62 replies to this topic

[Yellonet]

A lot of us would like certain things about MWO to change.
Many post detailed suggestions with their solutions to the perceived problem.
Will there ever be consensus about how to solve such a problem? No.
We are just too many people with different views and ideas to ever get consensus about any detailed solutions.

But, would we be able to get a reasonable majority behind general problem descriptions? I think so.
It would take time, but if we as a community could collect our concerns in broader terms that many could get behind, without proposing any detailed solution, just some very general idea, then maybe PGI would listen to that, and it would be up to them to create the solution.

Someone that can create polls and that can stay reasonably impartial would have to manage this, but I could imagine in happening a bit like this:

Create a thread asking for everyone interested to post a maximum of three (priority 1 to 3) areas of the game that they would like to discuss. Perhaps it would be something like:

• CW
  
• ECM
  
• Maps

After a couple of days it's just a matter of counting and see which subjects get the first three sessions.

Then there will be a new thread created for the first topic, let's say that it was CW that won.
Everyone will be asked to describe in general terms what they see as a problem/what the want changed, but it's important to not put in any kind of detailed solutions, that will only bog down and we'll not be able to get a good description of the problem, e.g. my comments about CW would be:

• Must be fun for solo players, too high risk of getting stomped by units makes it anything but fun.
  
• Planet conquest seems meaningless
  
• Needs other maps, and more game modes

Again after a few days, the "manager" goes through the posts and compiles a collective general description from all the posts. If there are completely conflicting views there must be more than one general description.
When one or more general descriptions of the problem and perhaps with very general solutions are made, a poll is created so that everyone can vote for which description they think fits best, if it's only one there's just a yes/no vote if one can stand behind the description/general solution. If there are plenty of votes it's then only a matter of bringing it to the attention of PGI.

I think this would be a way - albeit slow - to get PGI to notice and perhaps prioritize certain areas of the game.

If this is to work however, everyone needs to understand that not all your pet peeves about the game will be solved or even discussed early on, this must be a majority vote system to be believable. But I believe it's better to help PGI to prioritize some parts of the game and make them better even if they aren't the parts I care most about instead of just getting bogged down in endless discussions about small details in solutions that we will never agree on anyway.

Let the community point at and describe the problem, let PGI create the solution.

And to those who think I'm a troll; I'm not.
I like the game and I want it to be more than it currently is.

[Mystere]

Buying PGI is the only sure way of getting the features you want.

Edited by Mystere, 02 September 2015 - 04:24 PM.

[Yellonet]

Mystere, on 02 September 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

Buying PGI is the only sure way of getting the features you want.

That's true. But I didn't say anything about a sure way to get the features you want.
But if we work together maybe we can get some of what we want.

[Mcgral18]

Forum polls have the unfortunate problem of being part of the Vocal Minority, which means they'll be ignored.


In Launcher or Mechlab polls would be required, but not currently available.

People have been giving suggestions for years now, of which they are mainly ignored.

[CDLord HHGD]

Only change I am interested in is nerfing the meta to the ground.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

I for one am glad the backseat developer mentality many posters have is ignored.

Their intentions might be good. But the majority of them lack the background to know what is good or bad in a game, how to achieve game balance or what good game mechanics are. They argue from a self entitled perspective that everything in life is obligated to be "so easy a caveman could do it". That they can walk in off the street and do the job game developers do, without having to go through any of the requisite courses or make any real effort to educate themselves other than playing a few video games.

When they say things like.. "I could fix MWO if PGI gave me the power to do so," its like hearing people say things like.. "I could beat up Mike Tyson or play golf better than Tiger Woods if I really wanted to". It sounds like complete nonsense. There's no indication or evidence that anyone here has that kind of credibility and people being serious in claiming they do have it only makes circumstances here more ridiculous and these forums more difficult to take seriously.

If people want to fix MWO, first and foremost this game's community should be more respectful to its developers. That's the first step and the only necessary change that needs to happen at this point in time.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 02 September 2015 - 04:53 PM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

If you want to make changes to MWO, take out a loan, go to school and learn to program, get a team of guys together, and make your own game.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

I simply quit purchasing packs when things t that were important to me were not addressed. Those same issues eventually eroded m my playing time as well. And when PGI started to actually using those problems as selling platforms it kind of killed MWO for me.
Hopefully for reach player like myself they can pick up a new player who enjoys the ECM over saturation, laser vomit, and boating in general. I am just glad we getting another competitor in the battletech a arena.

[KharnZor]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 02 September 2015 - 05:25 PM, said:

I simply quit purchasing packs when things t that were important to me were not addressed. Those same issues eventually eroded m my playing time as well. And when PGI started to actually using those problems as selling platforms it kind of killed MWO for me.
Hopefully for reach player like myself they can pick up a new player who enjoys the ECM over saturation, laser vomit, and boating in general. I am just glad we getting another competitor in the battletech a arena.

Care to expand on this?

[Burktross]

I Zeratul I, on 02 September 2015 - 04:49 PM, said:

But the majority of them lack the background to know what is good or bad in a game

So you need a background in game design to tell me Hong Kong '97 is a ****** game?

[Lyoto Machida]

Mcgral18, on 02 September 2015 - 04:38 PM, said:

Forum polls have the unfortunate problem of being part of the Vocal Minority, which means they'll be ignored.


In Launcher or Mechlab polls would be required, but not currently available.

People have been giving suggestions for years now, of which they are mainly ignored.

Those are your three areas of discussion for improvement? I would have picked ECM, CW and Maps over those, personally...

[Mcgral18]

Lyoto Machida, on 02 September 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

Those are your three areas of discussion for improvement? I would have picked ECM, CW and Maps over those, personally...

3 areas of improvement? I never mentioned what to improve there.

Merely stated what years of suggestions have brought...very little.
In Launcher polls couldn't be ignored by PGI with the Vocal Minority excuse.


PoorDubs
Magic Jesus Box
isXLVS cXL balance


Those are 3 nice suggestions

Edited by Mcgral18, 02 September 2015 - 06:02 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Mcgral18, on 02 September 2015 - 06:00 PM, said:

3 areas of improvement? I never mentioned what to improve there.

Merely stated what years of suggestions have brought...very little.
In Launcher polls couldn't be ignored by PGI with the Vocal Minority excuse.


PoorDubs
Magic Jesus Box
isXLVS cXL balance


Those are 3 nice suggestions

Meh...was in jest. These forums, as well as the other forum I frequent, are just rehashed topics over and over every day it seems.

[KraftySOT]

Get a heck of alot of players behind you, mass exodus to another place, demand PGI give you attention, come back and work with them on the solution.

So far thats the only way that has worked.

[Mystere]

Grisbane, on 02 September 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

not true.. masses of people ceasing to buy anything from any company gets it too.. good luck with getting that to happen though... the only way that happens is if PGI starts to handle things like Warthunder is handling things now (they seem to be going out of their way to p!ss the playerbase off)

How can a company continue operations if it's already out of money?

[Alan Davion]

KharnZor, on 02 September 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

Care to expand on this?

http://battletechgame.com/

The planned Battletech game by Harebrained Schemes, following on the coat-tails of their Shadowrun Retruns game.

So far, HBS has teamed up both with PGI, who will supply the art assets, i.e. the mechs. And Catalyst Game Labs, who run the tabletop side of Battletech, who will be providing stuff in terms of the story, and possibly the rules by which certain mechanics will work.

What those mechanics might be could be anything from contract negotiations to LRM spread and so on.

[Kjudoon]

Mystere, on 02 September 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

How can a company continue operations if it's already out of money?

Ummm... just sayin? Our government works that way...

Edited by Kjudoon, 02 September 2015 - 06:30 PM.

[TLBFestus]

OP..have you cleared this insane line of reasoning with Bishop? Otherwise you open yourself to ridicule.

[Mycrus]

Ship has sailed for the island bub... read up on #savemwo

Accept that what you have now is as good as it gets and pgi will do ehatever / whenever it wants to 'improve' the game...

[Y E O N N E]

How can we bring change to MWO?

Did you bring the appropriate type and number of sacrifices?