Under Review Redo Appeal: Houses Follard and Chyttering

[Rexstop15]

Heya guys, this is my official redo appeal for the lands of House Follard and House Chyttering. As surprise to no one, this is also my appeal for the "Massey's Hook Megabuild", justified under clauses: (1) “Solidify a regional style”, and (4) “Significant terrain improvement”, that will eventually include the lands of Houses Massey, Follard, Chyttering and Bar Emmon, all located in the Hook.

The reasons supporting the redoes are:
1) Outdated styles in terms of terra and structures when compared to neighbouring projects.

Spoiler

2) Creating stylistic coherence in the broader Massey’s Hook region.
3) Inclusion of the projects in the eventual “Massey’s Hook Megabuild”.

I’ve already talked to Simba, who build the current Chyttering. He agreed to the redo and offered to help updating the castle.
I will publish my plans for the region after this is discussed.
Thanks.

 

[Enah]

Chyttering just needs an update, being "outdated" is not enough to redo it even with the megabuild looming ahead. Follard, sure, it's hardly got anything there. I just want to remind people that being old does not warrant a redo, we do have the no redo rule for a reason. If you have canon information that can contradict what is currently there it might be easier to have it. But I'd appeal for an update for Chyttering in any case.

 

[Rexstop15]

Chyttering just needs an update, being "outdated" is not enough to redo it even with the megabuild looming ahead. Follard, sure, it's hardly got anything there. I just want to remind people that being old does not warrant a redo, we do have the no redo rule for a reason. If you have canon information that can contradict what is currently there it might be easier to have it. But I'd appeal for an update for Chyttering in any case.

I could agree to an update of Chytteryn instead of a Redo. My main issue with the current projects on the Hook is the terra, and my plans actually are quite similar to the ones Simba made for that area.
However, I'd rather make a redo if possible.

 

[_Simbaa]

I am fine with Chyttering redo as long as I get to update/change the castle myself

 

[Bovine]

Chyttering just needs an update, being "outdated" is not enough to redo it even with the megabuild looming ahead. Follard, sure, it's hardly got anything there. I just want to remind people that being old does not warrant a redo, we do have the no redo rule for a reason. If you have canon information that can contradict what is currently there it might be easier to have it. But I'd appeal for an update for Chyttering in any case.

My understanding was that redos for certain houses could be done in a mega project if the aim is to address regional terrain and styles? is this not the case? for example in Emotes mega build, Ruthermont and Runestone do not have any cannon contradictions that I am aware of, however, the mega project would look bizarre if they were not redone to match their surrounding projects.

How could Rex possibly give the hook the necessary terra adjustments without having to change the other projects on the hook? these projects are laid out around the old and unrealistic terrain if he were to only change the mountains and not replot everything surely the build would look ridiculous?

If this is the case I would like to offer that if a builder has an idea and passion to undertake a large portion of the map in a mega project, and their plan requires redoing an older project or two to be better connected to the mega, it should be considered as valid enough for a redo. that's just my 2cents

 

[starcat98]

Chyttering just needs an update, being "outdated" is not enough to redo it even with the megabuild looming ahead. Follard, sure, it's hardly got anything there. I just want to remind people that being old does not warrant a redo, we do have the no redo rule for a reason. If you have canon information that can contradict what is currently there it might be easier to have it. But I'd appeal for an update for Chyttering in any case.

The problem I have with this is that we have two other redo appeals that were recently approved with a prime factor of being outdated given as reasoning for the appeal. These other projects as well as others do also give other reasoning in their appeals, however IMO sometimes it seems like people really grasp at straws to get a redo appeal approved. Whether that be because the project is a part of a potential megabuild they'd like to take on, or they simply just really would like to do the project. I personally don't have a problem with this, as I support those projects as well as any other redos, I just think it would be unfair to approve some projects and not others when they give the same reasoning for the appeal.

I understand that we do want to complete the project some day, so we can't just keep redoing things, but as our styles and skills evolve, and especially as we further redefine the way we do things (megabuilds for example being a relatively new phenomenon), I don't think it would be a bad thing to revisit and update/redo older builds to create more cohesive regions and regional styles. I think this appeal is a good example for how to handle things, i.e. consulting the original builder if they're still around and either receiving permission or enlisting their help. A potential problem could arise if said builder already has a project they're working on, but that would obviously be highly situational.

Just some food for though

 

[Margaery_Tyrell]

A big reason why Mega-Projects are a recent thing in allowing redos is because Mega-Projects are only really approved with the understanding that the builder will not drop the project midway through, leaving another half-finished mess on the server and these project applications typically backed up with a decent resume of finished projects and and understanding of the surrounding region its placed in (ergo they're not going to radically deviate from the region style out of whimsy or ego).

And just about every single Mega-Project is headed by a builder of that kind of understanding. The Redo Appeal rule isn't just because its to keep the server from being redone over and over again, but its to prevent overambitious builders who are good at doing the fun stuff of a project (the castle, the large villages, canon stuff) but weak on follow-through with *everything else* (fields, terra, infrastructure) from nuking entire regions and leaving massive scars on the server (of which we have many, many instances of such abandoned projects occurring).

We generally have an on-going issue with builders failing at realizing that they are part of a greater project whose individual parts should contribute to the whole of the server project, and the redo rule is an attempt to control this from getting out of hand.

 

[Rexstop15]

A big reason why Mega-Projects are a recent thing in allowing redos is because Mega-Projects are only really approved with the understanding that the builder will not drop the project midway through, leaving another half-finished mess on the server and these project applications typically backed up with a decent resume of finished projects and and understanding of the surrounding region its placed in (ergo they're not going to radically deviate from the region style out of whimsy or ego).

And just about every single Mega-Project is headed by a builder of that kind of understanding. The Redo Appeal rule isn't just because its to keep the server from being redone over and over again, but its to prevent overambitious builders who are good at doing the fun stuff of a project (the castle, the large villages, canon stuff) but weak on follow-through with *everything else* (fields, terra, infrastructure) from nuking entire regions and leaving massive scars on the server (of which we have many, many instances of such abandoned projects occurring).

We generally have an on-going issue with builders failing at realizing that they are part of a greater project whose individual parts should contribute to the whole of the server project, and the redo rule is an attempt to control this from getting out of hand.

I don't know who are you talking about, but I do not have a record of abandoned projects, and I've had lots of problems and inconveniences in the past, as many others. I repeat that I am very committed to the Hook. The area is not massive, it is even smaller than many solo projects. I may not have the biggest resume, but people on the server know that I have 0 ego and I always take feedback and advise into consideration, especially from mods.

 

[EStoop]

While I agree the terraforming of the area is not the best we have to offer on the server, I don't quite think it is in such dire need for a redo as it is made out to be. The style of architecture of both projects seems fine too me as well. All in all, I think these projects still hold up fairly well to current standards.

The neighbouring projects you're referring to which it clashes with is, as far as I can tell, only Stonedance (your current project), as Wendwater is nearly the same style as Chyttering and Sweetport is an active-ish foster with currently an even older style than both Follard and Chyttering. I don't think using your own active project, which itself deviates in style for both terrain and architecture from these two older projects, is a fair point of reference in order to claim these projects are in need for a redo.
It is in fact Stonedance that clashes with the rest of the Hook, rather than Follard and Chyttering.

Don't get me wrong, I think you made something beautiful and impressive at Stonedance, but I don't think setting these projects up for a redo sets up a desirable precedent in which builders can simply ignore the no-redo rule by introducing a new style to the area and subsequently "outdating" the old style, regardless how good or well researched such a new style might be.

Tldr: The only project disrupting stylistic coherence on the Hook is Stonedance, and using that as a reason for redo of other projects is unfair IMO.

 

[Rexstop15]

While I agree the terraforming of the area is not the best we have to offer on the server, I don't quite think it is in such dire need for a redo as it is made out to be. The style of architecture of both projects seems fine too me as well. All in all, I think these projects still hold up fairly well to current standards.

The neighbouring projects you're referring to which it clashes with is, as far as I can tell, only Stonedance (your current project), as Wendwater is nearly the same style as Chyttering and Sweetport is an active-ish foster with currently an even older style than both Follard and Chyttering. I don't think using your own active project, which itself deviates in style for both terrain and architecture from these two older projects, is a fair point of reference in order to claim these projects are in need for a redo.
It is in fact Stonedance that clashes with the rest of the Hook, rather than Follard and Chyttering.

Don't get me wrong, I think you made something beautiful and impressive at Stonedance, but I don't think setting these projects up for a redo sets up a desirable precedent in which builders can simply ignore the no-redo rule by introducing a new style to the area and subsequently "outdating" the old style, regardless how good or well researched such a new style might be.

Tldr: The only project disrupting stylistic coherence on the Hook is Stonedance, and using that as a reason for redo of other projects is unfair IMO.

We agreed on a change of the hook's elevation and style in a previous discussion Stoop. What I'm doing is not an arbitrary decision taken only by me.

 

[Bovine]

However, I'd rather make a redo if possible.

by my interpretation of the rules i think this is allowed, it is entirely the discretion of the mods of course. here is the mega build clause of the no redo rule for those unfamiliar or forgotten:

d) Megabuild Clause: If a build is a part of a megabuild (see this guide for a definition), it may be allowed to be redone given justification in the megabuild proposal. The reasoning for this is to allow megaproject leaders to establish stylistic coherence in a broader region rather than having to work around an existing project. This also has a higher probability of leading to a high-quality, finalized region than an isolated redo. This clause is a formalization of previous precedent (e.g., the removal of the projects surrounding Oldtown to allow for a consistent regional style to be established).

edit: i think it is also worth saying that redoing projects in a mega build is even more justified imo, if the leader plans on allowing applications for subprojects. Again i point to Emote in the South-East Vale mega where he will accept sub project applications for two of the projects. This allows the leader to have broad creative control over the region but still allows for the project to move at a faster pace, which i think atleast partially addresses Marge's concern. Perhaps this practice should be encouraged for larger megas in the future. For the Hook, i think it is small enough of a region that this may be unnecessary but that is for Rex and the mods to discuss.

 

[Margaery_Tyrell]

I don't know who are you talking about, but I do not have a record of abandoned projects, and I've had lots of problems and inconveniences in the past, as many others. I repeat that I am very committed to the Hook. The area is not massive, it is even smaller than many solo projects. I may not have the biggest resume, but people on the server know that I have 0 ego and I always take feedback and advise into consideration, especially from mods.

I should have been more clear, Im actually not opposed to your redo appeal, I think its a good idea, but I want to dispel the emerging notion that Mega Projects are a tool to be used to skirt the redo rule.

 

[Rexstop15]

Hey guys, after giving it some thought, I want to drop the redo appeal for House Chyttering and the Mega-project appeal.
Although I feel confident I can manage to lead the projects I understand some people might feel reluctant to the approval because of my short resumé. Still, I want to ask for the inclusion of the lands of House Follard into my Stonedance project as a way to help me blend the terra of the central Hook to that at the south. Chyttering will remain as it is; if I'm allowed, I will finish Massey and Follard lands, blending the new terra with the current one in Chytterin and the north of Sweetport Sound; and after Stonedance and Follard are done and post-approved, I will make the application for Sharp Point as an individual project, as it is normally done.
Hope this makes the mods decision a bit easier.

 

[DutchGuard]

Just to clarify, are you asking to annex all of Follard, or just a portion in order to transition with Stonedance?
If the former, I believe there is still some feedback from mods which doesn't seem to have been taken yet with regards to the (already very nice) existing terraforming. I think we'd like to see those improvements before considering adding a whole additional project area to your workload. Once we sort out the kinks in the existing terrain I think we can discuss extending the terrain into neighbouring projects for consistency.

If you just want a small part of Follard to make the transition easier we can definitely try and sort that out for you.

 

[Rexstop15]

Just to clarify, are you asking to annex all of Follard, or just a portion in order to transition with Stonedance?
If the former, I believe there is still some feedback from mods which doesn't seem to have been taken yet with regards to the (already very nice) existing terraforming. I think we'd like to see those improvements before considering adding a whole additional project area to your workload. Once we sort out the kinks in the existing terrain I think we can discuss extending the terrain into neighbouring projects for consistency.

If you just want a small part of Follard to make the transition easier we can definitely try and sort that out for you.

I haven't seen any kind of feedback. Could you send it to me (via discord preferably) again please???

 

[Emoticone11]

I haven't seen any kind of feedback. Could you send it to me (via discord preferably) again please???

Sorry, my bad. I gave some to you in-game a while back, but never followed up on the forums. I'll try to get that to you whenever I find some time.

 

[Rexstop15]

Sorry, my bad. I gave some to you in-game a while back, but never followed up on the forums. I'll try to get that to you whenever I find some time.

No worries emote, Dutch reminded me this morning. I remember we talked about it but I completely forgot after!
I'll try to add more rocky bits sticking out as you told me. Similarly to these:

 

[Emoticone11]

No worries emote, Dutch reminded me this morning. I remember we talked about it but I completely forgot after!
I'll try to add more rocky bits sticking out as you told me. Similarly to these:

View attachment 16786View attachment 16787

Yup that's right. In a nutshell, currently you have multiple "fingers" of rock along the coasts resembling a wave-cut platform (like the one that was made at Ghost Hill), but I don't feel it fits very well with the style of headlands and coves that you're otherwise going for. I think it would make sense to instead accentuate the headland erosion, such as in the pictures above (the "fingers" can still be used here and there but should blend with the terrain better).

The other thing is that your cliffs in general (including the inland ones) feel a bit too "perfect" at the moment, as if no erosion has happened on them since they were formed. I recommend trying to imagine water runoff from storms flowing down the cliffs over time, carving out small channels and depositing sediment at the bottom. Meanwhile, as the cliffs get eroded, foliage would start to fill in the cracks. So the top of the cliff wouldn't just be a straight horizontal line, but would be punctuated by gaps and cracks that have been grown over by grasses, lichens, and mosses. See the following images for an idea of what I mean (in the second example, note also how the sediment falls away from the base of the cliff at a more or less 45 deg angle):

Lastly, for the coastal cliffs just north of the castle, I'd try to have more of a gentle slope from the top of the base cliffs to the flat part of the peninsula, rather than a series of alternating plateau -> cliff -> plateau -> cliff. This would look more like the following image:

Again, this would mostly be due to the way that sediment collects at the base of the cliffs from water erosion.

Overall I think you're doing a really nice job with with the terra so far, I just want to make sure it's realizing its full potential with the cliffs before rolling out the same style to other parts of Massey’s. LMK if you have any questions about how to implement the suggestions in practice.

 

[Rexstop15]

Dear mods, this is the area of Follard I'd like to edit to blend with the terra in Stonedance:

Spoiler

(Basically I'd like to lower the mountains there)

 

[DutchGuard]

Dear mods, this is the area of Follard I'd like to edit to blend with the terra in Stonedance:

Spoiler

View attachment 16865

(Basically I'd like to lower the mountains there)

Hi Rex, we've discussed this and are happy to approve this extension.