CDQ vs. GCDQ

[Alatriel]

Not entirely sure where to put this, but I was wondering if we could make it so that the GCDQ and the CDQ were on different timers?  Basically, that each person on a GCDQ did not have to give up one of their own CDQ slots in order to attend the GCDQ?  With as difficult as it is to get a CDQ run in the first place, I think that by telling members of a group that it will take out their own ability to run something individual stifles group activity, not to mention that by those rules there may be people within the groups that cannot even go on the GCDQ because they are not elligible for a CDQ at that time, or simply may not be willing to go.  

My suggestion would be that instead of having them all on the same timer, to make GCDQ's only available every 4 months, and that they must have a specific purpose in mind (not just- we're going to go bashing so we want a gm to help us out).  But this would leave it open and available for any individual member of the group to continue with whatever CDQ schedule they had in mind.

This also would not apply to joint CDQ's where two or more individuals attempt something personal.

Ideas?

[Xiaobeibi]

Was about to make the exact same post in the "ask a gm" forum. So I can only concur.

Recipe for mission impossible:

1) Take 8 people with lives and obligations outside layonara
2) Add a touch of timezones.
3) Stir in some roleplay and a lot of effort & ideas
4) Leave to plan for a month or so

5) Require all the participants to use a CDQ slot thus adding a serious demand som players can't/won't give up due to PRC application etc.
6) Get all the CDQ schedules to fit together

The scheduling without the CDQ slot demand is already tough, but the CDQ demand makes it near impossible to agree on and coordinate a GCDQ.


Please, could we let the GCDQ rest on the guild, i.e. 4 months between each GCDQ for each guild, but they dont count against other CDQs.

[Ravemore]

I wanted to chime in... I agree 100%. No... 200%. I myself have passed up a couple of GCDQ's for this reason only. As a player it would contribute greatly to involving me more with groups!

[Dorganath]

You know, I read this and scratched my head, somewhat confused.

Then I looked up the policy and was still somewhat confused.

It seems somewhere along the line, the impression that GCDQs count against each individual in the group filtered into the Community's (and some GM's) understanding of the CDQ policy. I even spoke with another GM about it and there's only a single line in a single paragraph that even mentions GCDQs, and the subject of whether or not they count against individual players is really not mentioned explicitly at all.

So let me try to clarify.

What is a GCDQ?

The "G" in GCDQ stands for "Group".  Sometimes this group is a guild, but it doesn't have to be. It's simply a CDQ that is intended to address the goals of a group of people rather than an individual.

What's the difference? Why does a GCDQ exist?

They exist to prevent abuse of the system, in truth.  Several years ago when the CDQ policy was solidified (only slightly different than today's form), the idea of a group of people having a series of CDQs in a short period of time was floated as a way to effectively circumvent the 2-month waiting period.  All these CDQs would apply to the same goal and involve the same people, but since it was different people requesting them, the load on the GM would be continuous, rather than spread out.

So, we defined that a GCDQ is when you have a group of people wanting to accomplish a goal for the group.  In this definition, a GCDQ has the same wait time as a CDQ, in that the group must wait for 2 months between GCDQs before the group can pursue a second to further the same goal or start some other goal.

So for (a random) example, if the Angels guild wanted to establish a trade agreement with Hilm, this would require a GCDQ.  It's possible that the goal is too much for one GCDQ and will require a second.  Or, perhaps they have a secondary goal of extending that agreement to Dalanthar as well.  In either case, the guild would have to wait for 2 months between GCDQs to further these goals.

Likewise, if a group of faithful Ilsarians wished to establish a formal temple (with in-game representation) in some place that is under-served by the faith, that would likely be multiple GCDQs, with 2 months (minimum) between them.

So what about the timing?

The 2-month wait applies to the group and the goal, not the individuals within the group.  This is what seems to be the confusion in the posts above.  This means that an individual within the group also cannot ask for a CDQ which furthers the specific goal of the group during that time.

However, it does not mean that each individual player who participates in a GCDQ cannot request a CDQ for one of their characters during this time, unless the goal of the CDQ overlaps with that of the group.

I hope this makes more sense.

If not, think of it this way:  Just because you participate in the CDQ of another player doesn't mean you can't participate in other CDQs or even request your own. It is not the participation that is the limiter, but rather it is the goal(s).

And for complete clarity, it will be up to the GM(s) involved to make a determination on whether requested CDQ goals are aligned to an individual or a group and if they overlap the existing efforts of a group.

So effectively, CDQs and GCDQs are and have been on different timers. It seems a combination of oversight and simply not considering either the confusion or the need to be more explicit has led to a general misunderstanding about the policy.

So I hope this clarifies things for people, but if not, please ask.

And yes, we'll see about updating LORE and the CDQ thread on the forums to include this clarification.

[Alatriel]

Thanks Dorg, that makes things a lot better really

[Dorganath]

Thanks Dorg, that makes things a lot better really

It doesn't actually change anything except perceptions.

[Alatriel]

Perception is reality... so if it made our perceptions better, then... you made reality better.  Logic really

[Xiaobeibi]

Thanks!

[Acacea]

Hey, thanks for that. I would have been pretty positive that an admin posted or spoke to the contrary before, and that they were on the same timer.

[Spike]

Hey, thanks for that. I would have been pretty positive that an admin posted or spoke to the contrary before, and that they were on the same timer.

They did indeed, but there you go .


http://forums.layonara.com/character-development-quests-cdqs/265032-gcdqs.html

[Acacea]

Yeah, but it feels like she was speaking from the same assumption I would have had due to an entirely different statement... if that makes sense. It is my Saturday though, so I'm too lazy to check for matching queries.

[Dorganath]

Yeah, but it feels like she was speaking from the same assumption I would have had due to an entirely different statement... if that makes sense. It is my Saturday though, so I'm too lazy to check for matching queries.

Yeah, it seems so, and it seems I missed that question completely, else I  would have commented earlier.

[Carillon]

Yeah, but it feels like she was speaking from the same assumption I would have had due to an entirely different statement... if that makes sense. It is my Saturday though, so I'm too lazy to check for matching queries.

Just to clarify, Acacea is correct. I was speaking from the information that was given to me when I asked this very same question of a couple of other GMs/admins when updating the CDQ, GCDQ and WLDQ threads some months past. As Dorg says, it appears this is a misconception that has been around for a while, and has been passed down by both players and GMs!

Whether simple miscommunication or old, outdated misinformation, it doesn't really matter where it came from, though, just that it should no longer be considered valid. As such, I have updated the CDQ info thread with the correct, current information (which is the same as above). Please go by this, of course, and feel free to direct anyone who has encountered different information to this page or the new rules, explaining that a misconception has been floating around.

Oh, and my apology, of course, for my inadvertent role in furthering the misconception! We do the best we can, but we are only human after all.

~Carillon