446 replies to this topic

[EboneezeeR]

This "Vote Against" campaign continues until PGI gonna start to make their promises kept.

PGI and their behaviour against players will not be tolerated.

Edited by EboneezeeR, 16 September 2014 - 12:12 AM.

[MischiefSC]

N0MAD, on 15 September 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

NextGames suggestion, but like i stated earlier thats way to simple and efficient right?
A feedback thread, but hey there may be some troll posts and that would create work for the mod team right?
Nope lets have some popularity votes, those people are so more efficient right cause of course they are all pros.
But dont fear you are going to get your council cause (read above post to Mischief) happy little community, even if half the forum community dont want it and the BULK of the community dont even know about it..
Never fear PGI will come thru for you.

So other people can't speak for the community... but you do?

Look at the 'likes' on the post from Russ. 174 likes, currently. How many people are in this thread bitching? A dozen? So 1/10th the people who 'liked' the original idea from Russ?

So we already went over why a 'feedback thread' hasn't worked and doesn't work.

It seems like your issue is that people are getting selected by community consensus. That puts the ego issue here as yours, not anyone elses. Why don't you put that aside and focus on actually working to help get the community involved in working with PGI to make the game changes we want. You keep skirting the fact that for any of this to work we've got to have an idea that gets 80% of the vote or better; that vote, per Russ' own comments, needs to be more than just the majority of regular forum warriors.

So it is going to be a community consensus on the resulting change, more than just forum people. The only thing going on here is narrowing the number of people PGI has to work with directly and assigning the grunt work for turning basic forum posts into game mechanics suggestions.

All of which you're skipping so you can focus on how terrible and unfair and nasty it is to have a community vote on who they want to do that job, rather than just leave it to a random mob or the same people at PGI who have other jobs already to do, presumably the same way they've done for the last 2 years.

You know, that way we've been complaining about.

[EboneezeeR]

How trusted are gonna be that Focus Group?

[IraqiWalker]

N0MAD, on 15 September 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

NextGames suggestion, but like i stated earlier thats way to simple and efficient right?
A feedback thread, but hey there may be some troll posts and that would create work for the mod team right?
Nope lets have some popularity votes, those people are so more efficient right cause of course they are all pros.
But dont fear you are going to get your council cause (read above post to Mischief) happy little community, even if half the forum community dont want it and the BULK of the community dont even know about it..
Never fear PGI will come thru for you.

Link the source please?

Also, we already have 3 separate feedback/suggestion forums. After years of using them, we now know for a fact, that THAT system doesn't work that well. That's why this system is being used.

You keep talking about egos, but I honestly don't see how that really matters. These players are basically performing a thankless task for the most part. Spending hours and hours sifting through ECM suggestions and feedback, and compiling actually helpful and sane data from it, will net them no reward whatsoever. In fact, the players that actually have active streams and earn money through them will basically be losing money, since they will be spending their streaming time, dealing with this.

The reason they are doing it? Trying to make the game more fun, for everyone. What kind of a status boost will be gained from being on this council?

EboneezeeR, on 16 September 2014 - 12:09 AM, said:

This "Vote Against" campaign continues until PGI gonna start to make their promises kept.

PGI and their behaviour against players will not be tolerated.

They are already working on them, and moving at a fast pace. I know you're pissed that the King Crab wasn't here sooner, but that's no excuse to try and sabotage a great chance to get PGI on track faster and better.

In fact, because of your complaint, you should actually be campaigning FOR the election, not against it. Since this will help PGI get on track, and if they get good feedback, and suggestions from the community, and proceed to completely ignore them, you can run around and say "I told you so"

[IraqiWalker]

EboneezeeR, on 16 September 2014 - 01:11 AM, said:

How trusted are gonna be that Focus Group?

Very, almost all of them are big names, with almost all being players that have actually sound suggestions formulated over the years, insane BT experience (I've personally been playing BT on and off for almost 10 years now, and I probably have the least experience out of 80% of them.), and have at one point or another called PGI out on some of the stupid things they have done.

The community is nominating them by the way. So at least they have the community's trust. If PGI elected the players themselves, they could be under flak for picking players that side with PGI always ... bla bla bla bla. This way, PGI is innocent of it, and the community makes the decisions.

Also remember, this "council" will not have any actual decision making power. They will compile information, and they will make proposals that (most likely) will be viewed by the community, and possibly even refined that way, before finally being handed over to PGI to work with. The final decision is going to be PGI's

Edited by IraqiWalker, 16 September 2014 - 01:16 AM.

[Pat Kell]

Based on the fact that Russ has asked for this to be done, I think it's a forgone conclusion that it will be done. I am not opposed to PGI asking for help to get our thousands of suggestions narrowed down to some form of coherent message. I am just dubious that we, as non-PGI employees, are capable of that. I see a lot of people complaining about ECM but to me it's a non issue as I just never have that much trouble shooting people that don't have a big red box around them. I see people complaining about nerf this and nerf that and I wonder how capable we are, with our limited (granted some have more than others) knowledge and anecdotal evidence to give PGI something they can use. I often times try to browse the forums but am just amazed at how much people seem to forget the fact that if something sucks when it is used against you, it will suck for the enemy if you use it against the them. If this "council" would focus on pushing ideas to get more content in the game, I am all for it but if it turns into another year of weapon/equipment balancing, then we are wasting our time. More content=better game, more balancing=never ending cycle as someone will always find a way to min/max something. the goons are a great example of this.

So not that 1 vote counts much but if you want mine, focus on suggestions that give more content and let players devise ways to overcome any perceived imbalance. things feel good to me now as no weapon seems to be too over powering. Revising anything, including ECM will just result in people trying to find the next big thing (not that ecm is all that great anyway). Please focus on content.

Edited by Pat Kell, 16 September 2014 - 01:27 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

EboneezeeR, on 16 September 2014 - 01:11 AM, said:

How trusted are gonna be that Focus Group?

Depends on those in it. Whether I have disagreed with them or not. Most of the members on the list want to see the game thrive! The Majority of players with multiple Nominations I have butted heads with, but would be OK with being on this committee. They have all argued from a point of trying to make the game better for most. And even though their preferred game is not my preferred game, they have argued/debated in good faith. I do hope to be on the committee though. Power gamers need a voice in this venture

[N0MAD]

You all keep talking about the community when in fact its only the Forum community (and then a culled forum community).
But thats all good because Russ got a massive 180 likes on his post WOW a whole 180 people of the whole MWO population, massive support.
So lets do some math, 180 no lets say 190, shall we assume half the forum community doesnt like the idea, thats a whole 380 people, look at that number, you guys go on as if the majority of the forum population actually like the idea so what 250 population even bothered to read it? (assuming most liked it?).
So a few hundred people out of whats the MWO population?
Keep telling yourselfs its the community that wants it..
LOL.

Edited by N0MAD, 16 September 2014 - 01:52 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Pat Kell, on 16 September 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:

Based on the fact that Russ has asked for this to be done, I think it's a forgone conclusion that it will be done. I am not opposed to PGI asking for help to get our thousands of suggestions narrowed down to some form of coherent message. I am just dubious that we, as non-PGI employees, are capable of that. I see a lot of people complaining about ECM but to me it's a non issue as I just never have that much trouble shooting people that don't have a big red box around them. I see people complaining about nerf this and nerf that and I wonder how capable we are, with our limited (granted some have more than others) knowledge and anecdotal evidence to give PGI something they can use. I often times try to browse the forums but am just amazed at how much people seem to forget the fact that if something sucks when it is used against you, it will suck for the enemy if you use it against the them. If this "council" would focus on pushing ideas to get more content in the game, I am all for it but if it turns into another year of weapon/equipment balancing, then we are wasting our time. More content=better game, more balancing=never ending cycle as someone will always find a way to min/max something. the goons are a great example of this.

So not that 1 vote counts much but if you want mine, focus on suggestions that give more content and let players devise ways to overcome any perceived imbalance. things feel good to me now as no weapon seems to be too over powering. Revising anything, including ECM will just result in people trying to find the next big thing (not that ecm is all that great anyway). Please focus on content.

The council for now is going to be a trial run. If it works, it's probably going to be done, if it doesn't, then we go back to how things were.

http://mwomercs.com/...player-council/

[IraqiWalker]

N0MAD, on 16 September 2014 - 01:40 AM, said:

You all keep talking about the community when in fact its only the Forum community (and then a culled forum community).
But thats all good because Russ got a massive 180 likes on his post WOW a whole 180 people of the whole MWO population, massive support.

You give me a way of getting the non-forum community involved? No, reddit doesn't count. If they can post on reddit, they can post here. Even banned players are being given a chance to get back into the game (depending on their infractions).

If the players don't try to communicate with the company, that means they're not that interested in how things develop. Those that care, are here on the forums. So it's only natural to talk to the players that actually care about talking with you, and want to improve the game, instead of the ones that don't care about talking with the devs, and only want to play, with no care for how the development process goes.


EDIT: Also, no one really cares about how many likes Russ got for his post. The point was that clearly more people were in favor of it, than against it. This thread barely has a fraction of the number of people that liked Russ' post. Meaning more liked it, than didn't.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 16 September 2014 - 01:46 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

N0MAD, on 16 September 2014 - 01:40 AM, said:

You all keep talking about the community when in fact its only the Forum community (and then a culled forum community).
But thats all good because Russ got a massive 180 likes on his post WOW a whole 180 people of the whole MWO population, massive support.

Its hard to get the pulse of those not talking to the rest of us on the boards(Read ALL the boards). A Pre game announcement can be added to the drop screen, notifying players to get their voice heard, and where to voice it.

180 Likes! That is a lot considering his reputation til now. Your disdain is duly noted, feel free to continue to plead your case. Your voice will not be censored as far as I am concerned, even if it is a small voice.

[Karl Streiger]

IraqiWalker, on 16 September 2014 - 01:41 AM, said:

The council for now is going to be a trial run. If it works, it's probably going to be done, if it doesn't, then we go back to how things were.

http://mwomercs.com/...player-council/

Interesting read - more important its a really good idea - not to take ECM as the first task. Because ECM is a huge field with effects on almost every aspect of the game.

Maybe the first POC should be CASE - (if it doesn't work no harm will be committed)

[N0MAD]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 September 2014 - 01:48 AM, said:

Its hard to get the pulse of those not talking to the rest of us on the boards(Read ALL the boards). A Pre game announcement can be added to the drop screen, notifying players to get their voice heard, and where to voice it.

180 Likes! That is a lot considering his reputation til now. Your disdain is duly noted, feel free to continue to plead your case. Your voice will not be censored as far as I am concerned, even if it is a small voice.

Youre insult is noted bro.

[Joseph Mallan]

N0MAD, on 16 September 2014 - 01:56 AM, said:

Youre insult is noted bro.

if you think I insulted you, You have very thin skin sir. When I decide to insult you, I (and my kin) will be banned from the game. Believe that.

[Haakon Magnusson]

Sure let them have an advisory recommendation... anyhow, I fear it won't be a comprehensive solution that will fix things. Having players involved in design without non-filtered feedback from engineers what backend can/can't accommodate and with what amount of work seems doomed to fail. (They just can't spout all the relevant details about they backend architecture.. if they would I'd be more worried)

I have my reservations, but having another stab at the ecm or other issues surely won't be bad. It may give some usable ideas to PGI design. Haven't looked latest proposed members, I certainly hope for no-rockstar council...

Perhaps this all is a non-issue and their ideas will be just as unpopular as PGI balancing, actually that feels like the most likely outcome...

Edited by Haakon Magnusson, 16 September 2014 - 02:02 AM.

[N0MAD]

IraqiWalker, on 16 September 2014 - 01:44 AM, said:

You give me a way of getting the non-forum community involved?

EDIT: Also, no one really cares about how many likes Russ got for his post. The point was that clearly more people were in favor of it, than against it. This thread barely has a fraction of the number of people that liked Russ' post. Meaning more liked it, than didn't.

A Social chat would get the population involved but PGI is scared of that remember?
And considering more like his post than not youre talking about a few hundred people viewing such a momentous thread.
THats a huge total of people right?, i know PGI has massive player support i seen the amount of support PGI has outside this forum, i mean i only need to look at their new project right?, but yes forum support for this is huge 180 huge..

[N0MAD]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 September 2014 - 01:58 AM, said:

if you think I insulted you, You have very thin skin sir. When I decide to insult you, I (and my kin) will be banned from the game. Believe that.

I hope you never get banned Sailor, i would miss the comical entertainment you bring to this place.

[Joseph Mallan]

N0MAD, on 16 September 2014 - 02:07 AM, said:

I hope you never get banned Sailor, i would miss the comical entertainment you bring to this place.

thank you. I do my best!

Also, Jarhead not Sailor. Most Marines would be quite insulted by the mistake.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 16 September 2014 - 02:18 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Karl Streiger, on 16 September 2014 - 01:50 AM, said:

Interesting read - more important its a really good idea - not to take ECM as the first task. Because ECM is a huge field with effects on almost every aspect of the game.

Maybe the first POC should be CASE - (if it doesn't work no harm will be committed)

Honestly, case won't be effective until R&R is brought back into the game (repairing only 3 slots on your XL engine instead of 6 will make it worthwhile to put case in the ST of XL equipped mechs.

I've been killed, and have killed other mechs where they've received damage in only one location. With R&R there will be motivation to mount Case, since even if the the mech is destroyed. It limits the destruction, reducing repair costs a lot, while also improving salvage as well.

Haakon Magnusson, on 16 September 2014 - 02:01 AM, said:

Sure let them have an advisory recommendation... anyhow, I fear it won't be a comprehensive solution that will fix things. Having players involved in design without non-filtered feedback from engineers what backend can/can't accommodate and with what amount of work seems doomed to fail. (They just can't spout all the relevant details about they backend architecture.. if they would I'd be more worried)

I have my reservations, but having another stab at the ecm or other issues surely won't be bad. It may give some usable ideas to PGI design. Haven't looked latest proposed members, I certainly hope for no-rockstar council...

Perhaps this all is a non-issue and their ideas will be just as unpopular as PGI balancing, actually that feels like the most likely outcome...

Who said the engineers/ devs won't weigh in and help us understand their limitations during considerations?

Edited by IraqiWalker, 16 September 2014 - 02:12 AM.

[Haakon Magnusson]

IraqiWalker, on 16 September 2014 - 02:12 AM, said:

Who said the engineers/ devs won't weigh in and help us understand their limitations during considerations?

Of course they should, as much as possible. But they simply can't say to an external all the things which might be relevant. No matter the NDA, which can't be bad enough not to result in a leakage of information.
And thus, with only partial visibility to sw/hw architecture, external design is SOL ... could be that I am wrong, how they intend to go about this. But I am equally worried of selective leaking of PGI backend implementation details to each their organizations. That crap this community can't take without imploding.

Not to say I wasn't interested in such details, might even have few suggestions since I work in the infrastructure side of datacenters/servers... but it's sensitive issue.