446 replies to this topic

[Verdic Mckenna]

Ahh you're a Marine. THATS what's wrong with you! I knew I could smell that sock sweat.

Joseph Mallan, on 16 September 2014 - 04:37 AM, said:

Which makes the Navy Seaman a inferior form of Marine Life. Go ahead... Ask a Marine about Squids!

[N0MAD]

IraqiWalker, on 16 September 2014 - 04:43 AM, said:

No, by usable I don't mean posts I agree with. I mean posts that aren't "ECM sux". Posts where people actually offer help and suggestions, instead of just decrying something. Also, I didn't say out of 50 posts. I said out of 50 pages.

Go sift through the Gauss/ERPPC thread, and see out of all the pages how many posts are helpful. By the way, that thread is probably the best of the bunch, and I can safely say that less than 10% of all the posts in there actually offered something besides this fix sucks. Mind you, I had a few posts in that thread that were just "This idea is stupid", and I recognize them for what they are, opinions, that offer no alternative solution that can help.



Yes, but if the choice comes between picking a suggestion that is liked by 80% of the community, versus an idea liked by less than 10%, then the 80% one should be considered more heavily, and should be picked over it. It's that simple.

That's how the U.S. election has been working for at least 2 centuries. Or are you saying the U.S. has had 2 presidents governing it since it's inception. I could have sworn that during the election only one president gets picked. The one with the most votes. Not the one with the least votes, traditionally.

All your telling me here is that you wouldnt present ideas because YOU think they offer no solution, youre just telling me that youre the only one that knows how to fix it and in your opinion those ideas arent worth listing, so why doesnt PGI just give you the job of fixing ECM.
Lets talk about the 80% wanting something, 3PV remember the pole? over 5k against it (my how these forums have shrunk), thrown out because as PGI stated it was better for the game, so obviously what the majority of the forum population wants isnt the right solution is it?
And this BS about US elections? how is that relevant.

[NextGame]

I promise you that the council will go one of 2 ways.

#1 It will be choc full of the biggest conflicting egos in the community who will end up playing the game of who-shouts-loudest, which will end up getting ignored.

#2 It will be filled with a clique, usually brownnosers, that only represent their own interests. This is a pain in the backside to dislodge, as developers love this outcome of gamer councils, and will have an adverse effect on the game.

By all means go ahead and have it, I've seen it all before, and if nothing else at least the subsequent drama and consequences will be comedy gold.

No one on this forum represents anyone's interests other than their own, and therefore it is fairer to allow everyone to have input at the same level. I've offered a better solution to handle community interaction around the ongoing development of the game, and all it really needs is for the community manager and devs to step up and contribute to the same level in development threads that they have managed to do for the past couple of weeks all over the forum. That of course means involvement rather than lip service (protip: gamer councils trend towards lip-service).

[N0MAD]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 September 2014 - 04:51 AM, said:

Or they could be presenting the forums ideas. if said idea is a stupid one. Should "Small lasers needs to do 20 damage, for -4 Heat." Be given equal time as say, "Small lasers could use a tweak to burn time so it can put more damage on target?"

Ya because presenting an obviously stupid example makes you right?

[Karl Streiger]

Well at least its up to you - or considering Russ last sentence to this topic that its up to PGI to ellect those players for the "Council"
So if you choose not to choose - you still choose. If PGI chooses the players nothing will change either - because PGI is the last instance - even if 100% of all MWO players stood behind one idea - and PGI says no - thats it - PP (or Bad Luck)

But serious - i don't understand what you are afraid of?
And Jose example wasn't that bad - i can tell you that there are guys that make complete stupid ideas - but when you take your time and think about - the idea behind their suggestion - you may get another point of view - another detail that may help you to paint another picture.

[Fut]

TamCoan, on 16 September 2014 - 04:26 AM, said:

wtf does that have to do with anything? That's pretty arrogant. And another reason why I don't want people like this in a council.

How is that arrogant?
You said that you don't want anybody speaking for you, so I want to see what you have to say regarding ECM.

[Joseph Mallan]

N0MAD, on 16 September 2014 - 05:04 AM, said:

All your telling me here is that you wouldnt present ideas because YOU think they offer no solution, youre just telling me that youre the only one that knows how to fix it and in your opinion those ideas arent worth listing, so why doesnt PGI just give you the job of fixing ECM.
Lets talk about the 80% wanting something, 3PV remember the pole? over 5k against it (my how these forums have shrunk), thrown out because as PGI stated it was better for the game, so obviously what the majority of the forum population wants isnt the right solution is it?
And this BS about US elections? how is that relevant.

Actually that is all you are willing to hear. Which is pretty sad. I have sat on a few committees and assisted others, the Egos here are nothing compared to UAW Skilled Tradesmen.

NextGame, on 16 September 2014 - 05:06 AM, said:

I promise you that the council will go one of 2 ways.

#1 It will be choc full of the biggest conflicting egos in the community who will end up playing the game of who-shouts-loudest, which will end up getting ignored.

#2 It will be filled with a clique, usually brownnosers, that only represent their own interests. This is a pain in the backside to dislodge, as developers love this outcome of gamer councils, and will have an adverse effect on the game.

By all means go ahead and have it, I've seen it all before, and if nothing else at least the subsequent drama and consequences will be comedy gold.

No one on this forum represents anyone's interests other than their own, and therefore it is fairer to allow everyone to have input at the same level. I've offered a better solution to handle community interaction around the ongoing development of the game, and all it really needs is for the community manager and devs to step up and contribute to the same level in development threads that they have managed to do for the past couple of weeks all over the forum. That of course means involvement rather than lip service (protip: gamer councils trend towards lip-service).

Or #3, the council will take things seriously and do the assignment to the best of their ability. Not everyone nominated is a self centered egotist. And even some of those, have Ideas I respect more than the messenger.

I do fall into the grand ego crew, but that is mostly due to being in this universe for nearly 30 years, as a player a playtester and a DemoRep running Canon events that shaped the universe. I love this story. And I have invested a lot of time, sweat and follicles over 28 years.

N0MAD, on 16 September 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:

Ya because presenting an obviously stupid example makes you right?

But by your way of thinking It HAS to be considered. That is exactly what you said. ALL ideas deserve consideration. And you proved yourself wrong. Sorry, but you couldn't practice what you preached.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 16 September 2014 - 05:20 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

N0MAD, on 16 September 2014 - 05:04 AM, said:

All your telling me here is that you wouldnt present ideas because YOU think they offer no solution, youre just telling me that youre the only one that knows how to fix it and in your opinion those ideas arent worth listing, so why doesnt PGI just give you the job of fixing ECM.
Lets talk about the 80% wanting something, 3PV remember the pole? over 5k against it (my how these forums have shrunk), thrown out because as PGI stated it was better for the game, so obviously what the majority of the forum population wants isnt the right solution is it?
And this BS about US elections? how is that relevant.

No, there is a difference between me thinking a post offers no help, and a post that actually offers no help.

Again, the example of someone posting "ECM sucks" Okay. What am I to do with that? Here's a better post: "ECM sucks, the umbrella cloaking field it has is too powerful, and offers little to no drawback since it only costs 2 slots, and 1.5 tons. Perhaps finding a way to curb the invisibility factor could be worked in, or considered. Maintaining the ability to shield friendly mechs from systems like LRMs and such is fine, however, preventing any form of detection at all is too strong."

Notice the difference. I might not agree with the second one, for example, but it is a proper post that deserves consideration. Compared to the first one.

So please, stop not reading my posts, making up your own version of them, and then making strawman arguments.

PGI added 3PV in, and it was a big mistake. Do you see me defending it? Nope, however, now they are owning up to their mistakes and saying that they are willing to listen to the community.

As for the election bit. It's identical. You were saying that we should consider all ideas, and yes, that's true, but ideas need to be weeded out, and that's where community voting will come in. More popular ideas should be considered more than ones that are hated, or less favored. In a U.S. presidential election, the people's votes actually amount to zilch. The electoral college decides who becomes the president.

They go with the popular vote. If you want every idea out there to be equal, then everyone that runs for president should end up being the president, instead of having a presidential race that ends with ONE president.

Look. You have your straw mans, and you can have fun with them. I'm personally saying that people should give this council trial a chance, and see what happens. If it works out, it's gonna be very beneficial, and if it doesn't. Then we can go back to what we have right now, and everyone can stay grumpy over everything.

[N0MAD]

NextGame, on 16 September 2014 - 05:06 AM, said:

I promise you that the council will go one of 2 ways.

#1 It will be choc full of the biggest conflicting egos in the community who will end up playing the game of who-shouts-loudest, which will end up getting ignored.

#2 It will be filled with a clique, usually brownnosers, that only represent their own interests. This is a pain in the backside to dislodge, as developers love this outcome of gamer councils, and will have an adverse effect on the game.

By all means go ahead and have it, I've seen it all before, and if nothing else at least the subsequent drama and consequences will be comedy gold.

No one on this forum represents anyone's interests other than their own, and therefore it is fairer to allow everyone to have input at the same level. I've offered a better solution to handle community interaction around the ongoing development of the game, and all it really needs is for the community manager and devs to step up and contribute to the same level in development threads that they have managed to do for the past couple of weeks all over the forum. That of course means involvement rather than lip service (protip: gamer councils trend towards lip-service).

We are pushing poop uphill, these guys want to feel important and wanted instead of feeling that they are nothing but a loud forum minority they have been told they are, these are the people that are going to change MWO.
If PGI wants to fix things and have interaction with the community they have the means and staff, they think that without them PGI cant do it. if PGI cant even gather their own info what bloody hope have they got of fixing stuff anyways.
Let them have their council, then when poop happens PGI can claim "well you wanted it" since the IGP made us do it excuse no longer holds weight.
Good luck with your council, change the world i wait with baited breath.

[NextGame]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 September 2014 - 05:17 AM, said:

Or #3, the council will take things seriously and do the assignment to the best of their ability. Not everyone nominated is a self centered egotist. And even some of those, have Ideas I respect more than the messenger.

But they won't, because it's not human nature to compromise, especially not on the internet, and even moreso than average not in this particular community. But as I said, go for it. Prove me wrong. You (the collective you) won't though, as I can't think of a single instance of this where it has ever worked.

[Joseph Mallan]

NextGame, on 16 September 2014 - 05:22 AM, said:

But they won't, because it's not human nature to compromise, especially not on the internet, and even moreso than average not in this particular community. But as I said, go for it. Prove me wrong. You (the collective you) won't though, as I can't think of a single instance of this where it has ever worked.

I must not be Human then sir. Or Marriage and children have made me something MORE than human!

[IraqiWalker]

N0MAD, on 16 September 2014 - 05:21 AM, said:

We are pushing poop uphill, these guys want to feel important and wanted instead of feeling that they are nothing but a loud forum minority they have been told they are, these are the people that are going to change MWO.
If PGI wants to fix things and have interaction with the community they have the means and staff, they think that without them PGI cant do it. if PGI cant even gather their own info what bloody hope have they got of fixing stuff anyways.
Let them have their council, then when poop happens PGI can claim "well you wanted it" since the IGP made us do it excuse no longer holds weight.
Good luck with your council, change the world i wait with baited breath.

Wait, when did anyone ever say PGI can't do it? I dare you to find that. No, the most any of us mentioned is that it would be faster to be done this way, and more efficient, than have PGI do it themselves over a longer period of time.

NextGame, on 16 September 2014 - 05:22 AM, said:

But they won't, because it's not human nature to compromise, especially not on the internet, and even moreso than average not in this particular community. But as I said, go for it. Prove me wrong. You (the collective you) won't though, as I can't think of a single instance of this where it has ever worked.

I'm pretty sure the council members will also be using voice comms at some point. Also, considering that pretty much all of the nominated members are actually of older age, (I'm one of the youngest nominations, at 25) they are more likely to be mature.

[Joseph Mallan]

N0MAD, on 16 September 2014 - 05:21 AM, said:

We are pushing poop uphill, these guys want to feel important and wanted instead of feeling that they are nothing but a loud forum minority they have been told they are, these are the people that are going to change MWO.
If PGI wants to fix things and have interaction with the community they have the means and staff, they think that without them PGI cant do it. if PGI cant even gather their own info what bloody hope have they got of fixing stuff anyways.
Let them have their council, then when poop happens PGI can claim "well you wanted it" since the IGP made us do it excuse no longer holds weight.
Good luck with your council, change the world i wait with baited breath.

kinda like you in this thread NOMAD?

I have little chance to be elected as my views are old and antiquated, but I have seen this form of EI work out very well in two different environments in my last 21 years of work. That is why I am supporting this "experiment". My experience is overruling my knee jerk response.

[NextGame]

IraqiWalker, on 16 September 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure the council members will also be using voice comms at some point. Also, considering that pretty much all of the nominated members are actually of older age, (I'm one of the youngest nominations, at 25) they are more likely to be mature.

My statements are driven from firsthand experience of this kind of activity with a very similar demographic with pretty much the very same tools that are available to us in this community. Go ahead and make it work, I've stated my position. Everyone's fallible, who knows, this could be the single time that it works out. I'm pretty sure it won't though. I have more confidence in CW phase 2 being delivered in 2014 and being great.

I would like to add however that no small group of individuals from a computer game forum can adequately represent an additional 1 other player who isn't part of that group, never mind the entire community.

Edited by NextGame, 16 September 2014 - 05:34 AM.

[TamCoan]

Fut, on 16 September 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

How is that arrogant?
You said that you don't want anybody speaking for you, so I want to see what you have to say regarding ECM.

No, you attempted to completely invalidate my opinion on a council by asking for my opinion on something else.

[Fut]

TamCoan, on 16 September 2014 - 05:35 AM, said:

No, you attempted to completely invalidate my opinion on a council by asking for my opinion on something else.

... By asking your opinion on the first task the council will be tackling, after you said you didn't want people speaking for you?
Dude, time to bring your defence down a little bit.

[Joseph Mallan]

grml666, on 16 September 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:

Because, not all players are participating in the forum. For example, if you only have ~15% of the players (those who are actively watching the forum) are voting for a change in ECM mechanics, the result is not representative for the other 85%. The problem is that there is a relatively small amount of players discussing and using the forum. My personal experience is that those players are not discussing objectively. For example the meta players, lrm players or the steiner scout lances … pro simulation – contra arcade …
Either PGI handles this with a control provision – maybe 70% of all players must give their voice, otherwise the election is invalid or they are using the client launcher to force the voting before you can start the game. If you’re not voting you can’t start the game … sounds hard, but at the currents state of community/ lobbyism it’s necessary …
Don’t get me wrong, I really like the idea of participation. But I don’t like the idea of a small group of players asserting its will and suiting the decision to their own requirements …

If they are not on the forum. I am sorry but they don't have a voice. They are members here, as part of account creation is becoming a member of the forum. If they don't come and be a part of the process it is not the active communities fault. Do those silent players give suggestions? Provide an Opinion? Since the answer is no, it is just like those who do not participate in an election then complain cause the results were not what they want. participation has its advantages.

TamCoan, on 16 September 2014 - 05:35 AM, said:

No, you attempted to completely invalidate my opinion on a council by asking for my opinion on something else.

incorrect. This council is likely going to be about ECM. Your suggestions and opinions on the topic are important and poignant.

by Fut!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 16 September 2014 - 05:41 AM.

[TamCoan]

Fut, on 16 September 2014 - 05:36 AM, said:

... By asking your opinion on the first task the council will be tackling, after you said you didn't want people speaking for you?
Dude, time to bring your defence down a little bit.

My opinion about ECM has nothing to do with my opinion on this council discussion. Your attempt to invalidate my council opinion based on that is what I have a problem with.

[EboneezeeR]

Whenever, if a Council be elected... and according to Russ "Bollox" Bullock it even will be forced to be. I just tell you one thing...

- Lads if something will go wrong with dat Council, and it will go wrong... As you sow shall ye reap.

[IraqiWalker]

grml666, on 16 September 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:

Because, not all players are participating in the forum. For example, if you only have ~15% of the players (those who are actively watching the forum) are voting for a change in ECM mechanics, the result is not representative for the other 85%. The problem is that there is a relatively small amount of players discussing and using the forum. My personal experience is that those players are not discussing objectively. For example the meta players, lrm players or the steiner scout lances … pro simulation – contra arcade …
Either PGI handles this with a control provision – maybe 70% of all players must give their voice, otherwise the election is invalid or they are using the client launcher to force the voting before you can start the game. If you’re not voting you can’t start the game … sounds hard, but at the currents state of community/ lobbyism it’s necessary …
Don’t get me wrong, I really like the idea of participation. But I don’t like the idea of a small group of players asserting its will and suiting the decision to their own requirements …

Okay, now I understand your point, and I actually have concerns about exactly that very topic.

I'm personally of the opinion that PGI can send a system-wide message through the game client, that can help drive players towards the forums. If the players don't show up, with a week-long window, that means they are not interested.

NextGame, on 16 September 2014 - 05:32 AM, said:

My statements are driven from firsthand experience of this kind of activity with a very similar demographic with pretty much the very same tools that are available to us in this community. Go ahead and make it work, I've stated my position. Everyone's fallible, who knows, this could be the single time that it works out. I'm pretty sure it won't though. I have more confidence in CW phase 2 being delivered in 2014 and being great.

I would like to add however that no small group of individuals from a computer game forum can adequately represent an additional 1 other player who isn't part of that group, never mind the entire community.

Okay. That I can understand. Let's hope this thing works. I personally will receive no more benefit from it working than anyone else will.

Fut, on 16 September 2014 - 05:36 AM, said:

... By asking your opinion on the first task the council will be tackling, after you said you didn't want people speaking for you?
Dude, time to bring your defence down a little bit.

TamCoan, on 16 September 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

My opinion about ECM has nothing to do with my opinion on this council discussion. Your attempt to invalidate my council opinion based on that is what I have a problem with.

Both of you need to cool off, and clear your heads. No one here is out to get anyone.

Phrasing could be adjusted a bit, to be honest, however Fut was trying to say that if you don't like anyone else speaking for you, then you should do the speaking.

Which I agree has little (not, none) bearing on the actual topic of discussion. However, both of you are actually talking about 2 different things right now.

Relax, take a deep breath, and try to approach this without the idea that the other is out to get you. If you can't do that, then using PMs might be better than public forums.