 | |  | | ![]()  | Puck said: | | That's likely true. However, if the Noctis Community Sequel doesn't represent the wishes of the Noctis community, then what will it have become? |
Really the only poll so far that the applied to the community in general was the name poll. Sure they can have a say in what they would like the license to include, however, if the community in general selects a license that the developers don't want to contribute code towards, then there will be no sequel. Same goes towards the other development specific topics, the community can have a say, but it should be limited to the actual developers.
Edit: In no way does the above exclude anyone. Anyone who wishes to voice their desires gets to voice them. And to whom it primarily applies makes the choice. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Tom on Mar 20, 2008 04:54 |
 | |  | | ![]() edit: meh, do whatever you want, I'm neither a developer or a senior member of this community, so I probably shouldn't be posting here anyway. | |  | |  |
|
  | |  | | ![]() | Tom said: |
I don't like this at all. Who decides who gets to use the secret area? Isn't it possible for a non-developer to have a valuable opinion? Certainly there may be arcane details of implementation they don't care about, but we're not being forced to read threads we have no interest in. Not everything has to be a poll. But if you create a cabal of high-level developers who debate everything in secret, then this is no longer a community project. If you want to handle it that way, fine. But don't then represent it as the "Noctis Community Sequel."
|
Hehehe... I was able to quote you before the edit. : P
I just wanted to say that I mostly agree with that point of view. Just because something doesn't need to be shown to non-developers doesn't mean they won't be interested in seeing how things are progressing. If they don't care about discussing a certain algorithm, they can ignore the conversation. And just because someone isn't actively developing anything for the project doesn't necessarily mean they won't have anything useful to add to discussions.
Having a separate place to hold conversations and polls about technical topics might not necessarily be bad, but making it private would likely deter new contributors from joining, and could make it difficult for those not involved to determine if any progress is being made. I would suggest keeping most conversations here, at least for now. | |  | |  |
|
  | written by Megagun on Mar 20, 2008 07:41 |
| | | | ![]() Also, Postline currently doesn' t allow non-moderators/admins to view hidden forums, so even if we made a hidden forum for developers, Postline would have to have that feature implemented...
Thus, I agree with Cryo's statement that we should keep most conversations here, at least for now, until there is a real need for a hidden subforum. | | | | |
|
| written by Magnulus on Mar 20, 2008 13:11 |
 | |  | | ![]() I can see your points and agree to some degree, but I'd like to add that part of what I was thinking about my suggestion was that you wouldn't have to be a "developer" to be a part of the core team. In fact, I think the team would NEED some people who can't program to diversify the views of those people. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Trad.a on Mar 20, 2008 23:19 |
 | |  | | ![]() | Magnulus said: | I'm voting no.
I don't think we need 'a manager', I think the core of the project's team should all be the collective manager hive-being, like Hello said. However, I will turn that opinion into a "no".
Here's why:
Unless it was Alex, we couldn't ever be entirely sure that the dicta- I mean manager would always be in line with the feel people generally want. One could have a manager voting thread in which the nominated managers would each write a post introducing their views of the project. This would not be a "I would be a good manager because I-" post, it could be something straight and to-the-point like "list the five features you would most like to see in it and the five features you absolutely don't want to see." or something like that.
However, there's still no telling what that manager could end up doing... Like, leaving the project. Then you'd have to go through it all over again, wouldn't you?
Personally, I think the core team needs a hidden forum section to discuss the project in private. The first order of business would have to be "What is this game really about?" which is still something that hasn't been discussed. I've talked earlier about the need for a mission statement of sorts, an agreed-upon set of directions for the general feel of the game. With a mission statement like that, discussions around what to include and what not to include would probably be a lot shorter. |
Ok, you've convinced me don't need a manager. I voted for one but have changed my mind.
| Magnulus said: | Who writes the statement? Who decides what goes in it? Well, I think the core team should throw their heads together in a hidden pile and figure it out and then write it out. Once it's written, post a one-week poll with a discussion to see how people feel about it. If there are changes being proposed that are generally accepted, make another draft and post a second poll. Rince and repeat until a final, generally accepted mission statement has been written out.
Once that's done, the need for public discussions and polls becomes minimal, and it would stand as a reference in situations where a stale-mate occurs. |
Why hidden? Why not just stop us commonfolks posting in special dev. threads? Hidden is a bad idea because the whole thing suddenly stops being a community idea and more of an exclusive dev. club's one.
| Magnulus said: | | I can see your points and agree to some degree, but I'd like to add that part of what I was thinking about my suggestion was that you wouldn't have to be a "developer" to be a part of the core team. In fact, I think the team would NEED some people who can't program to diversify the views of those people. |
I think all members who are interested in this project have a right to read all threads about it. All includes members who can't help as much as they would like because they don't happen to possess some useful skill such as drawing or programming. | |  | |  |
|
 | written by Magnulus on Mar 21, 2008 00:38 |
| | | | ![]() I suggested hidden only because sometimes, people don't NEED to see what's going on at every single moment in time. Sometimes, people are better off not seeing every single bit of a discussion. I can understand that people might feel that it's a much too excluding way to manage a project, but I think it could easily have worked.
What feels more excluding, though? Seeing a discussion that goes on and not being able to participate or not knowing that a discussion is going on at the moment?
Of course, there would still be some polls and open discussions, but the hidden forum could help the core team make some choices without having to go through massive discussions with every single member of the community every time. I'm sure you can see the benefits of this.
In the very post you quote, I quite specifically say that a core team would NOT exclude non-programmers and non-artists. Please read the posts you quote before you argue against them.
Also, for SL:
Adding options all willy-nilly in the middle of a poll is kind of silly. I would obviously have voted for the option had I not already voted for "no", making the whole POLL kind of silly. If you decide to add options, can't you just restart it? | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() | Trad.a said: | | I think all members who are interested in this project have a right to read all threads about it. All includes members who can't help as much as they would like because they don't happen to possess some useful skill such as drawing or programming. |
I think that if you are interested in seeing Noctis: Twilight finished. You can be on the core team. I think the problem is the assumption that the core team is the dev team.
There should be a core team and a dev team. Some people will be on both teams, some will only be on one teams.
| Trad.a said: | | Why hidden? Why not just stop us commonfolks posting in special dev. threads? Hidden is a bad idea because the whole thing suddenly stops being a community idea and more of an exclusive dev. club's one. |
Some threads don't have to be public, e.g. technology threads, implementation details threads. Sure, the idea threads need to be public.
But specifically in regards to what Magnulus said, a hidden thread has the advantage is that there aren't distractions while the core team is figuring out what the mission statement should say. In addition, I'm sure there would be more than enough flames thrown around by the core team itself. Another advantage is that it won't get quickly cluttered by everyone adding their own little bits. Also it doesn't remain exclusive to the whole team, the community will get its say when the draft is ready.
It really isn't that bad of an idea. | | | | |
|
| sun + black hole = fwoosh! |
|
 | | | | ![]() | Magnulus said: | Also, for SL:
Adding options all willy-nilly in the middle of a poll is kind of silly. I would obviously have voted for the option had I not already voted for "no", making the whole POLL kind of silly. If you decide to add options, can't you just restart it? |
I considered that the dozen or so people who had already voted would probably be collectively more annoyed by the poll reset than you and anyone who wanted to change their vote (and could say so) would be annoyed by it not being reset.
I certainly could reset it, though, if that's what people want, but I thought people were getting tired of having to vote on the same thing multiple times. | | | | |
|
| written by Azuraun2 on Mar 21, 2008 03:33 |
| | | | Maybe we should make a poll to see if everyone wants this poll reset  | | | | |
|
| written by Trad.a on Mar 21, 2008 05:27 |
| | | | ![]() | Magnulus said: | I suggested hidden only because sometimes, people don't NEED to see what's going on at every single moment in time. Sometimes, people are better off not seeing every single bit of a discussion. I can understand that people might feel that it's a much too excluding way to manage a project, but I think it could easily have worked.
What feels more excluding, though? Seeing a discussion that goes on and not being able to participate or not knowing that a discussion is going on at the moment? |
No, we don't *need* to know what is going on. I guess there is no Internet Community Bill of Rights for this kind of thing. I simply think it would be nice to keep up with what is going on and where our project is heading. I've read through all the threads so far in this sub-forum and have only contributed a couple posts.
| Magnulus said: | | Of course, there would still be some polls and open discussions, but the hidden forum could help the core team make some choices without having to go through massive discussions with every single member of the community every time. I'm sure you can see the benefits of this. |
Threads only core teamahs could post in would serve the same purpose.
| Magnulus said: | In the very post you quote, I quite specifically say that a core team would NOT exclude non-programmers and non-artists. Please read the posts you quote before you argue against them.
massive discussions with every single member of the community every time. I'm sure you can see the benefits of this. |
I took developer to mean programmer. If you are including all those who are developing the game then it's a different story. I do read posts before arguing against them, bit of an unfair accusation really!
Also, by core-team I assumed everybody was referring to developers. Obviously not. | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() I would like to make a tentative suggestion. 
How about before setting up any hidden forums, official dev-teams, or managers of any kind whatsoever, we make a layout of what we want Noctis: Twilight to be?
There are plenty of ideas for very localized parts of the game (ie. stardrifter ideas, flora/fauna ideas, algorithm and planet generation ideas), but I'm not seeing any work going into developing a central core for this project.
Discussing ideas is fine, but I believe that the project will stand on much firmer ground once there is an at least basic list of what people think Noctis is/isn't and what it should/shouldn't be. If there is any part of the project that needs to be performed openly with the entire community's participance, it should be establishing this foundation on which the project will grow. We need to find a solid ground and anchor the project (allowing natural flexibility within this basic but concise framework).
=====
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that these should be our priorities at this point:
1. Communicate and establish a mission plan (Ought to be more specific than just "Let's make a community Noctis sequel.").
2. Establish a Core Layout. Get everyone's opinions and expectations on what Twilight should and shouldn't be. Find the points that are the most agreed upon and use those as the starting framework for planning the project. We absolutely must start at the basics before we star getting elaborate.
3. After getting a basic idea of what the project's about, THEN determine who is "dev-team" based on who is willing and able to fill in the necessary tasks needed to get the project drifting (pun intended).
What I must absolutely stress here is that the very core ideas that will steer NocTwilight's overall direction ABSOLUTELY MUST be the result of an overall community effort, and must be placed BEFORE any dev-team decisions or large-scale developer ideas.
=====
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.
Because that's exactly what the dev-team will be; the representative of the community that actually builds the game. Because of this, I don't think development should be terribly secretive. I'm not saying that development should all happen right out in the open under so many prying and nagging eyes, but a modest part of overall direction should be left to the community as a whole.
The best representatives correspond openly with those they represent.
We need at least some structure if this is going to work out, and I'm trying to propose a structure that will help get the project on its feet.
[EDIT after looking around a bit more]:
Hmm... It seems that I've been more than a bit presumptuous about a thing or two. Actually, the brainstorming topic seems to be doing well as far as getting the communities ideas together. I'm actually quite optimistic about the future of this project (got that good feeling). On one hand, I know for almost certain that there won't be any future NiCE releases, but that doesn't really matter to me, because:
1. I was sort of getting the impression that the borders of what could be done to "improve" within the DOS framework had just about been reached.
2. This entire project renders it obsolete.
Onward, toward the furture! | | | | |
|
└> last changed by Sylverone on March 21, 2008 at 09:42
|
| written by Magnulus on Mar 21, 2008 11:09 |
| | | | ![]() Sylverone: Pretty much exactly what I was saying on day one but then stopped saying because people don't like things like core principles, design documents or mission statements. They love programming languages and algorithms.
Trad.A: If you took developer to mean programmer, why didn't you notice that I said the core team would NOT have to be developers? I actually specifically say that it would NEED non-developers. I would say my "accusation" was not unfair and not really an accusation as much as an observation. I'm sorry, but are we done misreading my posts now?
SL: Then how about making a poll once people have actually discussed for a bit so you know more about what to PUT in the poll? That would also allow people who would vote without thinking to actually have thought about it a bit. | | | | |
|
| sun + black hole = fwoosh! |
|
| | | | ![]() I'll start a thread for suggesting and discussing core principles in a few minutes (going to write some).
After some discussion we can take the ones that weren't majorly disagreed about, and post them with a yes/no/abstain poll asking if the community agrees with those principles.
(I'm thinking of core principles as things like "Twilight is a game of exploration," "The player should not be able to engage in combat or destroy planets," "The game should run on older computers and ideally also ones with integrated graphics" etc) | | | | |
|
| written by Trad.a on Mar 21, 2008 21:38 |
| | | | ![]() | Magnulus said: | | Trad.A: If you took developer to mean programmer, why didn't you notice that I said the core team would NOT have to be developers? I actually specifically say that it would NEED non-developers. I would say my "accusation" was not unfair and not really an accusation as much as an observation. I'm sorry, but are we done misreading my posts now? |
I did notice that. And yes, I'm done. | | | | |
|
|
