446 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

EboneezeeR, on 15 September 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

I'm a Republican, we only "referends" some few B-52H to third world countries with a payload of cookies. So cut your democratic bullsh!t.

Thanks, I laughed.

Referendums in large populace society are bad. Referendums in small community using the same medium, not so bad.

[MischiefSC]

So there have been repeatedly complaints that PGI doesn't listen to the player base on changes.

Thus, we don't like the results of PGI looking through player suggestions and implementing stuff.

PGI asks us to put our own consensus together on what changes we need.

Someone has to actually put the consensus together - you can't "vote" on a bunch of general ideas.

So here are some quotes from Russ on what they're looking for and why. He's already posting in the 'player council election' thread so as to 'is this what PGI wants' that's pretty clear. Here's some quotes from Russ Bullocks responses in the nomination thread:

Quote

I have heard a few requests to wait until around Tuesday for a poll, sure that is fine with me.

There as also a fair point for those concerned about having a group speak for them, remember they will need to present a full proposal and you the players will read it and get to vote. So I think you can feel secure in knowing that the proposal is really going to have to speak clearly to a portion of players.

We will also discuss that 80% more to ensure it isn't just those that spend time on the forums but that they have significant play time which are stats I can easily gather. We will figure that part out.

As to the PPC conversation that just popped up, super tempting jump in and share all the history and logic which I am sure many would love to hear. But first things first, staying on topic we have chosen this ECM subject as our test case. I happen to think it is a great starting point.

I to do not care for the fact that many groups including competitive ones won't take any spiders except the ECM version. That to me does smell not quite right, never has.

Quote

This looks like one of the more advanced threads on the subject. Wish you continued luck and just let me know If you need a poll for any of your decisions.

Here is the original quote:

Quote

Okay how about this, this is what many of you have been waiting for:

Well first a question: Do you think you the community can come to an agreed upon consensus? One in which if the changes are implemented everyone says great job PGI on listening to us now we feel great about ECM and your ability to listen to feedback?

If the answer is Yes then I suggest the following:

You the community decide how your going to present a proposal, nominate a peer that you feel has the best handle on this, put together your own player council whatever you like but present a proposal that your peers vote on. The vote would likely need to be far greater than just 51% in favor. Perhaps something more like 80+%

At that point PGI will analyze the proposal, if we see any technical problems or balance problems that we feel perhaps you didnt see, we will point those items out to you. Then if necessary you can adjust your proposal and put it to a vote again, if successful PGI will again analyze and repeat if necessary until we have a final design solution for implementation.

PGI will then communicate how long it will take to implement with full explanation as to why, and we will patch the changes in upon the agreed upon delivery date. Once complete if this whole process has gone smoothly and civily we will proceed with doing things like this far more frequently or at least for other areas of the product that are controversial.

What do you say?

So would you rather it be one person or a council?

We've already nixed the idea of an elected group of players with any authority. Still, Russ made it clear he wants either one or a few specific people to deal with. Not a mob.

I'm trying to get a link to the poll put into the launcher or something similar. If what you want is some 'in game community chat' you're out of luck. Mechanically that's not going to work, all matches are on independently created virtual servers as needed. It's also insanely out of scope for what's going on here.

So, again.

We've been offered an opportunity to put a selected group of our peers together to present a player consensus on ECM to PGI for them to implement. That's what's on the table.

That's it. That's the option we have. Our choices are take it/don't take it. Spending a month arguing over how to set it up is going to just burn it to the ground. This one is a test case. I don't care if it's 1 person or 10 people, I don't care who they are so long as they can speak intelligently and are invested. If we don't make this work and do so effectively all we're going to do is slap down our chance to open an avenue for having player consensus drive game changes.

I don't know how else to put this - There is no option for 'not having a group of peers selected by the community present the proposed changes to ECM to PGI'. There is only 'do that, or leave things exactly as they are'. There is not a 'do this instead' option. It's not on the table.

If the consensus is that we don't want any direct voice in game changes then, well, we're a bunch of total idiots. The absurdity of that boggles me I admit.

We'll see how it shakes out though.

[EboneezeeR]

Livewyr, on 15 September 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

Thanks, I laughed.

Referendums in large populace society are bad. Referendums in small community using the same medium, not so bad.

At your service...

To me all this election stuff looks like just another atentionwh0ring.

[Joseph Mallan]

EboneezeeR, on 15 September 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

At your service...

To me all this election stuff looks like just another atentionwh0ring.

I'm sorry did someone call me?

[UnsafePilot]

EboneezeeR, on 15 September 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

To me all this election stuff looks like just another atentionwh0ring.

It was Russ's idea; What attention do you think he's after exactly?

[Joseph Mallan]

UnsafePilot, on 15 September 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

It was Russ's idea; What attention do you think he's after exactly?

Good PR?

[EboneezeeR]

UnsafePilot, on 15 September 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

It was Russ's idea; What attention do you think he's after exactly?

Cheecky b4stard! Dat Russ...

[8Ball-]

Too many folks bitching over something they obviously either didn't read or didn't understand. Why don't we shut our friggin pie holes and let the task force dig through the reams of BS on the forums and come up with some methods of re-working ECM. THEN we all can vote on something. If we can't come to some kind of consensus, then nothing will happen anyway. But at least we, the community will get a chance to have our voices heard.

[Bront]

Mickey Knoxx, on 15 September 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

It all seems very high school "class president" like to me. A title or role that really means nothing other than a feel good for the people. There is little to no information this group could attain that PGI could not themselves using the same means.

The difference is they're players, which often means they get more actual play time than the devs, and likely some are better players than the devs, and they have more direct contact with the players than the devs.

The Devs are often busy, you know, developing things. And skill at playing the game is not required.

[greytiger]

Unikron, on 14 September 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

Seeing the loudmouths, to potentially be elected into the council, I am definitely voting against.

I don't want some bunch of whining nerds, dragging this game through what is their own perception of MWO.



And this dude over here, told me today that apparently I use no-skill weapons, unless I run LRMs...

GG

So, we as a player base have people put forward their qualifications - ala a resume or some such.

And LRMs require more effective teamwork, if done properly. Your skill is limited by your teams skill - crappy team = less effective LRMs. Good team = really effective LRMs.

It's a different -kind- of skill set, then direct fire weapons.

GT

[EgoSlayer]

MischiefSC, on 15 September 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:

<snip>

I don't know how else to put this - There is no option for 'not having a group of peers selected by the community present the proposed changes to ECM to PGI'. There is only 'do that, or leave things exactly as they are'. There is not a 'do this instead' option. It's not on the table.

If the consensus is that we don't want any direct voice in game changes then, well, we're a bunch of total idiots. The absurdity of that boggles me I admit.

We'll see how it shakes out though.

QFT

It bears repeating for the umpteenth time. This isn't some election or a group that is going to have closed doors meetings with PGI for game changes. It's a group of players who are going to collect the community ideas down to a manageable few for the community to review and vote on. At which point the option selected by the community will be reviewed by PGI.

I honestly don't know what magic process the 'anti-council/group/task force' people think is going to create a poll-able list of items that PGI asked the community to create.

[EboneezeeR]

WW8Ball, on 15 September 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Too many folks bitching over something they obviously either didn't read or didn't understand. Why don't we shut our friggin pie holes and let the task force dig through the reams of BS on the forums and come up with some methods of re-working ECM. THEN we all can vote on something. If we can't come to some kind of consensus, then nothing will happen anyway. But at least we, the community will get a chance to have our voices heard.

[Roland]

It's worth saying again, that a good way to deal with this kind of thing is similar to how EvE online does it.

They elect a player council on their website, and it seems to be a reasonably effective process. Everyone makes their vote for a set of 16 people they want, and all the votes get tallied together by the computer and the final result is basically that the council tends to have at least one guy who fairly closely matches your viewpoints on things.

Now, for our playerbase, we probably don't need 16 folks since we're much smaller. Also, since we're not really electing a real council but rather just a task force for putting together a single idea, it's less important.

But I don't think that folks really need to be afraid that somehow it's gonna result in some small group of people making a ton of changes that you totally hate... because there will likely be at least a few folks on the council whose perspectives line up enough with yours that they wouldn't support such changes.

[Zensei]

So being this is the internet and all why don't they just go over to the outpreach redditor thingy and search for the ECM topic threads, they pretty much have beat the thing to death over there and then go cross reference at r/mwo to get the opposite view and then have a meeting with pie. Why do I have to figure out all this stuff for you guys?

[MischiefSC]

Because arguments over 'ECM is too hard/LRMs are too easy' are not game mechanics.

What needs to happen is ideas collected, converted into game mechanics and refined into something specific and playable that PGI can implement. Not 'LURMs R NO SKILLZ. ECM IS EZ MODE'.

So you need some people with reading comprehension skills to sort through it all and condense it into something useful.

Then we can debate those specific merits and turn it into something we can vote on and present.

Also... Reddit is just a place for people to talk about MW:O. This is the MW:O forums, this is where stuff about MW:O happens. What happens on Reddit needs to stay on Reddit. Crossing the streams with other sites is its own problem all together.

[IraqiWalker]

This is beyond demented. We've got players who have spent years, literally, working to try and improve this game, and are pretty much familiar with most aspects of the ECM debate, and they are willing to devote their time to sift through the thousands of threads and suggestions about ECM, to come up with a solution that PGI is willing to consider, and the first thing we do is shoot them in the knee????

What for? Most, if not all the players on that list LOVE BT, and want to improve MW:O. Why would anyone there torpedo the game? That would just cause catastrophic damage, and ruin communication between the devs and the players, while also making the game suck for all involved.

Keep in mind, these folks are also players, if the game is going to get ruined, it will be ruined for them as well.

Zensei, on 15 September 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

So being this is the internet and all why don't they just go over to the outpreach redditor thingy and search for the ECM topic threads, they pretty much have beat the thing to death over there and then go cross reference at r/mwo to get the opposite view and then have a meeting with pie. Why do I have to figure out all this stuff for you guys?

Because about 99% of all you'll find is just whine fests and sob stories with no real discussion, or proper suggestions that can be turned into game mechanics. Also, there is probably not a single idea that has been thrown around in there that isn't on the MW:O forums already.

[-Natural Selection-]

Mark Brandhauber, on 15 September 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

You really should edit this post. It can be read without understanding what i hope was your original intention instead seeing something entirely insulting.

I said it as I mean. The BEST for the spot, not have someone on there to represent some certain demo. What the hell does it matter if they are from US, Germany, or where ever. If all the best are from Eu, so be it.

This about a game mechanic, not some social policies.

[TLBFestus]

IraqiWalker, on 15 September 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

This is beyond demented. We've got players who have spent years, literally, working to try and improve this game, and are pretty much familiar with most aspects of the ECM debate, and they are willing to devote their time to sift through the thousands of threads and suggestions about ECM, to come up with a solution that PGI is willing to consider, and the first thing we do is shoot them in the knee????

What for? Most, if not all the players on that list LOVE BT, and want to improve MW:O. Why would anyone there torpedo the game? That would just cause catastrophic damage, and ruin communication between the devs and the players, while also making the game suck for all involved.

Keep in mind, these folks are also players, if the game is going to get ruined, it will be ruined for them as well.




Because about 99% of all you'll find is just whine fests and sob stories with no real discussion, or proper suggestions that can be turned into game mechanics. Also, there is probably not a single idea that has been thrown around in there that isn't on the MW:O forums already.

Part of the problem, which is going to take some time to rectify, is that many in the community inherently distrust anything PGI puts out there. Mix that in with the typical wild west show of most forums and you are going to get what we have here.

I will wait and look at the list of names and pick those who I think will do the best job AND represent a good cross section of the community (which, by doing so makes the elected ones jobs harder, just to be clear).

For instance, and please don't look at this as a provocation, I'm not a fan of Heffay and for reasons I won't go into here I won't elaborate, so I have two ways to deal with it.

I could simply NOT vote for him and hope he doesn't get selected.

OR

I could vote for him, even though we are diametrically different, but counter his influence/position by selecting someone else that represents another point of view that I'm more in line with.



I'm more likely to go for the 2nd option because he can contribute, and in matching him with his opposite twin. This makes both of them seek middle ground, in other words COMPROMISE (with the help of the middle ground reps) and might actually get something constructive out of polar opposites.

[IraqiWalker]

TLBFestus, on 15 September 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

Part of the problem, which is going to take some time to rectify, is that many in the community inherently distrust anything PGI puts out there. Mix that in with the typical wild west show of most forums and you are going to get what we have here.

I will wait and look at the list of names and pick those who I think will do the best job AND represent a good cross section of the community (which, by doing so makes the elected ones jobs harder, just to be clear).

For instance, and please don't look at this as a provocation, I'm not a fan of Heffay and for reasons I won't go into here I won't elaborate, so I have two ways to deal with it.

I could simply NOT vote for him and hope he doesn't get selected.

OR

I could vote for him, even though we are diametrically different, but counter his influence/position by selecting someone else that represents another point of view that I'm more in line with.



I'm more likely to go for the 2nd option because he can contribute, and in matching him with his opposite twin. This makes both of them seek middle ground, in other words COMPROMISE (with the help of the middle ground reps) and might actually get something constructive out of polar opposites.

What you are saying, in a civil and well-conducted manner, makes sense and I understand it.

My frustration is from people going into panic mode without any form of thought or actual consideration.

[MischiefSC]

People fear change. That's not unusual.

We're going to hack out a council/committee/task force/whatever to get this first ball rolling, then we're going to work out some good ECM changes. GOOD ones. We're going to shake the wheat out of the chaff and we're going to drive some changes to the game.

This is a good thing. I've got some PGI support confirmed for facilitating the votes and such too. Russ seems absolutely on board with helping however we need - but staying absolutely impartial. That's exactly what we wanted to hear.

We'll do this or fail on our own merits. How it should be.