446 replies to this topic

[Kiiyor]

Hagoromo Gitsune, on 14 September 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

Seriously, I had very huge doubts that MWO in Players Council hands not gonna turn into unbalanced rubbish. Also there is serious doubts that Players Council not gonna change into a POP-star X-Factor alike contest where the elected councilors will turn the game balance issues for personal goods and a bunch of a Forum-FanGils will not make lobby which will affect fraction in the game.

They are so untrusted that better PGI'll screw some bits of game play than some little procent of a players get undeserved advantage.

VOTE AGAINST PLAYERS COUNCIL... STAY SAFE!

The existence of a player council does not necessitate you agreeing with their proposals. The idea behind this is to elect some people that can compile community concerns, put together proposals for addressing them, and allow the forums to vote on these proposals.

If you don't like something, vote against it! It's the basis for government in almost every developed and not-crap nation on the planet!

[Nathaniel Kell]

Hagoromo Gitsune, on 14 September 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

Seriously, I had very huge doubts that MWO in Players Council hands not gonna turn into unbalanced rubbish. Also there is serious doubts that Players Council not gonna change into a POP-star X-Factor alike contest where the elected councilors will turn the game balance issues for personal goods and a bunch of a Forum-FanGils will not make lobby which will affect fraction in the game.

They are so untrusted that better PGI'll screw some bits of game play than some little procent of a players get undeserved advantage.

VOTE AGAINST PLAYERS COUNCIL... STAY SAFE!

THIS IS WHY WE CANT HAVE NICE THINGS.....


But seriously... We get to pick the council, we get to vote on the change that MIGHT get enabled, why not give it a chance?

[Zensei]

I am definitely against a players council, we have seen the great unwashed become tarnished overnight and banned, ultimately it always falls back into the developers hands, and last I checked they own it, we just buy it.

Some of these nominees, not all, but some have been very windy, voting for them because they have a lot of posts is maybe one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard of, if that was the case you would choose from the steamy arses of the banned to lead us.

No, no and no.

Edited by Zensei, 14 September 2014 - 06:24 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Nobody is leading anything. I don't get how this is getting lost in this process.

The community is coming up with the ideas.

The 'council' just gathers them and condenses them into something to vote on.

The community votes.

The 'council' takes the results of that vote to PGI to work on implementation.

The council has no authority, leads nothing, chooses nothing, votes on nothing. They're just executors of the community consensus.

That's it.

Also....

If you don't want to be involved in the opportunity that was presented to the community then don't be. This is the opportunity we were given. If you don't like it then don't be involved. If you don't like it and want to be involved, well, be involved. This is what it's going to be though.

You want to discuss the usefulness of this process that's great. Discuss away. Discuss whatever you want. There is no 'vote against' option though other than not voting. This is how the process of presenting a player designed change to ECM (and information warfare) we have been given the option to create.

You can not vote, you can vote for the person you want to see helping collect and condense the player ideas and then help present for the players to vote on. Those are the options before us. There is not an option for 'make PGI do things the way I want'. You do have 'participate' and 'don't participate' though.

Got someone different you want than someone who's been put forward already? Nominate them. Don't like any of the nominees and don't know anyone you want to hear discuss the topic except yourself? Nominate yourself. There's no trick here. It's a very simple process. Nobody is leading or controlling anything except PGI - because it's their game, they're in control of what changes get made in it.

That's where we're at. You get to choose from the options presented to you.

[TLBFestus]

The way they want it to work is a group of dependable individuals is selected. They hash out the best ECM options then present it to the community.

the community then gets to vote on their choices. They should eliminate the lowest vote count option and vote again...eventually..concensus.

[King Curt]

I had a hearty laugh when this was proposed.

[Grrzoot]

i would but i dont know how to send mail to the outscrits

[Zensei]

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

Nobody is leading anything. I don't get how this is getting lost in this process.

The community is coming up with the ideas.

The 'council' just gathers them and condenses them into something to vote on.

The community votes.

The 'council' takes the results of that vote to PGI to work on implementation.

The council has no authority, leads nothing, chooses nothing, votes on nothing. They're just executors of the community consensus.

That's it.

Also....

If you don't want to be involved in the opportunity that was presented to the community then don't be. This is the opportunity we were given. If you don't like it then don't be involved. If you don't like it and want to be involved, well, be involved. This is what it's going to be though.

You want to discuss the usefulness of this process that's great. Discuss away. Discuss whatever you want. There is no 'vote against' option though other than not voting. This is how the process of presenting a player designed change to ECM (and information warfare) we have been given the option to create.

You can not vote, you can vote for the person you want to see helping collect and condense the player ideas and then help present for the players to vote on. Those are the options before us. There is not an option for 'make PGI do things the way I want'. You do have 'participate' and 'don't participate' though.

Got someone different you want than someone who's been put forward already? Nominate them. Don't like any of the nominees and don't know anyone you want to hear discuss the topic except yourself? Nominate yourself. There's no trick here. It's a very simple process. Nobody is leading or controlling anything except PGI - because it's their game, they're in control of what changes get made in it.

That's where we're at. You get to choose from the options presented to you.

I would like to agree if the 'chosen' were not the most bloviated on the forums, all of that long windiness is not going to do anything except turn the Devs off from listening to player concerns. Anyone that has that much to say is usually talking about themselves, I would agree 'leading' was the wrong word to use, I know they don't 'lead' anything or would not 'lead' any player. But those 'leading nominees' are the posts I never read because I already heard most of what they had to say in their first 10,000 posts.

see you on the fields, and at least I do see you playing SC, thats who I would want to represent, the guys that play and I dont want to hear that they are not in my ELO, they cannot have possible been after 10,000 games played.

[MischiefSC]

Zensei, on 14 September 2014 - 06:46 PM, said:

I would like to agree if the 'chosen' were not the most bloviated on the forums, all of that long windiness is not going to do anything except turn the Devs off from listening to player concerns. Anyone that has that much to say is usually talking about themselves, I would agree 'leading' was the wrong word to use, I know they don't 'lead' anything or would not 'lead' any player. But those 'leading nominees' are the posts I never read because I already heard most of what they had to say in their first 10,000 posts.

see you on the fields, and at least I do see you playing SC, thats who I would want to represent, the guys that play and I dont want to hear that they are not in my ELO, they cannot have possible been after 10,000 games played.

One of the ideas for selecting people for the 'task force' is that it's got a couple people from competitive teams, a couple people from casual teams and a few people from the solo queue (my opinion is 2, 2, 3).

Nominate people you'd trust to collect the data then. Remember though - they're not deciding anything. Their personal opinions are not what's going to decide anything. Their whole purpose is just to condense the reams of static threads get filled with so we have something coherent to vote on.

Don't like the ideas they put forward? Put your own forward or get someone you trust to put their idea forward so it gets added to the mix. This is going to be decided by community vote - PGI has even implied they're going to support some sort of 'players voting on ECM changes' link in the launcher.

The only point of this 'council' at all is trying to turn the vague opinions of people in threads into something with actual applicable mechanics.

You, me, all of us are going to vote on which idea we like best. If none of them work that will get addressed before it even comes to a vote.

They have no authority. They are there just to do what forumwhores do best; talk about stuff.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

I say we write everyone's names down.

Put them in a jar...then burn them.

PGI has inside information it will never share and thus only they will be able to decide what is best for the servers and not make them explode.

I was never one to shy away from bashing PGI openly, but in these last few days they have showed a remarkable improvement in which i am willing to give them more than just the benefit of the doubt.

I say we return the favor and let them run the show, see how they do without IGP sticking a knife in their back, at the very least. Giving more power to the already "entitled" consumer is not the way to go, and will ostracize the minority, when PGI is looking at all the numbers, and a handful of Pilots cannot match that.

And please, can we steer away from jumping to "Tabletop" this and "MWX" that. For one, none of the non table top games are cannon, and two, even the tabletop there was a period in time when clans didn't even exist. This game is loosely based on the cannon, stop trying to get PGI to make it how you personally "feel" the game should be.

[Kaspirikay]

Oh, I didn't notice this thread.

Yes, I am against the council for fear it will turn into Eve's CSM.

[Pat Kell]

If this council would have access to all the data that PGI does and can form opinions and suggestions based on that, then fine. What I fear is that each council member will be using anecdotal evidence to push their personal pet peeves. Just because you get lrm'd to death a lot doesn't mean lrm's should be nerfed. Please be careful with this and lets all hope that PGI is able to tell the difference between anecdotes and real valid data.

[1453 R]

Listen to Mischief. Mischief speaks truth.

Voting against the player council/ECM task force is voting against having a voice in the affairs of MWO. if you want to continue along the rocky, ineffectual road we've all traveled for so long where nothing gets done and players have no choice or voice about what happens in this game, then keep on trying to undermine a player council or issue-specific task force.

We've all seen where that road leads. I, for one, am ready to try a different road and see where that goes, because it really can't not be better than where we are now. Anywhere we helped choose to go is better than a place we had no hand or voice in.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

1453 R, on 14 September 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

Listen to Mischief. Mischief speaks truth.

Voting against the player council/ECM task force is voting against having a voice in the affairs of MWO. if you want to continue along the rocky, ineffectual road we've all traveled for so long where nothing gets done and players have no choice or voice about what happens in this game, then keep on trying to undermine a player council or issue-specific task force.

We've all seen where that road leads. I, for one, am ready to try a different road and see where that goes, because it really can't not be better than where we are now. Anywhere we helped choose to go is better than a place we had no hand or voice in.

Have you not been paying attention to to the recent changes in communication with PGI? It has nothing to do with the Council, but PGI being more free to manage as they like without IGP as overseer. PGI knows it's own history better than any of us, it's time to stop clinging to the past and view PGI like the enemy.

We do not know their resources, we do not know the capability of their Frankenstein C3E, and we don't know just how much pressure IGP was applying. Stop assuming so many things.

[Pat Kell]

I have no problem with people giving suggestions. I am just concerned about the firestorm that could erupt when PGI chooses not to follow the suggestions made, a decision that they have every right to make and are the sole owners of the information needed to make those types of decisions. Yet I would be shocked if the forums don't erupt with righteous indignation when PGI chooses to take another path.

[ArchMage Sparrowhawk]

Some are framing this as a once time group, specifically oriented for a particular task; which is, organizing the different views of the entire player-base into something that can be looked at and mined for applicable improvements to the function of ECM. And since ECM affects a lot of the gameplay (and this is indisputable.), other aspects of the game will need to be taken into account. This isn't an election, it's almost a thankless task, it bestows no prestige, and is all about the work and the task at hand. So lets stop worrying about popularity contests. This isn't student body president, it's more like class treasurer. and they aren't allowed to do anything without our votes anyway. So instead of vacillating, we need to move ahead.

Does anyone disagree? or can we get this Task Force ready for vote this week?

Edited by ArchMage Sparrowhawk, 14 September 2014 - 07:46 PM.

[1453 R]

CN9 ACE PILOT, on 14 September 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

Have you not been paying attention to to the recent changes in communication with PGI? It has nothing to do with the Council, but PGI being more free to manage as they like without IGP as overseer. PGI knows it's own history better than any of us, it's time to stop clinging to the past and view PGI like the enemy.

We do not know their resources, we do not know the capability of their Frankenstein C3E, and we don't know just how much pressure IGP was applying. Stop assuming so many things.

And how does having an extra conduit to voice our concerns and ideas to PGI hurt this process? Certainly we can't put together technical documents for them, and nobody sane is saying this task force will have any sort of decisive power within Piranha's structure. This task force isn't your tyrannical overlord, CN9 - they're your messengers, whose job it is to make sure that you're heard. They have no voting or decisive power at all, no power whatsoever. it's not a position of authority or privilege, it's a whole lot of sweaty, thankless work for no reward at all - except the knowledge that you helped the entire playerbase of MWO finally, finally, FINALLY have a meaningful conversation with Piranha.

How can we not want to have that conversation, man?

[Zensei]

Still, the selected few looks a lot like a reddit upvote in process, and we all know just how that works out for anyone that disagrees, I have heard many valid points for and against, my problem is those redditors being on the counsil, anyone who is a leader of one of their boards should be disqualified from a position on the Counsil. We all know how that system works, no sane person would want it in the game, before you know it you would be getting down voted out of a match.

Edited by Zensei, 14 September 2014 - 07:59 PM.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

1453 R, on 14 September 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

And how does having an extra conduit to voice our concerns and ideas to PGI hurt this process? Certainly we can't put together technical documents for them, and nobody sane is saying this task force will have any sort of decisive power within Piranha's structure. This task force isn't your tyrannical overlord, CN9 - they're your messengers, whose job it is to make sure that you're heard. They have no voting or decisive power at all, no power whatsoever. it's not a position of authority or privilege, it's a whole lot of sweaty, thankless work for no reward at all - except the knowledge that you helped the entire playerbase of MWO finally, finally, FINALLY have a meaningful conversation with Piranha.

How can we not want to have that conversation, man?

We don't need messengers when those messengers already post their opinions just fine, along with others.

In my opinion, all this will lead to is a sharper reaction from the community when something "they" want didn't get implemented, since it's supposed to be what the "community" wanted. The consumer will never know exactly what it wants, because it will never have access to all the information, particularly in something like MWO, where one thing can cause a mountain of glitches, and a burden on an already smaller department.

ArchMage Sparrowhawk, on 14 September 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

Some are framing this as a once time group, specifically oriented for a particular task; which is, organizing the different views of the entire player-base into something that can be looked at and mined for applicable improvements to the function of ECM. And since ECM affects a lot of the gameplay (and this is indisputable.), other aspects of the game will need to be taken into account. This isn't an election, it's almost a thankless task, it bestows no prestige, and is all about the work and the task at hand. So lets stop worrying about popularity contests. This isn't student body president, it's more like class treasurer. and they aren't allowed to do anything without our votes anyway. So instead of vacillating, we need to move ahead.

Does anyone disagree? or can we get this Task Force ready for vote this week?

I disagree, no one likes a backseat driver. We known not neither their limitations, or means of implementations, for all we know they have already tried the things that have been suggested but cannot implement it either for server stress, ce3 limitatinos, or contract obligations. Nor would they be able to tell us if the contract requires them to not share that information.

[Blakkstar]

Players: PGI doesn't listen to its players!

PGI: We'd like to listen to the players.

Players: The other players are stupid and have dumb ideas!