AOTV General Discussion

[Astroking112]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

Have we thought about having any kind of "VC Review" stage to ask them to look at our units before we finalize them?

We do have a Final Review section in our process where each unit is reviewed by all of the Pod Leaders before being finalized.

I'm hesitant to add a formal "VC Review" step because while I welcome their opinions and feedback, they ultimately do not have oversight over this project (and I don't want us to stall out waiting for their feedback if they don't want to give it). The units should also be treated subtly differently than a normal VC release, as we've experienced when designing so far--I know that I've generally tuned my feedback on our units differently than I do for VC reviews.

How do you feel about more directly asking for public feedback and thoughts on units right before the Final Review vote is made? We can specifically encourage VC members to offer their input as well in order to get their eyes on the units.

[NecroBlade]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

Have we thought about having any kind of "VC Review" stage to ask them to look at our units before we finalize them?

That's a valid idea, and could help smooth the SoV process if/when we end up there.

[caps]

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

That's a valid idea, and could help smooth the SoV process if/when we end up there.

That's what I'm thinking. It would be nice to have any huge issues come up before we press the finalize button.


I don't think we need anything binding from them and shouldn't give them a vote necessarily. Just something like the Inner Sanctum Review process where they can comment on it.

[Pumpkin_King]

I think most mechanical concerns/interactions would be covered in Scy’s gracious editing process. I think it would be good to have them look at the designs however and offer non-binding feedback.

[flameslayer93]

VC can comment for sure, but I think we shouldn’t force it even for SoV purposes. Those guys (and the ones who are already working on the AotV project) already have enough on their plate.

Plus, the goals are different for each project anyway (albeit similar).

[Astroking112]

It looks like this discussion petered out a bit, but I think that it's worth some serious consideration for adding more formally into our process:

How do you feel about more directly asking for public feedback and thoughts on units right before the Final Review vote is made? We can specifically encourage VC members to offer their input as well in order to get their eyes on the units.

I know that @Scytale has brought up the lack of a formal "outside-the-pod" review before, and he's offered some very insightful and thought-provoking feedback on several of the units. Marking out a period of time where we specifically encourage everyone to give feedback could be a very valuable way to gauge not only how the project team, but also the public, is feeling about a unit's direction.

Looking at our official process, I'd like to suggest that we amend it to insert a PUBLIC REVIEW PHASE with the following description:

Once a pod is satisfied with the design of the unit and has voted to move it forward, the thread will enter a state of public review. For 1 week, outside feedback is openly encouraged on the unit. Anyone is welcome to leave their thoughts on the unit, even people not regularly involved in the project (we'd love to hear from everyone!). The pod is not under any obligations to make changes to the unit, but public feedback can be useful to know how people are feeling overall. Once the week is up, the pod members can make a majority vote to either continue forward to Editing or return back to Design.

This is just a quick first draft to show what such a step in the process might look like. There are a variety of places that this step could be, but I think that before any playtesting would be the best for sure. Given that that pretty much just leaves us before or after Editing, I feel like right after design is a good spot, to ensure that we don't waste Scytale's time going through the checklist.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? The general consensus earlier seemed to be that this step felt like a good idea, so I think that we could definitely figure out an implementation that works for everyone.

[Pumpkin_King]

Yeah, I'm still on board for that idea. Would we run currently-in-playtesting units through it?

[flameslayer93]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin_King

Yeah, I'm still on board for that idea. Would we run currently-in-playtesting units through it?

I mean we could, but most of the in-playtesting units are already well enough on their way. I personally don't want to route units all the way back. Plus, we still need an actual "base" set of units to base the rest of the designs off of.

[Pumpkin_King]

I mean, I don't think there's that much bad with presenting the units as they exist with the caveat that they probably won't change overly much.

[Astroking112]

Originally Posted by flameslayer93

I mean we could, but most of the in-playtesting units are already well enough on their way. I personally don't want to route units all the way back. Plus, we still need an actual "base" set of units to base the rest of the designs off of.

That's a fair stance. I don't think that the designs are immutable, but it would certainly be difficult to make fundamental changes to their direction when some of them have undergone a lot of testing so far.

That said, I'd much rather hear about any gripes with them now, especially while we have the chance to address them. With the current proposal, we could stick to our guns anyway if there are only a few unpersuasive stray arguments. I don't see much harm in welcoming outsider feedback on the current set of testing units for a little bit, other than the weirdness of asking-for-feedback-but-saying-that-we're-unlikely-to-take-it (which is definitely weird, to be fair).

Originally Posted by Pumpkin_King

I mean, I don't think there's that much bad with presenting the units as they exist with the caveat that they probably won't change overly much.

I do fear that opening a public feedback section first for units that are unlikely to change might leave a bad taste in people's mouths. That kind of gives off the image of us seeking only positive feedback and discarding any dissenting opinions, when the goal should really be just to improve the units as much as we can. Then again, the alternative is to not run an open feedback section on those units at all, so...

I'd definitely be interested in hearing more thoughts on this matter. If my pings were functional, I might toss a few out to get some more voices in here.

[NecroBlade]

The first quote says before Final Review (between steps 4 and 5) and the second one says the vote would be either forward to Editing or back to Design (steps 1&2). Where are you proposing it go?

[Astroking112]

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

The first quote says before Final Review (between steps 4 and 5) and the second one says the vote would be either forward to Editing or back to Design (steps 1&2). Where are you proposing it go?

Sorry about the confusion; the first quote was just me reviving the topic. The latter quote is a more formal proposal for what the idea could look like--I think that it makes more sense to place a Public Review Phase after Design and before Editing to avoid spending time editing and testing a unit that the public just isn't feeling.