446 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

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.

It makes perfect sense if youve played other games and seen player councils either accomplish nothing or cause more harm than good.

[Kyrie]

Someone has to sort out between competing ideas (and their corresponding walls of text) to present a set of complete proposals for the whole community to vote on. PGI has indicated that they want us, as a community, to do the heavy lifting on this issue.

I suggest that PGI help us organize this debate by organizing a subforum wherein competing ideas can be hashed out once and for all. In this discussion area, those who propose the most popular ideas become the "council" -- as selected by votes among those participating in the discussion.

[MischiefSC]

WarZ, on 14 September 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

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

K. Then don't participate.

There is no 'vote against'. There is no 'vote' on having a player council. We can do this and present an idea on ECM to PGI or we can just leave things the way they are. There are no other options on the table, no other presented ideas or opportunities.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

1453 R, on 14 September 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

We're not clinging to the past, Cent. We're asking for a voice.

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

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

Certainly sounds like clinging to the past.

We have a voice.

And they are listening.

Why do you want some one else to speak for you if "you" want to be heard?.

[1453 R]

CN9 ACE PILOT, on 14 September 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:

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%

What you're basically telling us to do, CN9, is to stop offering feedback or advise or ideas altogether. You're telling us all to trust Piranha as blindly as a young child trusts its parents, simply because we don't have as much information available as they do.

They certainly do have more information than we do, and if some of that information invalidates our ideas, they can tell us that and we'll be fine with it (the usual forum ragemonkeys excepted. They don't count anyways, and never have). What we do have is the information of our own play experiences, opinions formed on the basis of that information, and desires which arise from those opinions.

Piranha is not my mommy, making decisions for me for my own good because Piranha's a responsible adult and I'm a snot-nosed brat with no practical knowledge of the world. They're a business that wants my money, and in order to get my money in a more effective and mutually-satisfactory manner, they have a vested interest in ensuring that my experience of the game is as tip-top as it's within their resources to make it. Part of that experience of the game is knowing that this company has my back, that I am a player to them and not just a wallet with fingers that can be milked whenever the bank accounts start looking thin. The best way to make players feel like valued customers and fellow partners in a business endeavor - one of the best ways to convince them to open their wallets and shell out - is to give them a voice in what goes on with the game.

[Johnny Z]

1453 R, on 14 September 2014 - 08:49 PM, said:

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?

Ok seriously no offense to anyone but the only thing I can come up with that reminds me of whats going on here is a dog chasing its own tail. Shouldnt there be some sort of chat about this ECM thing and decide what everyone wants then go from there? lol Im fine with ecm as it now so Im not sure what its about.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 08:55 PM, said:

K. Then don't participate.

There is no 'vote against'. There is no 'vote' on having a player council. We can do this and present an idea on ECM to PGI or we can just leave things the way they are. There are no other options on the table, no other presented ideas or opportunities.

Voting against is participating.

This is exactly one of the many problems people have with this already, suddenly players ostracized for not going along with the 80%

If you are not against it fine, you have a topic of your own, stop coming in here and bashing those who wish to express their insecurities about the current topic.

[Alex Warden]

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

I vote no! MWO counsel.

But I would like a poll done by PGI in game (yes or no) 1 vote per account on ECM changes and a pro or con balance reason by the staff it should be done in the same topic based on community feedback and the PGI staffs feedback.

I would like to see this same poll done for old jump jet mechanics or new jump jet mechanics.

this... would generally be nice if PGI would do some polls frequently to get a picture of the over-all vibe on certain topics... best with a link in the launcher

Edited by Alex Warden, 14 September 2014 - 09:04 PM.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

1453 R, on 14 September 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

What you're basically telling us to do, CN9, is to stop offering feedback or advise or ideas altogether. You're telling us all to trust Piranha as blindly as a young child trusts its parents, simply because we don't have as much information available as they do.

They certainly do have more information than we do, and if some of that information invalidates our ideas, they can tell us that and we'll be fine with it (the usual forum ragemonkeys excepted. They don't count anyways, and never have). What we do have is the information of our own play experiences, opinions formed on the basis of that information, and desires which arise from those opinions.

Piranha is not my mommy, making decisions for me for my own good because Piranha's a responsible adult and I'm a snot-nosed brat with no practical knowledge of the world. They're a business that wants my money, and in order to get my money in a more effective and mutually-satisfactory manner, they have a vested interest in ensuring that my experience of the game is as tip-top as it's within their resources to make it. Part of that experience of the game is knowing that this company has my back, that I am a player to them and not just a wallet with fingers that can be milked whenever the bank accounts start looking thin. The best way to make players feel like valued customers and fellow partners in a business endeavor - one of the best ways to convince them to open their wallets and shell out - is to give them a voice in what goes on with the game.

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

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.

If you are going to quote me on what i was discussing with some one else, please read all my posts.

[MischiefSC]

CN9 ACE PILOT, on 14 September 2014 - 08:59 PM, said:

Voting against is participating.

This is exactly one of the many problems people have with this already, suddenly players ostracized for not going along with the 80%

If you are not against it fine, you have a topic of your own, stop coming in here and bashing those who wish to express their insecurities about the current topic.

Discuss it all you want. What I'm saying is that there is no 'vote against' mechanic in place here aside from not voting at all. There's going to be a vote with the names of all the people with nominations; there isn't going to be a 'nobody' option there because without a council the whole thing goes nowhere. There will be a vote on the optional ECM fixes that are settled upon by the community and by not voting you help prevent us from hitting the '80% consensus' that Russ has said we need. It's not 80% of the people who vote but something close to 80% of regular players.

There is no option here that splits the task force (better term than council) from PGI implementing player agreed upon suggestions for changes to ECM. They are the same thing in this situation. You don't get the ECM changes without the task force.

So discuss all you want, debate the usefulness/viability/whatever of it all you want. If you want to 'vote against' your only mechanical method is to not vote for any ECM change, thus preventing an 80% consensus.

Part of the problem here is this idea that the whole concept is up for debate. It isn't. PGi is turning over a new leaf, you're absolutely correct - they are doing that hand in hand with giving the community a chance to do our own heavy lifting on gathering our own community feedback. Russ specifically offered this olive branch; doing this is actually accepting and welcoming this change and opportunity from PGI. It's people saying 'bah, don't bother, it's going to fail' that are telling PGI that we don't want them to do so.

Does that make sense? I've read your posts and you seem positive about the direction PGI is taking lately. Me too; I'm excited and pleased with all of it. This is part of that. Russ specifically offered us this opportunity to give us a chance to build a better relationship with PGI. What I'm saying is 'lets not blow it by ignoring it/slapping it down'.

This is a chance they gave us, what logic is there in telling them we don't want it?

[1453 R]

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

Does that make sense? I've read your posts and you seem positive about the direction PGI is taking lately. Me too; I'm excited and pleased with all of it. This is part of that. Russ specifically offered us this opportunity to give us a chance to build a better relationship with PGI. What I'm saying is 'lets not blow it by ignoring it/slapping it down'.

This is a chance they gave us, what logic is there in telling them we don't want it?

Beautiful. I don't 'like' anything, anywhere, but this is not only worth a like, it's worth reinforcing.

Piranha wants us to do this. They offered this chance to us, they initiated it of their own volition. Telling them to piss up a rope is just...it boggles my mind, it truly does.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

Discuss it all you want. What I'm saying is that there is no 'vote against' mechanic in place here aside from not voting at all. There's going to be a vote with the names of all the people with nominations; there isn't going to be a 'nobody' option there because without a council the whole thing goes nowhere. There will be a vote on the optional ECM fixes that are settled upon by the community and by not voting you help prevent us from hitting the '80% consensus' that Russ has said we need. It's not 80% of the people who vote but something close to 80% of regular players.

There is no option here that splits the task force (better term than council) from PGI implementing player agreed upon suggestions for changes to ECM. They are the same thing in this situation. You don't get the ECM changes without the task force.

So discuss all you want, debate the usefulness/viability/whatever of it all you want. If you want to 'vote against' your only mechanical method is to not vote for any ECM change, thus preventing an 80% consensus.

Part of the problem here is this idea that the whole concept is up for debate. It isn't. PGi is turning over a new leaf, you're absolutely correct - they are doing that hand in hand with giving the community a chance to do our own heavy lifting on gathering our own community feedback. Russ specifically offered this olive branch; doing this is actually accepting and welcoming this change and opportunity from PGI. It's people saying 'bah, don't bother, it's going to fail' that are telling PGI that we don't want them to do so.

Does that make sense? I've read your posts and you seem positive about the direction PGI is taking lately. Me too; I'm excited and pleased with all of it. This is part of that. Russ specifically offered us this opportunity to give us a chance to build a better relationship with PGI. What I'm saying is 'lets not blow it by ignoring it/slapping it down'.

This is a chance they gave us, what logic is there in telling them we don't want it?

Because PGI has proven it can change, the community has not.

It matters little to me weather it affects the outcome. And you are right, it wont, but look at the reactions, you think this community is ready for a responsibility like that? I certainly do not.

[DeliciousBread]

Aliisa White, on 14 September 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

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.

I come from about ~7 years on eve, and ~1.5 years on dust. The CPM and CSM don't have any actual 'power'. Furthermore they're voted in as elected representatives and are bound under a strict non-disclosure agreement to help promote transparency between CCP and their playerbase, by using their expert experience as a sort of 'first response' to developers when something is right/wrong/being checked - their sole purpose is to communicate with the devs (and they have weekly meetings with them to this purpose, either over Skype or in IRC). The CSM was initially formed after a pretty big scandal in eve where it came to light that a developer was essentially 'cheating' for people in his alliance.

The CSM and CPM have *never* been a bad thing... and if you genuinely think a system with elected representatives is bad, well I hope you don't live in a country that's a democracy.

This is an explanation on what the CPM is from a CPM member:

For reference, this was his application to the CSM: https://forums.dust5...696&find=unread "I have worked as a qualification holding senior project manager on software development projects for 20 years. My teams ranged from 5 to 50 staff."

A council is a great and amazing tool as it makes sure the important feedback gets to the devs in a timely manner. If a council was done in a similar manner to dust 514 or eve online it would be a *wonderful* thing.

[Alex Warden]

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

This is a chance they gave us, what logic is there in telling them we don't want it?

well i wouldn´t say logic in my case, just more an opinion... i say no simply because ECM is the very least of my problems, if you ask me personally, i´d say leave it as it is... i can´t see anything good coming from a "council"...

[A banana in the tailpipe]

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!

My vote is against a player council after how the player council thread turned into a toss pot for personal friends and has nothing to do with real issues.

Edited by lockwoodx, 14 September 2014 - 09:21 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

That's what the official forums look like to anyone trying to parse anything out of this mess.

Not really. I had a poll/discussion going in the feature suggestions section of the forums that got locked, but was making strides in resolving the ECM issue.

The most derided aspect of ECM is the blanket stealth it grants and the fact its a hard counter to LRMs rather than a soft counter.

Conversely, the most derided aspect of indirect LRMs is how accurate they are, how fast they fire, and how much screenshake they cause. There's also concern that NARC might be a little too strong or should at least have a HUD indicator that you've been NARC'd.

We really dont need a council to find out what the community's thoughts are on ECM. A simple poll figured that out.

Edited by Khobai, 14 September 2014 - 09:26 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Mcgral18, on 14 September 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

I'll vote for change, and progress.

Change does not equal progress, nor does progress equal change. Both of those things were hollow promises of an inept president that is driving our country into the ground, and too cowardly to act properly to threats against us.

Change and progress regarding MWO could be anything, because it has been stagnant for so long we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Edited by lockwoodx, 14 September 2014 - 09:21 PM.

[MischiefSC]

CN9 ACE PILOT, on 14 September 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

Because PGI has proven it can change, the community has not.

It matters little to me weather it affects the outcome. And you are right, it wont, but look at the reactions, you think this community is ready for a responsibility like that? I certainly do not.

I think there is more to the community than a handful of outspoken people on the forums. I think there are several people who, regardless of other factors, could do a good job of collecting our scattered ideas into a viable format. I think the community, as a whole, can do a decent job voting for which of those would be the best option overall.

Do I trust the community to change? No, not much. A bit, over time maybe, but not a lot all at once. Do I trust them to have opinions they would vote for on ECM? Oh yes. Yes I do. I think given a button to click on to show they support a specific set of changes to ECM I think most of us will go click crazy.

And that is what this is offering. Nothing more nothing less.

[CN9 ACE PILOT]

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

I think there is more to the community than a handful of outspoken people on the forums. I think there are several people who, regardless of other factors, could do a good job of collecting our scattered ideas into a viable format. I think the community, as a whole, can do a decent job voting for which of those would be the best option overall.

Do I trust the community to change? No, not much. A bit, over time maybe, but not a lot all at once. Do I trust them to have opinions they would vote for on ECM? Oh yes. Yes I do. I think given a button to click on to show they support a specific set of changes to ECM I think most of us will go click crazy.

And that is what this is offering. Nothing more nothing less.

I certainly agree with that, but it feels so incredibly rushed, people are flaring at the chance. I fear they will crash and burn, not realizing how this can affect the future of MWO, not just ECM.

I will have to sleep on this and organize my thoughts a bit more, have to go to work soon.

[Vanguard319]

CN9 ACE PILOT, on 14 September 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

Because PGI has proven it can change, the community has not.

It matters little to me weather it affects the outcome. And you are right, it wont, but look at the reactions, you think this community is ready for a responsibility like that? I certainly do not.

PGI has proven it can change ONLY when they done goofed so badly and are called out on it, that they can no longer ignore the problems.

That being said, they have offered an olive branch, some are distrustful, and think this wasn't done out of sincerity, but rather as something to claim they tried to find a solution acceptable to the community. Given the divisiveness in the community atm, this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy regardless of it being true or not.

The only way to find out for sure is to take up the offer. The worst case scenario is that the council fails to bring any change for the better, but that that wouldn't be any worse than the current situation.