[Poll] RCR Fee Reduction

[Binski]

I'm ok with a 250 non refundable fee. Do the credits get split among the people doing the work? I'd be ok with that. More work is less time to play or grind.

---

The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############

[Foxglove]

Why does it need a cost? I've yet to see strong reasons that justify making something that used to be free cost money.

What are the reasons to justify it not being refundable at 250mil?

All in all it seems like random arbitary numbers have been thrown out with suspiciously little explanation or reasoning as to why.

The answer to that has been given to you a couple of times.

I can think of no meaningful argument against the idea that the requesting party should not show substantial investment in making a change to the canonical setting. These criteria exist to ensure the people requesting are all in on the request, and that it's not another flash in the pan.

At the end of the day, why does anything cost anything? Why do cloak batteries cost anything if they're just a fuel that needs to be there because the game mechanics need a consumable? The heart of any online game is the grind, which is why SRPs cost credits, and official faction creation costs money. One can argue about the amount, but the general point remains unconstestable.

By the way, as someone who has used the new FCR, I can tell you that, if you compare how Aux got canonized and how the Vagrants got canonized, these two processes were fundamentally different also because there was a metric in place by which people could orient themselves. It made it easier for me, and this formalization of the roleplay canonization, which before was done completely arbitarily, will make it easier for anyone else in the future. All in all, if your only point of contention is needing to play the game and earn Freelancer bucks to have access to an extraordinary bit of consideration put into your idea how other people should spend their time (which is essentially what you're doing if you propose something is developed a certain way), then I guess, that's just your opinion. The amount is being up for debate, as you see.

---

[Shiki]

Is it something that Bretonians can Canonise Olympia stuff just because it is Devtonia and nothing can stop em ?

To be very clear on this situation, Bretonia had zero input on Olympia. @TheShooter36 gave up his SRP and told us we could do as we pleased with it, so we used it as an ace in the hole in the Aland situation.

What this would mean is that if the Bretonians wanted to do something with a Bretonia (or unclaimed, ie; derelict, natural object) asset, they could file an RCR and the development team would either approve or deny the request based on the criteria provided in the RCR post.

I mean it doesn't make the whole Olympia thing look less bad if I am honest. And argument "yeah it's not a devtonia, but it directly favors devtonia, but it's still not devtonia so ur argument is dismissed" is meh in general. I mean it would benefit the devteam if devteam guys were more easy at admitting mistakes, instead of arguing to death defending questionable decisions.

As for the topic, I still think the whole RCR thing is just imitation of changes as I can't see why I couldn't post such thing as a regular dev request (for free). Community and devs pay a lot of attention to it instead of something real.

---

[Karlotta]

I mean it doesn't make the whole Olympia thing look less bad if I am honest.

I couldn't find anyone in devs, CR, IMG, or Bretonia who doesn't think that the whole Aland mess was and is bad. But they seem to be more interested in shifting blame than in fixing it.

But to be fair, only one of them is kicking people out of the faction for disagreeing with the leaders, discord-blocking people who try to talk to them about it, and declaring the "discussion over" as soon as someone tries to start one. And I ain't talking about devs, CR, or Bretonia.

I can't see why I couldn't post such thing as a regular dev request (for free).

Something about devs being flooded with requests, too much forumlancing and too little serverlancing, a dead economy, stashed away billions, and people who don't play on the server anymore posting requests to devs anyway.

That and the fact that other requirements like documented RP only create even more read&cringe work for devs.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)

[Xalrok]

I'm ok with a 250 non refundable fee. Do the credits get split among the people doing the work? I'd be ok with that. More work is less time to play or grind.

Nobody gets any credits from these fees. The credits are basically deleted. In the case of a refund they are recreated using an admin command.

[Bannorn]

Missing the point.

---

---

Remove the SNAC for good

[08.07.2019 03:20:17] =CR=Zulu: Situations like these makes me wish they left me behind in Crayter.

[Lythrilux]

I can think of no meaningful argument against the idea that the requesting party should not show substantial investment in making a change to the canonical setting. These criteria exist to ensure the people requesting are all in on the request, and that it's not another flash in the pan.

This is just a Reverse Uno Card. It fails to argue why the status quo should change and instead demands reasons why the fee is a bad idea (which have been stated many times already).

At the end of the day, why does anything cost anything? Why do cloak batteries cost anything if they're just a fuel that needs to be there because the game mechanics need a consumable? The heart of any online game is the grind, which is why SRPs cost credits, and official faction creation costs money. One can argue about the amount, but the general point remains unconstestable.

Apples and oranges. Those things have consistently cost money and have not been the product of spontaneous monetization of something that was once free. The point is easily contestable with those factors taken into consideration. Furthermore, good grind is more than just applying layers of bureaucracy and credits onto existing systems to make players play longer - quite obviously efforts to increase the artificial grind have not resulted in a positive boon to the player count. At the end of the day grind also needs to be fun, and I think most people can agree trading is a boring chore.

Here's another question: How does an RCR fee, or the RCR in general, make the game more fun? If it's not possible to competently answer that, then the validity and design of the RCR to server health should immediately be brought into question.

All in all, if your only point of contention is needing to play the game and earn Freelancer bucks to have access to an extraordinary bit of consideration put into your idea how other people should spend their time (which is essentially what you're doing if you propose something is developed a certain way), then I guess, that's just your opinion. The amount is being up for debate, as you see.

For the majority of veteran players, players such as you and I, this amount of money isn't too taxing on our bank accounts. But I think this perspective is the biggest mistake of the RCR, and how it's not been designed from the perspective of new players or people who may have the slightest interest to play Discovery. Why are we designing systems around an ever-shrinking community of veterans? It's almost like an attempt to make Disco even more closed and gated. I don't think that's healthy design at all. In the end, it'll just lead to a handful of people playing alone in a sandpit of crumbling sandcastles.

---

[Durandal]

As the vote was tied, the staff has opted to reduce the fee to a refundable 500 million credits. The RCR procedure post has been updated to reflect this new change.

[Alestone]

>sigh< Of course they did...

---

Alestone Enterprises

The Power To Get You There!

[Lythrilux]

As the vote was tied, the staff has opted to reduce the fee to a refundable 500 million credits. The RCR procedure post has been updated to reflect this new change.

Isn't the more logical conclusion that the solution should be a mix of both?

---