable, since you were more likely to be in the match for more than 20 seconds.

Here are some better issues to talk about when it comes to balance being skewed/crippled:

Scaling heat cap.

Having DHS that are stronger than TT DHS (If you are running 17 DHS on your mech, or less, they are 2.13+, instead of 2.0)

Instant pinpoint convergence instead of scaling convergence.


Also, for the record, TT isn't the lore, is a somewhat correct statement. (TT is the crunch, not the fluff), TT is NOT the rules, is a fully wrong statement (rules are crunch, and lore stories are fluff).


No Votes are happening today. That will be for tomorrow. So please stop flooding the thread with vote posts, that eventually won't get counted.