| The Councils's first task therefore should be to find out Stardock's (ie Brad's) true issues with the Metaverse, unless it does, its doomed to failure from the word go. |
I respectively disagree with this.
The first point is that all of the initial changes will be focused on setting up the AltMeta to achieve the kinds of thing that we want to do. The only connection between the AltMeta and the "real" metaverse is that the AltMeta takes the raw data as submitted to the "real" metaverse.
As such we will be asking for no support or other changes in the game from Stardock (at least as our initial focus). If we were to do so I agree we would be doomed from the start. The point of the council is to try to do what can realistically be accomplished. Getting Stardock to make major changes in how the metaverse is run or how the game is scored is not (at this time) a realistic goal.
I believe that we can set up the AltMeta in such a way that will make it more attractive to players that play games other than the high scoring gigantic galaxy military conquest. If this can be done then that does open up the metaverse as a more interesting place to a much larger player base than it does at this time.
Also once we prove that we can increase interest in the metaverse and once we prove that we can speak for the majority of metaverse players, we will be in a far better position to request reasonable changes from Stardock.
Right now Stardock hears 100's of suggestions of what they should do. There's no way they can respond to 100's of suggestions, particularly when it's only a handful of folks that seem to support each one of them.
If we are successful with the council it will accomplish two things. The first is that we won't be asking for Stardock to do 100's of things, we'll be asking for only a few reasonable things. The other difference is that the things we ask for will be supported by 100's of people not just a handful.
I do agree that eventually we need Stardock (i.e. Brad) to be willing to support us. I just feel that support would be far more likely "after" some positive benefit has been proved. Requiring such approval prior to demonstrating any benefit and particularly requiring such approval before even making any attempt at improving the situation as you seem to be suggesting is what's doomed to failure.
