I’m fine waiting on devs but we cannot release something and actually promote it without some such ability to actually enforce it at some basic level at least.
So I guess we just agree on the final charter but don’t do anything else until there is something from development. Otherwise there is no way to even stop the actions so why attempt to…
Well we know that the charter will go through revisions… so maybe we tailor it based on what we can and cannot do.
I do think it’s time we start having input or direction from development on many of these topics and when the game can support them. Maybe we shelve this some until there is some input.
I would agree we can certainly get a document prepared. But without some public support and possible guidance from the developers, this is a futile task.
@Kal-El Great input. Thanks. Again, personally, I’m still out on the whole on topic chat thing. However, I’m making this argument on behalf of others and from a more objective, Devil’s Advocate standpoint. If a majority of folks want to see chat be an Anything Goes sort of chatroom… that’s great. I just see a vocal ‘majority’ of speakers leaning toward trying to keep chat more about the game, so I’m sticking with that guideline… for the moment.
As for the necessity of ‘ratifying’ the charter. I see it as entirely voluntary. The EULA will set boundaries for actual rules. The charter is more to give the Devs and the community a framework by which to understand the spirit of the game as seen from the perspective of some players. I do not see it as a requirement… simply a suggestion to help new players understand where most of us are coming from.
At the end of the day, there is no way to get everyone to agree to the entire thing verbatim. That’s not the goal. When I set about this task I knew I’d have to navigate a happy medium or common good. This task has already become more difficult than I anticipated, and I had pretty low expectations of the ease of doing so.
Bottom line - it’s sort of like the sign above the gateway to Hell in Dante’s ‘Inferno’… ‘Abandon hope all ye who enter here.’ I view this charter as a sign posted above the entrance to the game that sets the tone for logging in… not a set of commandments.
Hope that makes sense. And thanks again to everyone for taking he time to provide feedback.
I think this is probably setting a realistic expectation for what will happen. As long as we set a realistic expectation we are less likely to be disappointed with the result.
I think I’m starting to understand more of what the chart is about (have had no previous experience in that kind of initiative). It took @Sverchekovich some time to narrow down the ideas here and explain the concept to me.
So as far as I understand now, it’s more of a players’ guidelines for players. Current player base trying to keep and encourage what is the best at this moment of time if it comes to community attitudes and ideas.
The charter is supposed to promote certain behaviors and attitudes based on our experience so far (so limiting the negativity and promoting all the good vibes and in-game initiatives).
Actual details as how to deal with negativity in-game will be covered by devs law (when someone is a griefer, when someone is being offensive, when someone is cheating and what tool there are to banish such phenomena).
Just to present another option that might be easier for more folks to agree upon. How about putting a sign in the Sanctum that says the following -
Be kind.
Respect others and their property.
Have fun.
Help others have fun
Embrace the spirit of Boundless.
And if interacting with those signs would bring out a few more sentences on each of the given statements.
I’d thought of that, but didn’t want to voice it as I have no official connection to the game and can make no promises. I think it’s a brilliant idea, as it would be simple. If someone voluntarily approaches the sign they’ll get more info about each statement that I’ve written in the above charter. If they don’t approach the sign… that’s ok, too. It makes it more obvious that it’s a choice and not a requirement, but still communicates a message that a majority of us feel strongly about sharing.
@james Just a head’s up.
That is all I’m looking for at least to start… something to show how it will be delivered to the players, etc.
PS. I’m leaving to climb in Tahoe all weekend, so I’ll catch up on the thread once I’m back on Sunday evening.
Hey, I’m just returning from work so here are a bunch of follow ups…
I’m much happier with this point, thanks. It would flow nicer if we could rephrase the second sentence (always the second sentence) to avoid “you”. Contrary to that though, the final statement of this point, as a positive call to action, I think works.
I feel your pain on the phrasing though… this recommendation took much longer than anticipated:
It is strongly recommended that players heed requests to discontinue certain activities and conversations which detract from the immersion of others. This includes any discussions concerning politics, religion, or other out-of-game topics which some may find controversial, divisive, or distracting.The Boundless community has long prided itself on being kind and friendly; Please do your part to contribute to that atmosphere by considering those around you.
My point is all about specificity. Please consider the following: “No nuts allowed. This may include peanuts and walnuts.” . If these two example sentences exist as a rule, the first phrase indicates that cashews and chestnuts are not also permitted. The “may” is also awkward as you can be sure that peanuts and walnuts are on that list… My point was that the original second sentence was so soft as to not actually limit the first sentence, indicating that no non-game related discord could occur. I think that the new phrasing captures this idea by softening the rule in the right way.
I totally agree that we should promote kindness and compassion and that those who don’t show this may not be right for the community… My issue with is more with the regulation of it, especially given how subjective that really is. By adding it as a rule, you’re saying that those people who don’t respond when you approach them even though they are active are violating the player charter. I believe that the “complete jerk” that you are worried about it completely covered by point 1 either through “respectful behaviour” or “inherently offensive”
Totally agree.
You’re right, this does feel more like a “Code of conduct” rather than a charter.
Thanks for the back and forth. Happy climbing.
Absolutely. This is why I object to these chat limitations. Especially the introduction of an “OOC” channel, because I feel that boundless isn’t s game where you are ever IN character. I again reiterate that we should be able to talk about anything, so long as it isn’t offensive
In the car with my wife on the way home from Tahoe, and she’s playing a boring CD after taking over driving from me since she was getting carsick. Sniffle.
One theme stands out in this discussion (and others on this board), and that is the idea that Boundless is not an RPG. My personal preference aside, it seems that many players (and maybe the devs) view this game as having a backstory with its associated lore, but that contemporary content from opening day onward is player created. There will be no quests to build upon or create more of a narrative within a world with a story that is continuing to unfold.
If that is indeed the case then any guideline in a charter that tries to prevent players from making out of game references is totally unrealistic and unproductive. Granted, I would very much prefer to see a world filled with more original content instead of cities filled with creations built to look like Metroid or Mario. I personally find that pretty unappealing. However, with no real official RPG tag or reference I’m inclined to believe that Boundless is less about roleplaying and far more about players creating content. I live in fear of that to some degree, as I’ve seen such games filled with absurd, childish, and offensive or distracting material.
Regardless, since the game is not marketed as an RPG I’ve decided that it’s best to remove any guideline that restricts player created content and material, and to limit such a guideline to overtly offensive material, not things such as religion, politics, or subjectively enjoyable/offensive material. This seems to be the wish of quite a few people, and this charter is about the common good, not about the desires of specific people, myself included.
I decided to attempt an objective look at the steam page and the way the game presents itself.
Rereading the description of the game it does claim to be sandbox MMO but does not actually mention RPG. Letter-of-the-law means that so long as it is designed to handle huge numbers of players, this is correct… But I read this and immediately thought MMORPG. I expected that this was going to be a fusion of both Minecraft and World of Warcraft.
Rewatching the trailers, I see the interactions of many different players in towns (unrealistic as there are no towns in-game thst I’ve seen that are even half this populated. It shows players behind stalls running shops, trading items… Another mechanic which is not realistic as shop-stands are used in everywhere in-game, and there is never a need or any real benefit for a player to man a shop. With the knowledge that NPCs in the game will be extremely limited use… This is misleading. The only other explanation for any of the above is roleplay… Especially with the emotes being fired left and right, and even guiding the camera/new player through the fantastic world.
Both trailers ended in menacing and exciting conflict. The first finishes fighting two creatures I’ve never seen in-game (what’s up with those two creatures @james/@vdragon? They look awesome for hunters?) And the second with the group of friends using grapples with incredible length to attack/raid a menacing fortress.
All of these scream MMORPG to me, and while the title is never actually stated in the description; In addition, many places I was hinted it would be no-mans-sky like where planets would be plentiful, random, and keep explorers constantly pushing to view the next marvel.
This was the reason I bought the game in early access. It has the potential to grow into something that hasn’t existed before… A voxel MMORPG with the capacity to keep exploration fresh for a long time, and to support solo and multiplayer through the use of portals and huge numbers of worlds.
I think that the existing community knows that change must come to support the release and the massive influx of players… But I don’t think that it’s wrong to ensure that we don’t close the door on the MMORPG aspect of the game.
I think that the objective of this charter is to set forth on formalizing and maintainng the current status quo, thus I agree that those items do not belong. One way or another, I think that this will be a living document and once we know which parts of the dream will be in-scope, we will have to change it. We simply cannot formalize conjecture.
I feel as though I’m receiving mixed messages about what the game is suppose to be, which has lead me to confusion on exactly what Boundless does and doesn’t offer. The fact that there has been no definitive statement one-way or the other on the question of lore and that even players as active and notable as @Havok40k can only state that they believe that there is more than nothing on that front is scary to me. I have extremely high hopes for this game… And it sounds like you were lead to a similar line of thinking with your beliefs about the RPG nature of this game. I want those rules too… But only after we know what the game is meant to offer.
Sorry if this became a little unfocused. Hopefully you get my point.
that’s one of the titans, I believe
Yeah, I’m hoping that’s one of many dungeons to come… and I recognize that this is early access and that more is on the way and I don’t want the devs to rush to something either… I just wish we had more information/transparency. Also, as companies like Microsoft will be watching this game closely, I recognize that they cannot give everything away either.
But, I don’t want to derail this topic. With respect to this code of conduct, I just agree that we shouldn’t be writing rules based on supposition of what the game should be, or what we want it to be unless there is a clear direction towards that something.
Thanks a lot for this articulate response, @Awkanic. Puts a lot into perspective. I’m going to start another thread and put this one on hold for the moment.