446 replies to this topic

[Lanessar]

The problem with this thread is the exact problem I see with the player council,

Two or three people upvoting the "Pro-council" nominees' posts. Most of the individual posts have some decent reasons why the council shouldn't exist. Nominee states "most of the people who don't want one don't have a good reason" (actually untrue). I state a good reason, and the concern is never addressed. It's covered with misdirection and "look, 3 people at a table" dis-ingenuity.

This thread, in and of itself, proves how a player council will operate.

Ignoring rather than actually addressing the feedback brought up by the community. Or arguing with the community member until they just stop posting.

Edited by Lanessar, 16 September 2014 - 11:05 AM.

[EboneezeeR]

Lanessar, on 16 September 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

The problem with this thread is the exact problem I see with the player council,

Two or three people upvoting the "Pro-council" nominees. Most of the individual posts have some decent reasons why the council shouldn't exist. Nominee states "most of the people who don't want one don't have a good reason" (actually untrue). I state a good reason, re-post it several times, and the concern is never addressed. It's covered with misdirection and "look, 3 people at a table" dis-ingenuity.

This thread, in and of itself, proves how a player council will operate.

Ignoring rather than actually addressing the feedback brought up by the community.

SAD BUT TRUE

[Joseph Mallan]

Lanessar, on 16 September 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

The problem with this thread is the exact problem I see with the player council,

Two or three people upvoting the "Pro-council" nominees' posts. Most of the individual posts have some decent reasons why the council shouldn't exist. Nominee states "most of the people who don't want one don't have a good reason" (actually untrue). I state a good reason, and the concern is never addressed. It's covered with misdirection and "look, 3 people at a table" dis-ingenuity.

This thread, in and of itself, proves how a player council will operate.

Ignoring rather than actually addressing the feedback brought up by the community. Or arguing with the community member until they just stop posting.

Is it ignored or are there responses to your suggestions? If it is quoted, as this one is, then your post wasn't ignored.

And this thread proves nothing as there isn't a council and it is only a discussion thread. The participants are under no compulsion to address any post, or act any way other than by the ToS.

EboneezeeR, on 16 September 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

So, what we got...

A BLC techspects:
- 9 tons
- 4 slots
- 400-440m effective range
- 900m max range
- 16 damage (due stock dual-fused LL cores without +1 bonus to each core, fair enough)
- 20 heat (due +4 heat bonus via compact mount of 2 LL cores and simultaneous fire both core on one axis)
- 1+ mount ghost heat penalty (mount and fire 2xBLC will hit the heat spike around 50)
- overal battle value is 1.8

Dual mount of 2xLL:
- 2x5 tons
- 2x2 critical slots
- 400-440m effective range
- 900m max range
- 2x9 damage
- 2x7 heat
- 2+ mount ghost heat penalty
- overal battle value 2+

Overal: Blazer can be used in dual mount in situation when mech lacks an E slots and can be more effective by damage than 3xLL mount, but less (+19 points) effective by heat. Blazer more efective when it comes to pinpoint damage, but less effective overal. Must be in MWO for crazy hot builds and when is lack of E slots to mount enough enegry weapons.

Josh do you agree with that?

it's an interesting start point.
I would suggest a heavy (AC20 type) Heat penalty if Ghost heat survives. But only if two or more of these were carried.

[Lanessar]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 September 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

And this thread proves nothing as there isn't a council and it is only a discussion thread. The participants are under no compulsion to address any post, or act any way other than by the ToS.

Lanessar, on 16 September 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

Ignoring rather than actually addressing the feedback brought up by the community. Or arguing with the community member until they just stop posting.

[EboneezeeR]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 September 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

it's an interesting start point.
I would suggest a heavy (AC20 type) Heat penalty if Ghost heat survives. But only if two or more of these were carried.

Nope, it's gonna be like ERPPC/PPC/ERNPPC... more than one fired, Hello Ghost Heat.

[Gorgo7]

EbneezeeR and Joseph,
why are you discussing theoretical weapons in a thread named (and blanketing the topic with unrelated subject matter)
"Vote against players council?"
Perhaps you could start another elsewhere?
or are you trying to kill this topic entirely?

[IraqiWalker]

Lanessar, on 16 September 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

The problem with this thread is the exact problem I see with the player council,

Two or three people upvoting the "Pro-council" nominees' posts. Most of the individual posts have some decent reasons why the council shouldn't exist. Nominee states "most of the people who don't want one don't have a good reason" (actually untrue). I state a good reason, and the concern is never addressed. It's covered with misdirection and "look, 3 people at a table" dis-ingenuity.

This thread, in and of itself, proves how a player council will operate.

Ignoring rather than actually addressing the feedback brought up by the community. Or arguing with the community member until they just stop posting.

I "upvote" (incorrect term here), the posts that I agree with. You want me to like a post I actually dislike? Isn't that disingenuous, and hypocritical?

I have had no problem discussing the merits, and demerits of a player council. However, so far, the only argument against the council is that it might fail.

What I'm saying is, give the council a chance, and see what happens.

I haven't sifted through this entire thread, so I may have missed your posts, but I have replied to several posts discussing the possibility of this council. I'm willing to discuss this with you, feel free to quote this post, and respond with your point.

I should note, that I personally "like" the posts regardless of who posted them. For example there are several players whom I've had extreme opposition with on several issues. However, I still liked their posts because they did say some thing valid. Some of them have, and are posting in this very thread.