StarSeekerVDS

*grumble* If they aren't already doing that, they're insane.

Yeah probably. *sighs* I'd rather endure a year of resets and disabling content if the end result is a game that works better.

*sighs at ostriches* If the team management happens to screw things up enough the project fails and we don't have a game! I wish people would stop clouding the issue with stupidity about mob camping and loot and focus on that for a change; that's the only thing I'm worried about! Yeah we could all go do something else. I won't slit my wrists if the project tanks. But it would still be a disgusting shame considering the work that has gone into it, wouldn't you agree? I have never understood all this path-of-least-resistance, laugh-everything-off crap in lieu of making what are really minor changes for the sake of improving the odds of success. We all want a finished game here, right?

Benevolent dictatorships are fine, so long as the mob has the option of terminating the ruler if he stops being benevolent. As for options in the current situation, a player vote wouldn't be very useful nor would GM appointing. Solution? Lottery of volunteers. *shrugs*

I'd love to know why people are giving this -rep. *rolls eyes*

If she were a Progen she would fly right into the black hole trying to shoot it down, and if she were a Terran she would be trying to find money in the accretion disc and fry herself.

Yes they were... but some folks are trying hard to beat them at that.

Pop-rocks would be awesome actually, as long as they had the subtle marking on them they did in live. That way a bot gets his ass beat, someone who has been mining too long might have a little nasty surprise for letting his attention slip, and the really bored could go and pop them deliberately.

Very nice info there, and yes it would be cool if the TS got something a bit more opulent-sounding.

There is plenty of discussion on the General forums (look under the non-stickied "communication" thread) as well as on Marco and AF Vet's blogs ( http://af-vet-enb.blogspot.com and http://marco-enb.blogspot.com ).

That's all nice for the threatening players stuff, but then what about the (alleged) issues with devs being run off the team by other devs and/or the "board"? That needs addressed more than some silly items in a game that isn't even up yet. And it can't be addressed internally.

If that's the only thing that's ending up with copyright tags on it, that's different.

Whether or not EA is likely to sue us is beside the point. Placing copyrights on IP you did not create is unethical and EA doesn't need to go to all that much trouble to send a C&D order. Though the server might be reconstructed and less of that is EA's property, the entire content base is, most of the site graphics have E&B elements, etc. etc. In the long term, if the project is successful, EA will most likely assess the publicity factor. Will this project (further) harm EA's reputation (say by management issues) or could it be turned to EA's advantage somehow? I consider both to be possible which is why I'm conceptualizing a few docs intended to convince EA the latter is the case. This project has some potential to be leveraged into a marketing tool by EA. The emulator succeeds, EA could take over certain aspects of it (say, hosting the forums) and using it to generate ad revenue/customers. In any case, it's stupid to claim copyrights on someone else's IP.

You should use this.

Yeah Ariad > Megan.

Do you like Megan?! Yeah we like Megan! What if she was life-sized? Yeah we would hit that! Do you like E & B? Yeah we like E&B! Ditditditdit ditditdit ditdit can't wait to get a mouthful of Megan! Megan! Megan! Ditditditdit ditditdit ditdit can't wait to get a mouthful! Do you like Megan?! Yeah we like Megan! What if she was life-sized? Yeah we would hit that! Do you like E & B? Yeah we like E&B! Ditditditdit ditditdit ditdit can't wait to get some Megan!

Maybe, in which case ST5 would focus on the steps 1 and 2 above, simplifying the game and making sure locs, items, etc. are all fixed in preparation for the next ST. The first task in any sort of bug repair is isolation. In this and previous stress tests they've been doing the exact opposite, incorporating new features and haphazardly bugfixing whatever crops up in a completely overcomplicated system. That's nothing short of madness.

This is my proposal for Stress Test 5 development cycle focused on class advancement. This presupposes the purpose of the stress test to be the bug-testing of these specific aspects of the emulator without concern for 150-level playability (which would be developed piece by piece in subsequent stress tests.) 1: Prior to ST5, finalize location of elements (stations, NPCs, navs) and all data regarding available NON-MISSION (see below) item drops. None of these should be touched after ST5 begins. If anything is buggy or unbalanced, note it and remove it before the beginning of ST5. 2: Remove and set aside all missions and other content excepting unbuggable locations, NPCs, navs, etc. Wipe all talk trees. Basically clean out everything possible that is not directly required for the below. 3: Grid out the full advancement for all classes, starting with skills. To simplify this, ensure that all classes have an equal number of skills with equal level distributions. (And, as much as possible, identical prerequisite trees.) Temporarily change the skill-granting levels so that all new skills are gained by level 30. (See below.) For any non-functional skills, either prioritize their repair or temporarily replace them with placeholders. 4: Determine what missions are required for granting class skills. Start from scratch and storyboard them so that all such missions are relevant to the current state of the game story. Use the simplest mission logic possible and make them modular, i.e. use the same mission structure for as many different missions as possible to minimize bugs. 5: At opening stations, post an NPC who gives a mission to automatically grant a level so that a player may level to 150 immediately if they wish. Flag characters that use this NPC and delete said characters weekly. 6: Weekly, request via in-game and forum announcements that players test the advancement missions of a specific class. Devote the next week repairing any issues uncovered. Once this process is complete, move on to skills for said classes (incorporating rebuilt skills if any were taken out previously.) During this cycle no content development work should be done and any existing bugs in that field should be addressed as much as possible before ST5. Since this stress test would specifically focus on advancement and players are actively engaged in testing that, these game-breaking aspects should be rock-solid by the end of ST5 and optimally require no further changes later. It would also be useful to expand upon the mob functions during this time and institute the AI in a controlled fashion in specific locations, since this should not introduce bugs into the advancement development. During ST5, after the missions above are done, the story team should be storyboarding all missions from 30-100, and working together with mission designers to plot out the missions from 30-50 which would be the focus of the next development cycle. Change some of the higher-level skills to be granted at level 50.

I don't know, David. I'm waiting for some folks to get the balls to start naming names and posting details. I hope, if anyone does indeed grow such a pair, said names and details won't quietly vanish off the forums. If that nonsense starts happening I'll mirror it myself. Myself, I have had no problems with any specific team member in years--save one, and he was removed during my absence. If the team had had any sense he would have been disposed of long before that; he single-handedly pissed off and drove away numerous people who could have been valuable to the team. However, he was entrenched and had a power base and so he persisted in his destructive attitudes for quite some time. I don't even know what eventually caused you to run him out but obviously it was the wrong thing otherwise it would have happened long before. My problems are with an obviously disorganized and possibly unethical power structure. I understand that AF_Vet and Marco were upset about various things, however, I see no reason to believe their comments on their blogs are completely off-base; neither of them comes off as stupid, irrational, or malicious. (I say this even though I vehemently disagreed with Vet's moderating attitudes.) If they're telling even 25% of the truth something is wrong that requires severe intervention, and the only people who can intervene are the community. If I were on the team at this moment and I was even once the target of any of the behaviors Marco or AF Vet commented on, or any such behaviors interfered with any work I was doing, I would go ballistic. I care about the game, not power trips, cliques, manipulations, politics, and as I'm sure you're able to tell, certainly not appearances or diplomacy or the possibility of getting banned. We'll see how it goes.

Chicken and egg. It's been said by a variety of people including former devs and players alike that there are issues regarding the board members. It has not led to these board members being removed. Therefore, what possible hope does Joe Sha'Ha'Dem have of accomplishing anything by reporting issues that are secondary to the (alleged) ethics issues regarding the board members? If one of you "board members" (and I don't have any specifics to indicate who or what, only too many rumors for things to possibly be hunky-dory and I haven't even been looking for them) is behaving in a way that jeopardizes the project, I want you GONE. If you're enabling some dimwit to threaten other players as the previous posters have suggested, I don't care half as much as I do about potential unethical behavior causing harm to the goal of finishing the emulator. Wipe characters weekly and that problem is solved. Titles and power should not exist in this project! If titles and power are causing any sorts of difficulties that diminish the project--and pissing off devs into quitting is about as severe a diminishing as can exist--then you need to get rid of them. The "board", "ethics committee", "leader of X team" should be directly answerable to the community and no-confidence votes should be an option for disposing of anyone who is damaging the project. And that requires transparency. Anyone internal or external to the dev team should be allowed and encouraged to publicly cite (with all possible evidence) any violations of the CoC. Yes, that would be initially messy especially with the obvious issues going on here. But it would smooth itself out after awhile and from what I can tell the bulk of the devs and board who actually move the project forward would not be much affected.

And why isn't it?

Wow, a name I recognize. Hi Sia. Voidfire here, doubt you remember me though.

Any materials created here that incorporate any aspect of E&B are owned by EA even if EA doesn't have any current intention of enforcing their copyrights, and they could choose to at any time. Claiming copyrights on any of these materials is illegal. Any materials created here that incorporate no intellectual property of E&B are owned by their respective creators unless a legally binding agreement exists between the content creators and Net7, and only that if Net7 is a legally recognizable entity. This cannot be made retroactive without consent of all parties. Claiming copyrights on preexisting materials can be actionable. Please give these facts serious consideration before opening unpleasant and unnecessary cans of worms. (And if you are brazen enough to try copyrighting stuff that belongs to EA or others as some have posted lately, would you please have the sense to name the organization something that isn't part of the IP you're messing with?!)

*coughs*

1) Okay, so add anything related directly to server security to the non-public. For the rest, there's still little reason to keep it in the dark. 2) I think you may have read my suggestion backwards? I suggested avoiding TS and IMs except where there's little choice; use the forums for anything else. 3) By "synthesized" I should have said "interpolated" perhaps. In any case, it should be a regular thing rather than an on-demand thing. 4/5) I'll rewrite my layout suggestion which includes a cleaner way of presenting the stickies/announcements, hopefully Monday, and forward it to Asmir. 7) There's nothing wrong with "the devs are doing a great job". I agree fully. "The devs are doing a great job so obviously everything is perfect" is a common sentiment and not productive. Rarely is it quite hostile enough to merit moderation, so what is someone going to report really? Regarding gameplay changes, honestly I think you would be far better off giving the community NO consideration and focus entirely on making the game function perfectly to plan (presupposing you have a plan that solid). The idea of people complaining about drops, for example, is ludicrous at this point. 8) Even nasty opinions usually have a reason. If someone gets pissed off enough to say something nasty, they can and should be encouraged to speak their mind and issues can and should be resolved transparently. People get angry over misunderstandings and those misunderstandings are no easier to work out privately. Attempting to do so just adds layers of he-said/she-said and allows for greater misunderstandings if not deliberate problem-causing. Related to that, no one should be banned unless they are spamming or filling every post with obscenities or something blatant. Even a disgruntled dev can be a valuable asset if you take the time to work out the differences that can crop up. 10) Surprise and exciting content are for live, not a pre-alpha stress test thingamajig. 11) First, make the statement, loudly enough that everyone in the community hears it, that it isn't tolerated. Then you'll have the reports. People won't come forward with crap like that until they see the team verify that the reports will be taken seriously. 12) The CoC is badly written, poorly accessible, and far too open for interpretation. I can think of no legitimate reason to not fix these issues and post it right on the top of the forum in its own (locked) thread along with an information post with direct links to contacts empowered to deal with violations. Thank you for responding. I hope I can be of some assistance with all this. In closing I'd like to explain my reasoning behind some of all this. I have had plenty of experience over the years in different online projects, including several I led and several that I was only a participant in. I've seen projects that were very far along collapse and it was always for one reason: a rigid, authoritarian, divisive development team (less the devs themselves so much as their community management) that forgot that their interactions with each other and with their communities are as important as the work they were doing. I see signs of that here and don't even tell me that it's just a few disgruntled devs badmouthing the team because that's bullshit so transparent they'll be making bullshit-greenhouses out of it on Kailaasa. Problems like the recent blow-up, previous blow-ups, house-shakings, and forum attitudes are symptomatic of structural issues or at the very least poor people skills. I've wavered back and forth on rejoining the team for months because every time I finally get stuff together on my end I see something else going on that mirrors blown-up projects I've witnessed in the past and I really don't know what to do. So I prod people to see what reactions come of it, and try to figure out exactly what's going on and if anything useful can be done about it. My biggest word of warning? None of the other projects I've seen blow up ever saw it coming either. The leadership was always perfectly convinced that things were running smoothly and that any issues were the fault of the other guy, and they ran their projects straight into oblivion patting themselves on the back the whole way down the track. I would be very saddened to see this happen here.