+- 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 - Binski - 12-24-2019
(12-23-2019, 06:50 PM)Lanakov Wrote: 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.
So in making no one win, and forcing the players to do nothing about what was happening wasn't stale? It did end in a boring stalemate. Glassing Leeds was completely unrealistic, and only happened because you guys are so remantically obcessed with 'telling stories' and forcing the players to be peripheral participants or cannon fodder in your stories. The truth is, this place has been controlled for years by a few players that are quite happy with things for themselves, while the vast majority are unhappy. Thats the player base's worst nightmare come true when it comes to the fate of this place. The place stays frozen, except from a handful of people's opinions, and none of them seem to want to work on solutions because of ridiculous notions like written above. That typical opinion is exactly why this place has only gone downhill over the years.
Yeah Leeds generated a lot of friction and anger, but why was that the point? I think it generated a lot of satisfaction for the story devs and everyone who just went along with it. I'm willing to bet if it had been allowed, players would have come out in high numbers to save Leeds too. They glassed it to sasisfy people like yourself, to make it seem like it wasn't unfair to Gallia, and it was done to make it seem 'fare' for Bretonia because they were getting back the system either way. It ended with no real end in truth so you guys could weild oorp magic. Its funny that players will never get an RCR to glass a planet through, but in the interest of 'story', devs can do it and decide how story will go on an RP server years in advance. One mode is contrary to the other. Either we're an open ended game or we're not. Well, we're not but we're happy to make it seem the game is that way to get people to come here.
I wonder what activity it would have generated if it had all been open ended, with player driven outcomes to those battles. Epic stories can still be told, but we're playing a video game and not reading a 'choose your adventure' novel for a reason. Much can be left up to what happens in the world we use. Why does that not seem most logical to people? You'd think that would be the first thing anyone would do here. It seems to be a thing here that players care about these things, ITS FUN, that is until someone else's story must be told. Again, if players supported a common system, players would wind up happier more often.
The way the war ended was the exact boring, safe status quo ending you claim would have been the alternative. The Royal gauls were 'saved' by dev magic, and Leeds was 'glassed' by dev magic. Not as many of us care about a few people's idea of a 'brilliant' story and are more interested in the story the players would drive. That is more interesting by far, and when set up right the changes reflect what majorities want anyways. You're right when you say if it had been voted on, Leeds would still be there. Why does that seem so brilliant to go against that again? This is why, when things are determined in the actual game we play, instead of acting like the game couldn't handle it, things would make more sense to everyone after these situations when the dust settles.
The only way I'd accept Leeds being destroyed as realistic and fair is if there had been more RP about those destroyers beforehand, and there had been a chance, using the game, to actually stop them. Admit it, the only reason we don't set it up to do stuff like that is to keep a tiny amount of people in the staff happy. That's where the gravity well that's sucking on disco is hiding. Its a years long imbalance causing nothing but problems.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Lanakov - 12-24-2019
(12-24-2019, 12:36 AM)Binski Wrote: So in making no one win, and forcing the players to do nothing about what was happening wasn't stale? It did end in a boring stalemate. Glassing Leeds was completely unrealistic, and only happened because you guys are so remantically obcessed with 'telling stories' and forcing the players to be peripheral participants or cannon fodder in your stories. The truth is, this place has been controlled for years by a few players that are quite happy with things for themselves, while the vast majority are unhappy.
The only way I'd accept Leeds being destroyed as realistic and fair is if there had been more RP about those destroyers beforehand, and there had been a chance, using the game, to actually stop them. Admit it, the only reason we don't set it up to do stuff like that is to keep a tiny amount of people in the staff happy. That's where the gravity well that's sucking on disco is hiding. Its a years long imbalance causing nothing but problems.
There are good points in there. Too bad you drown them in confused rambling about this all being a conspiracy designed to make US (who ?) happy with ourselves and posing as some sort of absolute wise man speaking for the entire community. I don't think you are, I think your ideas for Disco are dangerous, impractical and incredibly short-sighted, and I know there is no point trying to argue it with you. Good day.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Vexykin - 12-24-2019
Oh this is funny.
Seems like it's this time of the month for Saronsen again. Throwing petty insults in order to undermine the staff even more, to achieve what? Anarchy? Is that your end goal, so you can feel like you've accomplished something meaningful with that?
You seriously should go out in the real world more, have a breath of fresh air and don't play this game if this community and it's staff upsets you so much.
Anyway, to not derail the thread, in my honest opinion, as a lurker, ex-member and an outsider, I think Lanakov here said all there is needed to say.
And frankly, people just would screw everything up, because they are too clingy with their pixel power and stuff.
Give them a finger and they'll take the hand, is what I would say regarding community's past and overall behavior.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Marvin - 12-24-2019
(12-23-2019, 08:43 PM)xyva424 Wrote: You want a list of the things I would see changed?
well, let me give you a hint... just a quick quote from 2 posts above:
(12-23-2019, 06:50 PM)Lanakov Wrote: 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.
This actual threat is about the question how much influence the community should, or better not, have on changes the developers develop and plan to implant in future patches. This threat was created to discuss the somehow planed suggestion to make the community aprove major changes threw polls. Btw, if you ask me also the TS should take his suggestion to the mentioned Forums of development requests however this discussion in this threat ends, but i fear it would be more efford needed for the starting-post then this one.
Well, for me, after viewing over Lanakovs post it brought up a couple of questions i did not have before and which consolidated my opinion against made suggestion even more. As i at first onley thougth about uncountable ways of manipulating polls, even in the examples clearly distinguishable for - well me at least.
Some more things may should be thought threw by interested individuals or groups before posting a request in suggested forums:
-Who would define which part of a change is mayor/miner?
-Who would define which part of which mayor change will be decided by votes?
-Or just say yes and no to the whole presented result in general? That would be nonsense, would it not?
-Who would change all the connected content after any important part of the whole got dismissed but is linked to consequences, which are then obsolete and unfitting?
-But now as other parts have been approved beforehand in other votings dismissing a third connected change; who decides which poll will be repeated, because consequences of a different dismissed change have led to changes and they are not the same as before?
-Who will formulate the questions for the polls and how? Vote: X Yes if you are a true democrat X No if you are a fascist who anyways will move to siria soon and you are a naysayer.
-At which point it is time for a poll, i mean how many discussion-, information- afford has to be done by the developers to say “now we have reached the point that everybody who will vote is informed and has enough insight to give his vote with true value?” (connections to in the future planed mayor changes, like storryline etc. So afterwards there will be no critics of the type “you explaned it wrong, I could not vote as I would have done if I would have known what really means to accept this or that change.)
-How can be assured that alt-forum-accs would not be made and used in exorbitant manner if it gets to a really important change?
-Who will do the hard work of developing a complete new patch at the end a mistake in information, manipulation, or just a misunderstanding will lead to a dismissed change and all goes to the recycle-bin.
-Who will do all the needed moderating and forum work, speaking about bureaucracy?
-Will be the best decision for the Server be the idea that the majority of voting members is liking before even trying it out?
.... at least I could non stop keep brainstorm more questions to work with about that matter before getting to something close to presentable.
So, that's what i meant with complex questions. But as I said above, think it out, take your time, and post your results at the right forum. A post which in best case shows the developer team that you have done you'r homework and are ready to help to solve any upcoming question about your suggestion to make it happen. Good Luck, I really mean it, it’s not a joke. You onley can learn, and if it will not work out, maybee the next time it will in a different matter as you will accumulate experience.
Btw. To get to any consensus in life I would recommend to evade formulations like “The onley way I’d accept...”
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Binski - 12-24-2019
(12-24-2019, 12:49 AM)Lanakov Wrote:(12-24-2019, 12:36 AM)Binski Wrote: So in making no one win, and forcing the players to do nothing about what was happening wasn't stale? It did end in a boring stalemate. Glassing Leeds was completely unrealistic, and only happened because you guys are so remantically obcessed with 'telling stories' and forcing the players to be peripheral participants or cannon fodder in your stories. The truth is, this place has been controlled for years by a few players that are quite happy with things for themselves, while the vast majority are unhappy.
The only way I'd accept Leeds being destroyed as realistic and fair is if there had been more RP about those destroyers beforehand, and there had been a chance, using the game, to actually stop them. Admit it, the only reason we don't set it up to do stuff like that is to keep a tiny amount of people in the staff happy. That's where the gravity well that's sucking on disco is hiding. Its a years long imbalance causing nothing but problems.
There are good points in there. Too bad you drown them in confused rambling about this all being a conspiracy designed to make US (who ?) happy with ourselves and posing as some sort of absolute wise man speaking for the entire community. I don't think you are, I think your ideas for Disco are dangerous, impractical and incredibly short-sighted, and I know there is no point trying to argue it with you. Good day.
How actually dangerous can it be to make a video game more interactive? I think the fear is irrational, but you're right, just my opinion!
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Kazinsal - 12-24-2019
The dev-community sh*t-flinging will most likely continue until whoever's paying for this place finally snaps and pulls the plug, because both sides believe they are purely the aggrieved party, and no aggrieved party wants to call a ceasefire, because an aggrieved party laying down their swords is called "surrender". Neither side wants to be perceived as the one that backed down, so neither side will ever back down.
Someone needs to literally need to be a moderator between the development team and the community in order to stabilize things around here otherwise the game will keep losing players and every faction will be the same ten faces RPing with themselves (something that we're already starting to see, in fact).
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - xyva424 - 12-27-2019
the beatings will continue until morale improves
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Groshyr - 12-27-2019
You won't get interaction if you don't log