Rage:
Sure. Or, it doesn’t even have to be “settled” before you add it to the OP, it can just be stuff currently under discussion. It’s just nice, when you’re like “what idea was it we came up with, again?” to be able to find it right away rather than going on a scavenger hunt.
I know “gatekeeping” has a bad name, but some low level of it definitely makes life less bad. I mean, imagine 30 people commenting in your discussion, each of whom suggests an idea like “Buff Yang’s (or Karlei’s, or DML, etc) by 10%, then you’ll be OP”.
These are terrible ideas, not because Yang’s or Karlei’s don’t deserve a buff, but because those buffs are not nearly enough. “Everybody’s voice is important”, be damned. Anybody who suggest buffs like that is either trolling you guys or has no idea how the game works. I mean, you don’t want to be a jerk, but you don’t want to be a victim, either.
This is great advice. It’s also the same exact Rage and I tried to offer in the DH forums:
What I mean is that threads with comprehensive feedback are great, but you need to centralize them in one place, with a single, comprehensive game design philosophy (that aligns realistically with the devs), and you have to come up with concrete, specific fixes. Someone–or a few someones–need to be in charge to moderate, so to speak, the good ideas from the bad. You need to polish it all and present it in GD as a unified, cohesive community.
Not all opinions are valid, and not all voices carry the same weight. If you want to succeed at a buff proposal, you need community backing and participation, yes, but you also need someone front and center that really understands the game, someone who can filter the bad suggestions from the good.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that every contentious opinion get shouted down, but I am suggesting that there has to be some quality control in the process of selecting which specific ideas best represent realistic solutions to problems.
I’m with you 100% on this. In fact, our approach to looking out for players of all levels of engagement aligns. But choosing community spokespeople isn’t about popularity. It should boil down to the quality of their contributions–and potentially how much they contribute.
Who knows the most about the class? Who really knows the ins and outs of its builds and mechanics, its strengths and weaknesses? Who has written build guides and taught new players the ropes? Who contributes? Look for those people.
The push-back we got there, particularly from my suggestion to get some community spokespeople out in front, was pretty off-putting. But it looks like things have turned around. If you want a cohesive, coherent community-backed pitch, someone (or a couple of someones) have got to take charge and shepherd things. It’s still going to be a community effort, but it definitely needs leadership.
Organize, unionize, strike! Err . . . or buff, I guess.
