Best Of

Aysidra:
Do all future dwellers/beasts exist in a vacuum in regards to their history? As helps say we aren't suppose to lorecraft for them, if someone asks 'where did [the dweller/beast] come from?', are we supposed to shrug and say 'I don't know'?

Uilani:
I'll take a look at clarifying how the helpfiles describe it but that is not the case. What this refers to is the customisation's description saying 'This cat comes from Estelbar's long line of felines' or a reaction on a butler having him say 'I grew up in Acknor!' or 'PlayerName spent a lot of time down in Feyranti bloodmines growing up'. What you say about your customisation is entirely up to you. You can even say your cat is from the moon (Mother Moon bubble is a thing after all) but that does not have equal worldbuilding weight as it actually being in an admin-approved description/reaction. We're pushing the lore of your customisation onto you, because if we also had to review assumed lore, or approve lore expansions, as part of the customisation process, it would double the time it takes to do them. We would also have to document all of it and reference it going forwards. To summarise, say what you like, it just shouldn't be in admin-approved bits.
---

Kalliope:
I guess this is a weird question but will there be any other mechanism for inserting any new lore generated by new creatures into the game besides the creatures themselves? Like if you have to review where whatever animal might fit are you guys going to run down like the "THIS ELDER CREATED IT AND THEY ARE FOUND IN X" or is there still going to be ambiguity?
I guess we don't really have like a lore encyclopedia
or at least not one for that sort of info

Uilani:
Unlikely, because customisations should not be used to introduce new lore. Also stating which Elder created something boxes said Elder into a mold they might not like if they are ever a role. We go out of our way not to do that most of the time.

Saran:
With existing beasts/dwellers that may have needed lore reviews, is there some kinda chat about how they might fit with their players or has that already kinda happened behind the scenes?

Uilani:
No, it's the same solution as with the dragon conundrum. Grandfathered in.
---

Uilani: There were also some comments about lore review so I'll elaborate on that a little bit. If your beast is something that already exists in Lusternia then usually approving and making it will be quick. Now, if you also strap onto it some crystal Hallifaxian armour, make it levitate, and have a built in crystal projector on top of its head, then it could be "just a war goat" but it will take revisions, review, and discussions.

And if you ask for something that does not exist already, we need to investigate. And no, it's not a checklist. It's review of whether that fits Lusternia at all, whether we have any pending plans for that already and how, if at all, it would conflict, whether it could exist in Lusternia even if it does not, and often involves consultations with other admin. None of that is quick as we're not all sitting in one office and working fixed hours.

You're effectively paying extra for our time reviewing your idea, and you are also only charged on successful review so we will still be putting in a lot of extra time just to say no at no charge. We could be using that time working on anything else for the game, but we'll spend it on this. This type of customisation is a luxury item of sorts as it goes beyond what the game normally offers in terms of customisation - various artifact skins, large selection of beasts (each of which has numerous visual modifiers that you can work on getting just right), all the design skills, etc.
---

Kalliope:
would a relatively mundane but nonexistant animal require a review?

Uilani:
Technically, yes, the review says 'if we don't have this being, should request review'. But we could not have actual living and breathing owls (we do) but if they are mentioned in histories, ambients of areas, skills, etc, then obviously they exist. Most animals are out there somewhere in Lusternia.

Kalliope:
Does [a gnomeweapon customisation] have to be explainable as gnomish tech?

Uilani:
"The lines should fit the possibilities of gnome weapon technology." - that's intentionally somewhat vague. If we can conceivably say that somewhere inside the mechanisms are powered by gnome technology, that's good. If you show some of that in the design, even better. It's meant to prevent situations in which you effectively create your very own powers, ala guild skills. It is possible that there are gnomeweapon customisations out there that would not be approved today so using them as guidelines is not always a safe bet.

Llani:
Will you revisit existing customizations if they don't meet those requirements?

Uilani:
Unlikely, the same way we are not sending all dragon beasts to the volcano shelter.
There is no ideal scenario here unfortunately. The options are: continue to allow and approve whatever comes to our desk, or try to draw a line. Where exactly the line ought to be is difficult and will vary from player to player. With skins, we chose to disable as their designers and those who purchased them will continue to benefit. With typecasts, a much more personal matter and often related to one's identity, we chose to allow owners to keep one of their choice.

Esei:
Out of curiosity re: typecasts - What if the owner has retired or is no longer active? And what about typecasts deeded to families?

Uilani:
Families retain their current typecasts. Typecasts of retired owners (non 'deeded') will be deleted. Which should have been happening already but wasn't.
A grace period will be given to respond to everyone that will be contacted before the typecasts are refunded.
This all should free up the system a bit to allow for orgs to request typecasts that suit them, rather than sometimes having to come in with a thesaurus because "all the good words were taken".

Uzriel:
For player skins that are getting retired from ashop. Is that happening today [Tuesday] or do we still have a bit?

Uilani:
We've received a handful of questions about that and upon reflection, think that giving people time will be the best scenario. As some people have seen, 'you cannot skin that' issue comes up here and there. And some people might have been busy and miss out. So the disable will happen officially on Friday. [emphasis mine - Xiran]

Gurashi:
Does this mean that people who already have skins of things that are player skins need to like...reskin them to something that's already in the ASHOP or if we already have it, it's safe? 🤔 I hope I'm wording that correctly.

Uilani:
Everything you have purchased stays with you. A bit like seasonal skins before the recent change. Won't be able to see them and purchase, but they will technically exist if you had bought them.
---

Ashira:
Question on the ASHOP skins. The post said that the designer gets to keep the skin, but what about people that have bought the player made skin from ASHOP? I know I have gotten goop more than once for other players buying my skin from the ASHOP. Will they get to keep the skin, or is it reverted back to original form?

Uilani:
Any player-submitted skins you own are yours to keep. Whether you are their designer or just purchased them.

Tikki:
Also what would happen to skins submitted by players that are not playing/retired/etc.?

Uilani:
Same thing, they just won't be options anymore, kind of like seasonal skins are. Speaking of...

Tikki:
Ahh so, they're there, just sort of inaccessible for the time?

Ashira:
They exist on the backend only is what it sounds like to me, yeah.

Uilani:
Yes.
Seasonal skins got a small update too in that they now have their own category and you will always be able to find them in ashop, just not be able to buy them off-season.
To solve the issue of having something with a skin and then not being able to figure out what it is.

Saran:
Can homesteads have object customisations? Both like... a shrine or something that's likely a completely new item as well as furniture (given you can't have stasis gems)

Uilani:
Yes, that's always been the case for homesteads and manses, it was just one of those things you found out only if you asked because the helpfiles were outdated. I see I missed adding that in formally. It's not cheap as we're making a whole new item (sometimes a whole new template if that item doesn't exist in any form), but you can request, say, a sculpture for your manse. Specifically for the shrine/homestead combo, yes but likely not in any public part of the homestead to avoid confusing people vis a vis actual Divine shrines.
Furniture has to be done through the Artisan skill still, we cannot make Artisan-level furniture outside of the skillset. We could make you a chair, but it won't be functional at all.