It’s Hammy Time
Jammy the Hammy
- Description: Why not be a hamster?
- Rarity: epic
- Category: skin
Link to editor
Jammy the Hammy
Hey, I have to let you know that the category skin should be similar to an avatar (human body) following a standard pipeline for gameplay.
Thanks for the reply.
I saw there were other skins approved recently that were not similar to the human body avatar.
Was there a recent rule change?
If I make a large version of the hamster, would that be approved?
Let me know how to proceed.
Hey, yeah actually those shouldn’t have gone through so we’re looking for a solution now… If you could make it bigger and rig it to the bones that’d be great!
Sounds good! I’ll work on that!
Model has been updated, let me know what you think, if it needs any work.
Hey so there are a couple of things to change… we currently don’t accept static characters so the hands would have to be disconnected and weighted properly as well as the legs. Also it should be smaller/thinner for practical reasons. Thank you, waiting for the updates!
Amazingly cute Jen! I love it, I wanna wear it so bad T.T
On a separate note @Yannakis I can’t find anything on Decentraland not accepting static characters or for them to be humanoid.
I have checked through the TOS, the Code of Ethics, the Wearables Editor User Guide, the Wearables Overview, Creating Wearables and most importantly the Publishing Wearables and Content Policy.
I also cannot find anything about changes under the most recent Passed Proposals or the most recent Enacted Outcomes.
While we all understand that wearables that cover or interact with avatar limbs must animate, there are also many categories and creative concepts that don’t have to follow this rule. For example, aura’s are static, hairs are static, earrings are static, sunglasses are static, mythical creatures surrounding the avatar are static. Not to mention the several already existing items that are static. If the rules and guidelines have changed and the public is not aware of it, I don’t think its fair to reject designs. If designs are rejected, proper documentation should be provided to avoid loss of mana and creative concepts.
I’d also like to add that it seems a little strange that there is a focus being made about static wearables, but not IP infringing wearables. We as creators just need to know what we can and cannot do. Providing these on a case by case scenario makes it come across as opinions rather than technical corrections.
Because there are some gameplay patterns to take into account, this model exceed that. The category skin should be similar to an avatar following a standard pipeline for gameplay. Take into account that first option you select when uploading an item says “make/female body type”. @Doki
There will be more directions published soon regarding this issue to make it clear
I hope this chime in is taken with respect and not me trying to bark. But I think I’m speaking for several with this. I’m confused because the docs are provided so that we do take “gameplay patterns” into consideration. We have tri limitations, texture and material limitations, weighting, and category limitations. This hamster has taken everything into consideration regarding weighting and size. You guys are literally forcing them to change the mesh aka the entire design over what appears to be an opinion of art style. Also, it’s totally not fair to reject someone based on “rules” that don’t exist. If they existed, they would be in the docs. When DCL made the announcement of skins. They relayed the information about triangle limits, material limits, and texture limits. Because this was new information, they made it a point to spread the word and make it clear. If not accepting “static” wearables was part of that information, they would have said it.
I’d also like to point out that a “static” item doesn’t move at all. This is why it’s called static. The hamster fully moves and wiggles as a cute plushie hamster would. Nothing can really be “static” in DCL because everything HAS to be weighted to the armature…Also, why bring up the male/female body type when there are literally hundreds of items that are one gender only or unisex with non-traditional m/f body types. Hamsters also come in more than one gender lol. Who is to say what is “female” and what is “male”. It’s literally the metaverse. You can be who or whatever you want.
By rejecting this model and others like it, it’s challenging decentralization. Rejecting wearables that utilize creativity and proper use of game mechanics is not something you typically find in decentralization platforms. If this was a committee-wide agreeance as well, several items, not just skins, would not have made it through the approval process. That’s not something that can “slip through”.
I’ve never heard of these specific gameplay patterns be mentioned on Decentraland in the documents, it’s like there’s secret rules that we don’t get told and it’s infuriating as creators who are on this platform putting money and time into it- the least that could have be done is to have been transparent from the start and it doesn’t feel like when situations like this happen, it’s extremely off-putting to join or invite others to a community that isn’t transparent.
I don’t think it’s fair to say you can’t have this due to rules that aren’t in place yet as that leaves space for curators to suddenly stop allowing items due to rules we can’t even see or don’t currently exist at any point. How are we to predict what could be said no to next if it’s not in the rules? How are we to know this won’t happen again and it’ll be a “slip through”?
I’m not trying to be rude or attack anyone’s person, I’m just stating what I think about this situation as a creator and a customer and I want to know that the platform I invest time and money in are transparent with it’s community.
I still feel my concerns haven’t been addressed. I also cannot find the link to this document currently so if one could be provided, I’d appreciate that. Lastly, it doesn’t say anything about static constraints in the publishing document.
This is a public document. First document I came across coming into dcl in October/November at least. Feel free to take a look and let me know if you have any questions
I appreciate the link but this document isn’t on Decentraland. I could copy and paste this into a google document and post this myself, I’m not entirely sure I understand why this has been linked.
It feels a little like Jen’s post is getting delayed until the rules get changed or officially republished.
It’s also weird how only one specific part of an official document is highlighted to show your point.
Not trying to be rude, just really confused now.
This is a document linked somewhere in the decentraland blog. Both weighting and shape points included there.
This is a frustrating response and none of the responses you have given have addressed any concerns or any of my points given. I would appreciate something being explained properly back as not to confuse the community on the issues of transparency and other issues bought up.
Edit: this document you have linked is either a new version currently being made in google docs of a link I posted earlier or an old version. It is not the same and either parts you screenshot are not said on the official DCL documents.
You can find the exact same things here in the current doc version. you’re completely right the other one is very old but was what I’ve been using from day one… Please read through the documentation before making posts and getting aggressive Wearables Overview | Decentraland