@JaggedAppliance
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on some points.
I think it's fine to work on some feature without the intention to include it. It could just be an experiment. It could be because it doesn't work out the way you think it would for the user. Or because you're not happy with the implementation of it for the future maintainer. I do this type of experimentation a lot and it helps me with learning and exploring what is possible. Even if some of it never ends up in the product directly. it's not obvious in my mind that if I spent time on something that it also means that I want to see it become part of the product in question.
As an example, initially I had a focus on better graphics. I had a great proof of concept, but I was unable to make an implementation that did not have a terrible experience for everyone involved. I dropped it at the time. Years later with the hard work and effort of @BlackYps we now have the shaders. And the map generator and editor support for the new shaders too. It's a good user experience because of some automation he included into the map editor. Now it's a great time to include it. For those that are interested, see also his work on GitHub here and here.
@JaggedAppliance said in Another dumb idea from Dorset:
I'm not sure what the point was about the cybran nano. Just that that was game design happening? This is getting silly now but yes it's related to game design, but again it doesn't make anyone a game designer if they were involved.
I did not make this claim. It certainly was not the intention. I tried to make the claim that the decision is about game design - not that the people making the decision are game designers because of it. How people perceive a game is all about game design. And this made an impact on their perception of the game for some users. Interestingly enough, just like it did for you.
I find it interesting that you write that you do not understand why I brought it up. And you conclude the same paragraph with that it was a bad change that damaged the identity of Cybran. That is why I brought it up! And that identity is perceived, it is in my opinion related to the design of the game. Just like the majority of changes are except those that are purely technical (same user experience, but better code structure or better performing code).
I think we have a different definition of game design, and specifically where game design starts and ends. In my opinion, even some mod authors can be characterized as game designers. They introduce new mechanics, new rule sets, sometimes even entirely new genres (looking at you Dota). But just because you are a mod author does not imply that you are also a (good) game designer. Just like people who are good at the game also does not imply that they are a (good) game designer. But in my opinion we definitely need people that look at the game from the perspective of a game designer. Which is also why I think the teams should be merged - just like they were initially if my history is correct.
Statutes are whatever. Let's be honest, it was probably written in thirty seconds. It reads like that anyway.
I agree with you that it feels like these statutes can use some work. But I disagree with dismissing them. Without the intention to patronize you, but statutes exist to help the community understand what a team is doing here, and how the team is supposed to work. It originates from this proposal that comes with this document that was approved during a general meeting of the association. To quote the document at the end:
The detailed responsibilities of each team are intentionally not specified here so they can be changed without requiring a GM. Instead the teams have the duty to define their area of responsibilities and write them down somewhere public.
Which is what the statutes are. The team can update them as they see fit. Take for example the status of the DevOps, Game and Promotion teams. They're much more informative about how the team operates, even if some roles are vacant at the moment. Back to the statutes of the balance team - for now it's all we have to work with to understand the role of the balance team.
I appreciate you sharing your approach as balance team lead.
And I agree that describing the average mod author as both passionate and (to be) crazy (with their ideas) is probably a great description, in a good way .
I also agree that it's important to guard the game from ideas that just don't work. To come back to my earlier post - I'd like to express that even if something should not be in the game, it can still be interesting to just explore the idea with the mod author/contributor instead of just getting a 'no'.
The mod author is clearly passionate about FAForever in some fashion by spending so much time and effort. The conversation does not have to take hours, something as simple as just having a decent conversation (over voice) about the idea together can be sufficient. It can be meaningful for both parties, even if it is just about discussing the context of it and why it was declined.
Which brings me back to my first paragraph of this post. To me, these conversations can be more meaningful then the changes becoming part of the product. And that conversation can bring in a new team member in the future. It certainly worked that way for me. The reason I am here is because @Uveso spent some effort on my first mods and/or pull requests to help streamline them. His open and friendly attitude is what made this place feel accessible. Thanks for that .
