446 replies to this topic

[Lala Satalin Deviluke]

The Great Unwashed, on 14 September 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Are these rhetorical questions, he asked rhetorically?

Nope. I mean it. So, the answer is.... ?

[ApolloKaras]

Mudhutwarrior, on 14 September 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

Its pretty easy to understand the concept. PGI reads the forums and see's what is trending. They say hey lets have a look at this topic and these are the top ideas we have seen. They put a poll in game asking which idea seems best. They count the votes then proceed how they see fit.

How can PGI read through Allllllll the proposals though.

Edited by Saxie, 14 September 2014 - 12:44 PM.

[Pezzer]

The level of ignorance in this thread is astounding.

[Jaguar Prime]

No one else has said it so I will.

Majority of the player base barely know weapon ranges. They have no idea about weapon synergy or the difference between dps builds and high alpha FLD builds. These are the guys that stand still in the open to shoot. And you would trust these same people to vote on changes to things they have no clue about?

So I'm seriously against opening up voting on changes to anyone who has an account and starts the game. At least those who come to the forums have a general clue about how things work in the game or are trying to learn.



As for the Council thing. I think to get something done, you have to have a group specifically tasked with it. A group to gather ideas, hash out all the problems with said ideas, put together a workable solution from them. Then put it in a submittable form to present it.
I would rather have a group of players who have a good grasp of the game and great communication skills to do this. Than have what you guys are suggesting.

So yeah, we need a council.

[EgoSlayer]

Lala Satalin Deviluke, on 14 September 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

Just one question to moderator and those who voting for Players Council/Commettee:

- Does Koniving, etc., will be able to make a refund of a real money if they would commit a decision which affects PUG's/Random Players (70% of MWO players) gameplay, mechs technical characteristics etc,.? Will they'll be material responsible for their deeds?

Warning you there is just two short answers, walls of text not being taken to attention.

Can't believe your seriously asking this, but here is the answer:
Short Answer: No

Long Answer: PGI is the one one who implements changes and are 100% responsible for all game changes. How many times have they refunded players for their weapon/module/mech balance changes?

Edited by EgoSlayer, 14 September 2014 - 12:59 PM.

[ArchMage Sparrowhawk]

Checks and Balances. Like some have suggested, one issue term limit. It's not so much a council as a focus committee. They represent our widely varied views and help express them in a more specific manner, but they're not our leaders, etc.

[Logan Hawke]

Alcohol+this thread=lost sides

[Bront]

Lala Satalin Deviluke, on 14 September 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

Just one question to moderator and those who voting for Players Council/Commettee:

- Does Koniving, etc., will be able to make a refund of a real money if they would commit a decision which affects PUG's/Random Players (70% of MWO players) gameplay, mechs technical characteristics etc,.? Will they'll be material responsible for their deeds?

Warning you there is just two short answers, walls of text not being taken to attention.

Are you asking if you can get a refund if the council makes a decision you disagree with?

If PGI made a decision you disagreed with, you couldn't, so why would the council be any different?

The council would be a volunteer basis with no monetary incentive from PGI or other players.

[Impyrium]

I was wondering when That Guy was going to pop up and prove why PGI has avoided working with the community before.

[Bront]

PappySmurf, on 14 September 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

(In game poll cant weed out all the ideas like a council can. Remember Russ is looking for 80%.... There isn't a way you are going to get that with an in game poll. )

No but it can weed out those that seek to push there own agendas before the will of the player base can be heard. Having a in-game voting system is a much more fair unbiased way to see what the community wants in the game good or bad. it also can filter out those who seek to overturn the vote by fraudulent means.

My understanding is that the council would distil down the ideas into a proposal that ultimately the players would still have a vote on, and the council would come from 3-5 very different backgrounded players, so there's no unified agenda outside "Make MWO better"

[Spades Kincaid]

Just when I think these forums can't possibly get more ridiculous....someone goes and makes a post like this:

Lala Satalin Deviluke, on 14 September 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

Just one question to moderator and those who voting for Players Council/Commettee:

- Does Koniving, etc., will be able to make a refund of a real money if they would commit a decision which affects PUG's/Random Players (70% of MWO players) gameplay, mechs technical characteristics etc,.? Will they'll be material responsible for their deeds?

Warning you there is just two short answers, walls of text not being taken to attention.

And totally redeems them!

[L Y N X]

EvilCow, on 14 September 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

PGI could have fixed the ECM themselves, they didn't and finally suggested the community to make proposals, thus the council is required.

It will be a one-task thing.

And thus Russ was brilliant for waving a shiny and the community became distracted... lol Russ is simply illustrating to the community of which I am part of, that this is no easy task. Brilliant I say!!

[ArchMage Sparrowhawk]

Lala Satalin Deviluke, on 14 September 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

Do I gonna get an answer on my question?

you might just be weeded out.

dat 3% margin of error...

Edited by ArchMage Sparrowhawk, 14 September 2014 - 01:34 PM.

[Mothykins]

I love people who don't understand what's actually going on and try to ruin it with their ignorance.

Actually go and read what is going on. Actually try to understand what's being done here.
The original poster is a fine example of the type of person who ruins things because they're comfortable in their misery and scared of change, even if it would help them

[Alienized]

as long as its not like in EVE online and their fail-CSM thing.... too much power in the hands of the players is not good.
another fine example: jumpgate.

a council like this needs open minded persons, people that cant be threatened to change views or ideas for any reason but their own will.

people that love not only this game but also this universe and can stay neutral at any time.

if you dont have such people, this will simply end bad.

[Dracol]

Player council was intended to get together the consensus of the population at large. If they can't get agreement from the consensus at large, then nothing would be implemented.

So, if you are against the council, just make sure you vote against what they propose.

[Wieland]

Egomane, on 14 September 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

I agree! Maybe an announcement in the launcher would be doable, if ingame isn't possible yet. As I removed myself from the council thing, someone who still is a part of it, might want to suggest it to Russ. We will then really see how much the community is behind such a change.

Yes, an announcement in the launcher would be much better than an ingame poll. Imagine the people that dont care and then simply click one of the poll options to get rid of the poll page. Bad thing.

Edited by Wieland, 14 September 2014 - 02:02 PM.

[WerewolfX]

aaaannnnnnddddd this is why we can't have nice things.

[Theodore42]

I've read through a lot of these ECM threads and get frustrated because the ideas aren't clearly stated, the implications of the suggested changes obviously aren't clearly understood (both by the person making them and the people rebutting them), and the expertise of the people making the suggestions is not obvious unless you have a really deep understanding of the issue. Even the people making the most thought out suggestions really have no idea how the gameplay will be affected by their suggestions, although they can make an educated guess.

I'm an experienced player and an intelligent person (if I do say so myself!) but am not even close to understanding this issue. Maybe it is less complicated than it seems, but it is often said that the entire information warfare / ECM / ECCM / LRM systems are connected. Change one and you change them all. We, as a community, have the opportunity to choose the players that we think have the greatest ability at understanding current gameplay, understanding its relationship with BT gameplay, and understanding the effects of the suggested changes on gameplay.

As a community we should be telling this council how we want the gameplay to change, and let their expertise sort it out.

A simple "vote" would just result in most people choosing the option that they THINK will benefit them most.

[Dragcos]

Lets face it there is a lot of players out there that are still bitter about the past { I found out about the past mistakes via a little research } and those players still could cause problems by abusing those systems if they wished to by creating several accounts and basically messing things up for everyone using the council system or even the vote system.

So I think that we should just post our problems with certain changes or give our opinions and let PGI do the rest. Now that PGI has full control of the game and they do seem much more active in the forums, maybe before even about thinking of having either system see what PGI does over the course of a few months.

Will we need a council of players? Or will PGI listen to the good ideas posted in the forums now and work towards a better future? If we get a council should we allow players that have not invested any money into the council, or only allow players that have at least invested a fair amount to be council members that way you know they are not simply going to troll the system?

Peace out, that is my two cents.