Limelight Forums

(Oct 4, 2017, 09:35 PM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 4, 2017, 04:56 PM)Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]To prove that it took us a long time discussing this topic.

This is the thread I've created, look at the date on the post.

No offense, but roughly 2 1/2 weeks seems like an awfully short time for changes as big as these. Just looking at the past tells you that teachers giving REP is not a good idea. RPP were being given out like candy on FL when teachers had access. I'm not expecting much different here. 

Also, when did the Dune Buggy become part of the conversation? A suggestion with a lot of support would have been a better choice than some Dune Buggy that doesn't fit in.

Giving teachers REPS is a compeletly different thread than that one, just saying that's been a thing for a while and it was even a suggestion lol.

Not everything has to be suggested just saying. Not every development move we're going to do has to be suggested.

(Oct 4, 2017, 10:08 PM)Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]Not everything has to be suggested just saying. Not every development move we're going to do has to be suggested.

But wouldn't it make sense to work on one of the 60+ approved suggestions, some of which are vehicles,  than to spend time on something that wasn't even requested?

(Oct 4, 2017, 09:52 PM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 4, 2017, 09:06 PM)Nebula Wrote: [ -> ]When a Merceds 6x6 does not fit into CityRP but apparently a dune buggy does fml.

I gave my opinion on that thread, the same way I gave my opinion in the development area. We don't all get what we want in life.

From an outside perspective, in regards to the Dune Buggy, it seems more like:

Quote:"We don't all get what we want in life, unless you're on the staff team"

Because HERE is a long list of vehicle suggestions that are by the community. Why wasn't the Dune Buggy given a community vote?

Having an argument on the thread wont help anything to change

(Oct 4, 2017, 10:23 PM)Vimpto Wrote: [ -> ]Having an argument on the thread wont help anything to change

I would have argued this one the suggestion thread if there was one..

(Oct 4, 2017, 10:28 PM)ForceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 4, 2017, 10:23 PM)Vimpto Wrote: [ -> ]Having an argument on the thread wont help anything to change

I would have argued this one the suggestion thread if there was one..

If you dont like it post a suggestion about changing it, i wont argue further

I mean it's been explained it's a rolling development process on how reps will work - I don't think being overly critical about the fact it wasn't a suggestion actually means anything, as there are plans to incorporate some suggestions in as the system developed further.

Just because this buggy has been added (and for sake of argument i'm not a fan of it) doesn't mean that the approved suggestions will not. Equally you could argue that dev time should be spent on suggestions and not this, but equally that's the developer's prerogative to a degree.

One beneficial thing to notice from the feedback on this thread is that people would much rather see approved suggestions implemented than internally decided ideas - perhaps obvious but at least it is now clear. This will be incorporated into future development to keep in mind the relative priority of approved suggestions.

I won't this argument to stop here this thread is meant to announce the changes and the update.

My last comment is It doesn't need to be suggested, suggestions aren't forgotten, they're being looked into by devs and staff.

(Oct 4, 2017, 10:58 PM)Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]I won't this argument to stop here this thread is meant to announce the changes and the update.

My last comment is It doesn't need to be suggested, suggestions aren't forgotten, they're being looked into by devs and staff.

Yeah, they're not forgotten or anything, just put off for a year or two and not looked at
ok im done

(Oct 3, 2017, 11:43 PM)Faustie Wrote: [ -> ]

Teachers can award REP again

There's no point in adding more REP rewards if players aren't earning the points. We received complaints that admins weren't giving out enough points, and so to assist the admins in rewarding great roleplay, teachers now have these powers too.

Bad post.

(Oct 4, 2017, 01:08 AM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ]Terrible idea with Teachers and REPs. 

(Oct 4, 2017, 01:49 AM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ]bad idea allowing teachers to give REP.

Just keep REPs as rare as they are now, personally I support the idea of removing the categories but this is too far.

(Oct 4, 2017, 03:27 AM)Nacreas Wrote: [ -> ]These changes to the REP system will make RP more worthwhile. We're going to add a lot more rewards for players, especially those who are at around 30 REP's

(Oct 4, 2017, 03:19 PM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ]I mean, REPs won't really be rare anymore now that teachers can give them out. Fuck, might as well make a 40 REP prize too if we are gonna drop the value of them.

I'm clearly not the only one. Making such high reward tiers just decreases of the value of REPs. You're literally forcing inflation. Rather than decreasing the value making things cost more, you're making things cost more so it decreases the value.

(Oct 4, 2017, 04:33 AM)Nacreas Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly. We want to have rewards at every point (1-30), even higher. That way everyone's a winner.

Everyone's not a winner this way, everyone's a loser. You might have some cool car, but the value of the number of REPs you have, the true reward showing that's meant to show your roleplay capability, is lost. Everyone's a loser.

It's not even like REPs were too hard to get before, the current generation of players is just decreasing in roleplay capability because we're spoon-feeding them easier and easier REPs. Tell me, if REPs were so hard to get before, then how is it a player that's been banned for over a year is still in the top 20?



The problem isn't that admins were too stingy with REPs, it's just that people can't make striking or original roleplays anymore. It will only decline the more we turn this into a competition of wealth and showiness. Adding a reward was good, but the notion of any requirements higher than 20 or 25 in the MOST EXTREME of cases is ridiculous.

Personally, I think much like with any update or addition that is done that we require waiting to see if it is a good or bad idea. Sure ideas of dislike are something but relating to Teacher's allowing to give REPs, opinions have always been placed on this of dislike and it is understandable but I think that we need to wait for the update to sink in before any changes should be made. This is like with the current Contraband and Woodcutting tweaks. People have given their input about it and will it will most likely come to discussion again rather with staff or in the Community Input section.

Quite mixed opinions on this update, then. Having had a read through, there's quite a few valid questions here that I hope I can answer.


Regarding concerns about devaluing REPs

I think it's too early to tell if this will be the case. It's been fairly common to receive complaints that staff don't give out REP often enough, and hopefully teachers may be able to bridge that gap. Concerns about REP being too common are valid though - this didn't work out well a few years ago, though if I recall correctly it was mainly due to one or two teachers in particular heavily abusing the power, which got it stripped from the rest of the teacher team. This is a different team in a different time, and we're hoping it'll turn out differently and we can find a better balance. If not, we've taken some steps to mitigate this, such as much better tracking of REP being given out and more thorough training on this to teachers. It's entirely possible that we're wrong and this was a bad decision to take, but time will tell. I'm hopeful this will be a positive change, especially given the much improved communication between admins and teachers we have now.


The buggy doesn't fit CityRP

In a sense, it doesn't, no, and it's fair to be worried about this. That being said, an awful lot of our content doesn't fit a regular city, and this was at least something interesting to try. Some staff felt that it would be an addition that added a new goal to try for, being something a little unique and fun. It might well be. It could also be abused and constantly used, but we've had this concern with several cars and stranger vehicles we've added (especially some of the ludicrously rare supercars or military vehicles) yet overuse is often only an issue for the first few days. 

I also think it's a good idea to stretch what's normal a few times, just to see if it is an improvement or not - you often won't know for sure until you've tried and there has been some time for people to get used to it. It could be that the buggy becomes a fun little side-feature that people bring out sometimes, for events, or raids even. It could also go poorly - if so, it's not as if all changes are permanent, and it can be reviewed and removed.


Why not the suggestions? 

Not everything we do is a player suggestion; some are staff suggestions so that they're more of a 'reveal', but we do aim to have the majority of updates be based on player feedback and suggestions. Problem is, not everyone wants the same thing and there can be quite a lot of difference between the suggestions, some going in quite different directions. I remember quite well one of our community feedback questionnaires regarding interactive or derma systems being preferred, and the split was almost exactly 50/50 - either way, you'll upset someone.

That being said, that's no excuse to not work on community suggestions, and they should rightfully be a priority. For the past several weeks (perhaps longer now), we've been bringing in player suggestions for further staff review and planning, normally a few a day. Doctor Internet in particular has been doing great work here. These have been building up and many form the basis now for updates the devs will be working on.

(Oct 4, 2017, 04:59 PM)F orceGhost Wrote: [ -> ]There are hugely popular suggestions, including rep item suggestions, from 2015-2016. Why did something that wasn't suggested by any player take priority? We all know it takes time and needs planning, and we're not asking for half-finished or unplanned updates. We're simply asking to be informed of what's work-in-progress and kept up-to-date. I don't see a reason why you can't keep the community up to date on upcoming updates.

First bold point: we do try to prioritise player suggestions, and in particular form the basis of our overall update plan based on several suggestions. However, sometimes we like to release small updates that weren't in suggestions - or at least not highly discussed - simply for the surprise factor. Most updates should not be like this, but I think there is certainly room for some that are. There are so many suggestions that if they always had priority over staff suggestions, we would never be able to do staff ones.

Second point: I would actually love to do this more. Problem is, we've been burned several times on this over the years. Updates have been announced in advance, and then a problem occurs - either it's not feasible in a given time-frame, or a dev leaves, or just drops the project. It shouldn't happen, but sometimes it does, and then we're left in a really awkward position with announced updates that don't happen, and players can get upset when we then start working on something else that what they were expecting. It's not ideal, but our current preferred solution is to follow a mix of both public and internal suggestions, and to have the media team just prepare good announcements for the larger updates. Perhaps if there was a more chill environment when we messed up and things didn't go to plan, the team as a whole would be more comfortable with this approach. Maybe one day.



I hope that clears things up for people. We'll definitely be watching feedback to this update closely - entirely possible that the naysayers are right and we made a mistake here, maybe not. We'll see.

tl;dr there were several reasons why we went with this, we're not ignoring suggestions and are actively reviewing several a day for devs to work on, but are also doing some private updates. We're monitoring teachers closely and it's a different situation. Nothing is final and these updates can all be reverted if we did make a mistake here, but time will tell.

(Oct 5, 2017, 12:53 AM)Faustie Wrote: [ -> ]Quite mixed opinions on this update, then. Having had a read through, there's quite a few valid questions here that I hope I can answer.


The buggy doesn't fit CityRP

In a sense, it doesn't, no, and it's fair to be worried about this. That being said, an awful lot of our content doesn't fit a regular city, and this was at least something interesting to try. Some staff felt that it would be an addition that added a new goal to try for, being something a little unique and fun. It might well be. It could also be abused and constantly used, but we've had this concern with several cars and stranger vehicles we've added (especially some of the ludicrously rare supercars or military vehicles) yet overuse is often only an issue for the first few days. 
We already have too many cars that don't fit into cityRP (Kamaz, Blower, all the supercars and what not), so time would be better spent coding a car that was suggested into cityRP (or however the fuck you add them) rather than adding yet another one that doesn't fit in.

I also think it's a good idea to stretch what's normal a few times, just to see if it is an improvement or not - you often won't know for sure until you've tried and there has been some time for people to get used to it. It could be that the buggy becomes a fun little side-feature that people bring out sometimes, for events, or raids even. It could also go poorly - if so, it's not as if all changes are permanent, and it can be reviewed and removed.
You tried when you added the Monaco as a police vehicle, it had its time and people did not get used to it. I'm glad that you're open about whether this may work or not.

Why not the suggestions? 

Not everything we do is a player suggestion; some are staff suggestions so that they're more of a 'reveal', but we do aim to have the majority of updates be based on player feedback and suggestions.
In my opinion, if you want to reveal something, great, just make it something that was suggested. You can secretly work on it, and you will know that people will like it when it is released.

Problem is, not everyone wants the same thing and there can be quite a lot of difference between the suggestions, some going in quite different directions. I remember quite well one of our community feedback questionnaires regarding interactive or derma systems being preferred, and the split was almost exactly 50/50 - either way, you'll upset someone.
This is why we have a suggestion forum. You can see exactly what is being suggested, and what part of the community likes it. You can use this to your advantage. Look at the suggestions with a lot of support, and then you won't have to worry about some of the community hating on it.

That being said, that's no excuse to not work on community suggestions, and they should rightfully be a priority. For the past several weeks (perhaps longer now), we've been bringing in player suggestions for further staff review and planning, normally a few a day. Doctor Internet in particular has been doing great work here. These have been building up and many form the basis now for updates the devs will be working on.
My suggestion, work on fixing the ridiculous bugs first, look at suggestions that would help the game mode a lot, do some suggestions that would be easy, a no-brainer, and with a lot of support, then if you need to do your "reveals", maybe put a discussion thread up so we don't have to discuss it like this after (hours?) have been put into adding something a few like.



I hope that clears things up for people. We'll definitely be watching feedback to this update closely - entirely possible that the naysayers are right and we made a mistake here, maybe not. We'll see.

tl;dr there were several reasons why we went with this, we're not ignoring suggestions and are actively reviewing several a day for devs to work on, but are also doing some private updates. We're monitoring teachers closely and it's a different situation. Nothing is final and these updates can all be reverted if we did make a mistake here, but time will tell.

Thank you for a constructive reply. +Respect


i had a better reply typed out by i accidentally refreshed the page so fuck me


ps for the love of christ fix the god damn license plates on the cars that dont work and the policedb

I do like these changes. However I do not agree with the idea of teachers giving REPs for one main reason. All the REPs I have received were given without participation of staff, just roleplaying with other people. For this reason I feel more people would be encouraged to actually roleplay with people rather than just stage something with a teacher or staff member. I have always disagreed with REP begging. Teachers have no way of observing a natural roleplay situation, just going to turn into a point begging fest. REPs should only be given for excellent roleplay for a reasonable amount of time, teachers simply have no way to evaluate this in an unstaged environment.

As for the dune buggy I think of it to be on the same page as the Bentley Blower. Does it fit city rp? Not really. But they're far and few, even more so with a 15 rep limit. I have no problem with it.

Other than this, I think this is a good change and I look forward to seeing what high/other REP rewards are added.

(Oct 4, 2017, 10:04 PM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 4, 2017, 09:06 PM)Nebula Wrote: [ -> ]When a Merceds 6x6 does not fit into CityRP but apparently a dune buggy does fml.

Dude, this is like one of the few times I don't want to argue with you. I'm glad we're on the same page.

Thats what I call CityRP!