29 replies to this topic

[naterist]

rules of the thread

• you cant nominate yourself
  
• you cant nominate anyone in your unit
  
• if you are nominated, you can reject the nomination
  
• it is also reccomendedd that if you are interested post that your willing, after being nominated first.
  
• for rule three and four, put a link to the nomination then post whether you accept or decline
  
• nominations must come with a link, and/or a summary of the idea and post that prompted you to nominate the person you are nominating, said link and summary also count as a vote for which idea you want represented at the roundtable
  
• you can quote a previous nomination and "second" it.

reasons this thread exists

• give pgi a consolidated, community created list, open to all people interested, to choose for the roundtable in "early 2017"
  
• show what ideas have caught on and what ideas we dont want seen again, as there have been a lot, and show just how many people back which ideas
  
• give originators of suggestions credit for their ideas, and a chance to explain them more in depth for Russ Bullock at the next roundtable
  
• give people a chance to remove themselves from consideration, or vice versa, a chance to go "heck ya, ive got good ideas" and accept nominations.

Edited by naterist, 26 December 2016 - 06:30 PM.

[naterist]

i nominate moosegun for

https://mwomercs.com...__fromsearch__1

and mech_the_dane for

https://mwomercs.com...t-is-a-problem/

[MadcatX]

I nominate ScarecrowES to look into the tug of war implementation:

https://mwomercs.com...t-balance-fail/

[Davegt27]

I just hope we don't get the last set of knuckle heads again

[Albino Boo]

I nominate Babycakes for his general clam and friendly demeanour.

[BLOOD WOLF]

MadcatX, on 26 December 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

I nominate ScarecrowES to look into the tug of war implementation:

https://mwomercs.com...t-balance-fail/

I object to that.

The guy is committed to a gross version of a strawman fallacy when he is looking at The Tug of war.

Same thing he did with the arguments he made against ED, when it was in testing.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 27 December 2016 - 11:38 AM.

[naterist]

BLOOD WOLF, on 27 December 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:

I object to that.

The guy is committed to a gross version of a strawman fallacy when he is looking at The Tug of war.

Same thing he did with the arguments he made against ED, when it was in testing.

you cant object to other peoples nominations. only nominate someone with a better idea.

[SuperFunkTron]

Just a suggestion, but I think it would be helpful if names of players with an idea they represent were collected and then voted on. There are so many threads with so many issues that it is very difficult to collect who is for what and how many people support those ideas. One example is the idea to add depth to faction selection by creating a different roster of "readily available" mechs that are typical for that faction while allowing a minimal number of "atypical" mechs for that faction at a c-bill penalty. Despite it technically being a limitation, it would start to more clearly define combat styles more specific to a faction based on lore related faction preferences.

I think it'd be much more functional to have some of these ideas presented here, fleshed out a reasonable amount to discuss the pros and cons, and then push the idea to the round table on a list with percentages of support given to each idea accordingly.

[BLOOD WOLF]

naterist, on 27 December 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

you cant object to other peoples nominations. only nominate someone with a better idea.

of course I can object. I rather somebody not nominate somebody who has trouble with the straw man fallacy. You wouldn't want somebody who can not properly identify a problem, and worse point to other things that have nothing to do with the mechanism.

naterist, on 26 December 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

i nominate moosegun for

https://mwomercs.com...__fromsearch__1

and mech_the_dane for

https://mwomercs.com...t-is-a-problem/

I disagree with mech the dane sometimes but He would be a better choice. I like Moosguns posts as well but I am skeptical of how it would work out.

I'll Nominate Kanajashi. He actually gives detailed objective information about the subjects at hand, plus he is pretty analytical.

I'll also nominate myself(but I know I cant)

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 27 December 2016 - 02:41 PM.

[naterist]

BLOOD WOLF, on 27 December 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

of course I can object. I rather somebody not nominate somebody who has trouble with the straw man fallacy. You wouldn't want somebody who can not properly identify a problem, and worse point to other things that have nothing to do with the mechanism.

its not like this poll is sanctioned by pgi or anything. its just a place to collect what we think are the best ideas for 4.2, so we can focus what we want worked on next after 4.1 pgi decides regardless of what we say, and im sure theyll filter out everything we miss, dont forget, "russ always knows best" (i think thats pgi official company policy).

clearly though, when they set their sights on fixing one issue at a time comprehensively, they can do it. 4.1's current ques are proof of that, these are more suggestions on what we want their next focus's to be, so we can knock down the things holding fw back.

[Sixpack]

I nominate:

xX Pug Xx for the pug side of things.
Dark Wookie33 IIC for the loyalist side of things.
Fie Toe for a mercenary view on things.

I believe that a good balance of:

2 loyalists (1 clan, 1 IS)
2 pugs (1 clan, 1 IS)
2 mercs (1 clan, 1 IS)


would be a good start on things.

Edited by Sixpack, 27 December 2016 - 04:09 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

I feel sorry for anyone getting nominated to the sinking ship

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

Monkey Lover, on 27 December 2016 - 10:21 PM, said:

I feel sorry for anyone getting nominated to the sinking ship

I don't know, the last group got beaten over the head with a bukkit for their effort.

[Sjorpha]

I Nominate SCAR for keeping it real and Scoops Kerensky to make the roundtable entrtaining.

Edited by Sjorpha, 27 December 2016 - 10:34 PM.

[MacClearly]

Albino Boo, on 27 December 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:

I nominate Babycakes for his general clam and friendly demeanour.

I second, third, fourth and fifth this.

[Fox the Apprentice]

BLOOD WOLF, on 27 December 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

of course I can object. I rather somebody not nominate somebody who has trouble with the straw man fallacy. You wouldn't want somebody who can not properly identify a problem, and worse point to other things that have nothing to do with the mechanism.


I disagree with mech the dane sometimes but He would be a better choice. I like Moosguns posts as well but I am skeptical of how it would work out.

They're both fine...

BLOOD WOLF, on 27 December 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

I'll Nominate Kanajashi. He actually gives detailed objective information about the subjects at hand, plus he is pretty analytical.
[...]

I'll second Kanajashi!

Edited by Fox the Apprentice, 28 December 2016 - 12:25 PM.

[MischiefSC]

So we want to have a nominated group of people sit an ldlisten to Russ explain what they're going to do regardless of what the community wants again?

[AnimeFreak40K]

MischiefSC, on 28 December 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

So we want to have a nominated group of people sit an ldlisten to Russ explain what they're going to do regardless of what the community wants again?

Why not? It's worked out pretty well so far. I mean all of the significant changes for FW3 were brought about because the community wanted them. Same with the changes with FW 4.1.

[naterist]

Fox the Apprentice, on 28 December 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

They're both fine...


I'll second Kanajashi!

i third this

[Davegt27]

Sixpack, on 27 December 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

I nominate:

xX Pug Xx for the pug side of things.
Dark Wookie33 IIC for the loyalist side of things.
Fie Toe for a mercenary view on things.

I believe that a good balance of:

2 loyalists (1 clan, 1 IS)
2 pugs (1 clan, 1 IS)
2 mercs (1 clan, 1 IS)


would be a good start on things.

I would not have more than 3 on the panel

maybe 6 on a pre-panel
last time it was hard for everyone to speak