(12-15-2019, 01:56 PM)Raa'ta Wrote: Oh no - one billion credits! In community, where certain people hold five-to-eight billions, in community where we can afford buying codes for such price as 1 billion per 2 guns, you imply that factions, which is actually the group of people, can't afford to spend money to get those changes. Every active enough faction is able to make one billion in less than day, probably if you can't afford it, then your faction just doesn't deserve to influence anything in the first place. The only one exception is actually nomad factions.
One billion is not a lot of credits. You forget that not all factions are ore-trading based (Law enforcement, pirates, semi-houses). You forget that not all players have ability to spend 2-3 hours ingame daily (School/Uni/Work/Family/Social/Hobbies/Sleep/Better games). You forget that most factions already require money to be run (bonuses, bounties). And official factions even have activity requirement on top of that (72 hours by 3 members in 3 months).
I'll be blunt. Devs shouldn't be making the story of disco. It is our job. Job of the players and many factions they are involved.
IMHO If a Dev wishes to see his version of the story included in the cannon, he should go trough the process like any other player, submitting stories on forums, creating a faction, gaining support and "paying the bills".
I can't help but see this as just another way for the devs to keep their story on rails. There's nothing good in adding another layer of complication to alredy complicated system.
"It is better to reign in hell, than to serve in haven..."
I couldn't think of a better way to spend a billion (in case I make one). I see some players that had issues with staff before still don't trust them. I wouldn't invest a bill on their place, no matter who was right.
What I like in all this:
1. A price. Two friends can make it in a week and still do all the studies/homeworks. But, it's also high enough to not play a jerk with it.
2. Asking devs BEFORE posting any RCR. I'd suggest even making a section for that, so we can all read. I guess there's nothing secret about RCR. All RCRs should be in the name of the better game, right?
3. Criteria #5: The roleplay needs a minimum of 5 members involved in order to be eligible for the canonization request. Bruh... 5 members is a force nowadays. Ofc they should have a way to impact the game, if it's good for all. All in case we can find 5 people that think the same.
(12-15-2019, 03:09 PM)Wulthus Wrote: I'll be blunt. Devs shouldn't be making the story of disco. It is our job. Job of the players and many factions they are involved.
IMHO If a Dev wishes to see his version of the story included in the cannon, he should go trough the process like any other player, submitting stories on forums, creating a faction, gaining support and "paying the bills".
I can't help but see this as just another way for the devs to keep their story on rails. There's nothing good in adding another layer of complication to alredy complicated system.
You do make a point that most people want to write their own stories, and not be actors that follow the script of the devs. I've told them that too, and from what I saw, they haven't been considerate enough on their side.
But there are 3 more things to consider:
- A lot of players aren't exactly considerate of other players or of devs either. You can see it in reactions here and in past "disco drama", where they scream out the same arguments again and again, without ever engaging with counter arguments.
- The system where everyone can request anything they want with minimal "work" to themselves has lead to a great deal of work for staff, delays, and frustration of the people who requested stuff. That systems clearly needed a fix, even if there would have been better possibilities than the proposed RCR imo. For example making the requests visible for everyone (so they can be collectively improved on before being processed by staff, and so people know what kind of things are likely to be rejected), and imposing fines on self-serving types of requests (not all types).
- While free and player driven mod development sounds nice in theory, it can have negative impacts on immersion and gameplay. It can add more and more stations with inconsistent low quality or absent infocards all over the place, upset pvp balance by creating too much "safety", and spread every faction out into their own little kingdom where no one else dare set foot, effectively killing interaction.
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.
So, reading through all of this, what I'm gathering is that you're adding a billion credit fee to something that was already free with a few more twists to it. I'm not sure how you keep stepping backwards, but I suppose when the staff are all chosen by the same people there's not much in the way of checks and balances either, especially when it comes to ideas that effectively make it so that I have to grind Gold Ore for three days straight just to add a news article with my name on it.
Is the old way of requesting going to stay open in light of this notice, or am I going to have to spend what free time I have grinding to make my digital denizens that much happier? If it's the latter, then all I can say is I'd literally rather have lootboxes, except there's nothing surprising about these mechanics.
EDIT: For clarification, I don't much care about the technicalities of it. Those are going to be crap, regardless of how much icing you put on it. I gathered what I needed from the OP here, so as far as I'm aware it's just another useless money sink.
EDIT-EDIT: *Needlessly expensive money sink.
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.
In regards to the price, I'm not too broken up over it, but it depends on the situation a bit too.
5 people sign on via a faction to add a docking ring/mooring fixture for their corp to a previously unsettled planet, that's 200 million credits each. If it takes time to process it and people are working rather than in game, those processing can still split the money and earn creds. But for something so expensive, you'd think you'd get your yes or no first, not submit the money, then get your vote.
At the same time its the same old system. Ask first, if you get a yes, you might go ahead, might get the same answer from a vote...or not and still lose the credits?
But if we had it set up in listed outlines in advance, it would work the other way. Say for constructing a docking ring they knew they simply had to ship 10 commodities of X thousand units each, combined with RP around the project the whole time (documentation by members, rp with other factions if necessary) and knew going in that if they simply do the shipping, have it all documented, and had their credits saved, they'd get it unless someone had a serious reason to question it, which I'm sure would be very rare.
So instead they just look at the pre listed requirements, and know that when they have them met, they file the request with credits in the bank, and again unless there is a reason held by staff that they wish to say 'but so and so said they cheated' then the vote could be held to double ratify the decision. If there is serious evidence of wrongdoing brought up and seems legit, it just gets voted to be held or denied based on that. Most of the time it would seem likely that if groups were meeting the criteria they followed going in, few changes would be denied, and players could just pick their option and go to work instead of so much pre negotiation. I've suggested this for a while, sell RP development as achievements to stimulate activity.
In other words, make these options standardized and make them 99% gauranteed as long as the work is done, and people will go to work first, and file when they get there. It will also make the cost feel much more worth it, as players will know there would have to be a damn good reason for stuff to go wrong and not get their money's worth, or risk losing it to a bad request. If people knew colonizing a planet with a base was as easy as meeting a list, many will happily go get to work on those goals today! All we'd need then is to allow some factions to claim unused worlds for laying bases, maybe even outside their house territory, and it will create all sorts of pvp and rp around those projects. Almost every planet and moon in the game could be 'colonized' by someone, which sounds great to me. It wouldn't happen overnight, but still breathe some life and ambition into activity again.
Then, let the battles over territory begin! As the rest about players fighting other players' efforts takes place in game, and not at votes. If you want to stop DSE from settling a planet, you'll have to follow their RP, and cleverly get in the way of some shipments, try to deter. In the end it may not work but it gets people interacting, at least pirates would have a reason to play the cat and mouse game again!
There are many planets and moons that could be built onto by house corporations all over the map. We could unleash a corporate colonization of these places and let the cards fall where they may. Gallia in particular has many places that could be colonized like that, maybe we'd need one new edited animation for underground bases when it comes to small moons, but when you think about it every moon could wind up with DR's or a mooring fixture, and every planet could be like Pecos with multiple bases of more than one faction (depending on size). That is definitely the type of thing people would happily grind for if they knew it would work save for a really important reason to deny. Using pre determined options, and pre determined lists for each one also keeps the Devs checked and balanced, as it takes away personal voting in favor of a system everyone follows except if odd problems must be dealt with.