I mentioned to a few of other moderators that there was a slight issue between the GTD and the other boards.

Design is soft sometimes, like you see in GTD. It's ideas floating around in our head. It's the thought of what makes boss battles interesting, character writing, or game re-playability. But then you start putting these ideas into your game and it becomes Hard Design. Creating character stats, making boss AI, and or deciding what actions make 100% completion in a game with multiple choices.

That's just the start of hard data. Numbers, diagrams, layouts, and even maps. Things you can back by pictures and formulas often times tied to specific games. Hard Design is your efforts trying to design levels, character stats, and a working battle system for in the context of your game.

My idea was to create a subforum in GUC that discusses these ideas. A Hard Theory board. You can post pictures of mapping for feedback, talk about systems you'll be using in your game and provide numbers and detailed workings of it instead of just vague general thoughts.

The forum will have some guidelines though. You have to provide more than a soft general idea. You should hard info, like screenshots, pictures, drawn layouts, or real numbers to work with. Your idea should be pretty solid when it's posted for discussion. Discussions such as balance, aesthetics, and function will take place here. It's about asking how two systems may work together, or if the map you drew on paper or created in an editor looks functional as well as pleasing. Also consider it for discussion of level design, minigame design, monster designs, character designs, etc. The discussion can even be specific to an engine you're using, so long as it's not questions on how to use the engine itself.

What do you all think of this new board?

Would it be helpful to you?
If so how helpful?

Would you use it?

Would you visit it and check it out from time to time?

Do you understand how it works?
If so tell me how you think it works and what you would post in it?

What no one has an opinion on the new area for screenshots- despite the fact that a whole debate is going on in another thread?

maybe its because of that.

After reading this post what I see is that we do this already....every where. we have our game threads as you have pointed out (and other mods) for these "hard data" sections which I argued that - it would turn our game threads into a scratch pad of ideas. We have the critique threads for the maps...we can post the "hard numbers and detailed info" in the GTD thread if we make no mention that it pertains to our game.

essentially - everything this new forum would do - is already here, just scattered about.

But the screenshots would be here- but rather than a random "what do you think of my map" in among many others you could have a whole topic to include your own maps - rather than cluttering the game threads which is how you see it.

Thats senseless UNLESS it was, for example, to talk about (using me here as an example) the FFT style of mapping - then I would make a thread about this style, provide game example, Square Enix examples and explain how mine are similar and how they are not floating islands. THIS is what this new section could be used for - how ever as stated and argued simple "omg look my new maps" would go in the famous "screen shot thread"

I see what you want kaz and its exactly what I want, some where I could be like "so in my game I have this idea and I have this detailed report and blog post and hard crunched numbers - what do you guys think..." with out a mod being like "this is GTD go post this info in your game thread"

A new forum for essentially the same thing is redundant.
A Hard Theory thread tag would be much more efficient.

actually it wouldnt be (not sure if I understand thread tags??) how ever the section could be about implemtening ideas into your current game and getting community feed back before going back to your game thread and stating "new feature is..."

Thread tags would basically be putting [HARD DESIGN] into the title of your topic, to let people know that this is more fleshed out than just an idea.
We already have a forum for theory and design, why do we need a different forum for theory and design?

because if you look at my closed thread in TD youll see that it fits more of the HD rather then the TD and thus "breaks" the rules for TD as TD is more about game theory NOT relating to your game where as this new section WOULD or COULD relate to your game with out you polluting your game thread with "scratch pad ideas"

while I agree we could use [Tag's] it would still go against the GTD section unless the rules are changed to state that threads that do some hard number crunching and bla bla bla in releation to your game or games using the same features should have or use [Hard Design] tag before the name...

if that makes sense

Well, if we make a HD forum then it would contradict the TD forum.
People are only allowed to post concepts relating to their game separately only if there are hard numbers or images attached?
Why not just broaden the use to Theory and Design, it would bring in my visitors rather than making a separation.

No its more of "people can only post concepts relating to their game if they have detailed information" an example that I have used would be - What if I wanted to map like FFT, I would first post the idea, post some examples from the game and then post some of my screen shots and explain how they are similar and how they are different. I would give detailed examples on how players could move about, the edge of the maps, the cut off style and what not...

then the community would give me feed back and ideas and suggestions. it would be a conversation around one core topic. the reason it cant be in GTD is because of the current rules and structore of that forum

Then we should change the rules of that forum rather than create an almost identical forum. Considering the sites recent attempt to cut down on size/streamline forums, creating another Theory and Design forum would be counter-productive.

I agree. But i think Titan and kaz see diffrently? I could be wrong.

I understand how the Hard Theory thread is different, sure. But it is different for entirely self imposed reasons, and would be fixed with a couple of rule changes.

You are -

We have made no decisions yet - plus the other staff have not commented yet - but titan and I are not the only ones.

I doubt any one will actually want this. tbh I have to agree with harry. just change the rule to say add a [] infront. makes more sense and is way cleaner.

I've mentioned this to a couple of people before in PM, but perhaps I'll put it out for further discussion.

First, I enjoyed the screenshot for what it was. For a person who is not good at mapping, I use screenshots to give myself ideas on how I should do my own mapping. I've even commented on the mapping, but there's only so much you can write about (that looks good, you've got a tile error, it needs work). I mean, for a person who is not terribly great at mapping myself, it's really not my place to critique the mapping of others. I'd much prefer to critique the game (or idea of a game) in its entirety, with mapping being a small fraction, along with story, features, characters, and what not. There was a darkside to the screenshot thread, too. Some mapping I saw and thought not bad, especially for an amateur developer, but others try to find fault in every screenshot, almost to the point that you had to map a certain way in order to gain approval. So I never posted anything there (other than comments) for that reason.

My idea for the Creative Commons is this:

1. Keep the Theory and Design, as I think that offers a lot of information as it pertains to ideas, game mechanics not yet developed, and ways we can all improve.

2. Change Long Demos to Project Demos. The length requirement is not always followed anyways, as I see 2+ hour demos in GUC, and lesser demos in LD. Instead, any game that has a demo would go into Project Demos, regardless of length, assuming the game is not yet complete.

3. Complete Games would remain as is.

4. GUC would get a big change, as it would be for any game that has not reached demo stage. Once a game gets a demo, it gets moved into LD or CG (if complete). The requirements for submitting a GUC would still be around the same to avoid spam topics, and they would still have to go through the Submission Form route to ensure the game is legit. Sometimes I feel a person goes through GUC just to find a game with a working demo, and ignore everything else. By setting it up this way, we weed out the demo hunters, and the only people in GUC are those who are developing a game in its early stages, and those who are trying to offer support. This way a person can develop their ideas, get feedback, post their screenshots and continue to improve their game until a demo is released.

Finally, to avoid topics that go nowhere, perhaps we can enforce a timeframe of activity with GUC and the "alleged" PD section. For GUC, any game that has not seen activity (from either a member or the game's developer) in more than 3 months would be closed and moved to a dormant section. In PD (or LD if we don't change the name), any game that has not seen any activity in more than 6 months would also be closed and moved to the dormant section. Perhaps we can even implement a rule for the dormant section so that any game that has been dormant for 6 months will be deleted, at which time the developer would have to start from scratch if they decide to bring their game back.

Good feedback Amerk - but for the moment let us sort the hard theory area.

Must admit i rather like Project Demos for a name also the concept of Demos only whatever the length. leaving GUC for bare bones topics.

We used to have dormant projects and any over 6 months in GUC were cleared out into a sub forum.We did prune the forum a while back, but the dormant section was closed down.( if it wasnt so late I might remember why lol)

We have had many reincarnations of the cc over the years

T and D is a very popular area so for the moment I would like to see if Titan and Sai's idea could work for the hard theory.

Keep these ideas on hold

No prob, it just seemed people weren't sure what to do without a screenshot thread, and the Hard Theory was still a sort of an idea floating around that I wanted to mention other possible solutions.

I guess in a way what I was suggesting was to make the current GUC thread sort of like the Hard Theory idea, which would in turn cause changes for LD. Anyways, while it's hard for some to accept changes, many will come around eventually.

A lot of good ideas floating around.

GUC is a great place for the concept of "Hard Theory" which is why I wanted to subforum it there.

If we decide to turn GUC into the same concept as "Hard Theory", eliminating the need for "Hard Theory", that means several things may need to be accounted for:

GUC threads would get rather clustered with ideas and feedback, and many developers would not want to carry their threads over to Project Demos with all that feedback and design work in the threads. They would then have to make a new thread with their actual project they want to advertise for Project Demos or Completed Games.

Hard Theory was also meant to teach people about the more hands-on approach to game making, especially as a one-man developer. It's meant to show how to come up with monster designs, how to create a menu layout, and different ways to create fun levels all through constructive feedback. It removes itself from Soft Theory by not making itself about the story or the writing or general ideas. GUC games are currently all about that.

I'm honestly all for restructuring GUC to be our "Hard Theory" board but that may mean a large overhaul for GUC, which brings up the question of what to do with all the threads in it now. To be honest GUC games are prematurely advertised games. That doesn't mean they don't get some attention, and aren't useful for recruitment. Restructuring it may not be the best solution.

I would be okay changing TD's rules to allow for Hard Theory style threads, but TD gets a lot of action as is. Soft Theory and Hard Theory are also very different. Hard Theory is very specific to it's game, and may easily be seen as advertising for your own game, which is probably one of the reasons TD doesn't allow this among others.
In the end it may be less confusing and less problematic to keep them separate.

I would also like to emphasize the differences in Soft Theory versus Hard Design. Soft theory is not backed up with practical application to a game. Soft Theory is like saying "The zombie apocalypse would be a great game!" and then Hard Design would be your efforts trying to design levels, character stats, and a working battle system for that. The latter is one of the most pivotal parts of game development, and yet we do not have a board where people are comfortable posting feedback for their work in this area.

I'm forgetting what I was saying. I've had a cold so I'm working through this crisis. :\ If I forgot something let me know. I'm open to ideas but it's good to be realistic. If we can do something a lot simpler for this Hard Design I'd love to do it, as long as we're realistic about it. It's improtant to know when you're talking about ideals instead of real application. That's why I made this thread, to separate my ideals of how the Hard Theory board would work versus how people really view it working. Infact, I made questions to help me discern this in my first post.

I don't think that's a problem at all. Actually sounds quite pleasant to have a fresh topic for your game once it has a demo. =]
(Closing the older topic and archiving it would make sense too.)



True, it would be a lot of work, but (with a new "expiration date" rule) most of the topics would be archived due to their lack of inactivity for more than 30 (or 60, whatever) days. So we'd automatically have less topics to worry about, and the work-load isn't too bad.
Of course, I'm not saying this is the best solution, but I'd like to keep it on the table. ^^



Personally, I like to avoid adding more sub-forums that might clutter things up, but this idea for a sub-forum doesn't really bother me. I think that changing the rules for the TD forum is possibly easier to do at first, but moderating/managing it would likely be more difficult and less confusing than simply having an HD sub-forum.



I agree with this, actually. Which is why I think calling it "Hard Theory" is probably not the best name for it. I'd go with "Practical Application" or "Theory In Practice" (imagine it being called the "TIP" forum, lol) or something. :3

would we really want duplicate threads? and what about ideas for when its in long demo and your like "omg what about this concept?"

this is if im reading this correctly

If you have a great idea you want to implement for your game in Long Demos then you can make a thread for it in "Hard Design"/"GUC" or wherever this will be. Hell you could link to the thread in your Long Demo game as well to discuss a feature you want in your game.

This gives people a lot of ways to contribute to your game too. I'm not so sure I understand where duplicate threads come in though. Certainly you can have a Long Demos thread separate from your Hard Design thread.

The fundamental reason I'm opposed to a T&D board which allows discussion of specific topics is the same reason why that kind of discussion is presently disallowed from T&D.

If such a board existed, the vast majority of posts would be one-liners such as "I'm making an FF7 fangame, should it be a prequel or a sequel???" "what should be the worlds in my KH fangame???" "how many crystals should I have?" or "should poison take away 10% HP or 15%?"

In other words, the people with in-depth and interesting, discussion-worthy threads would be drowned out by the half-baked ideas that will never see anywhere close to fruition. GUC is safeguarded by the project requirements, but it would be much harder to implement cut and dry rules for requirements for a hard T&D board. Everyone and their brother has a half-baked project idea and the fact of the matter is, unless you have it at the stage where it's time to show it off, nobody cares. It would be flooded with topics with 0 posts and the only responses would be everyone desperately bumping their topics waiting for feedback that will never come.

It's a sad wasteland waiting to happen and we do nobody any favors by allowing it to come into existence.

I'm sorry guys but I'm a few hours behind the current events()
Firstly it seems redundant to close the thread debating the reopening of a screenshot thread to make it occur here, not only was it in fullswing there (admittedly perhaps a little too much so), but the potential of people being redirected here will end up spamming this with something that was specific whereas this was about titan's idea on the whole (like I have done xD).
And since I didn't get my say on that thread, and you recommended these things be said here, yes I like the idea of the screenshot thread (and the hard theory thread but that seems a little out of my league) and was disappointed I joined just shortly after it closed, as it took me a while to take mapping into serious consideration and had nowhere to post, bar my GUC where few people were looking and fewer were offering advice (and no Adrien don't take that as 'one more person agreeing'; quantifiable is less valuable than qualitative data, I'm relatively new to the forums and certainly don't understand running them like a Director)
In regards to people selfishly posting without helping, I think its notable that people gain reputations on this site, if you're known for taking and not giving then the ramifications are obvious. This system wont harm newbies, simply because they are newbies.

Before I potentially respark the last threads debate, I'd like to point out again I was redirected here, I'm merely voicing my thoughts and have no desire to 'take a side', merely be taken into consideration. Sorry I have so little to say on Hard Theory itself.

Sai brings up a valid point as well. However saying that is no different from saying "GUC is a wasteland where people bump the thread" as well.

However a Hard Design thread encourages much more discussion directly than the GUC forum. Hard Design is a very essential part of game design as well. It is the bridge between game completion and soft theory, but it is a stumbling point for designers.

One great thing is that it gives people an idea of what it looks like to have an idea come to fruition and the steps taken by someone to make it happen.

Questions like "15% or 10%" is actually quite relative to game's balance. Even discussing that with someone can make them think about their game even more. What would I reply if someone asked that?

" 15% would essentially bring an enemy to 1 health in 7 turns, whereas 10% would bring an enemy to 1 health in 10. How long do you want your battles to last, along with compound damage from attacks and abilities. Will you be putting immunity on the enemies where poison would be helpful to defeating them? If so, consider the strategy you want a player to take against the enemy. Then, the difference between fast poison versus slower."

The question may be inane, but the answer can be still be helpful. This answer would get people thinking about just that, the hard design of their game. And that is just one of the ways such a general question can be answered to make a person think of their game and what they want that function to do. Anyways, a vague question like that without any context within the game would likely be moved to Theory and Design.

But all those questions, especially in the context of the game it's being created for, can be pivotal to the design and the way the game plays. All those questions are relevant to the designer, are things some people may legitimately be stuck on, and be helpful to completing a game if answered.

Kaust, the Screenshot Thread discussion should be saved for after the Hard Design discussion is over. I think if Hard Design is used or not will determine a lot of what we're gonna do with the Screenshot Thread.

Ah, okay. Then it should exist, if only for the sake of the screenshot thread >:]
I jest, I jest.
But honestly it seems like all the unpleasantness of the last thread could have been avoided if someone had simply started another screenshot thread. If it took off, it took off. If it didn't, it didn't. Perhaps not left it to the mods and directors to babysit the thread (a concern shown) and left it to its own devices, and again, if it proves unsustainable on its own merits then the question no longer remains unanswered.
The same applies here I believe. Personally I think you're going to find a lot of support for this Hard Theory idea, but ultimately (with all yes/no questions) there'll be a divide whether its 'worthwhile' or not.
Obviously this implementation is bigger than a single thread, but really can anything ever be established without actually trying?

This is part of why I was thinking the current GUC can be made into the new HD (or whichever name we decide to go with), rather than another subforum. This way, they would still have to submit via a specific form, and it can be anything from a particular game idea/mechanics to the beginnings of and up to a working game demo. The submission form might be more relaxed because of this (ie., a simple idea wouldn't have the things that a normal GUC would) but we'd avoid or direct to a better forum for a simple question such as if a sequel is a good idea. Heck for that matter, they can reserve the first post in their new GUC topic for a future GUC game, and just ask their game mechanic question in the second post. Can that be done automatically, ie., given them reserved space in the first post? Anyways, that way, once they have the pertinent info they need, all they have to do is instead of creating a new thread, go back to their first post, change the name of the topic to something related to their game, and then begin fleshing out their game ideas.

The reason I suggest GUC be changed because while it may be a game in the making, at this point there is no demo. Once a demo has been made, people tend to take a game more seriously. Once a game gets to be a demo stage (as X-M-O suggested), we could have them create a new topic via submission form to ensure they meet the standard template. This may be a required evil to keep undeveloped GUC threads of circumventing the standard submssion by slapping a demo on their mechanics question and getting a game into LD when it doesn't meet normal requirements. At the very least, maybe a new thread is not needed, but if a person wants a game moved to the demo section, a mod can check their initial post to see if it meets the requirements or not and make them fix it up before moving it.

Think of it this way. A lot of people with working demos already use their game thread to post updates, get feedback, ask game related questions, and so forth, so it would seem a bit redundant to also include a special forum for those people who choose not to use their game threads. And while this idea may still pull away some of the attention a person may seek for their GUC games, I think it will help much more than having a sub forum, since it will encourage developers (and would-be-developers) to work harder on their games to get them into a downloadable stage. In a sense, we would be rewarding those who get a download (demo or complete) by moving them to a special section instead of GUC. As it is, so many GUC topics never get moving past the initial post anyways, and the current method seems to hinder those who do have a download, but it may not be long enough to go to a demo topic, and so there it sits in GUC buried amongst hundreds of other games that are soaking up the spotlight for no other reason than to say "Look at me, I'm not going anywhere, but please give me feedback all the same".

from my understanding I could multiple threads called war of the Souls ones discussing future features and one actually discussing the game and actual implemented features?

sounds like a bad idea - keep it all in one area. HTD should be about game design elements relating to all games using particular features. for example I might want to talk about a possible job feature using Yanfly based scripts and see what the community think as opposed to it being a War of the souls only thing.

thats if I understood what you said correctly.

Plus i never see this actually getting implemented like i never see screen shot thread coming back ...

That's how we currently have it set up (no HTD and no Screenshot Thread). The HTD is meant as a way to have specific design discussions about a particular aspect of a game's design (and yes, it could be only about your game - if it's a topic about any game and is related to hashing out simple design ideas, then that is what the "soft" TD is for).
Of course, this is just in discussion and not yet implemented, which is why this topic is here. =]

At any rate, if there is no demand for an HTD area and its activity goes no where, it might not be implemented for a while (or at all) based on the ideas presented here - not because we don't implement ideas (we implement ideas all the time, many behind the scenes development, but plenty in open view that directly affects everyone).