446 replies to this topic

[ArchMage Sparrowhawk]

CN9 ACE PILOT, on 14 September 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

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.

That should be where the community vote comes in. We're going to be putting the ideas out there, and if the community votes, how can the community come back and say "we're mad because what we wanted wasn't on the vote"? The actual implementation isn't up to the task force, the organization of our many suggestions for improvement is.

If you're already predicting that PGI is going to come back and say "oh we couldn't do it anyway because of XYZ", then you need to be focusing on them, and accountability, not on blocking the formation of a task force.

[Delas Ting Usee]

Haven't read the previous pages of post - but here's a suggestion -
Change the council constantly/regularly or per issue.
NOTHING, and I mean ZIP/NADA but come from PGI to council members as it might be construed as graft/bribe.
Might mean more work for the community but if we structure the council in such a way where, the first 5 council members will tackle ECM as an issue and put out recommendations to PGI and when that done, the council is done.
New council please...

[1453 R]

CN9 ACE PILOT, on 14 September 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

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.



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.

Find one good, solid opinion, mated to a couple of pages of sensible discussion and feedback on that opinion, in the seething, fetid morass of bitterness, recrimination, unrealistic expectations, outright hostility and buckets of Imgur memes that comprise this feculent swamp we all know as the MWO forums, man.

Someone needs to cull the wheat from the chaff. That's the entirety of a player task force's job - foster discussion on its given subject, find the ideas worth refining and presenting to the community, work with those ideas' original presenters/posters in order to generate a proper proposal for that idea, and then guide debate on those proposals that have been deemed, by the community which includes everyone else, to be worth a good solid look. When we've all picked a favorite, that favorite gets pitched to PGI.

This is how actual development businesses work. PGI is basically offering to cut us in on the high-level design stage of the game, with the caveat that we have to put together an actual proposal worth considering, and not just shotgun them with half a billion badly described, contradictory ideas with no real effort or foresight put into them. Or, in other words, we have to give them the same sort of solid, fleshed-out, unified idea that they would expect out of one of their own design concept teams.

If we can't do that, if we continue to just spew word-vomit at them by the ton and expect them to deal with it, then they'll be perfectly within their rights to tell us all to shut up and play what we get.

[Delas Ting Usee]

We should actually elect a shadow council of sorts - can't say I like the people nominated on the current council to represent my views.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

1453 R, on 14 September 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

Find one good, solid opinion, mated to a couple of pages of sensible discussion and feedback on that opinion, in the seething, fetid morass of bitterness, recrimination, unrealistic expectations, outright hostility and buckets of Imgur memes that comprise this feculent swamp we all know as the MWO forums, man.

Someone needs to cull the wheat from the chaff. That's the entirety of a player task force's job - foster discussion on its given subject, find the ideas worth refining and presenting to the community, work with those ideas' original presenters/posters in order to generate a proper proposal for that idea, and then guide debate on those proposals that have been deemed, by the community which includes everyone else, to be worth a good solid look. When we've all picked a favorite, that favorite gets pitched to PGI.

This is how actual development businesses work. PGI is basically offering to cut us in on the high-level design stage of the game, with the caveat that we have to put together an actual proposal worth considering, and not just shotgun them with half a billion badly described, contradictory ideas with no real effort or foresight put into them. Or, in other words, we have to give them the same sort of solid, fleshed-out, unified idea that they would expect out of one of their own design concept teams.

If we can't do that, if we continue to just spew word-vomit at them by the ton and expect them to deal with it, then they'll be perfectly within their rights to tell us all to shut up and play what we get.

Is that meant rhetorically or you actually want me to list them? Because there are many. Sensible discussion over an idea is one thing, some one derailing it or starting a flame war is another.

Sounds nothing more than shooting down ideas that might have been presented wrong that could be diamonds in the rough.

This is a F2P market, with very little of "How to", even experienced companies are having trouble to adapt to this new form.

An idea, is an idea, weather it's fully thought through or not, we cannot expect it to go the way we want because we don't know how their implementation works, or how long something we see as "simple" could take. Maybe those "bad" ideas are ground on which their limited manpower/server are capable of producing.

That is a human issue, not the result of bad communication, attention seekers will intentionally start spewing vileness in forums to vent their daily frustrations, don't pretend as if this is PGI's fault.

[Zensei]

Delas Ting Usee, on 14 September 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

Haven't read the previous pages of post - but here's a suggestion -
Change the council constantly/regularly or per issue.
NOTHING, and I mean ZIP/NADA but come from PGI to council members as it might be construed as graft/bribe.
Might mean more work for the community but if we structure the council in such a way where, the first 5 council members will tackle ECM as an issue and put out recommendations to PGI and when that done, the council is done.
New council please...

Brilliant, that's a compromise I could stand behind.

[MischiefSC]

Pat Kell, on 14 September 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

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.

that is an absolutely a reasonable concern - it is, however, still moving FORWARD.

At this point we've got a lot of complaints from some people that 'PGI never listens'. They extended an olive branch, which we are currently doing our best to use to wipe ourselves or poke each other in the eye with. If we can manage to wrangle it into something useful (no easy task but a lot of people are willing to push hard at it) then we come into a more direct conversation about PGI on exactly how far they're willing to go with listening to and interacting with the community.

Is the objection 'Your idea is **** and here is why' or is it 'Yeah.... no, that's not what we want to do'.

I think there's going to need to be some negotiation/discussion with PGI about the difference between what we want for Christmas and what's in the Christmas budget but it's a good start.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

ArchMage Sparrowhawk, on 14 September 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

That should be where the community vote comes in. We're going to be putting the ideas out there, and if the community votes, how can the community come back and say "we're mad because what we wanted wasn't on the vote"? The actual implementation isn't up to the task force, the organization of our many suggestions for improvement is.

If you're already predicting that PGI is going to come back and say "oh we couldn't do it anyway because of XYZ", then you need to be focusing on them, and accountability, not on blocking the formation of a task force.

No, just no. But let me ask this in case i'm misunderstanding your statement.

I'm under the impression that you feel if they don't do something that was voted for are unable to tell us why they could not do it, they should be held accountable?

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 08:30 PM, said:

that is an absolutely a reasonable concern - it is, however, still moving FORWARD.

At this point we've got a lot of complaints from some people that 'PGI never listens'. They extended an olive branch, which we are currently doing our best to use to wipe ourselves or poke each other in the eye with. If we can manage to wrangle it into something useful (no easy task but a lot of people are willing to push hard at it) then we come into a more direct conversation about PGI on exactly how far they're willing to go with listening to and interacting with the community.

Is the objection 'Your idea is **** and here is why' or is it 'Yeah.... no, that's not what we want to do'.

I think there's going to need to be some negotiation/discussion with PGI about the difference between what we want for Christmas and what's in the Christmas budget but it's a good start.

They have been doing a great job, jumping into topics, giving us information, and their thoughts as of late(since the dismissal of IGP), the fact they are even allowing this is progress, the last thing i want is for that progress to become a stumbling block, due to a bitter player base that can't let go of the past.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

In summary.

PGI is trying to turn over a new leaf, i have seen it in numerous threads.

They have extended an olive branch, lets take that branch with the same grace they have offered to us, by not trying to grab them by the foot by wanting more than they are capable of giving us.

All i ask is give them time, to see how they can run things on their own, without backseat drivers, without the pressure of even more expectations, and especially without a bitter player base seeing this an opportunity to tell PGI how things should be done.

[MischiefSC]

CN9 ACE PILOT, on 14 September 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

They have been doing a great job, jumping into topics, giving us information, and their thoughts as of late(since the dismissal of IGP), the fact they are even allowing this is progress, the last thing i want is for that progress to become a stumbling block, due to a bitter player base that can't let go of the past.

Here's the thing in my opinion.

There are a number of bitter people who won't be happy at all, with anything. In fact one could reasonably say that being unhappy is what makes them happy. They are not, in truth, a significant part of this conversation.

The rest of us want good changes in good ways and want to partner with PGI on that. I'm willing to accept that what we want may not work, or may have to come in stages, or may take 6 months or a year to get in. I'm fine with that. A lot of people are.

That's why the target is 80%. 10% want something totally different from everyone else with no compromise, 10% want everything to fail and everyone to stand around and cry so that they feel like they managed to ruin something for someone else.

**** them. They're not in the discussion, not really. I believe PGI is a bit skeptical of how this will work out; they should be, we're a difficult group to get to say anything specific. I do however believe that with the right pressure and push coming to shove we can do this and make something cool and worthwhile here. Even if it falls apart at some point we can still pick up and move forward from there.

What we need to not do is just.... let the ship drift. Not that PGI isn't providing leadership but that we can and should help pull rope and hoist rigging. We're an atypically experienced community, a lot of competent people here where BT is concerned. I think we have something worthwhile to offer even if getting to that takes some work.

[ArchMage Sparrowhawk]

CN9 ACE PILOT, on 14 September 2014 - 08:30 PM, said:

No, just no. But let me ask this in case i'm misunderstanding your statement.

I'm under the impression that you feel if they don't do something that was voted for are unable to tell us why they could not do it, they should be held accountable?

no. how are you going to hold them accountable? I'm saying that you can call them to account, you can accuse them of not being accountable. I'm saying that if you think this is already a bad faith exercise and PGI is going to find some excuse not to implement whatever is voted against, why are you focusing your opposition to the task force instead of focusing it on PGI? If you think it's already useless, why are you here?

CN9 ACE PILOT, on 14 September 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

In summary.

so I guess that means you're done. All this just to say "I think the idea is bad and we should let PGI do whatever"?
*shrug*

Edited by ArchMage Sparrowhawk, 14 September 2014 - 08:45 PM.

[1453 R]

We're not clinging to the past, Cent. We're asking for a voice. We're asking for Piranha to help us give ourselves the tools to speak to them clearly and in an effective manner. Nobody, but nobody, but nobody has time to sift this entire foul swamp of a forum for everything worth saying. If we can propose ideas for what we would like to see happen in a clear, concise, and actionable manner, with the backing of moderated debate (not forum-moderated, moderator-moderated, like political debates except without the politicians) and polling information, then Piranha can engage in intelligent discussions with us. If those discussions are "We know this is a thing you'd like to see, but unfortunately it's not technically/financially/otherwise feasible, and here's why", then that is awesome. That is exactly the sort of communication that mends bridges and builds relationships.

Nobody's asking for a Dictator Squad to try and force Piranha into doing anything. All we're asking for is a voice, and a table to sit at where we can use that voice and talk in an intelligent, reasonable, and effective manner with Piranha.

Edited by 1453 R, 14 September 2014 - 08:45 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Im curious if its true the guys making this game asked for this council or not.

[MischiefSC]

Johnny Z, on 14 September 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

Im curious if its true the guys making this game asked for this council or not.

Russ did. That's where it came from and all the excitement.

[Johnny Z]

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

Russ did. That's where it came from and all the excitement.

Ok cool. They are the pros here, so... Anyway link?

[WarZ]

I vote against a player council. Period. Reasons stated in the other thread.

[1453 R]

Johnny Z, on 14 September 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

Im curious if its true the guys making this game asked for this council or not.

Russ Bullock's Community ECM Challenge.

Russ' Thread: "Does PGI Listen to Feedback?"

They did indeed. That's why people are taking this so seriously and doing everything they can to make this work, and why it makes absolutely no sense for players to vote against it.

Piranha wants us to do this. Who're we to let them down?

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

ArchMage Sparrowhawk, on 14 September 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

no. how are you going to hold them accountable? I'm saying that you can call them to account, you can accuse them of not being accountable. I'm saying that if you think this is already a bad faith exercise and PGI is going to find some excuse not to implement whatever is voted against, why are you focusing your opposition to the task force instead of focusing it on PGI? If you think it's already useless, why are you here?



so I guess that means you're done. All this just to say "I think the idea is bad and we should let PGI do whatever"?
*shrug*

I'm in my proper topic, the question is why are you here attempting to intimidate people who want to voice they are against the council, a taste of what is to come no doubt. I'm focusing on the task force because there will never be a point in time where the council or the community have all the information PGI has access to.

All this to point out how quickly people are to jump what they don't agree with and throw it into the 20%

[Pat Kell]

The one thing that gives me hope here is that PGI asked for this type of thing. That being the case, I can see the benefit of someone compiling valid suggestions that the forums seem to like but if we turn it sour when/if PGI doesn't do as we suggest, it will just result in more bans, smaller player base and an eventual end to the game. If we/the council is going to take on this responsibility, they will need to do it with a positive attitude and an understanding that we won't always get what we want. And then they will have to go onto the forums and preach moderation from the people who tend to go the negative route.