Best Of

Kalliope:
Do I need to itemize the costs of the things I'm requesting in the email?

Uilani:
No. But at some point either you or us will need to clarify that we both understand the price of what you are requesting before we begin the work. So doing that helps us, but is not necessary at all.

Esei:
I know this is probably something I've already been told/asked about BUT. Because I keep forgetting, when finding a typo in a beast/dweller/etc description, is it better to TYPO, or email about it? Especially if it's something minor like an incorrect adjective or missing punctuation or something.

Uilani:
Generally we say to always e-mail about that because what may seem like a minor fix, could be a bigger one, and then should be dealt with by customisation folks (that is Orael and I). Also if you e-mail, we definitely see it immediately. If you typo, it may well sit and wait till new bugs are being sorted and then if the bug does not specifically mention it is a custom beast, the sorter might think it's just a random typo and it will sit in typos category, waiting.

Ein:

customize
Syntax:
  CUSTOMIZE LIST - list all your customization requests
  CUSTOMIZE <span> REVIEW - review your customization
  CUSTOMIZE <span> SUBMIT - submit for approval
  CUSTOMIZE <span> SHORT_DESC  - i.e., 'a sharp sword', 'a purple pack', etc.
  CUSTOMIZE  LONG_DESC  - how it appears on the ground (i.e., 'A sharp sword is dropped here.')
  CUSTOMIZE  EXTENDED_DESC  - what you see upon probe
  CUSTOMIZE  RESETS [YES/NO]- change a nonresetter to reset to you (automatically stops decay)
  CUSTOMIZE  NODECAYS [YES/NO] - stop decay
  CUSTOMIZE  DELETE - completely remove your customization request</span></span></span>

Ein:
The troublesome one [add-on feature] as per the post was the mob reaction system - specifically the player-side one

Gurashi:
So if you emailed to have your pet do a reaction and that got approved it's still safe/active, [but] if you yourself set up a reaction on your pet it's been disabled/pending review?

Ein:
At this time, the reactions are still active but pending review. They will either be moved to our system or refunded on a case-by-case basis
The ability to create or edit them is disabled

Selenity:
Uilani... if you send in a request for a manse dweller, can you later add on certain things to it (like reactions) or is it set-and-done once it's made?

Uilani:
Absolutely can add more later.
"- You may purchase add-ons, either at the time of buying the dweller or any time afterwards."

Eritheyl:
Sentience - 250 bound credits
- For beasts that make sense to be sentient.

Question on this. Is it possible, or could it ever be possible in the future, for sentience to be split into speaking and emoting? It makes sense for just about every beast/dweller to be able to utilize emoting in some form, but speaking is trickier. I don't want to have it commonplace for things to be denied sentience because they shouldn't be speaking when emoting is really what's desired.

Uilani:
We considered that but arrived at the inevitable assumption that if we were to do that, people will use emotes to speak anyway. And then if we add code limitations that prevent things with "" in them from being emoted, they will use ''. And then if we remove that. They will use -, or nothing, and so on.

Eritheyl:
Makes sense! Continuing with the honor system that we aren't making certain things talk?

Uilani:
Yes, continuing on with trust. Mostly the "make sense to be sentient" is reserved for things that really make no sense to emote or speak.
We can consider it in the future if necessary, absolutely.
For the moment, continuing on with the simple solution
---

Luce:
I can't remember from the newspost, so clarification? Will sentience be stripped and refunded from creatures that it wouldn't have qualified for under the new system?

Uilani:
No.
We are also not setting off to round up all the dragons in light of the new dragon lore.

Tonatiuh:
can shopkeeper dwellers be set to homesteads or only manses? And Im a bit confused. A shopkeeper dweller requires a manse shop (ok), and then can be set to only to the manse? So does that mean the manse will now have a fulcrux where you can do 'wares'.. and then somewhere else.. a dweller than also sells stuff from the same manse?

Uilani:
Manses only for the moment. That is a compromise to the original intention of removing them entirely. Their use is rather niche if they are manse-only, but it still allows for an inn manse where a barkeep sells you drinks at the bar, or other such creations. There has been very little interest in shopkeepers, but they require a lot of effort to implement. They are also common sources of bugs and complaints about empty shops and insistent shopkeepers who continue to try to sell you nothing. If we add any additional checks in the form of how large the remaining stock is or how active the owner is, we're micromanaging it and adding extra upkeep work. If they're out somewhere public, they are deemed irritating. If they can follow you, you are effectively walking into combat with an invincible walking shop your side can use to refill/buy. If they are in an organisation, said organisation has no say over when they want them out (or again, upkeep).
As outlined in the post, anyone with a shopkeeper will have the choice whether to confine them to a manse or receive a refund. Most are in manses already. Very few are anywhere public.

If you own a non-org homestead, e-mail and ask. We'll need to review it because doing it that way circumvents a bit the content of the [recent] auction which is a homestead, not a homestead/shop.
---

Gurashi:
Does this mean Shara-Mae is no longer ambling around the Aetherplex...

Uilani:
Yes.

Uilani:
All dwellers that did not have a dwelling set up, received a dwelling. If you own only one dweller and their dwelling was your inventory or a manse or homestead, nothing has changed. If you own two or more dwellers, they had their dwellings set up in one of their owner's manses.
clarified [in news post]

Esei:
(Also, what would the best way to go about requesting a dwelling change for dwellers you already had? Just email? Issue?)

Ein:
Email support @ lusternia
---

Esei:
And, while presuming you now need to own a manse to some degree to have a dweller, I do have a few questions - not for myself but simply because idk if someone else needs to know the answers:
1. Can you set a dweller to reside in a family manse if you do not own the manse?
2. What happens to dwellers that originally belonged to people who did not have a manse? i know if it was just one they'll be automatically companion (?_?) so they may not have moved...
3. Can multiple dwellers share the same dwelling? or is that not a thing?

Uilani:
1. The dwelling is decided with us by us upon creation. We have never before allowed dwellers to reside in manses that do not belong to their owners. That hasn't changed. It could, but the level of permissions, possible refusal of permission, etc, would all need coding to remove the issue of us having to interfere all the time.
2. The owners of all existing dwellers had at least one manse each, and in some cases multiples. All pre-set dwellings have been hand-picked to make the dwellers cosy. If the owner only had one dweller, nothing has changed for them.
3. Multiple dwellers can share the same dwelling.

Uilani:
The short of it is that the 'dwelling' is what the system considers the dweller's home. When you select them for a companion, their reset room changes to inside your inventory. When you unselect them, they get moved back to the pre-set dwelling.
---

Esei:
Would it be something possibly considered in the future to change the dwelling ourselves? Or submit a change for approval if needed?

Uilani:
Anything that cuts down on paperwork is desirable but there are a few things to consider. Perhaps you requested a dweller with reactions that only really make sense to exist in the room they are in. They are intricately tied in some fashion. We then have to add an extra flag which makes it impossible to move those dwellers. We have to consider all such situations before we put the power in player hands.
---

Uzriel:
If you have a dweller and have it reset to a family homestead, would its loyalty show as to you or to the family?

Uilani:
Homestead deeding does not affect anything within the homestead. Dwellers need a specific owner. That kind of customisation is still personal so you cannot buy a dweller for the whole family to use, effectively. But you could ask that something the dweller does (like perhaps emotes serving pretend tea) to be usable by the family/group/etc.

Uzriel:
I also know class mobs can't be dwellers, but what if you didn't use the classmob alias? Eg an imp servant named Servo with the aliases servant and servo but not imp so it doesn't have conflicts with pk?

Uilani:
Yes, I was just thinking about that yesterday. Possibly so. The only potential issue there is a player leaving the org in which they would potentially have access to having a personal demon. Angels, demons, etc, they are specifically sent as part of service to Celestia/Nil. You're not exactly doing that if you're chilling in Hallifax. There's also the potential for a demon dweller carousing through Celestia and not exploding, like it should. So need to think it through, worst case scenario though it could just become a dweller that cannot be made into a companion, ie. cannot leave their dwelling. So if you want to have a demon in a homestead, sure, they just stay there.

Uzriel:
I was largely thinking of an imp homestead servant.

Uilani:
If it's the latter case, I don't see any problem there.

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.