Separate subforum for changes to existing BSAs

[Fuzzbucket]

I know birdz nixed a BSA suggested for the xenos.

[Vrack]

I wonder if it's possible that there are BSAs that would otherwise be cave-acceptable that don't get there because the artist has vetoed it.

I feel like it's also possible that the creator of the dragon they're suggesting the BSA for is no longer active so they can't get permission.

...

But then shouldn't the thread be closed since it has no chance of being added?

 

---

 

I feel like there are some dragons that deserve the BSA being suggested for them (like Whites). But if it hasn't been implemented yet after six years I wonder if it's even worth the trouble of keeping the thread active?

[olympe]

Alright, I'm going to throw this out here to gauge reactions because here's what I'd like to see:

 

1. Move changes-to-existing-BSAs topics back to Suggestions/Requests

 

I don't see the need for yet another separate forum for BSAs when people complain now that they miss topics in the BSA section because they never check the section. No reason to throw around more subsections when people aren't interested in checking them anyway. Let's just keep everything neat and tidy in the general Suggestions area. There aren't too many alterations to existing BSAs anyway.

 

2. Close/remove the entire BSA subsection

 

It's been - what - six years now since the BSA section was added, and how many of the BSAs suggested have been added? Zero. Yup, a whopping zero BSAs from the BSA section (somebody correct me if I'm wrong here!). Now, I could speculate on why this is (probably partly because p much nobody is going to go "oh, don't like this dragon, maybe it should have a BSA" or "I'd really like if this dragon I love got a BSA" and then think about a BSA for it. We're all thinking of BSAs we want and them sticking them on dragons, so there's not very many BSAs with super viable explanations behind them), but I think the more important thing here is if the section has been useful at all. No viable/workable suggestions implemented in six years of the section. Doesn't seem very useful to me at all. People aren't checking the section, since the implementation of BSAs we have only seen the introduction of new BSAs with new dragons, and none of the suggested BSAs have been added. I say the section has run its course, just like the Merchandise section did.

1. Works for me. Totally.

 

2. Yep, that's quite some track record. However, I know of a couple of really useful BSA suggestions in there that actually fit the breed. Guard for Guardians, Heal for Whites - to name but a few. However, the topics have been discussed, a consensus of sorts has been reached - and nobody may post there any more to just say "support +1". Which is why even amazing BSA suggestions don't get any love. Well, that and some other issues. (Not a single implemented BSA, "think of the breed first" rule, too much useless fluff...) I seriously believe that the BSA section could be a success if these problems are addressed. (Sock, I'm sure I once sent a PM your way regarding just that. But I never heard back. Was this a computer blurb on my end, maybe?)

 

In any case, I think that, given certain circumstances, the BSA section can be salvaged.

What we'd need is this:

1. At least two sub-sections, one for fluff BSAs (=not affecting actual gameplay) and one for gameplay-affecting BSAs. (To use some in-cave examples: Splash would have belonged in fluff. All other in-cave BSAs would have belonged to the gameplay-affecting section.) Another possible subsection is changes to existing BSAs - be it to add a breed that is able to perform the BSA (Why shouldn't Mageia Xenos be able to teleport? And why not give the same BSA with a different name and flavor text to a different breed, like Horse Dragons or Whiptails?) or to change the way the BSA works (like being able to accept only part of a trade).

2. Get rid of the "think of the dragon first, BSA last" rule! Yes, I know that it's supposed to be the other way round, but I dare say that most people who come up with a useful BSA get the idea for the BSA first and then look around to find a breed that fits it. I also believe that Influence, Fertility, Teleport and Incubate came around the same way, because the descriptions of the dragons performing them do not give any clue whatsoever as to that particular ability.

    

   The "dragon first, BSA last" rule is probably the reason for all the useless fluff BSA suggestions we have, and thus causing more problems than it solves. Considering that even TJ once shared his thoughts about allowing several different breeds to have the same BSA, that rule doesn't work any more.

3. Implement some BSAs from the suggestions. There are some that we've been waiting for for 5+ years, maybe more. They're completely hashed out, in full accord with the breed's character and sometimes even have the support of the breed's conceptor. But nothing ever comes off the BSA suggestions. Absolutely nothing. And then you're wondering why people hardly ever bother to peek in there at all.

4. Change the BSA subsection rules so people may show their support. Even if they cannot add anything to the suggestion itself, it might be interesting to see how many people actually want something. This rule is one of the worst, after all, because it means that only suggestions that aren't quite viable (yet) can get any kind of response, since a response needs "useful input". On the other hand, a suggestion that is viable, thought through and pretty much ready for release with only the OP won't get a single post in there because there's nothing left to add. (Save for the conceptor's support or lack thereof.)

5. Not sure about this one, but maybe start the BSA section over with a new set of rules that makes more sense? It will also show where players have actual interest in.

 

3. Disallow suggesting BSAs for old dragons and suggest that people suggest new dragons for BSAs they want instead

 

And the reasoning behind this is largely the same as the reasoning above: since the first BSAs were implemented, the only new BSAs we've seen were introduced with a newly released dragon. No BSA has been added to an existing dragon in years, even though we've seen plenty of suggestions pass by. So let's call a spade a spade and get the BSAs we want by suggesting new dragons that will really fit the BSA.

If you really prefer to shut down the BSA subsection, then this is probably the only way to go about it. It's regrettable, since there are some really useful BSAs hidden in the section, but, considerin how many suggested BSAs for old breeds have become reality, shutting down the BSA subforum might be more honest. Because, right now, the BSA section is something between a lie and a cruel joke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lurhstaap]

Agree with Olympe. Wish I had more to add but she covered it.

[cyradis4]

Alright, I'm going to throw this out here to gauge reactions because here's what I'd like to see:

 

1. Move changes-to-existing-BSAs topics back to Suggestions/Requests

 

I don't see the need for yet another separate forum for BSAs when people complain now that they miss topics in the BSA section because they never check the section. No reason to throw around more subsections when people aren't interested in checking them anyway. Let's just keep everything neat and tidy in the general Suggestions area. There aren't too many alterations to existing BSAs anyway.

 

2. Close/remove the entire BSA subsection

 

It's been - what - six years now since the BSA section was added, and how many of the BSAs suggested have been added? Zero. Yup, a whopping zero BSAs from the BSA section (somebody correct me if I'm wrong here!). Now, I could speculate on why this is (probably partly because p much nobody is going to go "oh, don't like this dragon, maybe it should have a BSA" or "I'd really like if this dragon I love got a BSA" and then think about a BSA for it. We're all thinking of BSAs we want and them sticking them on dragons, so there's not very many BSAs with super viable explanations behind them), but I think the more important thing here is if the section has been useful at all. No viable/workable suggestions implemented in six years of the section. Doesn't seem very useful to me at all. People aren't checking the section, since the implementation of BSAs we have only seen the introduction of new BSAs with new dragons, and none of the suggested BSAs have been added. I say the section has run its course, just like the Merchandise section did.

 

3. Disallow suggesting BSAs for old dragons and suggest that people suggest new dragons for BSAs they want instead

 

And the reasoning behind this is largely the same as the reasoning above: since the first BSAs were implemented, the only new BSAs we've seen were introduced with a newly released dragon. No BSA has been added to an existing dragon in years, even though we've seen plenty of suggestions pass by. So let's call a spade a spade and get the BSAs we want by suggesting new dragons that will really fit the BSA.

Lets be honest here, Sock.... Outside of the last year, how many BSAs have been added to the game.... period? And lets be really honest.... How many coding changes have happened... in the whole history of DC? If we shut down the BSA suggestions because "they never happen", then we might as well close down the whole Suggestions forum! Since the first spate, we had Splash (a fluff BSA), Summon, then we had Enrage, Bolt, and Precog all in a short frame of time.... very recently. We've also had changes to the site and changes to the forum, in that same year time frame. So changes are happening again.

 

How much of the "no BSAs added" is because TJ won't add them.... and how much because they never caught his attention (and few new features were added, period)? And how much of it is because he can't *find* the useful ones? I know I have to wade through the fluff BSAs to find the useful ones, and I follow the sub-forum! How must it be to someone who doesn't follow it?

 

I know that the one time I personally brought a topic to his attention, he had useful input and didn't give any hint that BSAs for old dragons weren't going to happen. So before we do away with the BSA section entirely... I'd like to see TJ respond as to why there have been no new ones added. Not only that... but he himself asked how we'd feel about duplicate BSAs on different dragons.... and clearly that'd be a "BSA first, what dragon does it fit" type deal! Same as I expect both Influence and Incubate were, as well as Fertility.

 

I'd also like to see what would happen, if the "no posting just to support" rule was done away with. And if we split them into Fluff and not-Fluff. If people could find the useful BSAs.... we might get some added.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[Fiona]

Guard for Guardians, Heal for Whites? If TJ were willing to implement those suggestions wouldn't he have done so already? It's been years. There's been a couple methods for Papers that involve a "breeding" mechanic. That's been there the whole time too. In fact, that originally was suggested before the BSA section was made. So again, if he were willing to add it we'd have it already, right?

 

I say shut the section down. If the people who came up with the concepts for older dragons are around and come up with a BSA idea or something they can go to TJ directly. Otherwise, just have people think up new BSAs for new dragons.

[HeatherMarie]

I hate to think of shutting down a whole section of the forums, but I agree that *the way it is now* isn't working. The way it is now, the BSA subforum doesn't get much attention and, as stated, nothing has actually come of it.

[Lurhstaap]

Guard for Guardians, Heal for Whites? If TJ were willing to implement those suggestions wouldn't he have done so already? It's been years. There's been a couple methods for Papers that involve a "breeding" mechanic. That's been there the whole time too. In fact, that originally was suggested before the BSA section was made. So again, if he were willing to add it we'd have it already, right?

 

I say shut the section down. If the people who came up with the concepts for older dragons are around and come up with a BSA idea or something they can go to TJ directly. Otherwise, just have people think up new BSAs for new dragons.

 

Not... necessarily. Your logic is sound, but at the same time, it's entirely possible that it's inaccurate to this specific situation. Speaking as someone who used to be head admin of a pet site, sometimes things you want to do take years longer to get around to actually doing than you expect. Other stuff comes up in the game itself that's higher priority, other parts of life get in the way, implementation turns out to have unexpected problems/challenges that have to be fixed, et cetera. For all we know, all of those BSAs are in some stage of implementation or testing and have been for ages but just aren't done yet, and TJ isn't the sort who announces incomplete stuff ahead of time usually. Or he might like the BSAs but want to use them for a new breed and is waiting for the right one to come along. Or he's waiting for final approval from original spriters/conceptors. Or some other event. Or just whatever seems like 'the right time' to him. It's hard to say in the absence of information.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Lurhstaap

[Obscure_Trash]

I wonder if it's possible that there are BSAs that would otherwise be cave-acceptable that don't get there because the artist has vetoed it.

A few people are commenting on this, so I just want to clear up that permission is not necessary for BSAs. If an artist says no, TJ is certainly going to respect that, but adding a BSA to a concept isn't like editing the art: there's no necessity to contact the artist and wait a certain amount of time for an answer. If an artist is inactive, the concept is simply free for a BSA. Any BSAs that have been veto'd by an artist are ones where the artist publicly commented in the suggestion thread and it was closed.

 

~

 

Also, I'll just add before people jump on it: I'm not aware of any plans for any BSAs to be added to any previously released dragons.

 

Lets be honest here, Sock.... Outside of the last year, how many BSAs have been added to the game.... period? And lets be really honest.... How many coding changes have happened... in the whole history of DC?

 

There's a difference between rarely happens and never happens. As few BSAs that we've seen introduced since their original introduction, there have been BSAs implemented with the release of a new dragon (expunge, stun, precognition, should we count splash and summon? - three's actually a pretty impressive record, considering that we do rarely see changes). There has not been a BSA added from the suggestions section. As few updates and changes to the site as have happened, I can still think of several updates the cave has gone through without even looking through the news section.

[DragonLady86]

 

 

There's a difference between rarely happens and never happens. As few BSAs that we've seen introduced since their original introduction, there have been BSAs implemented with the release of a new dragon (expunge, stun, precognition, should we count splash and summon? - three's actually a pretty impressive record, considering that we do rarely see changes). There has not been a BSA added from the suggestions section. As few updates and changes to the site as have happened, I can still think of several updates the cave has gone through without even looking through the news section.

Bite was added to a previously released dragon, and didn't come out at the same time as teleport/Influence/Incubate/fertility; which were also old dragons. (though influence for pinks is debatable since we did have to get New Pinks first. /shrug)

 

Fertility was changed as requested.

 

Though I admit to being surprised that we've still don't have Heal for Whites, given TJ was the original suggester.

 

but I do agree that changes should be left out where they can be debated. And if BSA's for older dragons are not going to happen, ever, then that section should be closed.

[cyradis4]

Bite was added to a previously released dragon, and didn't come out at the same time as teleport/Influence/Incubate/fertility; which were also old dragons. (though influence for pinks is debatable since we did have to get New Pinks first. /shrug)

 

Fertility was changed as requested.

 

Though I admit to being surprised that we've still don't have Heal for Whites, given TJ was the original suggester.

 

but I do agree that changes should be left out where they can be debated. And if BSA's for older dragons are not going to happen, ever, then that section should be closed.

If TJ says they won't happen, then I'd agree with you.

 

But that's the kicker: unless Sock has heard from TJ, she's assuming that just because something has never happened, it never will, even though what indicators we have from TJ hints that he still considers it (his post in the Moonstones thread of mine, his thread about adding duplicate BSAs) despite his not having added one.

 

So the question really is, what IS the reason TJ hasn't added BSAs to older dragons? Is it because he hasn't had time (but still has some he'd like to do), was there a coding issue, or can he not sort them out, or *is* there a legal issue / he doesn't feel comfortable without artist permission?

 

Of them, I'd be inclined to think a combination of time and feeling comfortable without artist permission, but that's just a guess, unless someone has some inside info?

 

So yea, before anything like killing the BSAs for old dragons entirely happens I'd like to hear from TJ on it.

 

Cheers!

C4.

 

[Fiona]

I don't believe it's a permissions thing because TJ himself initiated the concept for whites. As it's his concept, he decides on a BSA for it or not.

 

I don't believe it's a matter of time to code because the Heal BSA was thought up at the same time as Teleport, Incubate, Influence and Fertility. He did all the coding for Teleport and the others, which seems much more complex than Heal plus has done other quite complicated coding projects since these BSAs were coded. So on that point I don't believe it's a coding issue. If he wanted to add Heal he could do so.

 

I'd say while he may like the idea of Heal (or did when he thought it up) it would have an influence on gameplay that he doesn't like, so we aren't getting it. A similar argument could be made for other old breed BSA suggestions. He could if he wanted but doesn't like the impact on the game so doesn't want to add that.

 

 

Shutting down the BSA section doesn't completely rule out BSAs on older dragons. If someone has a compelling proposal for one there's always the route of talking to TJ directly. Given the track record though I believe that BSAs on older dragons are very unlikely and that instead people should focus on ideas for new dragons, with or without BSAs.

 

Shutting down the BSA section means proposed changes to existing BSAs automatically go in the Suggestions section where they get more active attention. It closes down an unpopular, cluttered section that right now doesn't seem to be benefiting either the game or the forum and removes something that is an irritant for some people.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Fiona BlueFire

[Obscure_Trash]

Bite was added to a previously released dragon, and didn't come out at the same time as teleport/Influence/Incubate/fertility; which were also old dragons. (though influence for pinks is debatable since we did have to get New Pinks first. /shrug)

 

Fertility was changed as requested.

I'm fairly certain bite was still out before the section was introduced? But I actually purposefully didn't count it because it's more of a reproductive method than a breeding method. And I did specify several times in my post that we haven't seen the introduction of a BSA on existing dragons asides from the original introduction of BSAs - the main set of BSAs (earthquake, fertility, incubate, and influence) were what I was referring to.

 

Aspects of BSAs have been tweaked, fertility included. That is not the same as adding a new BSA. (And actually, I'll point out that there were several suggested changes to fertility - including by TJ himself - and none of those were ever implemented even though they were older than anything refusal related.)

 

Shutting down the BSA section doesn't completely rule out BSAs on older dragons. If someone has a compelling proposal for one there's always the route of talking to TJ directly. Given the track record though I believe that BSAs on older dragons are very unlikely and that instead people should focus on ideas for new dragons, with or without BSAs.

 

^^^ That's just my suggestion because I'm not seeing the point. We don't have good enough reasons to explain why a BSA fits existing dragons. We're much more likely to get BSAs if we either build them with a new dragon or build a new dragon and realize it might be able to do x thing. I don't want to see Suggestions flooded with BSA concepts for older dragons, so I would prefer they were at least discouraged or if we just had one thread to put them all in.

 

I'm interested in hearing other ideas (and yes, I've seen all the ones posted so far), but tbh, I'm most interested in hearing ideas that don't call for more subforums.

[diaveborn]

A few people are commenting on this, so I just want to clear up that permission is not necessary for BSAs. If an artist says no, TJ is certainly going to respect that, but adding a BSA to a concept isn't like editing the art: there's no necessity to contact the artist and wait a certain amount of time for an answer. If an artist is inactive, the concept is simply free for a BSA. Any BSAs that have been veto'd by an artist are ones where the artist publicly commented in the suggestion thread and it was closed.

 

I'm confused as to how the first sentence in this quote and the last sentence work together. Are you saying that if an artist says "no" to a BSA for their dragon, that won't necessarily prevent it from getting implemented?

[Pokemonfan13]

I'm not sure what you're confused about. The first sentence says that permission is not necessary (they don't need to say "yes"), the last sentence says that if they say no in the thread then the thread is closed and the suggestion is considered dead.

 

Basically, if the artist sees the BSA suggestion and posts that they don't like it, that is respected. But if TJ wants to implement a BSA he doesn't have to ask first.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Pokemonfan13

[diaveborn]

I'm confused because if permission isn't necessary, it would make sense to me that an artist coming in and saying no wouldn't shut down the thread. Like, getting to veto something means, you don't need their permission for starting the thread but you do need it to continue.

[Vrack]

I'm confused because if permission isn't necessary, it would make sense to me that an artist coming in and saying no wouldn't shut down the thread.  Like, getting to veto something means, you don't need their permission for starting the thread but you do need it to continue.

I think of it like this:

I can start a BSA request for an existing dragon without consulting with its original creator, people like it, TJ likes it, and it gets added to the cave. The BSA was requested and approved "without permission" from the artist. They never posted saying yay or nay and so, while I never actually got their permission, I also never got a statement from them saying that they disliked or disproved of the BSA.

 

But, if the original creator posted in the BSA request while it was being discussed and says they don't like it it would get closed. They're the person who made the dragon and they don't think the BSA matches it. So even though I didn't need their permission to make the request and get it approved above, if they directly state they don't like the BSA their wishes will be respected. Why would I, someone who clearly likes this dragon enough to come up with a BSA for it, want to go against the creator of said dragon? It's just rude.

 

Does that help you understand?

[diaveborn]

Yeah, that all does make sense. What I'm really confused about is:

I wonder if it's possible that there are BSAs that would otherwise be cave-acceptable that don't get there because the artist has vetoed it.

A few people are commenting on this, so I just want to clear up that permission is not necessary for BSAs. If an artist says no, TJ is certainly going to respect that, but adding a BSA to a concept isn't like editing the art: there's no necessity to contact the artist and wait a certain amount of time for an answer. If an artist is inactive, the concept is simply free for a BSA. Any BSAs that have been veto'd by an artist are ones where the artist publicly commented in the suggestion thread and it was closed.

The circumstances Vrack describes still leave me wondering, how many otherwise cave-acceptable BSAs don't get in because the artist vetoed it. I thought SPS's response to my quote was to say that it wasn't an issue, so that's where my confusion happened.

[Fiona]

If you assume that every BSA suggestion that got vetoed by the artist was cave acceptable then a lot, but that isn't the case in my opinion. I can't think of a single BSA suggestion that would have been cave acceptable that was subsequently vetoed by the artist.

[Obscure_Trash]

I'm confused because if permission isn't necessary, it would make sense to me that an artist coming in and saying no wouldn't shut down the thread.  Like, getting to veto something means, you don't need their permission for starting the thread but you do need it to continue.

As I just explained, permission isn't necessary, but TJ will respect if an artist does have an opinion on a BSA and vetoes it. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how to explain this any differently. =x

 

My point was, I don't know of a single example were a BSA was deemed okay for the cave and work was set upon it until the artist said no. The only BSAs I know that have been turned down by artists are the closed ones still sitting around in the BSA section where the artist posted to say no. But, unlike with editing art, there's no requirement to even try contacting artists, inactive or active, to ask if the BSA is okay before suggesting. TJ would probably put up some indication that he was thinking of adding a BSA to a specific dragon if an artist was active around here, but I doubt there's concepts just sitting around in the section that aren't implemented just because TJ can't get in contact with an artist. As I speculated earlier, I believe the reason that none of the BSAs have been added is at least in part because we don't have great explanations for why they fit the dragon. Another part is probably because there are some ideas that TJ just doesn't think belongs in the cave.

 

tl;dr I 100% do not think any permissions issue is why we haven't seen any success from the BSA section.

Edited December 8, 2016 by SockPuppet Strangler

[diaveborn]

Cool, thanks for the follow-up!

[Cinnamin Draconna]

One thing that would help immensely is that IF a BSA suggestion is nixed by the artist or rejected by TJ... POST THE INFO and lock the thread. Leaving us hanging with no info is so annoying that it makes my teeth ache.

 

100% support for removing the BSA subforum. Leave the suggestions in the main forum and let them live until they die 'naturally'. BUT, it would be a good idea to mark the thread with SERIOUS or FLUFF in the thread title. Making that a RULE would make searching for an old BSA thread easier AND allow for info at a glance (you wouldn't need to actually open the thread to see what kind of idea it is.)

 

Someone mentioned removing the "dragon first, BSA last" rule and I totally agree. WHY? has always been my question. MOST of the dragon descriptions we have are vague and uninformative anyway, so why not think of a BSA then find a dragon that fits? Even if it's just the dragons official name that gives someone an idea about a BSA, that should be plenty of reason. Expand on that reasonsing instead of nit-picking over why a dragons shouldn't be given a BSA.

 

While there's nothing wrong with creating a dragon to fit a BSA, why bother if there's already a dragon that could be used already with just a little text added or subtracted. It's not like this stuff is litterally etched in stone.. it's text on a page that can be edited with a few keystrokes. The old arguement about 'but that's not canon' drives me nuts.. not everyone on this game RPs and change can be GOOD if it's done to improve the game. Rejecting change because 'it's always been that way' is a pathetic excuse for fear of change.

 

OK, if an artist nixes something fine.. but since there's no rule about artist permission for a BSA, I see no reason why TJ can't overrule an artist an give us what we've asked for. I'm much more in favor of making the game better over mollycoddling artists.

 

AND... if someone just wants to say I like this, instead of posting an essay.. I totally agree. I'd rather have 100 folk simply agree with something intead of a few players writing walls of text that just repeat what other players have already posted. Not everyone is good at writing stuff.. not everyone is a native English speaker.. seeing the same reasons for support over and over is not necessary. Let those that WANT to give a reason give it.. but let those that might be shy just say they agree or disagree.

 

So in summary.. remove the BSA subforum, mark BSA suggestions as Serious or Fluff, remove the "dragon first, BSA last" rule and maybe lose the 'must post an opinion' vs the 'I like this' rule.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Cinnamin Draconna

[AppleMango]

One thing that would help immensely is that IF a BSA suggestion is nixed by the artist or rejected by TJ... POST THE INFO and lock the thread. Leaving us hanging with no info is so annoying that it makes my teeth ache.

 

100% support for removing the BSA subforum. Leave the suggestions in the main forum and let them live until they die 'naturally'. BUT, it would be a good idea to mark the thread with SERIOUS or FLUFF in the thread title. Making that a RULE would make searching for an old BSA thread easier AND allow for info at a glance (you wouldn't need to actually open the thread to see what kind of idea it is.)

 

Someone mentioned removing the "dragon first, BSA last" rule and I totally agree. WHY? has always been my question. MOST of the dragon descriptions we have are vague and uninformative anyway, so why not think of a BSA then find a dragon that fits? Even if it's just the dragons official name that gives someone an idea about a BSA, that should be plenty of reason. Expand on that reasonsing instead of nit-picking over why a dragons shouldn't be given a BSA.

 

While there's nothing wrong with creating a dragon to fit a BSA, why bother if there's already a dragon that could be used already with just a little text added or subtracted. It's not like this stuff is litterally etched in stone.. it's text on a page that can be edited with a few keystrokes. The old arguement about 'but that's not canon' drives me nuts.. not everyone on this game RPs and change can be GOOD if it's done to improve the game. Rejecting change because 'it's always been that way' is a pathetic excuse for fear of change.

 

OK, if an artist nixes something fine.. but since there's no rule about artist permission for a BSA, I see no reason why TJ can't overrule an artist an give us what we've asked for. I'm much more in favor of making the game better over mollycoddling artists.

 

AND... if someone just wants to say I like this, instead of posting an essay.. I totally agree. I'd rather have 100 folk simply agree with something intead of a few players writing walls of text that just repeat what other players have already posted. Not everyone is good at writing stuff.. not everyone is a native English speaker.. seeing the same reasons for support over and over is not necessary. Let those that WANT to give a reason give it.. but let those that might be shy just say they agree or disagree.

 

So in summary.. remove the BSA subforum, mark BSA suggestions as Serious or Fluff, remove the "dragon first, BSA last" rule and maybe lose the 'must post an opinion' vs the 'I like this' rule.

I agree with pretty much all of this but I think instead of getting rid of the BSA subsection we should split it into two categories: useful and fluff. Both changes to existing BSAs and new BSA suggestions can be posted - because I think splitting the useful from the fluff is what's going to make the most difference.

[Fuzzbucket]

I agree with pretty much all of this but I think instead of getting rid of the BSA subsection we should split it into two categories: useful and fluff. Both changes to existing BSAs and new BSA suggestions can be posted - because I think splitting the useful from the fluff is what's going to make the most difference.

The trouble is with the people who see THEIR fluffy ideas as not fluff.

[cyradis4]

The trouble is with the people who see THEIR fluffy ideas as not fluff.

Fuzz, has anyone actually complained about their concept being considered fluff?

 

I haven't seen any such complaints..... And if its something you are worried about, then I'd say cross that bridge when it comes and have the mods the final arbitrators? Maybe have a form for BSAs just like they do for Dragon Requests, and then the mod chooses which sub-forum it goes in?

 

Cheers!

C4.