Redundancy, Theory and Design and Theory and Design and Theory and Design Options

[Harryb412]

We currently have:
2 categories for game theory and design.
5 threads for game theory and design.

Gameplay and Story should be merged into one category, Theory and Design.
Right now 2 categories clutters the index and makes it harder to navigate.
With me so far?

Level Design and Design Critique are kind of redundant when Theory and Design is pretty catch-all.
We could merge them into 1 forum, Gameplay. In this forum have multiple icons/tags to sort the type of discussion.
Still with me?

Now we have 3 forums and 1 category.

Theory and Design:
- Gameplay
- Storytelling: Theory & Techniques
- Writing Critique.

Writing critique could easily be merged as a tag/icon into Storytelling, just to remove the fact that there are 2 forums about writing for games.
So now we have 1 category, Theory and Design, and 2 forums, Storytelling and Gameplay.

2 forums for just 1 category?
I guess that's okay. . . But wouldn't it be less cluttered to move them into one forum?
Say. . . Theory and Design?

But then we have 1 category, Theory and Design, with 1 forum in it, also Theory and Design.

Why not just remove this category and place the Theory and Design forum into the Creative Commons?

Now we have 1 organized forum that has clear distinctions between what the users want to talk about, and we haven't cluttered the forum index!

[Klokinator]

My biggest issue is just that it takes a century to scroll to the bottom so I can go to GD, the only board I love a lot. I collapsed like, 3 categories, and now I have a wall of blue.

[Titanhex]

I think you can make the leap that Creative Commons will not stay the same, or possibly even be removed as a Category. With this in mind, expect the new layout of the board to become clearer as we mods work to that end.

Believe it or not, as reading any thread in T&D may suggest, Gameplay does not always equate to or go hand-in-hand with a Story.

Any professional designer, even those who have a background in story-writing, will tell you they operate separately. And they do! I suggest to you "A Theory of Fun" by Ralph Kauster.

Infact games aren't read, they're played. Imagine the chaos if we allowed people to post gameplay ideas and their story ideas together! They're very separate categories. I always suggest to people to post their gameplay writing in Script form like they were writing a play, not a novel! Games are meant to be seen and played, not read! Why would we allow questions like "How do I design this puzzle" with "Check out my new Story about Dovahkin, shooter of knees."

You can post in T&D how to write stories with gameplay in mind, that's fine. Or how to develop characters or design characters for a game. But we suggest the actual character and story be placed in the new story section under the appropriate board.

Personally shoving a bunch of different categories into Gameplay and forcing people to wade through tags may be counter-productive. Especially when these boards are truly geared at discussion and critique. It may result in people being overshadowed by more popular topics, and leaving because they don't receive feedback.

Theory and Design isn't actually catch-all, except maybe in it's name. (I would actually like to suggest changing the name to Theory and Idea) T&D does not allow the discussion of specific design help for your game you're working on. Say you're designing a monster, but the monster does not seem balanced.
Now, you post 5 of your monsters in your Design Critique thread, and people can pinpoint that one of the monsters seems over-powered compared to the others. Or one is underpowered and needs some good spells or even that the fight design for your boss monster is boring, that he should be using his giant pincer mouth or something.

What you're ultimately asking for is a large condensing of the forums, which may result in topics quickly disappearing down the list. It works against our fixing complaints of people wanting more feedback for their topics.

[Vexus]

Like I told you in pm titan long ago before these where implemented (Which you didn't reply back) this whole new section is too confusing.

You guys wanted to separate each category into sections of it's own "so that threads wouldn't go down so fast". I'm sorry but in the months I've been here I NEVER have seen that many new threads at once that placed your topic in 2nd page let alone the bottom of the first page in theory and design section.

I fear you wanted this feature more than the people wanted it (Very few people even replied on your thread and only after it was mentioned on the thread I made which was locked you received some replies.)

No hard feelings just my view on the subject.

This post has been edited by Vexus: Apr 1 2012, 04:20 AM

[kaz]

Like I told you in pm titan long ago before these where implemented (Which you didn't reply back) this whole new section is too confusing.

You guys wanted to separate each category into sections of it's own "so that threads wouldn't go down so fast". I'm sorry but in the months I've been here I NEVER have seen that many new threads at once that placed your topic in 2nd page let alone the bottom of the first page in theory and design section.

I fear you wanted this feature more than the people wanted it (Very few people even replied on your thread and only after it was mentioned on the thread I made which was locked you received some replies.)

No hard feelings just my view on the subject.

I can assure you that all the staff discussed these changes- and agreed it was worth trying the new area- maybe we will even attract some new members-

As in all changes we make - people are vocal after the event rather than joining in when we ask for opinions. ( in your case no of course as you bothered to contact Titan direct)

[Harryb412]

Like I told you in pm titan long ago before these where implemented (Which you didn't reply back) this whole new section is too confusing.

You guys wanted to separate each category into sections of it's own "so that threads wouldn't go down so fast". I'm sorry but in the months I've been here I NEVER have seen that many new threads at once that placed your topic in 2nd page let alone the bottom of the first page in theory and design section.

I fear you wanted this feature more than the people wanted it (Very few people even replied on your thread and only after it was mentioned on the thread I made which was locked you received some replies.)

No hard feelings just my view on the subject.

I can assure you that all the staff discussed these changes- and agreed it was worth trying the new area- maybe we will even attract some new members-

As in all changes we make - people are vocal after the event rather than joining in when we ask for opinions. ( in your case no of course as you bothered to contact Titan direct)

When did you ask for opinions about these specific changes?
All that was discussed was Hard Theory and Soft Theory, which is pretty different to what has been implemented. And even then, there was a notable amount of opinions against Hard Theory and Soft Theory.

I just don't understand how you came to the conclusion that it was worth trying, but not worth asking if the members actually liked what you planned to implement.

[Kread-EX]

As far as I know, it's a huge WIP and the new sections are destined to completely replace every old section. I don't recall the exact details, because I was technically resigned when it happened and didn't participate except for the basic outline, but it's a large hit or miss project which goes deeper than simply reorganize the forums.
It's one of those "this is not a democracy" moments, so take it or leave, basically.

[Harryb412]

Oh, I know what it is.
I just think what it is is pretty bad.

The larger the change, the more you need to discuss things with the members, because if you don't then you significantly decrease the chance of getting things right the first time and it cuts down the time you'll spend tweaking it.

You'll also then avoid the confusion.

["you" referring generally to staff as a whole]

This is not a democracy, no. But it really should be.

[Kread-EX]

This is not a democracy, no. But it really should be.

Jesus no. Democratic process for forums is terrible. It's a surefire way to argue endlessly about things so they'll never be done. No forum out there works like that.

[Harryb412]

Personally I think being a democracy would be better than forcing changes on users without regarding their opinions.

EDIT: Regardless, can we please stay on topic.

[Kread-EX]

You're a terribly negative person. Give it time until it's done to see if it works or not.

That being said, you do have a point by saying the changes warrant at least an explanation. The staff would be inspired to explain precisely the objective to inspire members to contribute to the new sections instead of making them defiant and confused.
However, explanation or not, I can assure you the changes will take place whether you like it or not so there's no point in trying to stop them.

[kaz]

In each of the new areas there is a detailed description at the top explaining the whole purpose of an area.

Not only that there are Questions and Answer threads.

There is announcement on the way out of courtesy- however as Kread pointed out this is not a Democracy and never will be. I know of no other forum that runs that way.

We do not have to ask the members - to be fair- we are offering a new option to revamp the forum- and really for example-T an D is as it was but in three sections. For those that use the board on a regular basis they might prefer this option.We will not know until we try.

We do not have the time to discuss every minor detail of change to the members of the forum plus we want to attract new members and as yet we do not have their opinions.

The best way is to actually get an idea out on the board and see how in pans out - this is the most effective way to see how it does in statistics and work out any glitches.

This is very much a watch and see excercise- as Kread says give it time-

[Harryb412]

We do not have to ask the members - to be fair- we are offering a new option to revamp the forum- and really for example-T an D is as it was but in three sections. For those that use the board on a regular basis they might prefer this option.We will not know until we try.

You would know if you asked the members what they thought of the idea. . .

Unfortunately this thread has been derailed, [though I didn't really help that] nobody really seems to want to talk about the idea I've proposed.

[Legacy]

Which was condensing forums right? Which I don't think needs to be done... well not to that degree. But there are things that need to be more organized.

We do not have to ask the members - to be fair- we are offering a new option to revamp the forum- and really for example-T an D is as it was but in three sections. For those that use the board on a regular basis they might prefer this option.We will not know until we try.

I completely agree with that.

[Titanhex]

I spoke to 3 of the most concerned members on the board to get their opinion. Each sent back their opinion and voiced their concerns. I wanted them to feel heard and I wanted to know what their misgivings about it were. But remember, I spoke to the three who voiced their opinions about it beginning in the Screenshot Thread. Your opinions on it were already negative towards and against it's implementation. If I sampled more people, then I would have gotten different results. It was those who were concerned that I wanted to hear from. I wasn't looking for back-up. However, that doesn't change the fact that I fully believe this is a step of RPG Making many forums miss, leading to low quality games and a lack of help in implementation.

Final decision on this idea is clearly that it should not and will not be done. Firstly we would have to backtrack on all the ideas we've put in and scrap them, then recenter what we have around your idea. Talk about another week or two of discussion and a complete wreck. Further you haven't seen the final results of this change. Until you do, hold off on suggestions to the structure of the board please. Also I do not believe your suggestion is any better than ours, as I have pointed out my own misgivings with it.

An explanation or warning ahead of time is good. It informs the members changes are taking place that they should watch for. But discussing it with them isn't always necessary. Infact my discussion wasn't "Should we do Hard Theory" it was "How can we do Hard Theory right." The members don't have all the facts, and aren't a part of the internal affairs. All other points made against it apply as well.

[Harryb412]

And this is why member input should be done before hand
I can see how this is going to go.

The changes will be made, then you will tell people about the changes [seriously why hasn't anything been announced yet? It just leads to confusion]

Then people will complain, and you'll say "Well we've already put everything in place now, it's too late to change"

I mean, why bother changing the forum to make it easier for the members if you don't care for the member's opinions?

You really seem to be forgetting who this forum is for. Staff aren't the only members.

[Sparrowsmith]

And this is why member input should be done before hand
I can see how this is going to go.

The changes will be made, then you will tell people about the changes [seriously why hasn't anything been announced yet? It just leads to confusion]

Then people will complain, and you'll say "Well we've already put everything in place now, it's too late to change"

I mean, why bother changing the forum to make it easier for the members if you don't care for the member's opinions?

You really seem to be forgetting who this forum is for. Staff aren't the only members.

The problem is that, and I mean no one any form of disrespect, people really don't know what they want. Especially when it comes to web layouts.
Forums and social networks are nigh-habitual. They are works of routine. Log on, do x, find y, enjoy. When the layout changes, for better or worse, there will always be a majority of apprehension towards it. Just look at Facebook. EVERY TIME they update, people go off it, and I still know people who vehemently refuse to get the new Timeline feature, despite it, for the most part, being a very handy layout.
And then of course you have people demanding a dislike button which, when actually thought about realistically, is quite possibly the worst idea in the history of social media.
My point? If you want to design something, you don't get opinions. You can gauge reactions, and let time do the rest, but you do not get opinions. It's objectively a bad idea. Even if it sounds like a good idea, it isn't.

[kaz]

And this is why member input should be done before hand
I can see how this is going to go.

The changes will be made, then you will tell people about the changes [seriously why hasn't anything been announced yet? It just leads to confusion]

Then people will complain, and you'll say "Well we've already put everything in place now, it's too late to change"

I mean, why bother changing the forum to make it easier for the members if you don't care for the member's opinions?

You really seem to be forgetting who this forum is for. Staff aren't the only members.

Erm - it has been announced and you cannot know what people are going to say= this is just your theory.

As for who the forum is for - well if it has no members the staff have no function - so totally wrong there and after all these years you should know that the staff function entirely for the members.

Going round and round here - we have explained why we are doing it that way-

[Kread-EX]

I mean, why bother changing the forum to make it easier for the members if you don't care for the member's opinions?

This isn't to make it easier for the members.

You really seem to be forgetting who this forum is for. Staff aren't the only members.

Except they're nearly the only ones to post.

This forum is almost completely dead. It's not the only one experiencing such decay but it's the fastest to do so. Impossible to compete with RMN for game advertisement (it would require layout and software change which iEntry refuses). Impossible to compete with the official forums for both resources and support (former vx.net restaff deleted their resources from their old forum and reposted them there + Degica themselves handle support). Members from all communities migrated there.
Two possibilities: let it rot or start anew, with a complete different focus. Rebound or die. The goal is to draw a different userbase altogether. You actually should speak about Sailerius about it, since it was his idea to begin with and he should be able to explain it better than anybody else.

Lastly, since we're going in circles there, I'll just add a very personal thing: Harry, you specifically and Rob, for whom you're pretty much a yes-man (and yes I know you'll both deny it but you're not fooling anybody), have been opposed to almost every change that ever took place. Whether discussions took place before or not, it always have been a swarm of spite and negativity even though you were a moderator before and know very well how those things are handled.
Bitching after bitching over and over again with the self-entitlement of speaking for the silent minority, you're the kind of people who made running this hole a nightmare. If you're that unhappy, get the fuck out.

Yup, this is definitely a raging personal attack, fueled by 2 years of putting daily hours of work into this place and dealing with people like you. But I'm not staff anymore and it feels damn good to say it.

Somebody should close this shit.

[kaz]

Comply- oh and Harry the topic has been in announcements for a few hours.