6 november 9pm GMT - 2nd Doctrine rework Meeting

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Mysthalin]

hehehehhe

[Mister Schmidt]

Does it have to be so that only the secretive private balance team gets to participate in the discussion? This is a democratic community as far as I'm concerned, and I feel it's a little unfair that the majority of us, the people who actually play the mod on a regular basis, have no say whatsoever in the outcome.

Why do I have any less of an opinion than anyone else in the balance team? Surely the community as a group should at least select members to be in the balance team, not people handpicked by the devs?

Doesn't seem fair imo.

Feel free to flame.

[AmPM]

+1

[105TigerHunters]

+1

[Mysthalin]

Uhh, if the last meeting is anything to go by - everyone was free to air their opinions and take full participation within the meeting...

[Mister Schmidt]

Well that's okay then, but if this

It is an open meeting for all, however for the sake of time, we request that only Developers, Moderators and Balance team members participate in the discussion.

is anything to go by, you can see why we were all under the impression we're not welcome.

[Mysthalin]

Well, clearly that wasn't followed. Don't see why it should be this time round.

[lionel23]

Well, clearly that wasn't followed. Don't see why it should be this time round.

It was followed, I was banned from the last discussion because I was voicing my opinion (I had attended the last meeting but apparently missed the part that the public wasn't allowed to speak even though it was a public discussion), and Groundfire clearly had a comment in vent next to his name for today's meet that no one should speak in today's discussion if its stupid. Who says he has the right to decide what's stupid?  It clearly makes anyone who isn't part of the sacred three (dev, mod, balance member) feel unwelcome and that is why me and many other refused to join the farce of a community discussion when the community is either denied the chance to speak or its seems very clear to be hostile to outside discussion; since it is clearly stated that our opinions are not really wanted and that only devs, mods, and balance members should be speaking as this thread says and what was rehashed in the last meeting.  Why do I want to waste my time watching other people decide stuff when I have no personal say in the matter to even discuss, and I'm not the only one who feels the community is not being listened to and others with more 'ompf' are given a much greater weight in matters and say like Mys, who understandably knows the numbers in the game better than anyone and few of us want to argue with him when we ourselves aren't coders or finance majors. I had several talks with people in EIRR who feel that Mys and certain others are directing where the discussion is going and that even though there are numbers, he refuses to admit things can happen because they 'can't'.  A good example was in a game where a King Tiger bounced 6 AP rounds off its front armor, and Mys says its impossible though I have axis and allied players in that game who saw it happen and he throws the 'numbers' argument at you and ends that discussion.

+1 to Mister Schmidt's original post.

[Computer991]

Does it have to be so that only the secretive private balance team gets to participate in the discussion? This is a democratic community as far as I'm concerned, and I feel it's a little unfair that the majority of us, the people who actually play the mod on a regular basis, have no say whatsoever in the outcome.

in case you haven't notice...it's been like that for a while >.>

[lionel23]

Not necessarily Computer, the last discussion (not this rework, but the last) was open to the public and many public recommendations came in, though Balance members snuck things in there that weren't ever discussed and led to some doctrines being totally out of whack.

[Mysthalin]

It was followed, I was banned from the last discussion because I was voicing my opinion (I had attended the last meeting but apparently missed the part that the public wasn't allowed to speak even though it was a public discussion)

You were banned from it because you were speaking out of order (I.E. - did not announce you wanted to talk prior to actually talking via the chat). Just a sidenote, I got warned for doing that on a couple of occasions myself - I just managed to stop doing it.

Why do I want to waste my time watching other people decide stuff when I have no personal say in the matter to even discuss, and I'm not the only one who feels the community is not being listened to and others with more 'ompf' are given a much greater weight in matters and say like Mys, who understandably knows the numbers in the game better than anyone and few of us want to argue with him when we ourselves aren't coders or finance majors.

Just so we're clear - I got my 'ompf' and reputation of knowing the numbers well by doing one thing - wasting countless hours of my time (in fact, I've clocked 42 days of time spent exclusively on the forums - reading and writing) dicussing said numbers and stats. You can't expect to be heard if you're not talking!

P.S. I'm not a finance major - and even if I was it would be utterly irrelevant. I am also not a coder - merely a guy that knows RGDs well.


Also, Lionel - considering how the community regards the balance team as a secretive and shadowy organisation(which I doubt you are a member of) : are you certain that labelling the balance team as the sole people responsible for the previous doctrines going out of whack is at all fair?

Just a hint : there's one thread in which Nevyen points a finger in the general direction of the party at fault.

A good example was in a game where a King Tiger bounced 6 AP rounds off its front armor, and Mys says its impossible though I have axis and allied players in that game who saw it happen

Please provide me a replay. If you provide me proof of this happening, I'll go personally find out the reason WHY it happened and get back to you on that : I'll even say sorry for ever doubting you.

[EIRRMod]

Lionel was being disruptive to the conversation, and did not follow the ruleset for question queuing within the Chat.

As for being an open or closed to public discussion, that point was more to ensure that each discussion theme wasnt constantly de-railed to the point that a single doctrine took 2 hours to finish.

What ended up happening (last meeting) was I would ask about a particular specline or selection - and open the discussion to everyone.
It seemed easier to do an 'in-private' type discussion on points that could not be decided on.

Does that clear it up?

[lionel23]

Fucking Bullshit Mys and you know that.  I didn't even use my mic during the discussion, I kept it strictly in chat and there was no order for the chat text to be used, only if you wanted to speak.  I was banned for that and for not being one of the privy members of that discussion group (the sacred three).

And yes, I think it is fair to label that group of balance people as being responsible, because I was on that team and many things snuck in that weren't ever discussed and clearly were overpowered when clear guidelines were given what should and shouldn't be done, but were clearly ignored.

Update Edit: What is the ruleset for just typing in text? Those rules really need to be posted as clearly no one felt the need to inform me even when I was asking and being ignored during that discussion. Also, a lot of people felt that last discussion was still very 'closed' because it was going through super fast and not giving people to say anything really or think about what was going on, it was just rush rush rush. On top of that, I think valid points were brought up but then they get overruled when someone says 'Oh we talked about half of that in the last tree/branch/line' and effectively ends the discussion on a current topic when an old topic is used to silence it when it could apply in a different way.

[EIRRMod]

The guidelines were explained at the beginning, and sometimes when I noticed someone join in chat / channel.

The chat was being used to queue up who was next to talk, and the coordinator (usually me, but I had to take off at times and was brn or bob) would direct who was next.  If we missed someone, it wasn't intentional.

The next meeting is open to all, but if someone is disruptive - then they'll be removed from the discussion.

Im not sure Im following your line of paranoia here Lionel.

[lionel23]

They weren't clearly posted, as I came just a little after it started and not a single person would answer me on what the guildelines were.  It needs to be posted here in the forums and people need to feel welcome to say stuff, as a big reason many of us sat out of tonight's discussion because of the hostility we feel in some dev/mod members or the general attitude of the discussions. (EDIT: Not saying you at all EIRRMOD, you and Burn are pretty good to the community for example and we love you guys and appreciate the hard work you all put into the mod).

And pardon my "paranoia", but I am still extremely upset at having been booted from the last discussion and no warning, and then I miss a doctrine and a half of discussion and told basically 'boo hoo too bad you missed it'. No I didn't miss it, I was forcibily ejected when giving feedback as to why and who gets to decide - for example - Defensive should be about arty and nothing but arty.  It should be more defensive, more like infantry with tougher infantry (as an example) and I think that is a very legit concern, as some of the doctrines are really too good or good and others are still just lackluster and uninspiring and boring.

[brn4meplz]

You were warned and the format was clearly posted. I know this because I am incredibly thorough when it comes to serious discussions like that. I told everyone the format when they joined the channel and warned several people throughout the course of the evening.

[EIRRMod]

Seriously Lionel, if its that big of an issue - dont participate in the discussion (like you proposed to do today anyway) - and whinge to your hearts content that your non-existent voice wasnt heard.

Oh, my bad.  You already are =p

[Mysthalin]

And yes, I think it is fair to label that group of balance people as being responsible, because I was on that team and many things snuck in that weren't ever discussed and clearly were overpowered when clear guidelines were given what should and shouldn't be done, but were clearly ignored.

Developers have a say here - was lionel, at any point given point of time actually part of the balance team and or the Balance Advisory Board?

[Killer344]

The rank was "Tester" (there were no balance advisors at the time), joined to temporarly develop the first infantry doctrine.

[EIRRMod]

The first four doctrines were pretty close to fine anyway, the second ones need a lot of polish, and the last three.... well - we need a lot of input on those