 | |  | | ![]()  | Sylverone said: | | It's sort of an anology; The Noctis community will act as a democratic republic of sorts. We all vote on what the most important issues are, lay them out, then trust our representatives (the dev-team) to work within the framework originally laid out. |
Specifically in regards to the mission plan and core layout; I'd say that the represented doesn't write them, the representatives do. However, the represented does vote on whether or not they accept it.
I think the primary reason why I think that the initial drafting of the mission plan and core layout should be done in a private forum is because a general thread most likely won't serve its purpose. Instead it will essentially turn into another ideas thread, with the same points brought up every single page in a non-discussion fashion. I'm also sure that the initial draft created in private will contain at the very least 80% if not 100% of what needs to be said. | |  | |  |
|
  | |  | | ![]() Excuse me if I go on a stale subject, but why did the idea of secret and hidden areas came in the first place? I would imagine that necessary if the designers were to discuss game puzzles and plot surprises, and wanted to prevent spoilers. But that would be a rare exception on N:T, I think.
Up to now, the community has not really trolled or something into the developer threads, on the contrary, a good number of comments by non-developers have been fresh and enriching. Personally I wouldn't like to lose that, nor I see the need. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Yayo on Mar 22, 2008 01:32 |
| | | | ![]() I agree with barebones.
nothing has to be closed.
y. | | | | |
|
   | |  | | ![]() | Hello!  said: | | I think the primary reason why I think that the initial drafting of the mission plan and core layout should be done in a private forum is because a general thread most likely won't serve its purpose. Instead it will essentially turn into another ideas thread, with the same points brought up every single page in a non-discussion fashion. I'm also sure that the initial draft created in private will contain at the very least 80% if not 100% of what needs to be said. |
I understand what you mean. When I made my post originally, I hadn't seen the "brainstorming ideas" topic. Actually, that topic has served pretty much the purpose that I was imagining. I believe that there are a few more issues that might need to be covered, but overall that topic should allow most ideas to get out in the open.
| Hello! said: | | Specifically in regards to the mission plan and core layout; I'd say that the represented doesn't write them, the representatives do. However, the represented does vote on whether or not they accept it. |
Naturally, the devteam will have the last say in how to continue, because they are the ones who'll be closest to the code. The represented don't write the official plans, but thier views and wishest should be the foremost consideration when the devteam is making the layout. From that point forward, it will be like you say; the devteam will announce the current plans and possible directions, and the community will vote.
Also (if the following sparks discussion or thought, please quote it and discuss in a new/other topic):
This might belong in another discussion, but is this project going to be open source? I personally believe that each release should be given along with the source. To me, this is like insurance that no matter what happens as far as the main project is concerned, the project could be picked up and continued at any point in the future.
I, at least, believe the source should be released at some point. I think that every (game) project (at least projects of NocT's nature) should leave behind something that could be rediscovered and built upon by a completely different group of people in the arbitrary future. For instance, look at Nethack (which I've known about for a while but just recently started playing); even if it's fabled DevTeam were to just mysteriously dissappear (I haven't seen any evidence that it's happened), the project could be continued because they've released the source code with every update. I believe that in spirit, Noctis has just as much intrinsic value as Nethack, and so, it should be available to the future.
Excuse my ramblings.  | |  | |  |
|
| sun + black hole = fwoosh! |
|
  | |  | | ![]() | Sylverone said: | | This might belong in another discussion, but is this project going to be open source? |
Yes, it will be  | |  | |  |
|
| | | | ![]() | Shadowlord said: | | Sylverone said: | | This might belong in another discussion, but is this project going to be open source? |
Yes, it will be |
Yeah, now that I think further, it was a silly question. As I said. Excuse my ramblings. Xd | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() ...Are we founding a country? O.O
That is certaintly what it sounds like from the bits and pieces I've read so far. Either way, I voted for the fourth option, in which educated individuals who are actually doing the programming could discuss issues without the peanut gallery judging everything that is said. | | | | |
|
| a title is a curious thing... |
|
  | |  | | ![]() I think we could use more than one manager. The project already has some obvious leaders, such as Hello , Shadowlord, Megagun, and Puck. If these four(at least) could be given higher authority, I think the project could run much more smoothly. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Puck on Mar 27, 2008 20:56 |
| | | | ![]() Well no matter how you look at it the yeas appear to have won, so I suppose we should move on to nominations and decide definitely how many managers we want. One? Four? Ten?
My final nominations are: Barebones, Hello! , Shadowlord and Cryoburner
Also as a small side note I still think a fully public but separate forum for technical discussion would be a good idea, to help the less technically inclined among us more easily sort out which conversations they're interested in and let us devs threadspam all we want. | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() Thanks for the nomination, Puck, but I step down; I prefer to worry about technical rather than global/organization issues. And because I'm a lazy bastard.
My votes go to Shadowlord or Cryoburner, or both at the same time. | | | | |
|
| written by Magnulus on Mar 27, 2008 22:34 |
| | | | ![]() I refuse to make a nomination because I don't think any one person should be the manager of this project. Not just as a matter of principle, but also because I wouldn't fully be able to trust any ONE person within the group of active contributors.
And I still think the poll was hamstringed by the fact that extra options appeared during the poll and that I KNOW I've seen more than one person agreeing that a group of teamsters would be the best way to manage it. | | | | |
|
| a title is a curious thing... |
|
| | | | ![]() | Magnulus said: | | I refuse to make a nomination because I don't think any one person should be the manager of this project. Not just as a matter of principle, but also because I wouldn't fully be able to trust any ONE person within the group of active contributors. |
I might not be able to trust one person either, so I do think that what Shadowlord said is a good idea:
| Shadowlord said: | | If someone objects to something the manager has decided, the manager or others could still open referendum polls asking if the community agrees with such-and-such action, with Yes and No options. |
If this rule would be used extensively, I think everyone could be made happy. | | | | |
|
 | |  | | ![]() | Granpire viking man said: | | Shadowlord said: | | If someone objects to something the manager has decided, the manager or others could still open referendum polls asking if the community agrees with such-and-such action, with Yes and No options. |
If this rule would be used extensively, I think everyone could be made happy. |
If the rule was used extensively what would the point of a manager be? For a face? For focusing the blame when something goes wrong? There will always be objections. | |  | |  |
|
| | | | ![]() I've been watching this, and it seems to me that it's goint to end up team-focused regardless. It's just the nature of the project. I mean, look at the basic coding/prototyping/discussion that's already happening. There's already more or less a team structure.
You know what will really make people happy? Coding the game. Watching the game grow and mature. Eventually, playing the game. We all want the same thing, and I don't think there's one of us here that wants NocT more than any other. So thusly, I say let it organize itself into whatever it shall. We don't need to form a government here. A system will evolve according to our needs, and we won't really know all of our needs until we're a ways into the project. (Here "we" means the community, or alternately the devteam) | | | | |
|
| written by Yayo on Mar 28, 2008 02:22 |
| | | | ![]() I'm not sure I'd like the idea of someone managing the work... but if the majority like it made in this way... well, ok.
y. | | | | |
|
| 
