Subject:
|
Re: [CW] Mutual stories question and offer
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:31:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1390 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle, Jason Catena writes:
> In lugnet.castle, James Brown wrote a post with a lot of good stuff.
>
> Thanks, James, for putting into words what has been a lurking feeling in my
> mind as well.
And just to 'third' the motion, I have to say in general, I agree. I think the
original idea was great, but when it got down to the nitty gritty details,
problems arose. And furthermore, it really needs to be designed differently.
How? Well.. a couple ways.. but we'll get to that...
> I think we're having a collective problem, in trying to tie together
> everyone's creations into one map, and in dictating units of size for
> everyone's creations.
>
> Maybe we shouldn't have one map, because then people lose the ability to
> easily create something bigger, and argue about who gets placed next to who,
> and who's in who-else's expansion plans. Maybe we shouldn't have fixed realm
> sizes, because then everyone's arguing about not having enough space. I
> respect the idea of wanting to map stuff and have a realistic scale, and be
> able to reference everyone's creations through the map, but I don't think that
> that should be enforced on everyone. Maybe, for now, a list of contributors is
> a better idea than tying everyone down on a map. Maybe later we can build a
> map after everything has settled down.
>
> I want, we want, people to post their submissions to Castle World.
> This without any doubt is the most important thing.
Actually, in my envisionment of CW, that's already established. Without going
into extreme detail of the system, let me just say that in my vision, people
can submit creations with as little or as much detail as we want. If they don't
want a place on the map, that's fine! The don't really even have to name it, if
they don't want to... And furthermore, at their slightest whim, they can place
it on the map, re-name it, take it off the map, or do whatever they choose with
it. It's all up to the user.
> The more formal we make it, the more restrictions and rules we put on people,
> the less people are going to want to bother with us. For example, in the
> latest edition of the rules, you have one creation, so your story can only
> take place on a 4096x4096 stud grid. Even though we have unlimited space. You
> also have no right to expand your space from 4096 studs to 16192 without
> possibly running into other people you'll have to ask to relocate. If you had
> a plan with a continent all mapped out and everything, this restriction won't
> suit you at all, and more than likely you'll just create your own web site
> separate from Castle World.
I think rules like these needs to be refined GREATLY. In general, I see it as a
place for the users to get as complicated as they want. If all they want is to
put their castle creation up on a website, no problem! We'll support that. If
all they want is to put it on the map somehwere, that's ok too. If you want to
submit a story involving creations in CW, you're more than welcome to! But with
every step further that the user wants to take it, the more rules get enforced,
because the more things interact with each other, the more potential problems
arise.
Here's a thought I've been playing around with for the last few minutes... To
avoid potential problems, how about we have different levels of maps? If a user
wants their own 'area', they get it, along with their own scale, map, etc. (of
course they have to SUPPLY it too-- remember, it's all based on how much work
the user wants to put in) Then there's a set of 'common' maps, where
interactive things go-- where users can interact with each other... The more I
think about it, the more I like it. For that matter, each user has a list of
maps that they've defined or supplied (the admins could make 'default' maps if
the user doesn't want to supply one, or there could be 1 'utlimately' common
map), wherein they can allow or not allow other members to participate. Each
map has its own scale, landscape, etc... It completely avoids interfering with
other members, if the member wants it, and allows the member as much freedom as
they'd like.
Anyway, that's the way I think I see it. I don't want member conflicts. I think
that may be one of the easiest ways to avoid them....
Signing off for toinght,
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: [CW] Mutual stories question and offer
|
| (...) This is an interesting compromise. If something is completely original and new, it has less impact on the existing site, and needs less rules to make it fit in. I like this approach a lot, because it helps the cooperation and courtesy goals, (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.castle)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: [CW] Mutual stories question and offer
|
| In lugnet.castle, James Brown wrote a post with a lot of good stuff. Thanks, James, for putting into words what has been a lurking feeling in my mind as well. I think we're having a collective problem, in trying to tie together everyone's creations (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.castle)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
