+- 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 - Karlotta - 12-16-2019
"Community votes" are problematic for a few reasons:
- Alt accounts
- People tend to vote without thinking
- People tend to vote for what they think is in their personal best interest, not for what is in the best interest of the bigger picture in terms of overall gameplay (people want to build their own private kingdom even if it makes the mod worse) and server population (a lot of the people who vote will put their own ambitions over the interests of new players, and would rather rule over an empty personal kingdom than see people play on "their" turdf)
Something that would be helpful is to have player requests (maybe even dev developements) open to community scrutiny and feedback (not community votes) for 2-4 weeks just like official faction creation requests. That would reduce the quality control burden as well as accusations of bias off the staff, and probably also the number of bogus requests because some will get retracted or corrected after community feedback. It's a simple measure and I'd really like to know why the staff doesn't do it.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Thunderer - 12-16-2019
(12-16-2019, 04:48 PM)Typrop Wrote: Yes, because it's not like everything is on fire right now because of the current regime or anything. And also, if you weren't, then why was one of your posts effectively demonstrating that "I am a coward" despite the fact that, rather obviously, it was playing in your side of the court and in your phrasing. This is a useless discussion and you are arguing in defense of an incompetent government because you're afraid of possible change, as though we're not actively running like a hive of hornets because of the lack of positive change.
If you think that this is a useless discussion, if you think that the management needs to be replaced and if you are not a coward, then why do you keep discussing, instead of doing something useful about it?
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Typrop - 12-16-2019
(12-16-2019, 04:57 PM)Thunderer Wrote: If you think that this is a useless discussion, if you think that the management needs to be replaced and if you are not a coward, then why do you keep posting here, instead of doing something useful about it?
Because what exactly can be done, if not discuss? You think I can just pull a wizard out of my ass and magically do things?
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Shiki - 12-16-2019
(12-16-2019, 04:55 PM)Karlotta Wrote: "Community votes" are problematic for a few reasons:
- Alt accounts
- People tend to vote without thinking
- People tend to vote for what they think is in their personal best interest, not for what is in the best interest of the bigger picture in terms of overall gameplay (people want to build their own private kingdom even if it makes the mod worse) and server population (a lot of the people who vote will put their own ambitions over the interests of new players, and would rather rule over an empty personal kingdom than see people play on "their" turd)
First one will obviously should be forbidden and punished.
As for the second two things, it's applicable for whatever closed votes that are already happening. It's maybe not always personal kingdoms, but staff friends with personal kingdoms. Problems that you described already exist and I can't see it getting worse from the more broad vote.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Thunderer - 12-16-2019
(12-16-2019, 04:58 PM)Typrop Wrote: Because what exactly can be done, if not discuss? You think I can just pull a wizard out of my ass and magically do things?
Oh well. If you can't do anything, then I guess I'm defending us for nothing, so yes, it is indeed useless.
You might want to dilute the criticism, though, if you don't think it is useful. If it isn't useful, then it's making the atmosphere unpleasant for others for no reason.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Typrop - 12-16-2019
(12-16-2019, 05:03 PM)Thunderer Wrote: Oh well. If you can't do anything, then I guess I'm defending us for nothing, so yes, it is indeed useless.
You might want to dilute the criticism, though, if you don't think it is useful. If it isn't useful, then it's making the atmosphere unpleasant for others for no reason.
Shiki was right.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Shiki - 12-16-2019
(12-16-2019, 05:05 PM)Typrop Wrote: Shiki was right.
All along.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Binski - 12-16-2019
(12-15-2019, 06:23 PM)Chance Wrote: I vote w/ Binski
Thanks! So I don't always talk to myself here!
(12-16-2019, 03:48 PM)Thunderer Wrote: Most coups that I know of have produced more negative than positive consequences for the citizenry of their countries. Stability is a handy thing, but the coup's already happened, there is no going back (not without another coup at least), so we'd better learn to live with the consequences of having allowed it to happen.
No one has the means for another coup anyways. Ironically coup's are often avoided by having regular, fair, free and open elections of the people in charge. Most of the time with places like this that would be an absurd concept. As far as a community goes, we have dictators. It would work better if there wasn't such an obvious disconnect between the leadership and player base. The problem is, the devs are accustomed to taking criticism over every decision, so at a certain point they just make a choice and go.
But their solutions always seem to them like there's no other choice, when its more like there are options they won't even consider, that are where the real answers lie. For example, most of this seems to be to slow down player driven canonization and RP impact. Most of us seem to think if we could do more of this, and easier, it would lead to more going on, there would be more going on. We seem to need more staff to cover the problem, but that means power sharing, which seems off the table. So with who we have is who the work is spread out around.
Discovery Freelancer is at a serious crossroad since the end of the Gallic War. The devs seem to have been prepared to let things fizz out from here on, when many are ready to finally get on to something new. The next 5 years can be one where we have shrunk to what other servers were like, or we move forward with a REVAMP. We need the rules rework Karlotta has worked hard on, we need more staff it seems, we need organization brought to RP canonization (beyond generic like it is now and has always been) and organization brought to the wars/battle scenarios with regards to player/RP impact.
The way its been has worked to get us this far, but times have changed. People are only drawn here by the allure of flying a space ship, but its the deeper aspects of the 'world' and its potential for invovlement and continuity that would keep someone here. As the years have passed, we probably need a new approach on how to manage the game, and how to play the game (especially when it comes to the value of RP investments).
It would probably be a good idea for the staff to come back from the hollidays and instead of planning the next patch, plan a new system for the game, and one that can accomodate for the game as if we want it growing, not as if the mod should be winding down.
If RCR's were passed quickly and implimented quickly, the game would feel less stagnant (imagine RCR'ing a news story and it be added every month, or regular news updates in game often instead of years between). And of course, if we had a system governing the wars and faction conflicts in conjunction with that, we'd be in shape to make the next 5-10 years more worth the effort. The server may never be huge again but it appears to be smaller than what it should be. Thats if we plan go keep it going for that time. Its at the point where 2000's games will be retro gaming soon, we'll be keeping it going for the sake of having one of the oldest game worlds still going, so it has a chance to survive a while yet, but not as its been the last ten years.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Thunderer - 12-16-2019
Now this is some constructive criticism, as opposed to "all is bad, but I don't want to work towards a solution". I'd employ you if I was a dev. Hopefully our devs will realize it might be worth a try.
RE: Devs require majority approval from community for major changes - Shiki - 12-16-2019
(12-16-2019, 06:03 PM)Thunderer Wrote: Now this is some constructive criticism, as opposed to "all is bad, but I don't want to work towards a solution".
Those two tend to be ignored equally.