Maecius wrote:I don't agree that it's the prerogative of the player base to accept or reject the ideas of their fellow players. I believe what is and is not implemented is more a function of the developers (who decide for themselves what they want to work on, and then design it) and quality control (who help hone dev projects for live release). Both groups are encouraged to ask the player base for a general opinion on things that are being considered for implementation (if for no other reason than to make sure it's something people actually want to see in game): But are not required to do so.
This is sort of fair, but a little bit utopian and I'll get to why.
Maecius wrote:The player base is, of course, always welcome to critique something after it's been implemented to try and get it altered or removed. That's definitely the prerogative of the player base. Indeed, this thread is exactly that: An attempt to get rules changed or removed. And that's entirely OK.
This is plain unrealistic. Once something has been added to the server, it is extremely hard to get it removed. See the recent debate about Favoured Soul, for instance - both the QC thread and the public one. Balance wise, the majority of QC feel that Favoured Soul is too powerful in its current state (Lets not turn this thread into another debate about that though), but because a change in something that is already established and implemented will affect people's characters, it is understandably hard to do.
If something is added to the server because no one was allowed at any point to make note of how it is likely going to be an issue mechanically, RP wise or whatever, and then a lot of people start playing around that feature, it's going to be just as hard to get that removed again no matter how fundamentally flawed it was from the start.
Allowing argument for
not adding something is a very important and reasonable safeguard against harmful additions whether they are entirely mechanical or affect role-play.
And arguing against the addition of something doesn't mean the person making the argument has to do so with vitriol. I am in this thread arguing against this forum rule and I feel I manage to do so without being insulting. If anything I am saying
is indeed insulting, let me know and tell me what.
And indeed insult and vitriol is not benefitial to the discussion either. I don't want that in the discussion on the suggestions forums - or anywhere else on the forums for that matter. But I want to be able to express my opinion on ideas that I consider harmful to the server. It's note even about "unnecessary" or "unneeded" ideas, is what I'm saying - some suggestions are actually detrimental to balance or RP, and need to be pointed out as such.
Maecius wrote:But shooting down an idea that someone's shared, and presumably cares about, but that the staff's not even considering implementing, isn't really an efficient use of anybody's time. And is, unfortunately, too frequently done in such a way that it makes the idea sharer feel like they shouldn't have shared their thoughts in the first place. I'd rather the server not lose out on good ideas because someone's afraid of the reaction the idea will get if it's spoken aloud.
During a chat with other staff members I learned that the devs are not even required to tell QC about a mechanical addition or change, even if it has balance effects. I realise and often say that QC is an advisory role and not a decision making one, but this is beside the point I'm getting at here: If no where along the line anyone are
required to air their suggestions to a potential "no", then there is a serious flaw in the system.
So I understand that you'd like all ideas heard (I do as well, though think they should be open to scrutiny), but you're arguing for an unrealistic utopia where people aren't investing in characters with flawed mechanics that should be removed or "nerfed". Indeed, all you will achieve, is to delay the criticism until after implementation and cause outrage for changes.
just joking.
