Catriana wrote:My understanding is that you're trying to take the current PTP 2.0 system and do something completely different settings-wise
I want to try to go with "Option 1" where the 'community' was going to patch PtP2.0. Doing something completely different settings-wise would only occur if Kern says that I can't. I'm just leaving open the possibility that something might go wrong. Do I see Kern saying that I can't use the Drowtales setting? No. But I'm not going to count on it 100%. Even in that worst case scenario, there's nothing that would legally stop me from making the exact same product and changing names or titles.
Catriana wrote:your current explanation is a bit unclear since you kind of bounce around in your initial proposal.
I'll try to break down my initial proposal in hopes it will makes things more clear
1. Brief history of the current situation
2. Project goal in broad terms
3. Project is unofficial
4. I will be leading the project
5. It will be driven and developed by the PtP community
6. Project progress will be kept transparent
7. Multiple phases of development, planning being the first phase to tackle
8. There will be more PEP Talks to come
9. After enough PEP Talks and planning, programming will then commence
10. Anyone can watch or apply
11. Questions about the project
Catriana wrote:3Power has a very valid point that you're dismissing.
3Power chose one of the worst ways to express that point. He came off as extremely condescending and negatively judgmental. Even so, I still responded to his questions in a manner I believe was adequate. I can go over our conversation if you would like, but I'll refrain for now for hopes that the following may address that.
Catriana wrote:You claim that you're hoping for volunteers to jump on a project with no premise, no structure, no plot basis, nothing but the fact that you might want to use the PTP 2.0 system
I would like volunteers, yes. If they were programmers with more knowledge and skill than I, that would be fantastic. It would save me a truck load of work. However, I have stated multiple times that I can do it by myself. I can only discover if there are volunteers by asking.
As for the 'no premise, no structure, no plot' etc, PtP2.0 is the entire basis for this project. I'm going for what would have happened if Option 1 passed instead of Option 2. However, I keep open the possibility that certain aspects of PtP2.0 were not good. How much might have changed, I do not know. At the very minimum, fixes for the leveling bug. But if we were allowed to fix bugs, there would also be the possibility to add functionality, improve balance, and enhance gameplay. There's so much potential with this project that I am hesitant to simply make it a PtP2.0 with no bugs and say there's nothing else that could possibly be done beyond fixing a few bugs.
Catriana wrote:You want people to join in as a team and create it for you
Just to make sure I'm absolutely clear on this. I do not expect people to join and create a game for me. If I did, I wouldn't keep stating that I can do it all myself. I'd say that I can't do this without other people's help or that people need to come together to perform to my will.
I am really curious how I came across this way I thought I left things open for either option without leaning on one side than the other, especially not the side of "I need people, I can't do this myself."
I hope I didn't forget to respond to anything. If so, please let me know and I'll get onto it
Thank you very much for your attention
I would like to add that this project is directly related to PtP. Assuming Kern has no issues with me developing it, it would effectively be PtP2.0. I apologize if my uncertainty of the future causes things to be unclear. I will do my best to clarify things.