sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
First things first, I wholeheartedly thank FrozenGia for writing and rewording my old thread found here: http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=110534641
I also apologise to anybody who was confused by my wording of my previous thread.
If this isn't sufficient, take it up with FrozenGia. (Some of the ideas in here are his, but if he thinks it's good. Who am I to disagree?)
BC beta allows roblox to test objects with BCers before an improved version goes towards NBCers, but BC beta only works with website-based features, such as groups. Perhaps BCers should also have an alternate beta to test game features and their useage?
So, let's say roblox has a new gameplay object they want to test. (I'll steal the great and mighty deity Frozengia's boundary object suggestion as an example, go check that out when you have time)
And let's say that they want some more testing before they finalise the idea. They put the boundary object in all BCer's studios.
When a BCer logs on, if there is a new object for them to test, they get notified with it, as well as how to use it, what it does, etc.
So said BCer goes on studio and tests around with this object. He enjoys it, she might be capable of making a place with it, and decides to upload a place with this object onto roblox's website. these new objects can be added to roblox's places, however places with a beta object will be marked as a beta place. Beta places will be more monitored and can be searched for with a filter.
NBCers are allowed to visit beta places if the creator doesn't make the place BC only. As a reward for beta testing, perhaps roblox will give double tix to all NBC-allowing beta places that actually use the new object enough (And not just dump it somewhere to classify it as a beta place.)
-
Q&A:
Q: "But couldn't somebody just make a model that includes any of these?"
A: Yes they can, but it becomes BC only until it becomes available to NBCers.
A few ones you really need to do are "Just use testsites" (which is my personal argument against this) and "Why just BCers?"]
Q: "WNTS!"
A: This is a misconception. You would be refering to this part, yes:
"• More rights for NBC/fewer privileges for BC. (This includes "more/less tix or robux", "more/fewer places", etc.)"
Now, is this neither giving or removing any non-existant right or privilege. Nothing like this exists as it does (BC beta is for the website and is thus analogous but different) and as a result, it's not adding or removing. It's merely adding. This rule on the WNTS is for ALTERATIONS to currently existing "rights" or privileges.
Q: "But wouldn't it break games that use these new things?"
A: Well it probably won't break good games since if it's put to good use it will be added. Otherwise yes.
Q: "If I am a BC and use one of these objects, if I go back to NBC do I lose them?"
A: You don't lose them, you have a separate saved place containing these objects, you just can't access them until you get BC back or it's implemented.
If you support, thanks.
If you don't support, please provide a valid reason. If you don't, you will be ignored.
If you have a change or addition to this idea, state it. |
|
CjslickJoin Date: 2009-07-11
Post Count: 2130 |
Much better sass. I'll support this now that I get what your saying. I just hope they'll find a good reason to do this. |
|
|
> Test things
> Gametest
Doesn't this half exist anyway?
'BC Beta features' |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
Yes, but this makes it more used.
Look at how many people use Gametest servers. Not many. But here? Yeah there are lots. |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
@Cj
Thank Frozen for the explanation, thank me for the idea. He deserves half the credit possibly more. |
|
DataStoreJoin Date: 2012-02-07
Post Count: 8540 |
I still do not support this idea, sorry. I just do not think it's right that BC get to test ingame feature, before other individuals. There are quite a few NBC, who would do a better job at testing features to a fuller extent than that of a select few within the BC rings.
There are quite a few scripters, for example, who could benefit from certain objects, and could give valuable feedback on certain features. However quite a few of the more proficient scripters do not have BC, meaning that valuable feedback is lost. The same goes for everything really.
By excluding one group of individuals from the testing phases, you can miss out on a large amount of feedback which could further shape a feature to a much better standard. I know they could just give feedback when it's released, but then you're in a bad situation, since the update has already shipped, making it hard to implement large changes. |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
Oops, I didn't finish the Q&A
So frozen's argument:
Q:"Just use testsites"
A: The test sites don't always have lots of users on them, some people don't use the test site, etc. This allows users who actually do build famous games to use extra features!
Q:"Why just BCers?"
A: Well roblox is hardly going to give NBCers the right to use features in testing since they never have and probably never will. They have always made things like this BC only, look at packages for example (Don't shout at me!). Also, this gives an incentive for non-BC er builders who want to try out these new features to buy BC. This is why roblox might want to implement this.
_________________________________________________________________
If you have a question on your own, please post it and I will do my best to answer it. |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
@ Desp
I still do not support this idea, sorry. I just do not think it's right that BC get to test ingame feature, before other individuals. There are quite a few NBC, who would do a better job at testing features to a fuller extent than that of a select few within the BC rings.
There are quite a few scripters, for example, who could benefit from certain objects, and could give valuable feedback on certain features. However quite a few of the more proficient scripters do not have BC, meaning that valuable feedback is lost. The same goes for everything really.
By excluding one group of individuals from the testing phases, you can miss out on a large amount of feedback which could further shape a feature to a much better standard. I know they could just give feedback when it's released, but then you're in a bad situation, since the update has already shipped, making it hard to implement large changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then, if roblox thinks it's fine to make this NBC too and everybody else does, who am I to talk? I only made this because I doubted roblox would implement this otherwise. If roblox can do this with NBC too, I'm all for it.
Do you or do you not change your mind now? That is the question. |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
Bump |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
Flamboyant bump. |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
bum |
|
RadiobyteJoin Date: 2011-05-21
Post Count: 7147 |
That WNTS doesn't mean existing features. It could also mean to give new features to NBC to add on top of what they already have. |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
@greenday
We resolved this problem already, refer to Article ReadTheThread |
|
RadiobyteJoin Date: 2011-05-21
Post Count: 7147 |
I know. I did read. But your argument isn't valid in the form you gave. However, this still isn't breaking the rules because that WNTS rule doesn't say "more stuff for BC" it says "less stuff for BC". So technically, you're not in the wrong. I was just pointing that out. |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
How about we put it this way, I didn't write that, this is a re post of my old thread which was hard to understand. This was made by frozengia and I think it's perfectly logical. Anyhow do you support or not? |
|
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
Thank you Mr.Invisible. |
|
LNG257Join Date: 2012-06-13
Post Count: 11767 |
Wow, an NBC who suggested bettering BCs off. I am surprised. I'm not supporting though, I hate it when people bias things either way. |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
@LNG
We changed our minds to NBC only. Just because everybody is mad at me. |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
@LNG
We changed our minds to NBC too. Just because everybody is mad at me.
Wow massive fail typo. |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
Bump |
|
RelvalaJoin Date: 2011-08-07
Post Count: 6003 |
*ThreadNuke* |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
Refer to article readtherules |
|
UnicationJoin Date: 2013-03-29
Post Count: 5896 |
Support. This can promote the user's experience to purchase official Builders Club membership.
___ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hod0WtYE4SA , what's really good?! |
|
sassle12Join Date: 2009-09-26
Post Count: 2382 |
@uni
Thank you,
I want to say, if people post Support they are supporting the original idea, otherwise say that you Support NBC version of this idea. |
|