+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: News and Announcements (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests (/showthread.php?tid=175455)
RE: Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests - Typrop - 12-15-2019
(12-15-2019, 07:35 PM)Binski Wrote: you could probably write a small novel with the text compiled from you on the topic of changes
This is kind of what I meant in another thread about not disparaging the guy for his optimism. Lets him construct things like this, regardless of criticism, which is both a nice change of pace from bitter griping, and some folks' inability to really provide anything more than an immediate solution of "repeal this filth." (Like me.)
RE: Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests - Durandal - 12-15-2019
Post #12
(12-14-2019, 10:51 PM)Lythrilux Wrote:(12-14-2019, 10:23 PM)Durandal Wrote: Anyone can roleplay anything. You are very free to do any roleplay under the sun. You only need to file an RCR if you want that roleplay to result in a change which impacts the game world.
So progressive faction roleplay is effectively locked behind a gamble paywall. How would writing stories in the stories section and doing repetitive message dumps on the newest space fart be constructive to faction members/leaders who are itching for pace and things to do?
By allowing us to work on the game and actually progress things instead of being bombarded with "the community demands you rewrite every infocard in Rheinland". Now we're morally obligate to do that next since we allowed them to vote on it instead of work on a neglected region of the mod such as the Omicrons or Kusari.
Focusing on roleplay you don't intend to canonize allows us, the development team, to deliver more content to everyone involved.
(12-14-2019, 10:51 PM)Lythrilux Wrote:(12-14-2019, 10:23 PM)Durandal Wrote: This is why it's smart to ask before trying to change anything which you aim to canonize. We're not going to go "lol, file an RCR and see what happens." We will tell you in advance if there is a conflict. This is stated clearly in the RCR post.
What extent would this exactly cover? I'm only concerned because the story team has been known to keep secrets about the future of the story - and for good reason - but that can come into a direct collision course with player roleplay.
If a proposed RCR were to conflict with pre-existing story plans, we would inform the requester of this and, if possible, provide suggestion on how to alter the RCR so that it may be accepted without providing any spoilers.
(12-14-2019, 10:51 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: Furthermore, I'm imagining the request still has to be approved and has no certainty of implementation or date of processing, which makes it even more of a gamble with both time and money in the mix.
The RCR will be approved or denied within two weeks of having been posted. After it is approved, depending on the scope of the change, implementation can theoretically come as soon as the next patch. If we're talking about an RCR which proposes an entire story arc a la Imperial Rheinland, then that is going to take a good deal more time, and that's just kind of how not being the developers of the game works. You have to wait for the developers to develop. That shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.
(12-14-2019, 10:51 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: You can't seriously talk to yourselves and think this is a good idea, at least how it's currently worded. I understand the need to improve the organization of the place as things seem to be very unorganized right now, but I assure you this is the furthest thing from a good solution to that problem.
I'm sure as someone who is not a member of this team, you know what is best for this team to organize itself.
(12-14-2019, 10:51 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: I don't see how anyone can look at this announcement and suddenly feel extremely thrilled and motivated to play the game.
I think people should take some solace in the idea that, if they do the work, ask us first, and file a request, that there is a solid chance they will actually be able to impact the game world. Which is again, something Discovery and certainly not Freelancer was even built for.
(12-14-2019, 10:51 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: At the very least ditch the 1 bil requirement, that's an awful idea. 100 mil would be a lot more bearable.
I'm somewhat ambivalent about the fee myself, but the idea of asking people to play the game in order to contribute a permanent, canonical change to its lore instead of just writing on the forums does not strike me as unreasonable. Money is not that difficult to make. The fee is there to show that people are dedicated to the request they are about to file.
---------------------
Post #14
(12-14-2019, 11:00 PM)Megaera Wrote: This is the absolute worst. Remember when I was told to include this line to my OF ID?
- Can treat Samura, Hogosha, and Farmer's Alliance transports as combat
I submitted the ID with that line. What happened?
The line caused huge conflict with the staff and the ID itself was nerfed twice before being implemented, with that line entirely removed.
So don't come with that story.
Megaera, I am not the Discovery Development team. I provided you with advice as a friend and former OFL to shoot high, because you might be able to get more than you asked for. I provided you with no guarantees.
---------------------
Post #15
(12-14-2019, 11:01 PM)Typrop Wrote:(12-14-2019, 10:54 PM)Thunderer Wrote: I like the anti-lobbying rule. It should be applied to everything. Lobbyists are a dev's prime enemy.
"Hey guys wouldn't it be great to discount public opinion as a method of prioritization and vetting potential decisions?"
t. Devteam, December 14, 2019
This is not lobbying. Lobbying is waking up to 20 Discord PMs every day from various players all pushing their own individual proposals instead of filing requests.
This is not in any way an exaggeration of the former status quo.
---------------------
Post #18
(12-14-2019, 11:20 PM)SnakThree Wrote: Drop money and player requirement.
This would certainly deescalate community's complaints about this thing.
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.
---------------------
Post #21
(12-14-2019, 11:31 PM)Markam Wrote: I am more concerned about the 2 month cooldown, the mod teams capacity to complete the changes, and the age old "is this RP sufficient?!" question that has no clear answer and has frustrated players especially regarding SRPs.
Imagine we receive even 5 of these a month. Depending on the nature of the requests - as the scope of the RCR is quite large, because it must be, as it is nigh impossible to quantify every potential change to the game's world and lore - it could potentially be very little work or work which will have us backlogged 3 months into the future.
Currently we have at least a 3 month backlog on development due to getting hit with Imperial Rheinland straight after having to rewrite the entirety of Gallia and deliver at least some new, unrelated content with 4.92.
The 2 month cooldown is very much a necessity - or are you proposing it be longer?
---------------------
Post #23
(12-14-2019, 11:37 PM)Darkstar_Spectre Wrote: Edit: Also considering the fact that this will probs mainly be done by Faction Leaders who already have to deal with the costs of running a faction itself
In my experience of leading/being involved in multiple official factions, the opposite is true. Factions accumulate money, they don't sink it. They're sitting on shared banks with billions of credits, and (ideally) have members willing to contribute to a shared goal.
---------------------
Post #31
(12-15-2019, 12:01 AM)Karlotta Wrote: First of all, Kudos to the staff for actually trying to address a problem and (hopefully) being willing to discuss it.
I'd also like to remind some people who have been screaming bloody murder about this that you were already complaining about the status quo, before this was posted, and that most of you have not yet offered any concrete solution.
Personally I'd like to raise a few concerns, suggestions, and questions:
1. I think that credit fines and activity requirements make sense for requests that benefit or "satisfy" only the players making the request (for example someone asking for a monument for one of their heroic chars in an infocard). However, there are probably also those kinds of request that can make the mod unambiguously "better" for players in general (for example something that enhances gameplay by creating and activity hot spot or telling an immersive story). This should probably be free of credit or activity requirements.
I understand the sentiment here and in a perfect world, I'd agree with it. I expect the reality of this situation however is that because such things are subjective, we'd simply end up being called out on favoritism and giving people free passes for being discordfriends or whatever, so this won't be happening.
(12-15-2019, 12:01 AM)Karlotta Wrote: 2. How will the devs themselves handle their own storyline progressions and faction developments, which are bound to benefit some factions/players and not others? How will you guarantee that you wont slip certain "requests" made behind closed doors in the mod free of credits but not free of personal bias (assuming you keep the mentioned requirements).
There isn't much to be said here beyond we won't do it.
(12-15-2019, 12:01 AM)Karlotta Wrote: 3. I strongly encourage you to add a layer of community quality control to requests to find out about possible plot holes, contradictions, and possibly woes the community will have with something BEFORE you implement them (you will inevitably hear about it afterwards anyway). This could be done by making requests visible, and giving the community the opportunity to give feedback (which staff or the person requesting have no obligation to take into account), leaving the requesting person the opportunity to correct mistakes or include good ideas that they didn't have.
Heated debates for weeks which will drive development to an even slower pace. We're not a democracy and cannot be. The reason you don't see any other games doing this is exactly for this reason. As to the obvious retort "but Discovery is small!", no way. Not small enough to run the way these proposals suggest.
(12-15-2019, 12:01 AM)Karlotta Wrote: 4. There appears to be a feeling of "entitlement" among parts of the community that their RP has to be taken into account, which is often a bit problematic. I fear that adding a fee and activity requirements will only add to that feeling of entitlement once those 2 criteria were fulfilled, and will only increase anger when things are rejected.
This is part of the reason I'm ambivalent about the fee. The last thing I want to do is engender an even greater sense of entitlement around the canonization of player roleplay.
---------------------
Post #32
(12-15-2019, 12:05 AM)Wesker Wrote: I do have a question though, would we be able to request our characters to be mentioned in some infocards behind the scenes? I had an idea like this in mind for one of my characters, but I know the policy on infocards has always been made to strictly exclude individual characters.
Historically we have only ever named dead player characters, and I suspect that's the way it'll stay.
---------------------
Post #37
(12-15-2019, 02:59 AM)Wildkins Wrote: this is a certified bruh momentum
i thought this was a really good idea back when it was first devised but the sheer hilarity of a combined fee and cooldown time subject to the whims of the development staff on top of the fact that the money isn't even refundable if it gets approved is a real galaxy brain maneuver
bake em away, toys, you've really outdone yourselves this time
If you wanted any kind of a say in how things were done, you needed to consider that before going silent for months without explanation and being given multiple activity warnings before being removed from the team.
A real galaxy brain maneuver.
---------------------
Post #40
(12-15-2019, 04:30 AM)Kazinsal Wrote: Christ, guys. The community hates you enough already. Why the hell would you post this?
Because we care more about being able to properly do our jobs than about making this a popularity contest. As I've already pointed out, the only way we're going to return Discovery to any level of active development is by curtailing what kind of, and how quickly, player requests to canonize their own roleplay come in.
Post #43
(12-15-2019, 05:58 AM)The Milk of Auzari Wrote: ... going through the process of an SRP just to get something as trivial as player roleplay to become considered canon ...
We consider the alteration of any of the game's canon - as this is a roleplay server - to be the least trivial thing a person can hope to accomplish.
An SRP is a lesser responsibility than canonization, and the RCR system should now properly reflect that.
---------------------
Post #57
(12-15-2019, 07:36 AM)xyva424 Wrote: I said this earlier on the discord but I feel its appropriate here as well.
I'm a returning veteran player from back in 2012, admittedly nearly everything I submitted has apparently been lost but otherwise I believe I'm one example of those the community is trying to get to come play and help bolster the numbers. I realize I have no sway in the community but as an outsider I think I can comment on the things prevalent in Discovery that push me and likely many others away. No one likes being railroaded or discarded. Joining Discovery is taken too seriously to the point its more work than fun. Just joining the community forces rp interaction on players that may not be comfortable enough with roleplay to join in rather than welcoming them to come just to play and putting that onus on the seasoned members of the community. Just listing the RP restrictions in the rules puts barriers in place to drive new players away. I don't mean that RP should be set aside but that instead it should be rewarded. Every barrier put up hurts the community and only makes things worse and this newest development is a perfect example of that.
Instead of throwing up new barriers to player involvement they should be tearing down rules that don't really contribute to the goals of having stories worth reading about. The rules on re-engagement with alternate characters just means that now with the dwindling population you have to wait before you can interact with that player again, meaning your both stuck waiting for an arbitrary time out of potential story. Most of the rules were made with good intentions but in practice they just suppress player interactions in artificial ways that will continue to drive players away.
This new change does not affect the roleplay of casual players. It only affects people who are trying to visibly change something ingame, like blow up or capture a base, construct a docking ring, or get an infocard rewritten.
---------------------
Post #69
(12-15-2019, 08:33 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote: Well, even if they would show progress of requests, and tell reasons why it was rejected, or why it was approved, and show it openly (only if its doesnt contain some stroy spoilers, tho imo even in this case you can choose words to show why so), this is already will be major move forward.
Again, I like the sentiment, but I'm going to refer you to a post you made earlier which was dead on:
(12-15-2019, 07:34 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote: I can bring easy example. We all know, that players alot of times whined their assets from destruction by story. But almost never it brought any positive impact. Its not means that instead of it there will be something new. Its just means, that devs will rollback in Lethe for another halfyear before coming with another solution, against which will protests another side. That how things now went in extremely stale stance.
Replace "whined over destroyed assets" with "whined over reasoning for RCR rejection/approval."
Transparency isn't going to help the majority sleep any easier at night, just assist them inventing new reasons for them being correct and the team being wrong.
---------------------
Post #70
(12-15-2019, 08:34 AM)Kazinsal Wrote: Then we got FCRs, which... no one really knows how they work.
Seriously, Kazinsal? This here only shows you're interested in attacking this team instead of showing genuine concern. The FCR is quite possibly the clearest and most well documented request procedure in Discovery history, and it served the Vagrants very well.
---------------------
Post #98
(12-15-2019, 05:06 PM)The Ghost of Pilgrim Wrote: Make the result of the dev vote (for each voting member) public and give a public reason why the request was denied. Otherwise this is just another behind-the-scenes mechanism.
"Allow people to know exactly who voted no on request, so that the requesting party can target those specific developers to lobby to them."
Yeah, no.
---------------------
Post #100
(12-15-2019, 06:15 PM)The Ghost of Pilgrim Wrote: Also why not have the community feedback the proposal first and then implement it (with changes or not at all) instead of enacting it and then taking feedback.
Because we need this new system in order to keep the lights on and keep Discovery functioning, and we have a community that will never understand and accept that, and will always believe they are capable of doing a better job without being in the hot seat themselves.
---------------------
In conclusion -
@"Anton Okunev" did the best job out of anyone in this thread of summarizing the current situation with this post here.
(12-15-2019, 07:34 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote: Welll..then some explaining required.
First, this thing obviously dont affect SRP, so some people here nohow ever not linked with this requirements. (this is what about my phrase regarding SRP was. And i know many players never did any other impact than SRP or FCR, which is, another case)
Second. That way what you described, dont work. Just at all.
Due of server population reduced, we have closed circle of doom, where players lobbying for changes causing devs went in more inert stance, what cause players complain more and bomb them more. Old ways cant work anymore, we are already dead and should adapt to afterworld, pathes of alives not an option anymore.
I can bring easy example. We all know, that players alot of times whined their assets from destruction by story. But almost never it brought any positive impact. Its not means that instead of it there will be something new. Its just means, that devs will rollback in Lethe for another halfyear before coming with another solution, against which will protests another side. That how things now went in extremely stale stance.
Personally I'd like to challenge any of the critics in this thread to actually give the system a shot, file an RCR, and see what happens. Because the old system where we got into week long debates in story chats with faction leaders which went nowhere, did not work.
Having our PMs blown up by 20 people a day pushing their agenda, doesn't work.
Now there's a system for player driven roleplay, just like everyone asked for. A path provided.
Let's try using it.
RE: Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests - Typrop - 12-15-2019
So effectively, "Get bent, none of this matters, we're doing this anyways because the community is wrong, you just gotta habeeb it."
Despite a thread reaching 11 pages in the span of 24 hours, most of the posts citing how this is a bad idea.
RE: Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests - SnakThree - 12-15-2019
(12-15-2019, 08:07 PM)Durandal Wrote: The 2 month cooldown is very much a necessity - or are you proposing it be longer?
Who or what is hit with cooldown? Faction? Player making request? Region? The whole request system?
RE: Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests - Durandal - 12-15-2019
(12-15-2019, 08:24 PM)SnakThree Wrote:(12-15-2019, 08:07 PM)Durandal Wrote: The 2 month cooldown is very much a necessity - or are you proposing it be longer?
Who or what is hit with cooldown? Faction? Player making request? Region? The whole request system?
The group requesting the RCR, whether they are a faction or simply a group of independent players.
RE: Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests - pillow - 12-15-2019
i remember when people just logged into the game and roleplayed as a random character in the freelancer universe without even thinking about what type of virtual roleplay sandcastle they wanted to make
RE: Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests - Reptile - 12-15-2019
Crossfire detected.
Next step - donate for private system or something else.
Hunting bots or farming science data.
its very interesting i think.
But,who cares?
This will not save the game. There is no reasons to come back for a lot of old players.
btw. Hi Loken,how is your fake sanction for us? You know - you won
RE: Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests - Prysin - 12-15-2019
(12-15-2019, 08:27 PM)Durandal Wrote:(12-15-2019, 08:24 PM)SnakThree Wrote:(12-15-2019, 08:07 PM)Durandal Wrote: The 2 month cooldown is very much a necessity - or are you proposing it be longer?
Who or what is hit with cooldown? Faction? Player making request? Region? The whole request system?
The group requesting the RCR, whether they are a faction or simply a group of independent players.
Can i request a 4.86 spec Trident? without modern day terrible turret split?
You know, where you can put "heavy" turrets anywhere you like.... unlike the imbalanced mess we have today that is clearly just there to protect snubs from gunboats actually being scary.
RE: Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests - Durandal - 12-15-2019
(12-15-2019, 08:56 PM)Prysin Wrote:(12-15-2019, 08:27 PM)Durandal Wrote:(12-15-2019, 08:24 PM)SnakThree Wrote:(12-15-2019, 08:07 PM)Durandal Wrote: The 2 month cooldown is very much a necessity - or are you proposing it be longer?
Who or what is hit with cooldown? Faction? Player making request? Region? The whole request system?
The group requesting the RCR, whether they are a faction or simply a group of independent players.
Can i request a 4.86 spec Trident? without modern day terrible turret split?
(12-14-2019, 08:04 PM)Xalrok Wrote: 3. The roleplay must not damage gameplay. Examples include but are not limited to:
- Crippling of NPC factions (e.g destruction or capture of important bases, peace treaties with main enemies of the faction)
- Harm to server activity (e.g removal/enable of bypass of activity hubs)
- Directly damaging gameplay (e.g implementation of overpowered ships or technology).
RE: Notice: Roleplay Canonization Requests - Alley - 12-15-2019
(12-15-2019, 08:07 PM)Durandal Wrote: tl;dr no
You clearly no intention to uphold what made Discovery unique and you are certainly not fooling anyone. If you want this mod to no longer take player actions into account, then have the balls to admit it and spare everyone from losing their time trying to get faction developments implemented. You will do everyone a service, including yourself.