Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

I was not trolling i realy though it could be helpfull for the devs to see the players opinion of stuff like class balance.

Good night.

I just want to read what is being discussed. It's been made clear that I'm probably not qualified to comment on it. Fair enough.

I found Karond's small little snippet of info on the crafting extraordinarily helpful. It explained the thought process and concerns that went with it. I'd rather get the scraps then nothing at all if the idea is totally off the table. That's fine.

If we will never be privy to these conversations can we at least have a clear way to attain access to them? How does one come to be part of this initiative?

You say these are people who are devoting their free time to this. This is totally understandable. Wouldn't it be better if these people didn't have to waste more of that time chiming in on a topic that has apparently been discussed at length? People are putting in work, Then they come to the other side of the wall to a similar conversation and have to put in work again. Wouldn't it be in their best interest to not have to do that?

The responses to questions would be simpler too. Instead of a qc member having to explain everything, including the points and counterpoints, again - they could reference the original conversation.

Additionally, it seems clear to me that this is a divisive subject. Why is that? I like to think that most people understand that no one is getting paid to do this. That even contributing to bettering this community is an act of charity to us all.

What's so wrong with allowing those that want to, to take the time to understand these things? Wouldn't this create less work for everyone down the road?

Is it just me or is there a huge stigma around this that's more than a little unfounded? I have never known any of the people representing the qc team to be unfair or unhelpful. In fact those that do take the time out of their day to explain something better, or give a little more insight to things are a gleaming example of why this would work and be beneficial to everyone.

Am I a consumer to you? Is the idea of me, or anyone else, coming into a conversation on equal footing somehow bad to you? Personally, I am looking to waste less of your time. I want you to have all the freedom and ability to continue to develop this community and story.

It's just that every so often, once in a blue moon really, I read something that's so out of left field from someone who happened to have the BGTSCC QC tag under their name that just floors me. I feel stupid to have asked, or even volunteered my opinion and thoughts - when it comes across that eveything in "this topic" has already been discussed elsewhere. My time has gone from also being a charity to being a burden, barely suffered, in those situations.

This is not an issue that is new. I have come across the same line of asking a question, discussing the question, invalidate the question - over and over while dredging through old posts (so I wouldn't be a burden by asking... Again.)

Are you serious? How many times can I say I am trying to have a serious talk about this? Please quit accusing us of trolling, or whatever it is you are accusing us of doing. You are railroading what could have been a real discussion about exploring a way to possibly do things better. We get you don't agree, but why don't you discuss with us some reasons why? Security issues? What security issues are inherent in mechanical balance.

Perhaps we don't have all the information and so we are arguing from a position of ignorance, but instead of attempting any sort of meaningful communication to educate us, you are simply insulting us. I am literally flabbergasted that your first assumption about this whole thing is that we are trying to destroy or drag down something, when all I personally have asked for from the beginning is cooperative conversation. I am further flabbergasted that despite our constant attempts to show you we are trying to have a legitimate discussion, you continue to make accusations.

I am going to ask again, join the conversation or don't. But please do not continue to introduce so much negativity into what was a decent talk.

Lag wrote:*snip*

I understand those sentiments completely. QC forums have a lot of out-of-date stuff that has been changed or removed completely or was just a spinoff of theorycrafting that never really ended up the way they were discussing in whichever thread that was started that wasn't the one that actually got implemented. (their forums are a bit of a mess sometimes)

They, as well as a ton of other players here, are often quick to respond with accurate information to various questions. I really doubt anyone on this server knows everything about it.

A few of our QC members are players that belong to a group that I'd describe as "veteraned". It's not a bad thing, they've just heard a question or discussion a dozen times and can sometimes answer it quick and blunt. I wouldn't take it personally.

Players aren't burdens. A few of them can do stuff that can be a headache sometimes, but they're not burdens.

Face wrote:I was not trolling i realy though it could be helpfull for the devs to see the players opinion of stuff like class balance.

Good night.

you werent being a troll, but again that is what this forum is for so there is no reason for people to see QC or any Dev forum also

Lag wrote:It's just that every so often, once in a blue moon really, I read something that's so out of left field from someone who happened to have the BGTSCC QC tag under their name that just floors me.

QC and DMs are players with their own opinions too, and while most DMs will make sure to specify that their comment is their own opinion, most QC probably feel that their personal opinions on a public forum dont need such a disclaimer

QC and DMs should be allowed to talk freely too dont you think? but yea i suppose DMs feel a need to be more cautious about it

Boddynock wrote:We get you don't agree, but why don't you discuss with us some reasons why? Security issues? What security issues are inherent in mechanical balance.

i already gave you an example

Boddynock wrote:*snip*

I am serious. If you feel that you are discussing from a point of ignorance then take a moment to consider what has been discussed. I often find that taking a short break helps someone discover perspective.

As for QC, I've said it already. They don't need flak from other players (sorta like this thread in parts) and they discuss things that don't need to be known by other players. Like exploits.

If you doubt that they'd get flak from players, there is indeed a problem with perspective then. You'll just have to take my word (and all of theirs in this thread) that it happens. And we don't need it to.

DM Narshe wrote: can sometimes answer it quick and blunt.

<-- blunt, this guy

DM Narshe wrote: As for QC, I've said it already. They don't need flak from other players (sorta like this thread in parts) and they discuss things that don't need to be known by other players. Like exploits.

How is anything in this thread flak directed at the QC team, where has anyone said they were doing a poor job? The point of this is to explore ways to do things better, if possible. Until perfection is achieved anything can be improved upon.

And since you suggest a problem of perspective, let me share for you some of mine. I have attempted in the past to work both IC and with Rasael on content development, specifically a custom spell. The process was insanely frustrating from a player perspective because the feedback never included reasons why a cool idea wasn't possible or was too strong, just that it was. Having access to the QC discussions, even the old, locked ones, would give some insight into how and why decisions are made the way they are. It is my sincere belief that the more people have access to this information the more quality ideas the player base will be able to generate.

Imagine this: "You want to work on RP that involves creation of a custom spell, cool, here is a link to the last time we did this, and the process that we went through. Use that as a guideline and then we can brainstorm some ideas..."

Wouldn't the ability to have that kind of relationship with the community actually decrease the workload of our volunteers? If the ideas that were submitted for coding or tested had already been vetted by the standards set forth by our own team? Would it not also be a simple matter to open a subforum for exploit testing that remains private?

Thank you for allowing this thread to resume on topic. But on the suggestion that one sits back for a moment to gain some insight. I suggest you reflect on the way you entered this conversation as well. I understand you are a volunteer DM and that you put forth a lot of effort to make sure we all have a good experience, but I personally take issue with what I feel was a series of serious accusations that I was trolling or attempting to harass anyone and insults, or that I was somehow trying to instigate some sort of flame war or argument. I have done nothing to deserve the things that were said, and I absolutely expect an apology.

Edit: I want to add that during my attempt to craft a custom spell Rasael was very informative and forthcoming about the coding limitations of the engine, but no one was forthcoming about balance type issues.

Boddynock wrote:*snip*

I never said the flak was from this thread. I'm predicting it if we opened up the QC forums. Even reading back on locked threads it would likely earn them flak from someone based on some opinion they had about whatever was discussed on the locked topic.

Let me give you a hypothetical:

Topic on Weapon Vampirism.
"What should the item cap be?" <--- it's +3 btw. An easy question to answer if it were ever asked.
"Oh but they can exploit such-and-such way." <--- we're not going to go through all the locked threads and snip exploits.
"Yes but even the game mechanics treat it like this." <--- arguably an exploit as well. Doesn't really need to be highlighted so it can be abused.
"And what about builds? Any build like this-and-that would benefit far too much. It would unbalance them." <--- immediate flak target
"If we do this with Vampirism then we have to add that." <---- gets voted down in another thread, active discussion. People wonder why and then begin to prod for it and get upset when, once again, it's a no-go.



I can see how your case (I remember it quite well) can see benefit from those threads. I can only remember a few spells developed by players and that was back when we had more active updates. I was hoping yours would take off as well but I couldn't follow it too closely because I have a ton of rules regarding what I can and can't do as well. Sorry for that.

Our QC guys actually like responding to questions though. I won't say it's a requirement for being QC, but it's something we look at and try to promote.

Perhaps the solution then is to have a different discussion about aspects of the QC discussions the community COULD benefit from and trying to put something together to achieve that goal. I absolutely volunteer to help with this in any way I can.

And the spell development failure was not a failure on your part, or something you should apologize for. It seems to me that it is simply highlighting a failure of our system. The RP around that research was a lot of fun while it lasted, but the lack of a set system for that sort of content creation limits people from pursuing that avenue. Shouldn't the goal be to encourage RP of all sorts? Is there a way to facilitate this, create a system that lets players know "Hey this is doable and this is how to go about it"?

Well the general system we have for stuff that might be added or changed to the server is that it requires a decent focus of roleplay, involving a bunch of people and a decent amount of time dedicated to it.

We try to not cater too much to spur-of-the-moment stuff. It takes precious development resources.

That's our typical system for those sorts of things though. I remember I had sent you a bunch of suggestions and hooked you up with the people you needed to talk with. The aforementioned restrictions that prevent me from shoehorning my own agendas prevented me from pushing it through though.

There are several issues as to why QC is better left restricted. The mention of exploits have already been made. We have a whole subforum for reporting and testing exploits. You may see it as cynical that we don't have faith in every player to not abuse exploits if they were all public knowledge, but such faith is unfortunately rather naive. This is the internet, after all.

We also have access to some more inner workings of the server (though not as much as the devs), by virtue of having to test them. Consider the fact that we've all been experiencing attacks on the server recently. Opening up information that can be used by such attackers (if not necessarily in the same way as current attacks) is an exceptionally bad idea.

Furthermore, we are in the business of discussing balance. This sometimes include discussions about nerfing. It's much easier to conduct these discussions without being shot at by passionate players who may be affected by eventual changes. If these discussions were open to public, even if only readable, we would in one way or another have to fend off a barrage of questions and comments related to our discussions, taking away time and energy from the actual discussion. And then when the discussions are completed and decisions have been made, we are better equipped to deal with complaints about those decisions because we've most likely had to reason past such objections already.

Essentially, it saves a lot of energy from the volunteering QC not to have to be constantly scrutinised by the rest of the players.

There isn't a QC vs the Players thing going on. QC are all also players, after all. If you want to talk about having faith in players, perhaps have some faith that QC is doing their job appropriately without your supervision.

Lag wrote:Why isn't QC transparent?

It is, overall. You get things implemented, and reasons for that. You just don't see the process as it happens, but you get explanations every time you ask about every single implementation.

I keep seeing references to hidden topics and discussions that are simply out of reach to me. Individuals continue to make allusions to these conversations in several topics. I, having no access to these topics, am simply at a loss in these conversations. Further, the attitude that those not privy to these conversations are somehow inferior to those that are is very unbecoming.

Quality contol should not, in my opinion, be a private club.

The fact you see references to those topics is proof enough of transparence. Taking decisions is a process. As to the not so veiled accusation of elitism, it's like accusing Luna of keeping the source code away from every other player because he "thinks we are inferior".

Furthermore, SUGGESTIONS (decisions are not taken by QC) take a lot of time already: the more people you add to the discussion, the less you can solve within the year.

I do not think individuals who are part of these discussions should be able to hide behind a private wall on the forums.

Who's hiding? I think you're the one hiding behind an alt accounts, more than "people"...I've never seen a QC member hiding in 4 years.

The individuals who represent the qc team are the best, most knowledgeable, and qualified to take part in these conversations. I feel it is a shame that these opinions and reasonings are not available for everyone to see. Even if it's made public simply so those knowledgeable individuals don't have to keep rehashing the same arguments, apparently, over and over.

Didn't you just say they weren't the best, and that implying they have some knowledge when people aggressively talk crap on the forums is "umbecoming"?

Repeating arguments over and over again is necessary anyway. Even long timers that should supposedly know better continue to make the same arguments and incur in the same oversights in the name of bias over and over again, so why would they change? We don't repeat stuff to new people: it's mostly the old ones burning out that lash out accordingly...as you have seen in "other threads"...

The quality control forum should be public and read only to every registered user but remain closed for contribution by anyone not selected for that forum.

No, it shouldn't. Even a fraction of that, a glimpse, when you try to explain something, becomes a flame war in a day. Not a chance.

Last time this came up I argued against it. Those arguments are still valid and have been made here; and yet I can't help but feel that the siege mentality being displayed in this thread is the best argument for the opposite...

You people overestimate how much is going on in QC forums.
Here's a screen of the current state of QC subforums:



It's not ideal for representing the general picture, so let's group the forums by their actual role:

---

Ready For Implementation

This forum is for items that are ready to be implemented or are already on the server for private or public use and testing. So, the role is: Bug reports

Spell Rebalance

This is a subforum for old project from 2011 that had since been completed. So, the role is: Archive

Closed Issues

This subforum consists of items that have passed through all stages of team review and have since then already been fixed or added. It is kept around in case anyone ever needs to come back to it. So, the role is: Archive

Archived

Random stuff that is no longer relevant be it technicalities for QC access or process, sub-forum related stuff or the stuff that is out of team's area of expertise (server hosting, for ex.) So, the role is: Archive

Crafting

Feedback on the Crafting project: conceptualizing, prototype testing all the stuff associated with it. So, the role is: Dev Feedback

Feats, Spells

Discussions about adding/reviewing/changing various feats, out of the scope of adding new PRCs. So, the role of both is: Content Concept

PRCs

Discussions about adding/reviewing/changing various classes, complete with class - only Feats and Spells. So, the role is: Content Concept

Area

Subforum for feedback to devs who sumbit their areas for a fresh look before adding it to the server. So, the role is:Dev Feedback

Bugs & Exploits

Reports of bugs and exploits. Consists of its own Closed Issues subforum in case some bugs ever resurface again. So, the role is: Bug reports (most of it is archive though)

Framework Projects

Discussions and feedback about a large-scale project. The role is:Dev Feedback

Items

Conceptualization and creation of new itemsets, stores, etc. So, the role is: Content Concept

---

So, in the end here's the actual spread of posts:



(Interactive version)

And out of all this stuff how much do you think can really be open to everyone?

Content conceptualization is out of the question just because of the sheer amount of flame it would cause from the vocal few. And as much as I want to, I don't believe in community self moderation over the internet.

Bug reports are obviously out of the question.

Dev Feedback requires insight into inner workings of the engine and is mostly filled with technicalities.

Archive, could be opened, sure, but that's not exactly worth it, in my opinion just because the info there can be terribly out of date.

I can see area testing being done by everyone actually working.

In conclusion: I am not against openning up a portion of QC forums in read-only mode to everyone, but as I see it, there is not much content that actually can be reviewed by everyone. If you can come up with a working scheme, by all means.

At the same time, QC members aren't special, they are players like everyone else and their role isn't a privilige, if you are technically sound and can actually find yourself working out a compromise that benefits majority, and not yourself, then by all means you are welcome to participate in the dialogue.

P.S.: having worked in different manufactoring enviroments, QC reviews are never open to the consumer without some heavy editing. Just food for thought.