1306 replies to this topic

[PappySmurf]

Nomad (So what is NiKo and his department paid to do?
Programming? Art? Networking? no they are community managers, i seem to have the wrong idea of what this job entails, i always thought it was part of their job to interact with the community and be the mouth/ears for the devs. )

I hope Niko and his staff are not fired and replaced by this bogus player counsel that no one really wants I guess it would save PGI a ton of money. Then I can seethe horror of this counsel nerfing ECM to a point it is totally useless and a new round of LRM AGGEDDON begins. I think at that point I would quit the game for good and go back to playingMechWarrior4 Mercenaries full time.

[El Bandito]

PappySmurf, on 17 September 2014 - 08:12 PM, said:

I hope Niko and his staff are not fired and replaced by this bogus player counsel that no one really wants I guess it would save PGI a ton of money. Then I can seethe horror of this counsel nerfing ECM to a point it is totally useless and a new round of LRM AGGEDDON begins. I think at that point I would quit the game for good and go back to playingMechWarrior4 Mercenaries full time.

Why are people getting the wrong idea even when Russ clearly stated the role of the Council is only to compress and present ideas on the ECM issue alone. The Council won't make decisions--the community who will vote for or against the presented ideas, and PGI who has the final say have the decision making.

Stop blowing things out of proportion, and complaining about Armageddon when there is nothing.

Edited by El Bandito, 17 September 2014 - 08:17 PM.

[LCCX]

Creovex, on 16 September 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

• Councils should NEVER be 12 people, that is a 6-6 vote on things/tie, always make it an odd number (ie. 13) and get rid of indecisivenesss.

The council won't be voting on anything itself, so 12 is as fine a number as any other.

[El Bandito]

LCCX, on 17 September 2014 - 08:19 PM, said:

The council won't be voting on anything itself, so 12 is as fine a number as any other.

^ This. Personally I think 7 is enough.

[Sandpit]

El Bandito, on 17 September 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

Why are people getting the wrong idea even when Russ clearly stated

because they hear what they want to hear

[LCCX]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 16 September 2014 - 07:45 PM, said:

This is what im worried about given that ppl keep saying these guys will have no power at all... then whats the point?

The point is that the only alternative to *someone* having a position to make official polls of the community RE: specific changes to the game (my understanding of what the Council will be tasked with), is that *no one* gets that done.

[Neutron IX]

I don't have time tonight to read this entire 64 page thread, so for now I'll merely operate under the likely assumption that it indicates that, 1). ECM mechanics (which seem to be the driving motivation behind this in the first place), and this potential player council, are topics that many people feel strongly about. 2). I may or may not agree with same people on any/all of the above.

That being said, looking at the nominee list, there are names on there that I recognize and respect, and I'm not necessarily against a "player council" conceptually per se, but I would simply like to caution that, while ECM gets a lot of us rather riled, there are many of us who really aren't bothered by it at all.

I myself being one of those.

And I don't even really use it at all myself. Sure, I have an SDR-5D equipped with it collecting dust in my mech-bay, but the truth is, I realized several months ago that I'm not much of a Light or Assault pilot, and while I did have a nice time maxing my CDA-3M build with the ECM, TAG and ER-PPC, the ECM capable mechs just really don't fit my personal play-style (lately I can't stop picking my Arrow or my current JM6-A build when I drop, which are my two most recent favorites by far, not to mention such great Davion mechs).

I tend to really only encounter ECM on the battlefield when it shows up on a teammate (and at those times I love it and take full advantage of it when I can), or on an enemy (and at those times I do my best to outplay it, and more often then not am successful).

My point is, I'm not even remotely the best player out there, and yet I just can't understand why ECM, of all the issues that a council could form around, has been selected as the number one issue that we, as a player community, simply MUST address as our number one priority. I feel like there are so many other things that I, myself, would much rather PGI devote time and resources working on, since to me, ECM is far from the game-breaking element I often feel as though it is being made out to be.

I guess all I'm really saying is, do what you gotta do, but just remember that a "player council" that hopes to best represent a "player community" should hopefully consider all viewpoints of said community.

And I suspect that once a player council begins to attempt that, they may find themselves much more sympathetic to the perpetual "rock vs hard place vs camel vs eye of needle vs (Jefferson) Starship vs actually writing a song that could be qualified as "Rock 'N' Roll" much less building an entire city upon it" world that these Devs, and really, let's be honest, ANY/ALL Devs, must constantly live in as their personal hell/realm eternal.

And please remember, though you may speak, you MIGHT not speak for me.

Respectfully,

-Rip

[PappySmurf]

El Bundito (Stop blowing things out of proportion, and complaining about Armageddon when there is nothing.)

I guess you never thought players might like the way ECM works in the game right now? And believe it is working just fine? It was the same with Jump Jets I liked the way jump jets worked before the nerf now there garbage and not worth the tonnage to install them for heavies and assaults. And I was not even a pop sniper I run 90% brawler builds.

This group or nominees are all from teams on the group queue and are going to take the data they feel is important to them and there player groups they represent and recommending those to Russ and PGI I think it is a sham and a disservice to the total player base.

So basically I vote no to any ECM changes and no to a player counsel be sure to note that in your reports unless Russ wakes up and says (What the hell was I thinking) even considering a player counsel.

Edited by PappySmurf, 17 September 2014 - 08:34 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

N0MAD, on 17 September 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

So what is NiKo and his department paid to do?
Programming? Art? Networking? no they are community managers, i seem to have the wrong idea of what this job entails, i always thought it was part of their job to interact with the community and be the mouth/ears for the devs.

Russ's directive can be disseminated to Niko, you know...

I've interacted with Niko for a long time, and I don't think he, or anyone at PGI, would appreciate the tone that many people are having about this idea.

When I first heard about the idea of a Player Counsel, I immediately thought of a bunch of Squeaky Wheels getting together. I didn't really like the idea, considering that the Counsel's decision might not correlate with this game's intended marketing position and the Developer's beliefs on how the game should be played. There are many vocal players who want the game positioned to cater more toward previous Mechwarrior fans, rather than to "The World." This game is supposed to bring people into MechWarrior and BattleTech, not appease the pre-existing fanbase. This is the first time in ten years that someone put money forward to rent the MechWarrior license to make a first-person Mech game. They certainly didn't do it just to make a game that won't have the staying-power to be remade for another ten years... They want to increase the MW: Market, and that's done by making the game the most fun as possible to players who know nothing about the Lore, while kind-of sticking to it.

I would also hate to see a Community effort wasted because they wanted to change one aspect of the game so much that a large number of systems would have to be changed at the same time in order to accommodate the Community Proposal... rendering it effectively moot. If the Counsel's ECM Proposal requires some reworking of ECM, BAP, sensors (in general), LRMs, StreakSRMs, TAG, and NARC.. .then it probably won't fly.

The Counsel should probably be comprised of a few people that have regularly interacted with PGI or IGP employees, some people who play in Leagues, some people who are new to the game, and some people who have spent considerable time in the New Players section. it would be nice if at least one person has actually met a PGI or IGP employee *cough*selfplug*cough*cough*, however most of the playerbase never will.

The counsel should know that most actual players don't use the MW:O forums. I would also say that the Counsel should not contain people who are known to be demeaning, insulting, racist, or otherwise just not nice. I certainly would not like to attend a voluntary meeting that *I* coordinated with people who brazenly insult me and my coworkers regularly, let alone listen to a damn word they say.

The Community needs a Counsel that's comprised of people willing to make conservative gestures. Each change they try to implement has to go through weeks of testing, which costs much money. A sweeping change might just get swept away, so if we offer a change to ECM-mechanics in this game, it has to be small and graceful...

Edited by Prosperity Park, 17 September 2014 - 08:32 PM.

[LCCX]

Peiper, on 16 September 2014 - 09:55 PM, said:

I see your point, Roland. Here's another option: Create the 'idea' thread and let people 'like' the ideas they do most. Take the ideas with the most 'likes' - say the top five - and ask them to get together to form the council. They propose one or more revised plans to the public to vote on via a poll, and as ideas are further eliminated, and survivors refined, we may come up with a final solution that people can vote yes or no on. We're still voting on people's IDEAS, rather than their number of posts, popularity or notoriety.



It looks like this:
http://mwomercs.com/...warfare-scouts/



If you'll note by my proposal, I take into account how the game would change because ECM has changed. All reasonable proposals have to address that. You can't change such an important game mechanic and not have the effects ripple throughout the game.

Perhaps, in order to reduce the number of ideas, a template could be made like:

1. How do you think ECM should be changed.
2. How would this affect the game.
3. What are the consequences of this change?
4. What else needs to change in response to ECM being changed?
A. List changes to existing equipment.
B. List new equipment.
5. How would these changes affect the game?
6. Write a statement explaining your reasoning for the change.
7. Notes, acknowledgements, revisions.

With such a template, every Tom, ****, and Harry won't post ideas like:

Just get rid of it!
Leave it alone!
I think ECM should make your mech glow green!

If they didn't answer all the above questions (should those questions be chosen), then nix the post. Better than another 50+ pages of posturing!!

Someone else suggested a new forum section just for this. Let's synthesize that idea with the above ideas. If so, here's what I would do. Create the idea thread as above. Let people vote. Top five or maybe even ten ideas would be selected and those ideas would get their own thread. Each idea could be then debated by the community, allowing the person to revise their idea according to player feedback and realizations. This way, each idea remains unique, but in a sense, each idea will be open to the public for scrutiny. The mods could pin all relevant threads, too, so each of the popular ideas don't get lost. Once there's been a week of revision time, those 5-10 ideas go up for another vote. Some are eliminated, leaving final ideas, which could then be debated on yet again, revised, whatever. Ideas then go up for a final round of elimination. Finally, the one last remaining idea - which will probably be quite brilliant - could be given a yes/no vote by the community.

Just because someone has a solid grasp of the game and has a good/popular idea for how to fix it doesn't necessarily make them mature enough to effectively participate in a team effort to come up with the best solution ("best" including time, cost, etc.), especially when they have a horse in the race. It would then be up to the moderators to keep things orderly, which would be approximately equivalent to making the forum moderators the council. (IMHO) Therefore I'd prefer a separate set of individual volunteers take on that responsibility.

I do like the suggestion template and for-purpose forum bits. They could even be used in addition to the council.

[MischiefSC]

N0MAD, on 17 September 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

So what is NiKo and his department paid to do?
Programming? Art? Networking? no they are community managers, i seem to have the wrong idea of what this job entails, i always thought it was part of their job to interact with the community and be the mouth/ears for the devs.

Why don't you ask PGI to answer what work load and priorities it assigns to its employees and why they make the decisions they do. It's really not my place to tell you what PGI does and doesn't do, what people are and are not assigned to do.

To be honest though I don't think they owe you an explanation, at all. Russ offered this to the community if they want to do it. You want to do it and participate then do. You don't, then don't. Currently it feels like you're both telling everyone else they can't participate if they want to and trying to tell PGI how to do their jobs when unless you're a PGI employee you really don't know what they do and do not do.

I'm comfortable saying that everyone who works at PGI works for a living, they have a job and they do it. They are accountable to their respective bosses and have a bit of a social obligation to each other - people tend to know who is and is not slacking in most offices.

Participate or don't. Neither you nor I get to decide what options PGI feels like providing us. This isn't something you're going to pay for so you don't really get to vote with your wallet on this one.

The problem at this point is saying 'I don't want to participate and I don't want anyone else to either'. That's an opinion you can certainly have but there's nothing saying it has to be relevant to anyone.

Happy to hear your voice in the discussion on whatever topic we're involved in. At this point though it seems like things are moving forward.

[MischiefSC]

PappySmurf, on 17 September 2014 - 08:12 PM, said:

Nomad (So what is NiKo and his department paid to do?
Programming? Art? Networking? no they are community managers, i seem to have the wrong idea of what this job entails, i always thought it was part of their job to interact with the community and be the mouth/ears for the devs. )

I hope Niko and his staff are not fired and replaced by this bogus player counsel that no one really wants I guess it would save PGI a ton of money. Then I can seethe horror of this counsel nerfing ECM to a point it is totally useless and a new round of LRM AGGEDDON begins. I think at that point I would quit the game for good and go back to playingMechWarrior4 Mercenaries full time.

So it's been discussed, repeatedly and confirmed by Russ, that the point of this council is just helping PGI coordinate and refine player feedback. PGI will, as always, arbitrate any changes. Also it's going to go to a vote by the whole community as an option in the launcher.

Your concerns are exactly why we need a council for this sort of thing. If you had taken the time to study the threads and posts and what Russ has said and what's been discussed on it you would know that none of your concerns are actually relevant or really even possible.

What if instead of this 65 page monstrosity of bickering, egos and such was just 1 or 2 pages of specific details refined from the almost 300 pages total among several threads on this topic, including a block of just Russ' quotes on the topic as well as the clearly defined goals and responsibilities of the group, as well as what their current focus was and how they were going about it.

Then you wouldn't have had to worry about nothing; someone would have done all the heavy lifting for you and you could have made an educated decision on the topic instead of a knee-jerk response to something you didn't have the time to really get the details on.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

LCCX, on 17 September 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

The point is that the only alternative to *someone* having a position to make official polls of the community RE: specific changes to the game (my understanding of what the Council will be tasked with), is that *no one* gets that done.

So what the community manager should be doing

[MischiefSC]

Addendum;

The recent PMs did not have the link to the google doc, so here it is again just in case anyone missed it.

The doc Tichroius Davion created, like a BAWS.

[Wine O]

Ok, I don't care for the forums much AND I am not reading this thread from page one but I am adamantly against any form of "player council" beyond an advisory-ish (make that a capital ISH) position. If people want to play dress-up and give themselves a fancy moniker - fine. But in no way should they have any say in the end decisions of this game. Leave that to professionals, and by professionals I mean people who get paid.

I have pumped money into this game - lots - and continue to do so. Those who have taken my money may or may not be on the receiving end of a hissy fit or an 'atta-boy from time to time. Players have not taken my money and have no reason to listen to my belly-achin' nor will I ever praise them even if they deserve it. Why pump money into something where I have no recourse? I don't care if you watched Battletech cartoons. Players can make posts on troll populated forums if they feel the need to bear their soul and let that be the end of their involvement. Too much democracy is the end of order.

Bottom line: Let the management do their job, it's their cross to hang on. The passionate already have ways to make their voices heard. Maybe too many ways.

[Roadbeer]

PappySmurf, on 17 September 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

El Bundito (Stop blowing things out of proportion, and complaining about Armageddon when there is nothing.)

I guess you never thought players might like the way ECM works in the game right now? And believe it is working just fine? It was the same with Jump Jets I liked the way jump jets worked before the nerf now there garbage and not worth the tonnage to install them for heavies and assaults. And I was not even a pop sniper I run 90% brawler builds.

This group or nominees are all from teams on the group queue and are going to take the data they feel is important to them and there player groups they represent and recommending those to Russ and PGI I think it is a sham and a disservice to the total player base.

So basically I vote no to any ECM changes and no to a player counsel be sure to note that in your reports unless Russ wakes up and says (What the hell was I thinking) even considering a player counsel.

So, I'm guessing the parts of the thread where the 'council' and the topic were both pretty much Russ's brainchild?

It's not that it's not a problem, it's that it's been a problem for so long that it's just succumbed to passive acceptance.

[PappySmurf]

RoadBeer (It's not that it's not a problem, it's that it's been a problem for so long that it's just succumbed to passive acceptance.)

I personally feel ECM is not a problem with the game I enjoy how it works and see no need to nerf it or modify it in any way.
I also feel the Jump Jet Nerf was total wrong I enjoyed the way MWO jump jets worked like MechWarrior4 jump jets worked now there just plain garbage and useless unless you run a light mech.

So many aspects of MWO have been ruined to a point the game has become passé by minority groups mostly playing in the group mm queues advising PGI on issues that if in-gamed polled or voted on would never have been done.

[spectralthundr]

Roadbeer, on 17 September 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

Or, you know, both could learn to take your dickwaiving to PM.

Nah, why do that when you have an audience.

Of all people to talk about dickwaving. That ego never goes hungry does it.

[Roadbeer]

spectralthundr, on 17 September 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:

That ego never goes hungry does it.

Nope. Thanks for the snack.

Edited by Roadbeer, 17 September 2014 - 09:39 PM.

[Peiper]

LCCX, on 17 September 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

Just because someone has a solid grasp of the game and has a good/popular idea for how to fix it doesn't necessarily make them mature enough to effectively participate in a team effort to come up with the best solution ("best" including time, cost, etc.), especially when they have a horse in the race. It would then be up to the moderators to keep things orderly, which would be approximately equivalent to making the forum moderators the council. (IMHO) Therefore I'd prefer a separate set of individual volunteers take on that responsibility.

I do like the suggestion template and for-purpose forum bits. They could even be used in addition to the council.

I don't know how much 'maturity' has to do with it. Good ideas are good ideas. A forum structure could, in many ways, take the maturity factor out of it. Let's say my idea gets picked, but a number of people think half of it should be axed and replaced with other ideas. I can either consider their opinions and change the idea, or I could be stubborn and stick with my original plan. Player VOTES will determine whether my idea still holds enough water. And if, let's say parts of my idea are popular and others not, and I DON'T take the bad parts out, someone else will take the good parts and add them to their own idea. Whether I'm immature about it or not, well, who cares - because somehow the good ideas will move forward while the bad ideas get weeded out. I say, better to try it than sit around talking about trying it!