33 replies to this topic

[Fuerchtenichts]

Although Daeron Bombadil frankly admitted that the organizers of the round table haven't been able to identify a representitive on CLAN loyalist side to participate, I think it would have been quite necessary. Looking at the player population in FP it means to consciously ignore 30% of the player base.

Data from 01/08/2017


In case of "another" twitch session I would like to suggest some points:

1. Get representatives playing the game from different perspectives
- New player point of view
- CLAN loayalist point of view
- Mix representatives from different time zones

2. Prepare an agenda with the topics to be discussed and publish it prior to the meeting in the forum to give everyone the chance to get prepared for the round table on these topics

3. Update the agenda after the meeting in the forum regarding the outcome of the discussion (e.g. issue rejected or under Investigation by PGI) to ensure sustainability.

At last, thanks to all participants of the discussion working on finding ways to make the FP experience better for everyone.

[Tarogato]

Let's say you're the Clan loyalist representative. What would you say? What are you looking/hoping for?

Edited by Tarogato, 28 January 2017 - 12:24 AM.

[Scout Derek]

and umm....

how exactly did you get the data for that chart? curious.

Edited by Scout Derek, 30 January 2017 - 11:18 AM.

[Jarl Dane]

Fuerchtenichts, on 28 January 2017 - 12:03 AM, said:

Although Daeron Bombadil frankly admitted that the organizers of the round table haven't been able to identify a representitive on CLAN loyalist side to participate, I think it would have been quite necessary. Looking at the player population in FP it means to consciously ignore 30% of the player base.

We play the same game. You're perpetuating this idea that somehow you represent a different community, when in reality we're all part of the same one. Go watch the roundtable and point out to me where IS-specific issues and/or concerns were pushed.

Fuerchtenichts, on 28 January 2017 - 12:03 AM, said:

In case of "another" twitch session I would like to suggest some points:

1. Get representatives playing the game from different perspectives
- New player point of view
- CLAN loayalist point of view
- Mix representatives from different time zones

Are you aware of the previous roundtable, where there were 13 people? Having a whole ton of people looks nice on paper, but in a meeting like that, it's almost impossible for hardly anyone to get anything in. Less is more.

Fuerchtenichts, on 28 January 2017 - 12:03 AM, said:

2. Prepare an agenda with the topics to be discussed and publish it prior to the meeting in the forum to give everyone the chance to get prepared for the round table on these topics

We did that. The three *big* topics that were discussed were generated in the pre-meeting that everyone was invited to participate in and was streamed. After that I tried to ask 5 questions which were the result of questions raised on the forum, and what people approached me to ask. Furthermore two of those questions were the result of me asking CK. a clan loyalist leader, what he thinks a clan loyalist would want said.




I am sorry if I come off a little bit... sharp. But it seems to me all these.. complaints.. about Clan Loyalists are all optics and no substance. I hear that Clan loyalists needed to be there to push Clan Loyalist agendas, but pray-tell, what Inner Sphere agendas do you think were pushed tonight?

The first topic was about spawns, the 2nd topic was about giving people the option to vote on maps, and the 3rd topic was about rewarding Faction Loyalists. Two of these agendas effect everyone, regardless of faction, and the last one was focused on both IS and Clan Loyalist factions.

And when the big ones were out the way, I asked if tonnage could be increased for faction loyalists, I asked if the Clans could get a C-Bill bonus for underbidding and specifically asked if Clan Mechs could get perks if ran by Clan known for running them (this question was then altered to be for everyone - which is fine).

I had to fight at the end to get those questions in. What good would it have done for another person to be there with me fighting me for time to get what little in I could towards the end? How would that have helped anyone? Did we need an NA, EU, and Oceanic perspective on all these matters? I even called attention to the issues of the Oceanic timezone, the only time that happened either. When people talked, I listened, when questions were requested of me, I fought to get them in..and I still didn't get all the questions in I wanted - there wasn't enough time! But you want to slice that time up because you think I did you a disservice by virtue of my faction.

Again, I recommend you go listen to the first roundtable, not only will you see that it was over-stuffed with representatives, but you'll also see that many of them really didn't need to be there. This is imperative to understanding how & why people are selected for the roundtable.

You're protesting for optics at the price of smooth communication. I didn't let the clan loyalists down today.

Edited by Mech The Dane, 28 January 2017 - 12:34 AM.

[Fake News]

you did us better than i would have mech the dane. we really need the tonnage balance.

[Fuerchtenichts]

Scout Derek, on 28 January 2017 - 12:23 AM, said:

and umm....

how exactly did you get the data for that our chart? curious.

Data was taken from the in game FP leaderboard (players with at least 10 FP matches). You can filter CLAN/IS "Loyalist pilots", Merc pilots are seperate to find out the total numbers

[Fake News]

Tarogato, on 28 January 2017 - 12:23 AM, said:

Let's say you're the Clan loyalist representative. What would you say? What are you looking/hoping for?

mostly telling russ to play that welfare tonnage is a **** way to balance the game

[Fuerchtenichts]

Mech The Dane, on 28 January 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

We play the same game. You're perpetuating this idea that somehow you represent a different community, when in reality we're all part of the same one. Go watch the roundtable and point out to me where IS-specific issues and/or concerns were pushed.

When you are doing a "round table" you want to show the audience (the community) that you take care of different opinions and parts. Therefore its good to have a good mixture so everyone feels represented.
I don't blame anyone of the participants to just push through their agenda. Ok, at least the point you raised to release mixed drop decks for MERC would be quite counterproductive regarding getting a more healthier Loaylist/MERC population. I would call for mixed drop decks for everyone.

Mech The Dane, on 28 January 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

Are you aware of the previous roundtable, where there were 13 people? Having a whole ton of people looks nice on paper, but in a meeting like that, it's almost impossible for hardly anyone to get anything in. Less is more.

Agreed - "So why do we need two MERC representatives?" *just teasing, Xavier as well as Spider did a good job*
Time is limited and you can only take a look on small parts of the overall picture. The final decision on what is done has PGI. Our feedback can only be inspiration or a check for acceptance by the community.

Mech The Dane, on 28 January 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

We did that. The three *big* topics that were discussed were generated in the pre-meeting that everyone was invited to participate in and was streamed. After that I tried to ask 5 questions which were the result of questions raised on the forum, and what people approached me to ask. Furthermore two of those questions were the result of me asking CK. a clan loyalist leader, what he thinks a clan loyalist would want said.
I am sorry if I come off a little bit... sharp. But it seems to me all these.. complaints.. about Clan Loyalists are all optics and no substance. I hear that Clan loyalists needed to be there to push Clan Loyalist agendas, but pray-tell, what Inner Sphere agendas do you think were pushed tonight?
The first topic was about spawns, the 2nd topic was about giving people the option to vote on maps, and the 3rd topic was about rewarding Faction Loyalists. Two of these agendas effect everyone, regardless of faction, and the last one was focused on both IS and Clan Loyalist factions.
And when the big ones were out the way, I asked if tonnage could be increased for faction loyalists, I asked if the Clans could get a C-Bill bonus for underbidding and specifically asked if Clan Mechs could get perks if ran by Clan known for running them (this question was then altered to be for everyone - which is fine).
I had to fight at the end to get those questions in. What good would it have done for another person to be there with me fighting me for time to get what little in I could towards the end? How would that have helped anyone? Did we need an NA, EU, and Oceanic perspective on all these matters? I even called attention to the issues of the Oceanic timezone, the only time that happened either. When people talked, I listened, when questions were requested of me, I fought to get them in..and I still didn't get all the questions in I wanted - there wasn't enough time! But you want to slice that time up because you think I did you a disservice by virtue of my faction.
Again, I recommend you go listen to the first roundtable, not only will you see that it was over-stuffed with representatives, but you'll also see that many of them really didn't need to be there. This is imperative to understanding how & why people are selected for the roundtable.
You're protesting for optics at the price of smooth communication. I didn't let the clan loyalists down today.

Once again, my main point is regarding the set-up of the round table and to get more transparency on the outcome of the topics discussed their (leading to in game changes).
Please do not understand this post as a critique on the acting persons, the brought up topics or the expressed opinions. I really do think that we need that kind of communication to create more confidence among the player base as well as with PGI being the developer of this game.

Edited by Fuerchtenichts, 28 January 2017 - 01:46 AM.

[Jarl Dane]

Fuerchtenichts, on 28 January 2017 - 01:43 AM, said:

Once again, my main point is regarding the set-up of the round table and to get more transparency on the outcome of the topics discussed their (leading to in game changes).
Please do not understand this post as a critique on the acting persons, the brought up topics or the expressed opinions. I really do think that we need that kind of communication to create more confidence between and among the player base as well as with PGI being the developer of this game.

Your topic is titled "Round Table Ignoring Clan Loyalists". That sounds a bit different then what you're describing now.

[Fuerchtenichts]

Mech The Dane, on 28 January 2017 - 01:47 AM, said:

Your topic is titled "Round Table Ignoring Clan Loyalists". That sounds a bit different then what you're describing now.

Well, keep on reading after the Twitter punchline.

[Tarl Cabot]

Fuerchtenichts, on 28 January 2017 - 01:51 AM, said:

Well, keep on reading after the Twitter punchline.

Might be called bait and switch, and it also sets up the OP as the antagonist, then the actual point(s) gets lost. You have been watching too much American news...

[Human Fighter]

The problem I'm hearing with the round table is that there is no clan perspective. When you say ideas you talk about the house but not clan factions. Nobody talked about drop weight, Nobody talked about tech gaps between IS and Clan, nobody talked about how bad it is to have a group in your game pay more currency to play against rougher odds.

[Amsro]

Tarl Cabot, on 28 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

Might be called bait and switch, and it also sets up the OP as the antagonist, then the actual point(s) gets lost. You have been watching too much American news Drama/Hollywood/Fake News/Comedy...

Fixed that for you.

[CK16]

Guys I can tell you Dane was reaching out to a few loyalist in twitch while the round table was live. Me and him had a good discussion through PM's that were productive and we agreed on a few topics. I brought up the bidding system idea and a few others brought up faction specific quirks, bonus, & ect. But have to agree it sounds fun and all right at first but in a game where min maxers are everything if one faction had a bonus towards a good chassis mercs would just drop out to loyalist to run that faction to achieve best results. Imagine if say Ghost Bear got a Kodiak bonus of any sorts either as minor as cbill or extreme as something as in match performance you would see many mercs jump on that boat cause Kodiak 3 bro! Also I brought up among with others once again if Clan loyalists (and IS) could have a different tonnage from mercs to help cause yes the tonnage difference is a bit much currently (just a bit). But as Russ said he was worried that wouldn't solve much and just result in Mercs switching over to loyalist to avoid the lesser tonnage disadvantage.

I also expressed my concern with mixed drop decks, saying that my concern was just if allowed it would ruin the FW flavor if IS could run an entire drop deck of Clan mechs. After a bit of talk er both agree'ed it was best to not bring up this topic of IS and mixed drop decks cause thay gets into balance and the round table was not meant to be about game balance but incentives to play the game mode. Alot of other ideas were said that I shared as well more rewards for loyalist, better bonuses, ect. We all agreed loyalist need to have more an influence on the game to be same as if not more then mercs. The new contract system sounds hopeful as well.

In the end much was said that I agreed with and had simular feelings towards FW as Dane and the others. Removing the faction flags for a second and remove the discuss of balance what would be something you would have added to the discussion ect is what you should ask your self.

[Davegt27]

if I where Clan I would be concerned with the continuous bombardment of nerfs to the Clan Mechs and the Clan side

this makes for an unstable game

the nerfs are patches to other underlying problems

Maps

modes

Mechs

players

the shinning light is conquest it shows that it is possible to correct some of the problems
without going to the nerf bat

Edited by Davegt27, 28 January 2017 - 09:49 AM.

[Xavier]

Fuerchtenichts, on 28 January 2017 - 01:43 AM, said:

When you are doing a "round table" you want to show the audience (the community) that you take care of different opinions and parts. Therefore its good to have a good mixture so everyone feels represented.
I don't blame anyone of the participants to just push through their agenda. Ok, at least the point you raised to release mixed drop decks for MERC would be quite counterproductive regarding getting a more healthier Loaylist/MERC population. I would call for mixed drop decks for everyone.


Agreed - "So why do we need two MERC representatives?" *just teasing, Xavier as well as Spider did a good job*
Time is limited and you can only take a look on small parts of the overall picture. The final decision on what is done has PGI. Our feedback can only be inspiration or a check for acceptance by the community.


Once again, my main point is regarding the set-up of the round table and to get more transparency on the outcome of the topics discussed their (leading to in game changes).
Please do not understand this post as a critique on the acting persons, the brought up topics or the expressed opinions. I really do think that we need that kind of communication to create more confidence among the player base as well as with PGI being the developer of this game.

We had a community pre-meeting where many topics were discussed at which no less than 15 clan loyalists participated.....and at the end of that pre-meeting I gave everyone the chance to introduce a topic about anything that needed fixed above our top three issues.
1) drop zone selection
2) FP map voting
3) Faction loyalist rewards(love)
not one clan loyalist piped up to introduce a different topic that was more important than those three.

What we are trying to do as community representatives are to present the most glaring issues with thorough explanation of the problem and good back and forth.

As Dane alluded to he had to press to get the 5 quickfire questions answered at the end due to the back and forth required to hash out the three main topics......I would have rather had three topics fully discussed than 20 topics just skimmed over with little to no explanation.

After these primary things are addressed we can move onto the next most glaring issue......baby steps......not taking offense to anything said here but I am just trying to accurately represent the problems that people have presented to me.....i can't talk about things that arn't brought up or that arn't more important than the most important issue.

I am just trying to give the community a voice of some kind.....I only do this because I love this game and this community.

Human Fighter, on 28 January 2017 - 07:43 AM, said:

The problem I'm hearing with the round table is that there is no clan perspective. When you say ideas you talk about the house but not clan factions. Nobody talked about drop weight, Nobody talked about tech gaps between IS and Clan, nobody talked about how bad it is to have a group in your game pay more currency to play against rougher odds.

Here is the problem with that.....there are bigger issues than that when you talk tech gap you are not just talking FP you are talking broader game balance......this is not a forum for broader game balance this is strictly a forum for FP and how to make it better and the the three topics that we talked about were unanimously the most important topics expressed by numerous pre-roundtable conversation I had with the broader community as well as the tuesday pre-meeting.

also I would actually say that do to the lack of planet movement over the last two weeks or so with merc units dispersing themselves around that it has become a pretty balanced engagement with not alot of movement on either side. I know that tonnage is not the best way to balance an engagement and I agree....but we are trying to seperate broader game balance from the FP equation because with the skill tree changes coming out we really have no clue where balance is going to go.

Edited by Xavier, 28 January 2017 - 09:12 AM.

[Deathlike]

The thing about representation is not about number, although having a large backing helps. It's about the clear cut message you want to say.

Everyone and their urbies have many ideas... all of which have probably not been filtered, vetted, or even thought through. It doesn't take much to throw away really bad and awful ideas. When people brainstorm stuff, it has to be chewed up and spit out in order to make it a better idea. The pre-meetings are important to ensure things are laid out as complete as possible, with minimal hassle and mistakes. That's what discussions are for.

When it comes to the actual serious meeting, every minute is precious... and if you're going to waste it on a diatribe... just make sure you have a point. You can't have everyone and their urbies saying everything and anything... for personal reasons or agendas. The things you have to talk about are for everyone's benefit. Many people try to claim this, but it doesn't take much for others to see through what you have to say and what you mean by stuff....

In any case.... some people may feel that they are underrepresented (there's always a group that feels that way), but let's be honest... what could you have honestly added to the conversation that is that much more important that what was discussed?

Just remember... it's not about you... it's about everyone. Not every issue is about you.

[Kael Posavatz]

Mech The Dane, on 28 January 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

We play the same game. You're perpetuating this idea that somehow you represent a different community, when in reality we're all part of the same one. Go watch the roundtable and point out to me where IS-specific issues and/or concerns were pushed.

1) Specific factions for future loyalist events were named for IS. Russ kept mentioned Liao-Davion, but Merik was referenced as well. Clans were briefly mentioned. Once. More concern was raised about Clan representation at these events during Oceanic timeblock than during the general discussion on events.

2) Regarding loyalist skill-trees/quirks/bonuses, Davion autocannon cooldowns were mentioned, as were Kurita UAVs, but no examples for Clans, and then Russ suggested that the bonuses would have to be given to the mercs too which undercut the point of loyalists.

So, it's not just an IS/Clan, it's that loyalists were 50% underrepresented.


BTW, liked the horn.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 28 January 2017 - 10:07 AM.

[Jman5]

Kael Posavatz, on 28 January 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

1) Specific factions for future loyalist events were named for IS. Russ kept mentioned Liao-Davion, but Merik was referenced as well. Clans were briefly mentioned. Once. More concern was raised about Clan representation at these events during Oceanic timeblock than during the general discussion on events.

2) Regarding loyalist skill-trees/quirks/bonuses, Davion autocannon cooldowns were mentioned, as were Kurita UAVs, but no examples for Clans, and then Russ suggested that the bonuses would have to be given to the mercs too which undercut the point of loyalists.

So, it's not just an IS/Clan, it's that loyalists were 50% underrepresented.


BTW, liked the horn.

I feel like you're grasping at straws here. Just because some of the examples thrown out there were Inner Sphere doesn't mean Clans were getting excluded.

If Faction bonuses were added to the game, the clans would get theirs just as much as the Inner Sphere would. Adding one for mercenaries too would not negate the bonuses Clan loyalists got. It would just be a distinct bonus among all the other ones that players would have to weigh the pros and cons. I think that is the best solution possible because it allows you to make all the choices compelling in their own way. If all you did was give loyalists bonuses most people would probably drop merc tags.

[Dex Spero]

Mech The Dane, on 28 January 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

We play the same game...

Not sure if this is being said to you enough, so I'm going to interrupt this thread to say. Thank you for taking the time to represent the players to PGI, and thank you for everything you are doing to try and revitalize FW. It is getting better. I know you aren't the only one doing these things, but you've definitely stepped into a leadership role that puts a big'ole salty target on you. So thanks.