We want Forum Feedback!

[JavaTigress]

It already exists, just very, very underused when all the people who don't bother using their brain beyond "oh I want this BSA" just click on the New Topic button anyway.

It may be that a LOT of people don't know that such a thread even exists. I sure didn't until you mentioned it. IF that is the case, as I suspect it might be, perhaps making it easier to find would be in order. It also might not hurt to mention the fact in the forum section guidelines and rules or something as well.

 

ETA.... OK, went hunting in the BSA requests section and I found it. I see it is tagged so... I am not sure what more you could do to make it visible.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Silverswift

[Cinnamin Draconna]

The problem as I see it, is that RP reasons aren't always the same as a good or logical reason. It's one thing to want the BSA to fit the dragon, it's a whole other thing when someone twists it all out of shape to make it fit some imaginary 'standard'.

 

DC dragons do not have a standard. They are each unique, in and of themselves. In some cases they don't even make sense in a fantasy framework.. as in mints breeding with reds. It's similar to daschounds breeding with great danes, it happens, but it's very rare. Yet it happens all the time on DC.. and the reverse is true as well. Why can't dragons, drakes and two-headed dragons breed together? Why can't stripes, which are supposedly the size of cats, not breed with pygmies, but they can with brutes, which are supposedly huge.

 

Basically, it's all arbitrary rules set up by TJ. They seem to only make sense to him. Because truthfully, I sure as heck can't see it. To me they don't make RP sense, magical sense or logical sense.

 

So why should making RP sense make a difference. If we can find a reasonable and justifiable reason for a dragon to have a particular BSA, I think we should be allowed to propose it. And I think that only published data should be used.. not all the behind the scenes info that the common player doesn't have access too. If it's not written down where the players can read it, then it doesn't exist and should NOT be a deterrent to new BSAs.

 

edited for spelling

Edited June 18, 2014 by Cinnamin Draconna

[InugamiZERO]

where does it say stripes are the size of cats?

[Thuban]

I think I might be the only person who just makes new dragons for the BSAs she wants to happen.

 

Its rough trying to fit the ideas people want onto existing dragons.. and the chances of getting things released is stupidly low.. but for me.. it makes sense to make a dragon to make things happen, rather than to try to force it onto an already existing breed.

 

 

mint/stone pairings make me shudder... i remember stones being described as being the size of mountains when i first started out on this forum.

[edwardelricfreak]

I think the reason why pygmies and two-heads can't is only because they have certain DNA that just makes them incompatible. But even the tiniest normal dragon and largest can breed together, because they are somehow compatible.

 

Also I would like to know where it says Stripes are cat-sized, too. o.o Their creator is Vicats, they seem to have cat-like behaviors, and they've been dressed up as cats for Halloween, but I don't think I've seen them be described as cat-size?

 

And if you want a tiny dragon, apparently Sweetlings are absolutely bitty things and probably should be pygmies but they aren't.

 

---

 

I do have to say I agree with Thuban. When it comes down to it, if there are absolutely no dragons that fit a BSA, make a new dragon (or drake, pygmy, or two-head, even).

[HeatherMarie]

It already exists, just very, very underused when all the people who don't bother using their brain beyond "oh I want this BSA" just click on the New Topic button anyway.

While this is indeed a wonderful and underused thread, it doesn't exactly fill the void, at least not as I was understanding KageSora's post.

 

Like all other threads, that thread often gets bogged down in "that dragon can't do that!" and such. The OP sounds like it's a thread to flesh out a BSA that already has a dragon attached to it, to find out if your concept of the dragon fits with how others think, etc etc.

 

I'd personally like to see a separate thread where you can *actually* go "hey, I got this really cool idea but *I don't know* what dragon goes with it, will you help me out?"

[Cinnamin Draconna]

That's part of the problem; it doesn't. It's part of that 'behind the scenes' info that isn't always made public. There was a thread about different unreleased Stripe colors where it was mentioned, but I can't find that thread anymore.

 

I did find a refence to stripe sizes in a discussion of general dragon sizes. In that thread Vicats (their creator) says they are between 3.5 and 5 ft long... then later on changes it to around 9 ft long. So it's pretty unclear in general.

[Nectaris]

I think I might be the only person who just makes new dragons for the BSAs she wants to happen.

 

Believe it or not, I created the turpentine with a BSA in mind(renaming, to be exact). The problem though came about because the BSA I wanted was added as a regular action long before it was released. I never included it in the original thread because I worried it might impact its chances of release.

 

I'd personally like to see a separate thread where you can *actually* go "hey, I got this really cool idea but *I don't know* what dragon goes with it, will you help me out?"

 

This is what I meant. I also thought the other thread was more of a place that had the same rules as creating a thread, just without going through the hassle of a thread, especially for more uncertain BSAs.

[KageSora]

While this is indeed a wonderful and underused thread, it doesn't exactly fill the void, at least not as I was understanding KageSora's post.

 

Like all other threads, that thread often gets bogged down in "that dragon can't do that!" and such. The OP sounds like it's a thread to flesh out a BSA that already has a dragon attached to it, to find out if your concept of the dragon fits with how others think, etc etc.

 

I'd personally like to see a separate thread where you can *actually* go "hey, I got this really cool idea but *I don't know* what dragon goes with it, will you help me out?"

Yeah, this is what I meant. It's a good start, but either we need a different thread (which I'd prefer to see just so we can keep ideas that fall under "cool thing, no dragon" and "cool thing, dragon picked" separate for discussion purposes or we need the "breed before bsa" thing to stop being treated like a hard rule that people use to go "nope doesn't work" instead of allowing them to go "no, doesn't work that way, let's try to find a different breed with different reasoning".

 

 

Re: RP Reasons:

 

I'd personally like to see more general setting information released alongside the expanded info on dragons. I think it would help with things like this if we had a better sense of why some things happen and others aren't allowed and what in-world reasoning is used that's currently pretty much available to TJ/maybe a few other people but invisible to everybody else.

 

And while I do agree that RP reasoning is important, I also agree that sometimes you need to consider adding/changing things even if it doesn't quite make sense from an RP standpoint because it's to make the gameplay experience better. Sometimes the separation of gameplay mechanics and story reasons can work for the best.

[edwardelricfreak]

I'd personally like to see more general setting information released alongside the expanded info on dragons.  I think it would help with things like this if we had a better sense of why some things happen and others aren't allowed and what in-world reasoning is used that's currently pretty much available to TJ/maybe a few other people but invisible to everybody else.

From what I understand, though TJ does have some headcanon going on (which usually is pretty much canon, but it can change if persuaded), the world is purposefully left to be quite abstract so the users can build on it. We're given a medieval-like era setting in a place not on Earth, but that's about it.

 

But just because it's somewhat medieval doesn't mean we have to follow every rule in the book on what defines medieval. As it's not Earth, and this world apparently has magic, we could actually probably make up lots of magitechnology and other interesting sciencey-magicy-related things so long as they make some sort of sense.

 

My point is, I seriously doubt TJ or anyone else is going to explain too much about the world, as they are leaving it open for the users to build on.

[KageSora]

There's a difference between leaving the setting vague enough that users can help develop it and letting us stumble around finding out where the invisible boundaries of the world are by running into them repeatedly.

 

 

If things are going to be shut down for being "against the canon" then the parts of the canon that they go against need to be readily accessible to the users. Like I said, I think the added dragon info will help, but we need more on the world, too, if TJ wants to enforce any of his ideas.

 

Because while I like RP reasoning, it does often feel like it's a problem of "hey, by the way, your idea is getting shut down now because it goes against this part of the canon that you literally had no possible way of knowing about until I just told you it wasn't in line with my ideas for this dragon/the world".

 

And that just feels really unfair.

 

 

It doesn't have to be every little bit of information in exhaustive detail--but anything that's important enough that it impacts what can and cannot be done should be highly visible.

[HeatherMarie]

Exactly what KageSora said. I'm honestly all for RP-reasons, because to me it's *fun* trying to make an idea fit canon... but when your great idea gets tossed because of canon that *doesn't exist* to normal users... That makes no sense and is very, very frustrating.

[LibbyLishly]

So much agreed. RP has its place, especially when it comes to establishing game canon, but the point is that the canon has to actually be established. Right now, it's so wildly subjective that half of the BSA suggestions are being shot down by people saying "I don't think this fits" - and the other half by people trying to impose crippling limits on every single idea.

[CNR4806]

With the encyclopedia coming up I don't see how "inadequate information" will remain as a valid reason to abolish canon-limitation on BSA suggestions, unless the encyclopedia ends up being a botch up failure that do not establish an official lore clear enough for reference.

 

So this "having to fit the lore makes no sense because the lore isn't here" argument sounds rather short-sighted to me.

[LibbyLishly]

With the encyclopedia coming up I don't see how "inadequate information" will remain as a valid reason to abolish canon-limitation on BSA suggestions, unless the encyclopedia ends up being a botch up failure that do not establish an official lore clear enough for reference.

 

So this "having to fit the lore makes no sense because the lore isn't here" argument sounds rather short-sighted to me.

More just a concern that if the encyclopedia doesn't actually wind up containing adequate information that these half-baked arguments in the BSA section will still go on. Honestly, they probably will regardless, even if a proposed action actually does fit a breed quite soundly.

[HeatherMarie]

With the encyclopedia coming up I don't see how "inadequate information" will remain as a valid reason to abolish canon-limitation on BSA suggestions, unless the encyclopedia ends up being a botch up failure that do not establish an official lore clear enough for reference.

 

So this "having to fit the lore makes no sense because the lore isn't here" argument sounds rather short-sighted to me.

Yeah, I agree, *but* that's putting a lot of pressure on an encyclopedia that we have NO clue about. Until we know what's going into this "encyclopedia", I think this is still a fairly valid concern.

[Cinnamin Draconna]

Personally, while I hope the encyclopedia turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to DC... I seriously doubt it will.

 

TJ has spent too many years being secretive over every little detail, that I have little faith in his being able to give us all... or even some... of the info we've been asking for, for so many years. After the extent that he's gone to so many times to squash info, I just can't see him loosening up any more than he absulutely has to.

 

Therefore, I have zero expectations that the encyclopedia will be anything more than what we already know.. which is practically nothing.. it will just be the same minimal info we've always gotten, just dressed up in a pretty package.

 

Sure, TJ may fool me and make all of us happy as a three year old with a new toy.. but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

[KageSora]

With the encyclopedia coming up I don't see how "inadequate information" will remain as a valid reason to abolish canon-limitation on BSA suggestions, unless the encyclopedia ends up being a botch up failure that do not establish an official lore clear enough for reference.

 

So this "having to fit the lore makes no sense because the lore isn't here" argument sounds rather short-sighted to me.

The thing is, though, unless it's a 100% exhaustive database that lists literally everything you could possibly think of, there's GOING to be users who are thinking outside the box, and coming up with things not covered in the lore for the dragons and the world (especially if the encyclopedia is lacking in the "way the world works" department.)

 

I also have my concerns about the way the encyclopedia will work. The "unlocking" thing is an issue. The data needs to be readily accessible to everybody and Person A who hasn't raised/clicked enough of Breed B to unlock the information that indicates their BSA idea won't work is in the same position we're all in now in that they had literally no way of learning that it wasn't possible unless they frequent the right threads/forums.

 

(Unless TJ posted somewhere besides the announcement thread that it's not actually going to need unlocking unlike what's indicated in that announcement thread or something--if so, please point me to where this is)

 

There's also the issue of just how long it'll be before it's released. If it's really going to be comprehensive, then it could still take some time.

 

Not to mention it sounds like it'll still be lacking in details about the world itself, focusing on the dragons. Which is all well and good for things about the breeds, but not so useful with the "no, actually, the way the world works means X isn't possible" or something.

 

Plus we don't know the extend of what it will have. Will it have a lot of behavioral stuff mostly? Things like diet? Things that mostly won't have any impact on a BSA? Or will it also include details about their (lack of) powers, how they work, what the limitations are, etc.?

 

 

And like I said, there will likely always be users who are thinking outside the box, and who are coming up with information not covered. Why should they have their idea shut down because "oh, well, no that's not how it works even though it's not in the encyclopedia"? If it's not fairly readily accessible to people, it shouldn't be considered a valid reason to shoot something down.

Edited June 19, 2014 by KageSora

[olympe]

The thing is, though, unless it's a 100% exhaustive database that lists literally everything you could possibly think of, there's GOING to be users who are thinking outside the box, and coming up with things not covered in the lore for the dragons and the world (especially if the encyclopedia is lacking in the "way the world works" department.)

 

I also have my concerns about the way the encyclopedia will work.  The "unlocking" thing is an issue.  The data needs to be readily accessible to everybody and Person A who hasn't raised/clicked enough of Breed B to unlock the information that indicates their BSA idea won't work is in the same position we're all in now in that they had literally no way of learning that it wasn't possible unless they frequent the right threads/forums.

 

Actually, I think the unlocking feature is a great idea because it will encourage users to click eggs, hatchlings and adult dragons - which helps us raise the little ones. Sure, not everyone will have all the information available from the beginning - but if it's made so that you only need to click on a certain breed for a given number of times - well, everybody can reach that without having to change the way they play. (Unless they decide it's not worth it - in which case I'm not all that sorry to see them disappointed. We've got a long history of people feeling entitled to everything, and adding a feature (apart from the Magikarp badge) that involves a bit of work to unlock might give us something to work for.

 

I also think that DC has grown to a size where we really need to have more information - especially for the implementation of BSAs, but also on other stuff that might come up. Maybe why two-headed dragons don't breed with one-headed dragons and so forth. This kind of stuff could be really helpful.

Edited June 19, 2014 by olympe

[edwardelricfreak]

Actually, I think the unlocking feature is a great idea because it will encourage users to click eggs, hatchlings and adult dragons - which helps us raise the little ones. Sure, not everyone will have all the information available from the beginning - but if it's made so that you only need to click on a certain breed for a given number of times - well, everybody can reach that without having to change the way they play.

I agree! In fact, it would probably be incredibly easy to just go sit on a hatchery site and click the different breeds you need to unlock. And even for those sites that automatically remove adults, it's usually not right away, so you could even get some of the adults you might be missing (or even use lineage view to click parents).

[KageSora]

Actually, I think the unlocking feature is a great idea because it will encourage users to click eggs, hatchlings and adult dragons - which helps us raise the little ones. Sure, not everyone will have all the information available from the beginning - but if it's made so that you only need to click on a certain breed for a given number of times - well, everybody can reach that without having to change the way they play.

The model itself isn't a bad one in theory, but I have issues with it since not everybody will have access to the same information at the same time. So, to me, it already partially defeats the purpose of using it as a "well, now you have easy reference to all the information about the breed so you know what can and can't work at all for a BSA". People will still find themselves in the same boat they are now until they unlock all the information about a given breed.

 

However, we really don't know enough about it yet to decide if it'll be helpful or not--the information in it, the numbers needed to unlock things, how much long it'll ultimately take, etc.

 

It could work quite nicely, be very easy to use and unlock stuff and informative.

 

Or it could be "takes way too long to have all the info needed to have a good idea of if your suggestion for a BSA is viable or not", thus making it not as useful as hoped in this context.

[Fiona]

TJ, I know at one point you were considering updating the forum software. I don't know if this is still under consideration, but if/when you do, would consider making sure there is an option to block a topic so we don't even see it? Such as when it's been made apparent that our opinion is not welcome and we don't want to see new posts and be tempted to respond, and just get sucked into a useless debate. Please and thanks.

[Fuzzbucket]

FI - please don't say it - BUT - I am on an updated invision forum - version three - and it is a NIGHTMARE. TJ is aware; this came up a while ago - there are many things about it that we CAN do here and cannot there - like archive messages - in v3 you cannot do that AT ALL, and they all turn into FB like conversation and are unmanageable. When they realised how vile it was, the admin there wanted to go back to v2 which is OK - but you aren't allowed to move to anything but three.

 

This is something I actually KNOW about and have experienced and over which TJ would have little control. If we need new forum software - something to which I have NO objection AT ALL - please let it not be the new version of this lot. Switch to something completely else. I can't THINK what got into invision when they screwed it up, but trust me, screwed it is, now

 

But where are your opinions not valued ? I always value them, even when we disagree, and I take them more seriously than most

[diaveborn]

If something were available in the future that worked (a new version of the forum software or whatever) I would also really like the ability to block topics so that they're unviewable (due in my case to triggers).

[edwardelricfreak]

FI - please don't say it - BUT - I am on an updated invision forum - version three - and it is a NIGHTMARE. TJ is aware; this came up a while ago - there are many things about it that we CAN do here and cannot there - like archive messages - in v3 you cannot do that AT ALL, and they all turn into FB like conversation and are unmanageable. When they realised how vile it was, the admin there wanted to go back to v2 which is OK - but you aren't allowed to move to anything but three.

 

This is something I actually KNOW about and have experienced and over which TJ would have little control. If we need new forum software - something to which I have NO objection AT ALL - please let it not be the new version of this lot. Switch to something completely else. I can't THINK what got into invision when they screwed it up, but trust me, screwed it is, now

 

But where are your opinions not valued ? I always value them, even when we disagree, and I take them more seriously than most

Personally I would *love* if maybe TJ built a new forum himself. I feel like it would be much easier to control at that point, but it's a lot of work so of course he doesn't have to if he thinks it's too much or just doesn't want to.

 

But I do agree with Fi's post- would be AWESOME to block a topic, that way I wouldn't get sucked up into it. Dx