+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes (/showthread.php?tid=175457)
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Typrop - 12-22-2019
(12-22-2019, 08:07 PM)Omicega Wrote: What are you even trying to say? Is this meant to actually have a point to it or is it just some kind of masturbatory exercise in big words and passive-aggressive moderation?
Saronsen is right, by the way, as he usually is -- even if I've never been able to get along with him.
No offense intended, but perhaps lay off of Foxglove? He's gotten enough already, particularly since I spent a good 3 hours picking this apart, and there's likely better discussion to be had ignoring this spat.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Foxglove - 12-22-2019
Just for the record, the point was: You're deliberately chosing to go about pursuing the changes you want to see in a distructive rather than constructive manner. Your framing of the opponent is almost always the least charitable. If you want something changed, you could take the initiative and do it yourself and then submit that content rather than demand other people spend their time implementing the changes you want to see in the game for you.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - xyva424 - 12-22-2019
(12-22-2019, 08:31 PM)Foxglove Wrote: Just for the record, the point was: You're deliberately chosing to go about pursuing the changes you want to see in a distructive rather than constructive manner. Your framing of the opponent is almost always the least charitable. If you want something changed, you could take the initiative and do it yourself and then submit that content rather than demand other people spend their time implementing the changes you want to see in the game for you.
That's a fair statement, if not guilty of the same framing, I would ask how do we submit a request to overhaul the entire system of how changes are implemented and how players are regulated within the game? Is there another specialized form with another acronym to make it sound more official and costing another billion+ credits just to get told no because it doesn't maintain the status quo ?
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Marvin - 12-23-2019
(12-15-2019, 03:47 AM)Saronsen Wrote: heres a good example of a majority vote
You can not be serious. "Good Example"? The solution to complex questions is a Yes/No Poll with obviously manipulative Setup like the example and actual poll in this threat?
I would never vote in a Poll setup like this if it is about anything serious.
Wait, is this threat serious? I am honestly unsure.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Egon Bigmemes - 12-23-2019
How is a simple yes-no manipulative? Thinking emoji
The results just show a majority, but i didnt think some would be so clueless as to assume it applied to this thread
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - xyva424 - 12-23-2019
I was serious when I suggest this in discord, so yes it's serious. We have a disconnect between the devs and the players to the point that the devs are forcing story changes on the community that undermine and invalidate any influence the "official" factions were believed to have. Further, the reasoning is player's were "never meant" to influence the mods story. Making a series of hoops to jump just for the chance at some kind of influence on the story is still counter to what I believe the majority of the community always believed was a given. That our actions did matter and that the actions of the official factions drove that story. Otherwise what's the point of suffering all these tyrannical rules about gameplay.
That said the solution seems simple. Force transparency on story advancements through majority approval. It doesn't have to be down to the minute detail, but a synopsis isn't hard to outline.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Enkidu - 12-23-2019
(12-22-2019, 08:31 PM)Foxglove Wrote: If you want something changed, you could take the initiative and do it yourself and then submit that content rather than demand other people spend their time implementing the changes you want to see in the game for you.
Seriously do this, people. It works. I wanted to help make change happen, so I learnt the required skills.
It also takes the same amount of time it does to create these threads. It's also fun to do and gives you transferrable skills for other content development projects.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Lanakov - 12-23-2019
Do you know why we don't have referendums that often in our cozy, ancient Western democracies ? It's because it's time consuming as all hell and you're likely to emerge with a 51% for and 49% against case nine times out of ten.
People have complained about the staff when the updates were too scarce. This was corrected through more regular updates.
People have complained when the updates didn't change much and story development was too long. This was corrected through more dramatic updates.
People have complained about updates being too dramatic. Leeds obviously springs to mind as a very personal connection.
Narratively, it was brilliant. Broken powerhouse is forced to make a hasty retreat following a devastating defeat, and ensures that its pursuers will be left bleeding and unable to give chase. It was also the climax of Gallia's descent to the dark side. Some have perceived it as heavy-handed (I count among those), but narratively, it was something. Something big that'll have cascading consequences on many people's roleplay over what remains of Disco's history.
Would this event have had any chance to occur at all if it had been submitted to community approval ? No, of course not. And you all know why : pixel power. Muh station IFF. Oh no it's Vanilla, don't touch it.
And frankly, bugger that. Asking everyone's opinion on everything, even major plot points, is the 100% guarantee of making everything stale, safe and boring, perpetually balanced. That's not a good story, that's an accountability ledger. Discovery Freelancer has always been about delivering a story for people to roleplay with. And good stories are dramatic, powerful. We don't love everything that happens in one, that's the point of a good story. Which is why I will forever disagree with a strong player influence over story development. Glassing Leeds was a bold story idea that was obviously bound to generate a lot of friction and anger, but it worked. It got people to talk about it, it generated activity and it will be a core point of contention between Gallia and Bretonia for years. I've been privy to the original plan of resolving the Gallic war ; it was boring, safe and put the emphasis on status quo. This was more aggressive, I didn't like it at first, and I'm still iffy about the creation of the Enclave for many reasons, but it turned out to be a fitting, appropriately apocalyptic conclusion.
I'm currently working on a system to involve you more in the resolution of story arcs. It's far from finished and I don't know how feasible it'll be, so we'll see. I'm keenly aware that people want Disco to take more account of them and their actions, and I understand that. But we cannot cock it up by opening the floodgates, lest we'll end up with a chaotic mess.
On the more technical side of things, I understand changes have been made without player input, namely in regards to balance. As others like Riehl have pointed out, there exists development requests and the possibility of submitting your own ideas and changes. The staff welcomes those, as long as they're worded properly and with the right tone. I'm not giving names, they'll know themselves.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Binski - 12-23-2019
Well players need to start telling the devs what they want. Some of us can't get any louder, so it must require a group voice?!
Transparency around requests means we all know what's coming, and everyone has to follow the rules. I'm more in favor of having defined RP options that are already voted to be able and allowed to happen, and simply let groups do what is necessary, then get it processed fully when they are done their work and RP. That way not every idea is voted on by a mob where people can fight opposing faction efforts by always voting oorp. Instead the vote would be on adding or removing pre determined options.
I'll also say every day that we need a battle system. That would also add a layer of transparency and force both players and devs to follow a system to oversee events and the changes that can come from them. But I've requested it, was voted down, but really if anyone out there supports bringing a system into effect, YOU the players have to tell the devs what you want too. Its easy to want to take the path of least resistance on this, but the next 5 years we could be cranking things up here for a lively time or continue to let things wind down. Its obvious it got rejected for the same old reasons, like it would mean different work than usual, and divide up control of events, pretty much making major script changes player stimulated. How terrible!
Those who think its crazy, just wait until the next big deal on the server over something, or the next 'miraculous' change to stations or planets, when there's many unhappy people, and then the answer will be, 'if we'd already had a public battle/RP system' the problem would be solved much better.
But if we want change, the staff has to hear it from those who are not the usual voices.It does still feel like a lot of the decisions are made with the attitude 'what could we know about it'. People don't seem to want to play a server that is MICRO MANAGED by the developers, and instead devs and GM's should simply follow and facilitate a system for the player driven impacts (and make more such things possible by doing in game activities!).
Player population is on average 30 people during normal times. Thats what the other servers were like when disco was the obvious choice. The sooner the server reforms a bit to add more player driven abilities, the sooner it will have a real chance to grow again. If it had been done 5 years ago we'd have so much more going on! and most drama would have to yield to in game results.
Think of this place like a business. If you just inhereted a business that was doing only a small percent in activity that it was 5 years, or 10 years earlier, wouldn't you go into it feeling you need to...expand? Put some money into it and invest? We aren't doing anything to ensure or promote growth within the actual 'product' which is the game itself. If this place were a business, it would be time to invest in some new things to attract customers. I guarentee that if we systemize and open up more instead of worrying about preserving things to death, we'd have a new thing to advertise! And in the end, most of the happenings here would be more accurate, more real, and have a lot more depth, and always leave players wth something to do!
I'll be posting a revised version of a battle system soon to try and make it more straight forward.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - xyva424 - 12-23-2019
So here's what I as a returning player currently know about the dev story line, the wars are over, Leeds is glassed and a bunch of otherwise working trade lanes, gates and stations are damaged/destroyed or have swapped hands. Also some of the vanilla factions have been removed though I don't currently know which ones.
I don't read the stories on the forums, I don't care about the stories on the forums and I could care less about how they impact the game. I try to play the game to have fun and instead all I log into is a strict set of rules that anything more than casual rp has to be reflected through the forums, but in reality, none of it actually impacts the game outside of submitted requests for influence that are in general denied.
Now I haven't caught up on the main story yet, but that's not out of chosen ignorance i just don't have a ton of time to play let alone haunt the forums for story. I'll do research as i develop characters.
Here's the problem. This game isn't fun. There are a great many issues with it but I will tell you Ive read the news articles at the stations and Ive read the getting started flyer in my inventory but what is there to do, grind credits on alts to fund the characters you want to use only to mope around in empty ZoIs hoping a pirate would be daring enough to try to stop you? no thanks.
You want a list of the things I would see changed? Its really not too long but it is still a lot of work.
Sanctions. cut them out almost entirely. The only time someone should be sanctionable in game is if they are suspected of cheating, acting ooc whis an official faction character, or some form of harassment/vulgarity. Potentially have some king of IC/OOC tag that could be used to keep OOC characters from interfering in IC situations out of courtesy to those IC. aside from this all these rule on encountering and leaving systems etc should probably be shelved indefinitely as they really don't contribute to enhancing gameplay.
Trade/POBs. eliminate most of the trade routes in favor of making POBs viable. more consumable ammo for better weapons and defenses but make them use POBs for manufacture and have materials to refine and manufacture through POBs . add refining of ores to POBs and the using of those metals for things like ship parts and electronics needed for making all these items. we dont need new items in game just a way to make them cheaper in POBs that buying them from existing stations and to then sell those manufactured goods at the stations for profit or to players for greater profit. Have the stations buy everything POBs can make but balance it with player demand to actually create an economy, something this game really lacks and is why there's not much to be done here. This alone is probably the biggest undertaking this game could really use but would be the most time consuming.
Official factions, I believe that having a player faction take on the role of driving an official faction in the game means that as far as the story goes it follows that factions actions. If the devs want to allow official status in a faction they need to accept and acknowledge those actions. This doesn't mean that get free reign necessarily. perhaps require any faction wanting official status submit a planned course and get that approved first, then use their RP to fill out the story for the mods progression. If there are factions that the devs want to retain control of then simply say as much and keep them as developer factions. This solves the problems of other factions not getting the "love" they deserve from the story development and allows the players much more influence in the game.
I agree with Binski that faction conflicts should be resolved through in game events, while systems dont exist to automate them perhaps there should be some effort by the staff to facilitate them o when significant events unfold. However some effort into developing some way to automate that process should likely be explored.
ID/IFFs I believe we have too many IDs when we really need only 2 IDs per house (governemnt and civilian) and one for Freelancers. its easy enough to restrict the more lethal of ships and equipment to their houses government and allow any civillian of a house to fly any sized ship in that houses space. freelancers and out of house ships could be charged a fee any time a government ship catches them hauling through their system with a 5k ship but otherwise Zoi's should simply dictate authority and authorization to be in places. any other affiliation could be handled by IFF and is more easily seen anyway.