04-12-2017, 01:35 AM | #101 |
Boulder Badge
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 244
|
I wasn't gonna say anything before things have somewhat established, mostly because I wasn't an active forumgoer and/or player in general and I think my opinions may or may not go against the consensus of UPN FB, but I think current situation is that people are so reluctant to commit to one idea because there are still dissent voices here and there, and I think the lack of a stopper (i.e. mods) is what stopping the new forum structure from actually forming.
My questions: 1. At which point of discussion should we think an issue has been discussed enough and can be executed? 2. How important and how urgent should an issue be with regards to getting the basic structure of the forum working again? 3. How much importance should we place on an individual's opinions vs the consensus? a. How do we determine consensus (i.e. do we quantify opinions and how or do we "elect" a person to represent the majority)? b. How are we choosing the person to lead the UPN FB, since I'm under the impression that UPN FB is having a representative democratic system rather than a dictatorship (goes without saying)? With regards to the proposal, I'd rather not add my opinion into the pool until my questions are clarified. |
04-12-2017, 05:25 AM | #102 |
Insanity
|
I can't advocate for others in terms of their opinions, but I can throw in my two cents on your questions.
1) I personally feel that most of the things within the proposal have been discussed enough to the point where we can truly execute them if we want to, with some details that would still need to be hammered out. One of the major things is that people will discuss something to death and someone would still not be happy. If a topic eventually just seems to be major agreement after a discussion on it then I feel that it could be put into place. 2) Being honest, getting a structure back up is pretty important. So if there are any issues with anything proposed with the basic structure, it should be brought up so that the community can work together and solve the issue. 3) A person's opinion should matter in the terms of discussion, but when a general conclusion is agreed by the community at large, I feel that the individual should accept it. While it is limiting to the person, yes, we're at a point where there is a need for structure in order for FB to start running again. The problem with doing things like this at the moment is that we can't please everyone, and that while we need to be open to alternate ideas, if something is decided on then it should be final. A) Consensus generally is when the community/participants in the discussion start to basically rehash the same core idea over and over again. Being honest, have elections makes me feel uneasy since it implies that there will be a political structure, which FB doesn't need. If people are still divided on a topic, then the conversation should continue unless it's getting nowhere, where in that case the topic can be shelved. If there is an overwhelming positive/negative response, then I think the answer is clear. B) Like I said earlier, politics makes me feel uneasy in terms of a RP. I know the old mod team had more than an iron grip, but we need to focus less that it was the position that did it, but more the people. There is a need for balance of power, yes, but there is no need to be political or evoke political systems. I know I wrote one possible way to elect people when I wrote the proposal, which was primarily the ideas of the rest of the Discord server compiled into what is now here in the forums. I do agree that we need mods sooner than latter, but choosing them is still up in the air because I feel people are afraid of history repeating itself. We need a mod team that actually listen to people, and are willing to help solve their problems. We need people who've had GM experience before to some degree, and are level-headed and reliable when things need to get done. We can spend an eternity discussing how to do it. Action is required now, and if that's some impromptu election then let there be one. Things have already started to stagnate a bit as it is...
__________________
I fill my lungs with everything You want someone that I can't be You say it's insanity, but I say that's my life Fizzy Bubbles |
04-12-2017, 03:45 PM | #103 |
Getting married! :D
|
Time for my response, I'll keep it short and to the point as I feel I've made my opinion known already as far as the points go that I have a strong opinion about.
Zones and Updates: This all looks good to me. Distribution and Balance of Power: I agree with all the things said about members, ZA's and SO's. About the whole moderator thing I'm not going to repeat my opinion on that, but with how the proposal is written at the moment I can live with it. I'm happy to see a bottom-up approach throughout the power structure and that's what I want to see more than anything. Economy: Rare Candies no longer a currency is a good thing. Just coins and cash is enough indeed. And what's written about cash is fine. Now coins: I disagree that the untradeable nature, I think thye should be able to be traded just like anything else, especially if they're also made harder to obtain (harder as in more effort I suppose, rather than even less frequent?). Alternatively, if coins are indeed made untradeable, there should absolutely be an exchange rate between cash and coins. Because if not, progress in obtaining any currency will entirely depend upon the speed in which updates are received for whichever form of obtainment is chosen. Pokemon: Wishlist idea, the new AC, Breeding, Event Eggs, I'm in favor of all of those. The Egg Zone, not so much. I'm not favor of all those mini-zones in general (including the already existing Evolution Zone and the proposed Coin Zone) because it makes things last unnecessary long that really don't have to take that long. There will be a enough need for people for all the regular zones and shops and other positions already, and I for one think we should focus the manpower on that first before we even start think about adding zones like this. If RP effort is the problem, I would suggest a single post RP Challenge rather than a complete zone, no matter how "short" the adventure may be. The Daycare as proposed sounds good to me. One thing though, what's wrong with power-leveling? Restrictions to avoid abuse is good, but if people want to power their Pokémon to level 100 as fast as possible, let them. As for moves, I am not much in favor of letting Pokémon learn every move in existence, but I can see the fun of it too. So if there are some restrictions, and also a not too high limit on how many unnatural moves a Pokémon can learn I'm for it. Items and Shops: Sounds good as written. Bases: Totally in favor of everything. Easily accessible and cheap bases is good for everyone. And I might have to use my Photoshop "skills" again too XD
__________________
|
04-12-2017, 04:15 PM | #104 |
Blades and Butterflies
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,756
|
We have a lot of ideas on the table, including the FB proposal from Discord. I think, at this point, we can more or less say that anyone who has been following the thread should have a fairly accurate representation of the community's ideas and concerns.
I propose that individuals who are interested in becoming FB moderators should post, either in this thread or in a new one designated for this purpose, confirming their interest in running for the position. In this post, they should answer four questions (obviously up for debate as to whether these four are the ones we want to ask): 1) As a moderator, how do you intend to address the ideas and concerns of the community? 2) What is your short-term plan as a Fizzy Bubbles moderator? If you were modded tomorrow, what would your plan be for the week ahead? 3) What is your long-term plan as a Fizzy Bubbles moderator? How do you want the RP to look in a year's time? 4) What is your strategy for dealing with community conflict and "problem members"? We can move from there based on these answers.
__________________
|
04-12-2017, 05:40 PM | #105 |
Mrow?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Camping the White Market
Posts: 6,934
|
So while I 100% agree we need to have this discussion now that things have somewhat stagnated and because we will likely need mods to properly organize ideas beyond the base that we have already set up, I do also agree that it should be its own thread for discussion as we shouldn't eclipse the remaining points of discussion on the current proposal here.
That said we still need to work on... actually properly organizing how we deal with discussions from here on out so we don't get duplicate threads again. |
04-12-2017, 05:59 PM | #106 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
|
So Let me just drop a short blurb after ive skimmed the proposal:
Bases (because this is important to my character): I like the idea of having a starting base for people, but I mostly have two questions that whoever was thinking of this could probably answer for me: 1, are we allowed to design the layout of said Base (within reason) and 2, you say the Base Shop will be cash operated, I would assume this means Poke Dollars as opposed to coins, but an explicit word on this would be good. the bigger question now is who will make base maps like mm has lmao Wishlist: Love this idea. I know some older folks would have loved it back in the days when i just occasionally peeked in this forum for fun (here's looking at Talon's multi-year pursuit of smoochum). The idea of having a better shot at pinning down a Pokemon that's been evading you is a good one in my opinion. Egg Zone: I'm kinda iffy on this, but I can't make an argument one way or the other. I'm just torn between an opinion like Esca's and not wanting eggs to just be "gacha like before, but a bit more restricted." The rest I'm either good with or didn't have the time to get a good look at.
__________________
|
04-12-2017, 07:34 PM | #107 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
I think the division of PokeDollar and Coins need be a bit better defined. I understand PokeDollars are for shop usage, but Coins being used for luxury items is very vague. In MMOs and other transaction games, luxury items tend to be skins or something that expands the player's storage or breaking restrictions, but FB doesn't really have those types of things currently. I guess TMs being unlocked from in-game restriction (like older FB TMs) could make them more luxurious. What about Evolution Items? Those are currently Coin items, but should evolution be a luxury or a normal purchase item from shops? Will Daycare start charging per level? Will there be a Cable Club transaction fee? Will future Storage additions require Coin payment for expansion?
Also, I do think Daycare and Weekly Rare Candy Monday overlap each other too much. The downside of your Pokemon being held for a week is almost never a detriment, even when updates were fast and plentiful, and it takes away from Rare Candy's usage, causing them to be stocked up. Demonetization of Rare Candy also isn't going to be as easy as it just making it not a currency in Shops. Remember, Rare Candy originally only gained value in the Cable Club, not anywhere else. If it can be traded, it will still hold a lot of value in people's eyes. And with Daycare, it has little reason to be fed to Pokemon and will continue to be stockpiled again. Remember, money has value because we believe it has value, not because of rarity or preciousness. I also want to bring up that the various forms of PVP might be a bad idea. I understand players might want to face off or do some kind of Gym Battle and claim a title or something, but considering one of the biggest problems in Fizzy Bubbles is the lack of updates in zones, things like PVP and Gym Battles might take away from updates that could be otherwise used in a zone. Maybe outsource some of it to the ASB as exhibition matches...? There's currently no discussion about incentivizing players to become updaters. Is there already a rewards program in place? There is talk of disciplinary action, and yet none on rewards. I still remember a very short lived discussion about punishing people who didn't update when I was still in modship and it didn't help anything. The blanket 2-3 zone limit feels silly. This limit should be put into place after you've decided on how many zones there will be and which zones. If you only end up implementing 3 zones, it's a dumb thing to even bring up the idea. And since FB is just restarting, would you really implement all that many? Also, can the word Updatee stop being used? Not only is it not a real word, but it also makes a player that goes into the zones sound like a burden. Call them adventurers, call them trainers, call them explorers or players. Anything is better than a sterile term like updatee. |
04-12-2017, 07:46 PM | #108 |
Dance till you're dead~
|
I don't know if it is going to be a thing but I remember an idea being kicked around for the PvP zones that we could allow ASB members to join with their squads for the funzies, to increase member camaraderie between the two subforums.
It could be a thing to work with them for~
__________________
|
04-12-2017, 07:55 PM | #109 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Candies, in fairness, we also used for shops and if I remember correctly had some other purpose but I can't recall so it probably didn't exist. Shop value was part of it (this was mostly gotten rid of but the Move Tutor still uses them), but trading value was also part of it. Granted, this is something we really can't get rid off other than completely barring candies to be traded. They're always going to have value, just like other things, such as evolution stones and TMs. Removing the weekly Rare Candy would only further increase the value, so its not the smartest idea there either.
We do have an updator rewards system actually in place from Tess FB, but I think the specifics of that as well as the specifics of what we want to buy with coins should be discussed later. There is a lot of smaller, more technical stuff that I think we should have a mod for in order to focus discussion.
__________________
|
04-12-2017, 10:13 PM | #110 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
I personally dislike Daycare more than Monday Candies. If Daycare charged Pokedollars and got more expensive at higher levels, it might be more fair. As is it's a bit too 'shop taking away from zones' powerful for my liking.
|
04-12-2017, 11:14 PM | #111 | |
Blades and Butterflies
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,756
|
Quote:
Currency in general needs a lot more work, though, I agree. Also, the use of updatee is totally my fault - blame the fact that I now do financial and government writing as part of how I make a living. Sterile language is what I do for the better part of my day, so... bleedover unfortunately happens.
__________________
|
|
04-13-2017, 11:19 PM | #112 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
PC slots Spoiler: show Trainer Battle trophies Spoiler: show Moves with which to RP Spoiler: show
__________________
|
|
04-16-2017, 05:13 PM | #113 |
Blades and Butterflies
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Spreading my Rot
Posts: 2,756
|
All fair points, which I hadn't previously considered. PC slots and Trainer Battles are still concepts which seem to be up in the air, but their role in incentivizing leveling should be seriously considered during the restructuring - and RP, of course, is always an important motivator.
__________________
|
04-16-2017, 05:35 PM | #114 |
a quick fly cuppa
|
Would it be prudent to retain the current 6-in-party-plus-44-slots-for-50 team spaces, but to allow for extra slots to be unlocked after finishing an adventure? The way I see it is that as your characters progress and develop, their renown would spread and reach the ears of the professory types, who would grant said trainer increased PC privileges given that the trainer has proven themselves capable of caring and training their team. Just a thought, where a finished adventure, depending on length, would give, say, 3 slots for a short, and 10 for an extended adventure. Middle-road would provide a classic 6 slots.
|
04-16-2017, 06:06 PM | #115 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
|
Can I propose that the whole "shops make Pokémon unusable" thing be scrapped? It just discourages RP and is totally counterproductive.
|
04-16-2017, 06:09 PM | #116 | |
Sayonara Bye Bye
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,003
|
Quote:
^
__________________
|
|
04-16-2017, 06:10 PM | #117 |
Dance till you're dead~
|
I third this motion, god this was an annoying rule.
__________________
|
04-16-2017, 06:10 PM | #118 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Yeah that was just dumb. Completely agree.
__________________
|
04-16-2017, 06:15 PM | #119 |
Getting married! :D
|
I fifth that motion. I've had Pokémon stuck more times than I like...
Also, PC slots should be killed, and Trainer Battles should stay :x
__________________
|
04-16-2017, 06:33 PM | #120 | |
Marsh Badge
|
I haven’t responded to this in a while so apologies that I’m going through a few things at once.
Quote:
----- >Trading currency I do actually prefer the idea of only keeping one currency as a trading tool between members while making the other more character-earned. >Exchanging currency I hadn’t paid much thought to the issue when it was raised on Discord, but going off of the fact that coins are earned by things other than zone replies means we have no direct plan in place yet to ear coins – as most of these out-of-zone events will be put on hold until everything settles. A one-way exchange seems fair to me, though as MM and GS said before me; at a cost. You spend Pokédollars but get a slightly lesser value of coins in exchange. >Move Tutor I’m personally still in favour of price-dependent limitation on earning moves instead of a time-dependent limitation. More a personal matter; I just don’t like having to continuously wait week after week – I prefer being able to get what I want after waiting one long period of time and then getting it all in one go. Pretty much like how TMs are taught now. But this isn’t a hot topic for me. >SoaT The way I see the SoaT is that it’s a place where you spend one item to get another item – much easier to just get that last item in the first place. In agreement though that if we keep the shard-to-stone transfer that we change the quest for it. >Bases I’m all for the starting bases and the cheaper prices. Just wondering how current bases will be affected and whether we would still have locations/real estate. >PC slots My preference was to have a (drastically) lower amount of PC slots but a higher output of PC slot obtainment. Basically by achieving milestones for the player, their Pokémon or their adventures (which most have more than a few of by now). But if we’re going to sharpen the rules on obtaining new Pokémon then limiting PC slots would be almost unnecessary as others have stated. >Egg zone and other minizones I’ve already given my piece about this. I agree with Escalion that I don’t like the idea of all these minizones, but for different reasons. I just don’t like having all these zones where players have to RP but they’re all working towards obtaining one set reward; Hidden Abilities, location-dependent evolutions, hatching eggs. I want to hook in here on Escalion’s idea of a ‘RP challenge’ – something that would require writing but is a bit different than roleplaying. Stealing the idea off of Marion’s old ‘RPG Prompt Thread’ as well. Using eggs as an example. After a person obtained an egg, they go to the nursery to obtain a RP challenge. The challenge in this case would have the player fulfil a small list of criteria or a roleplay situation. So for instance it could be ”imagine your character and your Pokémon came across this situation – how would you handle it?” and/or ”try to use these words in your passage.” The player would then be challenged on writing something that’s more specific to moulding their character- how they would act or attempt to overcome an obstacle. Kind of like a Visionary Glade or Base post but a situation has been provided as a challenge. It would give players a chance to try and flesh out their characters more I believe. >Demonetizing Rare Candies All that’s being done I believe is stopping them from being used as currency in shops. Rare Candies will still hold the value that players give to it and use for trades – that was expected I believe. >Updator rewards We haven’t reached that topic yet. >Zone limitation 2-3 was an example, not a hard rule. >Updatee My fault as well. I use player, member, character and updatee interchangeably. >Shop Pokémon used in zones In agreement. It was annoying to have to keep track off and I don’t believe anyone was really monitoring this anyway. And yes to removing the whole party/PC slot balance. Just make it simple; a player can only have six party Pokémon in a zone at a time, and you don't have to use the same six Pokémon in every zone.
__________________
Last edited by Ex-Admiral Insane; 04-16-2017 at 06:53 PM. |
|
04-16-2017, 06:44 PM | #121 |
An actual game I made!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Literally the internet
Posts: 9,145
|
I'd like to make known my emphatic agreement with all of this.
|
04-16-2017, 06:58 PM | #122 |
Insanity
|
Re: EAI's proposal on how to change mini zones.
Honestly that actually sounds more like a chore than anything else to me. There really isnt a problem with the mini-zones and it allows people a way to quickly rp and do small developments without having to ponder on how to fulfill the prompt. The "for one goal" arguement is flimsy as well since I know a lot of people go to zones with the goal of capturing a Pokemon in mind while having a longer, fleshed out adventure. But regardless, these "RP Challenges" sound pretty tedious to do and just feels like an immediate turn off.
__________________
I fill my lungs with everything You want someone that I can't be You say it's insanity, but I say that's my life Fizzy Bubbles |
04-16-2017, 07:05 PM | #123 |
Flashbacker
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 9,068
|
The primary argument against mini-zones is still the necessity of redirecting updater labour into updating the adventures. No matter how short they are this will be considerable because of the number of people who will be in these zones at a time, even if you use restrictive measures on how often people can adventure there. Unless you answer the updater drain issue that mini-zones create I really do not think they should be implemented in a proper fashion. It is all well and dandy saying "well I'll just update it myself" in Discord but being entirely blunt there are very few people on the forums who would handle that kind of burdern when it is forced upon them, never mind voluntarily.
|
04-16-2017, 07:24 PM | #125 |
Marsh Badge
|
>Raves
Two things I want to add: 1) Add a guideline that updaters shouldn't pick up another player if there are other updaters still in need of having an updatee. I'm anticipating that a lot of people might want to update and we might get close to a 1:1 ratio of updaters to players. It'd be fair if everyone was given someone to update. 2) Perhaps add the clause that like in the FFAZ, updaters should post to indicate they're picking someone up. This just to avoid having five people write five different replies to one updater and having them fight over it later. For anyone not on Discord. There was discussion held about having a temporary zone so that players may roleplay whilst we wait for FB to pick itself up again. Similar to the FFAZ it's supposed to be a bit more free in terms of who can pick up an updatee. Right now the idea is that anyone previously approved as an updator can update players in this zone. Members who are not yet an updator can fill in a simple application form (that's being made as we speak). If a certain number of people approve the application the member may update in this zone as well.
__________________
Last edited by Ex-Admiral Insane; 04-16-2017 at 07:51 PM. |
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|