1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
|
# Multiplayer Balance Changes - Proposal Process
## Phase 0:
Generate and discuss your idea for a balance change. There are many great places to do this and get some initial feedback, like the [project’s Discord](https://wz2100.net/webchat/) `#mp-balance` or `#suggestions` channels.
## Phase 1:
### Packaging a Proposal (on GitHub)
Once you have an idea for a proposed balance change, you can open a new PR on GitHub (on the [Warzone 2100 repo](https://github.com/Warzone2100/warzone2100)), making changes to the specific mp/stat(s) files.
**General Guidelines:**
- Proposals should be focused and limited in scope, to allow contributors to better assess and discuss the impact of a change.
- Please include:
- Rationale and reasoning for the change
- Any additional contributors / authors of the change (if applicable)
- Links to any previous discussion of the change (such as on Discord or the forums)
- An explanation of what games modes + tech modes + play styles / maps it has been tested on
- Any additional comparisons, videos, spreadsheets / charts, or information that will aide contributors & players in assessing the impact of the change on balance and gameplay. (If you were very technical in coming up with how to calculate a change, feel free to include your work! People really like to be able to review the details.)
- No single mode or type of play should be advantaged _at the expense_ of other modes of play. (For example, competitive high-oil multiplayer at the expense of low-oil skirmish.) There are many ways to play and enjoy the game, and balance proposals that initially break one should be - at a minimum - adjusted with that feedback taken into account.
Initial discussion and analysis can then occur on GitHub.
If a proposed balance change PR reaches a stage where it is a candidate for possible inclusion (and isn’t ruled out for some reason, such as overtly breaking the game, being too big of a change, or lacking any explanation), it may continue to Phase 2.
## Phase 2:
### Discussion and Voting (on Discord)
To include a greater portion of the player-base and community (and increase visibility), discussion and voting should then be solicited via Discord:
- A member of the team should open a thread on the Warzone 2100 Discord’s [#mp-balance-proposals](https://discord.com/channels/684098359874814041/1093556039418400879) channel to gather more discussion and feedback from the player community.
- Apply the tag `Step 1: Discussion`.
- The thread should link to the GitHub PR, and include a descriptive title for the change.
- All members of the `@multplayer-balance-tester` role should be pinged for discussion and voting
- Post a link to the thread back in the GitHub PR, and add the `mp-balance: phase 2` tag to the PR.
Discussion of the proposed balance change should then occur on Discord.
> ### Discussion Rules:
> - Discussion should be _constructive_, and is intended to:
> - Discuss support or opposition to a proposal
> - Build towards an understanding of any concerns with a proposal (and ideas to address them)
> - Discuss alternatives that might better address the original rationale that led to the proposal
> - Proposal submitters are expected to:
> - Be willing to discuss their proposal in good faith, and entertain dissent / differing opinions
> - Be willing and ready to adjust their proposed changes in response to opinions or concerns raised, or to consider completely revising their entire approach
> - **Name-calling, personal attacks, or other abuse will not be tolerated**, and may result in:
> - The agitator's vote **not counting**
> - Removal of the `@multiplayer-balance-tester` role (and thus the ability to vote on future proposals)
> - Temporary or permanent loss of proposal submission privileges
> - Other possible moderator actions (depending on the severity of the situation)
> (Following these rules and paying attention to moderator suggestions / warnings is recommended to avoid disciplinary action)
Once discussion seems to have reached a reasonable point for voting:
- A pinned post in the Discord thread should be created requesting reaction votes (thumbs up, thumbs down) (pinging `@multiplayer-balance-tester` again).
- Change the thread tag to `Step 2: Voting`.
- Every person voting should reply to the call-to-vote message with their reasoning / explanation for their vote.
- (To count, votes should be accompanied by a post describing one’s reasoning. If there is any confusion, start your explanation with: **REASONS FOR MY VOTE:**)
- If someone else has largely stated your point / reasoning, it is also acceptable to signify agreement with their stated reasoning via a reaction / thumbs-up on their post - although we still encourage people to post their thinking in their own words (as more insight may come from it).
A period of at least several days should be allowed for voting, to ensure maximum opportunity to engage.
If there is a greater than 75% consensus among qualified voters, and a sufficient number of qualified voters voting, a proposal _may_ proceed to Phase 3. (If not, the results should be posted to GitHub and changes should be requested, taking feedback into account - for example: trying a smaller & more incremental change to allow players to better adjust, or providing a more detailed explanation of the change and its impacts / desirability / need.)
If a proposal is a rollback (in whole or in part) of a prior change, the threshold for consensus may be reduced (especially if the change was semi-recent, and users only got a chance to exhaustively experience the change in a recent release). We anticipate and expect that opinions may be revised as a result of actually experiencing balance changes in a release. Allowing for a slight reduction in threshold in this scenario attempts to adjust for the idea that an original proposal might not have reached its threshold had people had more time with or played more games with it incorporated.
For clarity:
- Attempts to "game" the voting (such as by encouraging accounts to join the server to vote up your own proposal, using sockpuppet accounts, etc) will result in any or all of:
- Votes being disqualified
- Closure of the proposal
- Potential further loss of privileges
- To help prevent voting abuse, votes from members who join _after_ the proposal is opened for voting will automatically be disqualified
## Phase 3:
### Merging (on GitHub)
Once a proposal has reached Phase 3, the PR _may_ be merged into the master branch, for inclusion in the default multiplayer balance for a future release.
When merging, please post a comment in the corresponding balance PR following this template:
```markdown
This balance proposal has progressed to Phase 3, and will be merged into the master branch.
<or>
This balance proposal has been closed without merging.
Phase 2 Discussion occurred at: <link to Discord thread>
Voting results were:
- **Total Number of Votes**: <total number of qualified votes>
- **Percentage Supporting**: <percentage in favor>%
- Votes For: <list of players voting in favor>
- Votes Against: <list of players voting against>
```
|
