New Doctrines - Community Input

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[tank130]

On May 10th there was an impromptu meeting in vent. Roughly 20 members of the community had gather and we had a bit of a Q&A going on.

One of the items discussed was the creation & completion of the doctrines. What is the process and when will it be done?

The process: A draft of the doctrine is created following a Design philosophy (determined many months ago) and is presented to the Senior Development Team. Here it is reviewed to ensure it follows the Design Philosophy and is generally good synergy between abilities. From there, it is passed on to the Balance team for balancing.
 
We currently have 8 members on the balance team who follow a strict code of conduct in regards to their position on the team.
Recommendations made by the BT are reviewed by the SDT to ensure conformity to the Design Philosophy. After everything has been balanced and Design is complete, it is forwarded to the coding team for implementation.

What we are looking for:
We have Two Doctrines that do not have completed Drafts. These are Royal Engineers and Airborne. Some work has been done, but is very preliminary.

If anyone in the community is interested in providing a draft, we would be very interested in checking it out. One statement made in the Vent meeting was, “we made stuff before and it got ignored”. This may or may not be true, but frankly, it just doesn’t matter anymore. We are trying to be more productive, organized, and open in the Dev forums. So let’s move forward and not live in the past.

Onwards & Upwards:
We will be posting two new threads for each of these doctrine drafts. In those threads will be links to the Design Philosophy and detailed Procedures & Guidelines. The Procedures & Guidelines will be strictly enforced.


Public Doctrine Design
http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=18628.msg323814#msg323814

[Mister Schmidt]

As someone heavily involved in that discussion, and following the idea of increased moderation, I'd like to extend a thanks for our request being followed through.

On topic - are we to assume that every single reward unit will remain as a reward unit and not be turned into a standard unit, or will some follow the route of the jumbo?

[Unkn0wn]

You are to assume they will remain reward units.

[Groundfire]

Public design philosophy has been updated to reflect definitions for trees and doctrine power criteria.

http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=18628.msg323814#msg323814

I tried to be very explicit in what we need to see. If you put up a draft and you havent researched this document extensively, then your draft shall receive little attention.

[tank130]

Public design philosophy has been updated to reflect definitions for trees and doctrine power criteria.

http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=18628.msg323814#msg323814

I tried to be very explicit in what we need to see. If you put up a draft and you havent researched this document extensively, then your draft shall receive little attention.

I would just like to add on to what Ground has pointed out here. As clearly stated in the Doctrine Design Draft threads, if your draft does not follow the criteria, it will be removed. Please ensure you have read everything before you post your draft. We don't wanna see a bunch of QQ.......

[Groundfire]

But please let me know if the criteria is "understandable". lol

I understand it but i am unsure if it's transparent of a document for everyone else to use.

[MittinsKittens]

Is there a way to submit some ideas without having to submit a WHOLE doctrine? Because I lack the knowledge of the game to make a fun and interesting Doctrine, but I think I got some ideas that could go into docs (Like Off maps ect )

[Mister Schmidt]

Groundfire, could you take a look over my doctrine and let me know if it follows all the rules correctly? I tried to make sure it did, but obv it would help for you to double check

[tank130]

Groundfire, could you take a look over my doctrine and let me know if it follows all the rules correctly? I tried to make sure it did, but obv it would help for you to double check

Ground will not be looking these over. Well, he can if he wants to lol, but that is not his job. There will not be a lone person who looks these over. It will be the Dev team when the draft has officially been submitted.

That being said, it is hard to get the whole team to take the time to process these drafts. For that reason, if it does not follow the guidelines, it will just be removed. We can't spend time critiquing it with you to make it correct.

[Mister Schmidt]

Yeah but, someone has to look over it in order to make sure it is correct..

[Groundfire]

No, I'll do it if they ask me politely because honestly, I feel the most qualified to do so (considering I summerized Bob's notes) but im also kind of busy, so keep that in mind when you ask.

[tank130]

Yeah but, someone has to look over it in order to make sure it is correct..

Welcome to doctrine building........where it's not all it's cracked up to be  

Edit: I just realized that appears more sarcastic than I intended.

Here's the scoop. Not all members of the Dev team agree with me putting up a doctrine request. In fact some would like to crush my balls in a vice. I think Ground just wants to touch them, but I digress.......

The reason there is concern is simple. There is a potential for a shit ton of doctrines to be submitted. This would completely swamp the Dev team and absolutely nothing would get accomplished. The problem is, most of the submissions would fail at one aspect or another, but we would waste so many resources on discovering that.

So to keep that from happening, we must insist that they follow a very strict set of guidelines. Short listing in a sense. There is only this one in here right now, so Ground is probably enjoying going over it. However, when more arrive, it will become a burden.

It's also very important to remember that Groundfire does not have the final say, so please don't make him accountable. It is a team that will decide. As a team, not all members agree, but the majority prevails.
So what I am saying is: If Ground likes what you have done, but in the end your draft does not get used, don't get on Grounds case.

Here's what I think you should do. Set up your own Q&A for your draft. Go through the Design Philosophy and Tree definitions and ask yourself if your abilities fall in place correctly. Answer the question Y or N and a brief explanation why. Then post that Q&A with your revised draft. If everything comes up with "Y" and a solid explanation, then you have yourself a damn strong draft.

[Groundfire]

If I had a dime for every time someone references my name in a sexual remark... 

[Mister Schmidt]

So I did like you said Tank with the Q&A, posted it, and updated the official thread with the revised version. I can't promise it's anything near suitable for what you guys want, but hopefully at the very least it gives the team one good idea.

[tank130]

So I did like you said Tank with the Q&A, posted it, and updated the official thread with the revised version. I can't promise it's anything near suitable for what you guys want, but hopefully at the very least it gives the team one good idea.

The effort you have put into this is remarkable. I personally thank you for trying so hard to ensure it conforms to the guidelines. I feel confident it will get a serious look by the team. The Dev team is up to their asses in other stuff right now, so you may not get a response for a little while. Please be patient.

[Mister Schmidt]

Thank you I hope it does, if not, I'm not too bothered, I had fun messing around with it.
And yeah, I fully understand, I'm fine with it being pushed back a while. Patience is not my greatest strength, but I will make sure I am for this.

[Demon767]

hmmm tank's balls, there's an image i could of lived without.