13
Russ Bullock, on 13 September 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:
I have heard a few requests to wait until around Tuesday for a poll, sure that is fine with me.
There as also a fair point for those concerned about having a group speak for them, remember they will need to present a full proposal and you the players will read it and get to vote. So I think you can feel secure in knowing that the proposal is really going to have to speak clearly to a portion of players.
We will also discuss that 80% more to ensure it isn't just those that spend time on the forums but that they have significant play time which are stats I can easily gather. We will figure that part out.
As to the PPC conversation that just popped up, super tempting jump in and share all the history and logic which I am sure many would love to hear. But first things first, staying on topic we have chosen this ECM subject as our test case. I happen to think it is a great starting point.
I to do not care for the fact that many groups including competitive ones won't take any spiders except the ECM version. That to me does smell not quite right, never has.
There as also a fair point for those concerned about having a group speak for them, remember they will need to present a full proposal and you the players will read it and get to vote. So I think you can feel secure in knowing that the proposal is really going to have to speak clearly to a portion of players.
We will also discuss that 80% more to ensure it isn't just those that spend time on the forums but that they have significant play time which are stats I can easily gather. We will figure that part out.
As to the PPC conversation that just popped up, super tempting jump in and share all the history and logic which I am sure many would love to hear. But first things first, staying on topic we have chosen this ECM subject as our test case. I happen to think it is a great starting point.
I to do not care for the fact that many groups including competitive ones won't take any spiders except the ECM version. That to me does smell not quite right, never has.
So, chill out 'til Tuesday. I'll ping Russ on Monday to make sure they're still planning on helping with this. Once that happens, people will vote, all ideas will be collected, there'll probably be a couple of internal discussions, something big and open streamed on Twitch, and hopefully by the end we'll have a tangible plan.
Some clarification: I don't mean for this to be permanent in any way. Think of this more as an ECM bullshit committee that gathers all the ideas, culls down the less realistic options, presents a directed format for debate an input to the community, and then comes up with a single, coherent proposal for the community to vote on. Perhaps this could be done with a series of polls and direct democracy, but I feel it would be far messier than having someone guiding the discussion.
No one is going to be 100% pleased coming out of this, so don't expect to be. I ask that all camps consider that compromise is the only way we're going to get even close to 80%. It's not about whether or not it's better than your idea - it's about whether or not it's better than the status quo. Even those of you that think ECM is fine should consider whatever gets presented - it may still be better.
UPDATE FROM RUSS
I asked Russ just what the scope of this project is so we know immediately just how much is on the table. This was his reply: "Restricted to ECM only - Other systems can be pulled in if absolutely necessary to make the perfect ECM solution work etc."
What that means is that comprehensive solutions are off the table. Re-working sensors, range, active/passive radar, LRMs, etc, are all things that I believe should happen. I do love Rasc4l's proposal in all honesty, but it's simply not something they'll even consider by the sound of it.
They've laid out the terms of what they're willing to offer, so we simply have to work with what we were given. I highly recommend you to start gathering your favorite ECM-only changes.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Hey kids, it's me again.
As most of you probably already know Russ has offered to take serious community input on redesigning ECM. On one hand, it’s the change in style we’ve been begging for; on the other, they gave us a really ****** first test, and so that makes it doubly important that we try not to **** this up.
I honestly think his offer is simply meant to demonstrate that the forums are out of their minds, no consensus is possible, and so you should just let them do their jobs. But I’m going to do what I can to not let that happen. I haven't put a lot of thought into IW, but I'll be damned if I'll let this opportunity turn into an, "I told you so," for PGI.
So what I present to you today is not my plan for ECM (I don’t have one), but the plan for organizing this proposal.
Council Responsibilities
Though I’ve seen debate about their actual role, I firmly believe the council should be looking at various ideas and amalgamating them into a single, coherent proposal, which will then be presented to the community. By even having a council in the first place, we’re putting our trust in these people not to be morons, and I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.
Why not design by committee / poll? Because it’s a watered-down mess. The more cooks are in the kitchen, the worse things run and the worse things taste.
I’d prefer to give the chefs a couple ideas and see what they bring out rather than voting on each, individual ingredient. Design by democracy is a disaster, and one way or another, I will still go hunt smart people down, form a council, and get some sort of coherent proposal out of it if everyone else decides direct democracy.
Forming a Council
The council should be comprised of five players coming from a range of backgrounds (competitive, PUG, ForumWarrior, whatever). Fewer than five is simply not enough diversity and breadth of opinion, but more than five and discussion starts to become crowded / deadlocked.
I’ve seen plenty of nominations in various threads, so my suggestion is to take the top 20ish, put it in a poll, and let that run for two or three days in general discussion to make sure anyone that wants to vote gets a chance.
Organizing the Council
A timeline needs to be established for meetings, proposals, and community votes. The council should also elect a “leader” or mediator or whatever the is in charge of making sure things are proceeding on-time, steering discussion, and handling the actual polls and interfacing with PGI. They’re not there to make a final call about anything, but based on the council meetings in my own unit, someone needs to be there to say, “We’re going waaayyyy off topic; let’s bring it back and get this done.”
I think the leader needs to be painfully aware of scope and PGI’s likely reaction. Having a proposal that re-works LRMs, active/passive radar, line-of-sight, and ECM is as good as getting nothing done; they simply won’t take it. It needs to be very focused on ECM and not ridiculously complex.
Initial Proposal
The council should decide on a baseline proposal to work from. From there, they can take parts of other proposals, change numbers, and modify, but I think it’s important to have a starting point instead of two sides within the council trying to frankenstein the three or four best ideas together initially. After a base plan is decided upon, appropriate parts from other systems can be added and adjustments can be made.
Pitch to Community and Iterate until Approved
A simple yes-or-no poll goes up explaining the idea vs what we have now. Feedback is gathered, factored into the proposal, and the new plan is re-submitted for the community is approval.
Important Things
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the process I’ve put forth, below are some things that I see as incredibly important in this endeavor:
- Diversity of players
- Design by republic - not design by democracy
- A mature, non-combative leader/mediator for the council
- A well-define scope that doesn’t bleed into other systems in the game
- A proposal that’s simple enough not to confuse new players or PGI
Edited by Homeless Bill, 14 September 2014 - 02:28 PM.
