A while back, I was in a discussion (no devs included, it was still in the "working out the proposal" stage) about the addition of community liaison staff. The devs are, on a technical level, reasonably capable. But there's not enough of you to keep track of what the players are trying to do everywhere while also keeping your own intended story moving. This is why development in entire regions seems to stagnate somewhat regularly. The idea, thus, was taking on additional people as a point of community contact to gather suggestions and requests and bring them to the devs if they were properly workable.
The benefit of this approach is that it makes the devs look more open to community input and less controlling. The bureaucratic approach you've implemented here does the opposite. In fact, the below-quoted line from Xalrok reads to me like an admission that y'all don't want any player input and just feel like you've been forced to accept it. I'll entertain the possibility that he simply chose his words poorly in an attempt to keep a professional tone.
Quote:While the intent of Discovery Freelance RP 24/7 was never the canonization of player roleplay, we acknowledge and accept the fact that players wish to have an impact on the game world. We do not wholly believe that a degree of player influence is incompatible with Discovery's design ethos.
Even without that reading, even without that quote, the bureaucratic angle is still a persistent problem. Discovery has historically been very big on bureaucracy and that's not attractive to new players, or to an aging playerbase that has other things to do in their lives.
(12-17-2019, 07:09 AM)Hemlocke Wrote: Problem, if it is successfully added into the game, a refund shouldn't be necessary, if it is failed however, then it should be refunded so they're not just robbed of their chances to do it again, repeated denials with no refund will just offput people from ever trying again.
Problem with this approach is that there is nothing to stop people from spamming things over and over, potentially even with the intent of wasting other people’s time because ‘haha funny’. You can’t really build in a ‘if your ideas suck you don’t get to suggest anything anymore’ rule due to all the bias involved in such a ruling, losing your money when making a bad and or unfitting idea seems like a reasonable counter (assuming the price is indeed lowered to 250 mill).
(12-17-2019, 07:09 AM)Hemlocke Wrote: Problem, if it is successfully added into the game, a refund shouldn't be necessary, if it is failed however, then it should be refunded so they're not just robbed of their chances to do it again, repeated denials with no refund will just offput people from ever trying again.
Problem with this approach is that there is nothing to stop people from spamming things over and over, potentially even with the intent of wasting other people’s time because ‘haha funny’. You can’t really build in a ‘if your ideas suck you don’t get to suggest anything anymore’ rule due to all the bias involved in such a ruling, losing your money when making a bad and or unfitting idea seems like a reasonable counter (assuming the price is indeed lowered to 250 mill).
Even with your suggested way of doing it "making bad and or unfitting ideas" is still a heavily biased approached to doing so. And they said there was a cooldown on submission. which I think is bull, but it would stand in place to stop repeated lolwut posts, and even with the dev bias that we all know exists, i'm pretty sure they're smart enough to know who's actually trolling and who they just don't like.
Edit: The problem with this entire situation is that the devs are not trusted because they show the community nothing, when things are denied or approved it should be shown to us all and told why it was either approved or denied, for transparency with the community. If they are transparent through both good and bad decisions, there would be no reason not to trust them.
(12-17-2019, 05:40 AM)Durandal Wrote: For transparency's sake I have put the following proposals to a vote in the department heads chat, and asked the other lead developers to weigh in within 24 hours.
- Reduction of the RCR fee to 250 million credits (the same as the SRP fee)
- RCR fee refundable upon success of the request
Much better but it still stings that this is something that used to be free, and it seems improper to monetise something because you can't handle the workload rather than trying to find solutions to that in which the player doesn't end up having to pay for (figuratively and literally). It should refundable either way really.
I think the player requirement is enough, and a much more constructive means of limiting requests if necessary as it actually encourages you to roleplay with more people (no man is an island).
why not make a trello board for every house/region and combine the dev ideas with the ones being requested by other members and show it to the community .. I mean what's the problem in disclosing that? we will be able to work together better that way and will be more transparent too
People want to believe that God has a plan for them.
They don't wanna believe that anyone else does..
(12-17-2019, 05:07 PM)Hannibal Wrote: why not make a trello board for every house/region and combine the dev ideas with the ones being requested by other members and show it to the community .. I mean what's the problem in disclosing that? we will be able to work together better that way and will be more transparent too
Well, exchanging the current ouiji board with a trello board would be a big improvement
(12-17-2019, 07:15 AM)Thexare Wrote: Discovery has historically been very big on bureaucracy and that's not attractive to new players, or to an aging playerbase that has other things to do in their lives.
The only thing that tipped the scales for me joining this game was the idea that the story could be changed by the players. I had heard that this world changed with the people. I had some Idea in my head that if, say, the Nomads attacked Liberty, then there would be actual damage to things in the next patch. I honestly thought this game was going to be the kind of game I was searching for my entire life.
(12-17-2019, 07:15 AM)Thexare Wrote: Discovery has historically been very big on bureaucracy and that's not attractive to new players, or to an aging playerbase that has other things to do in their lives.
The only thing that tipped the scales for me joining this game was the idea that the story could be changed by the players. I had heard that this world changed with the people. I had some Idea in my head that if, say, the Nomads attacked Liberty, then there would be actual damage to things in the next patch. I honestly thought this game was going to be the kind of game I was searching for my entire life.
Turns out that that was a lie.
You're being sarcastic right?
Where did you get the idea that if some nomad players decided to shoot stuff in liberty, that would be reflected in the next patch update?
How would you prevent that entire houses and all of other players accomplishment/stories/factions get wiped out by a few dickheads?
How would you decide what gets built in to the mod and what wouldn't?
How would you keep this enjoyable enough for developers that they'd be willing to keep running after players ideas of what should happen?
How would you find the manpower to do it?
How would you prevent such a system from devolving into some crock story situation that everypartyinvolved absolutely hates? (cough cough IMG)
If you really want what you said you did, you need to start answering all these questions.
So far I've seen no serious attempts to answer any of these questions from the people who want something like that.
Quote:It is strongly recommended that players consult with the Development Team before proceeding with roleplay that the player intends to request canonization for.
Does this also count for OFLs that are being blocked and banned from and by the staffs personal accounts and secret chats?
Gonna quote what I said in another thread here because its possibly a better place to discuss it.
(12-19-2019, 09:49 PM)Karlotta Wrote: I voted 250 non refundable because I think that will make it less frustrating to fail and lead to less accusations of bias.
But I think the price isn't the most important issue in this. The most important thing is that you make these requests transparent by making them visible to the community, and for about a week give the community the chance to comment on them before and not after they are submitted, not with the goal of seeking the community's approval or disapproval, but with the goal of pointing out possible problems and suggesting improvements, which both the supplicants and developers can totally ignore if they wish.
This will:
- Enhance general understanding of the process before filing a request
- Reduce accusations of bias and suspicions of foul play behind closed doors
- Raise the quality of the submitted requests
- Reduce developer workload
It was mentioned in the RCR thread that "it is a good idea to ask developers before making a request". What channel one is to use should be specified, and the answer of "yes thats theoretically possible" or "no it isn't" should also be a matter of public record for similar reasons as the above.
![[Image: Lythrilux.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Lythrilux.gif)
