Modelling - Prioritize the community/buyer.

[twenie1]

What's your Minecraft Username?: twenie1
What's the title of your suggestion?: Modelling - Prioritize the community/buyer.

What's your suggestion?:

This suggestion is targeted towards the Modelling Team and the Modelling process in general.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It's unfortunate to say, but the server is prioritized more than the buyer themself. This is true and has been shown/proven in several cases of modelling - models are downgraded to suit the servers simplistic theme which should not be the case. The buyer/customer paying for these custom items should have full say of the shading style, whether its acceptable or not, etcetera.

This is more me imploring, than a suggestion - please, I IMPLORE you to start prioritizing the community. Do not make something worse for the sake of making things suit the server, if that was the case, the entirety of Karakura's map should be remade to suit Shotengai's unique aesthetic and look (which i actually wouldn't mind and would prefer).

I understand that there's rules to buying customs and things that you automatically agree to when paying, but that shouldn't be at the EXPENSE of us.

May I just say too, by actively pushing for EVERY custom item to fit the servers theme, you are in turn shitting on the modellers and limiting their talent. Let them shine, let them create absolute peak whether its in srps current shading style or not.

Guys, let me know your thoughts and opinions.​

How will this benefit the server and community?:
1. It would prioritize the community.
2. It would add more distinction between custom items, and difference of style.
3. Modellers would actually have more ranged distinction instead of just what category of models they can/can't do.

 

[rddkupp]

+1

 

[SleepyS3b]

+1
As someone who's bought alot of customs, and has been disappointed with a couple of them, I agree with this!!

 

[Miamorchito]

I haven't really experienced any bad moments with this. I've heard people say that I was 'screwed' with my custom car, but I'm personally pretty happy with what I got. The same goes for my bike; I liked the end product.

What I would like to see is a comparison. You say that some models have to fit the server, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you help me visualize this, I could give you a +1 or -1, depending on it. :)

 

[twenie1]

I haven't really experienced any bad moments with this. I've heard people say that I was 'screwed' with my custom car, but I'm personally pretty happy with what I got. The same goes for my bike; I liked the end product.

What I would like to see is a comparison. You say that some models have to fit the server, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you help me visualize this, I could give you a +1 or -1, depending on it. :)

What I mean by this is recently, all customs are having the same srp-coded shading. This is to make the customs fit SchoolRP's style. If you'd like a comparison, take a look at most of todays new modelled cars/items/furniture, they all seem the same. We need diversity in our custom items, and for our requests and wants not to be pushed aside.

 

[Omegabet_]

+1
Always prioritize community.

 

[Kayla1511]

NEUTRAL

 

[twenie1]

NEUTRAL

Any reason why you're neutral on the topic? It's good to elaborate on why.

 

[Kayla1511]

Any reason why you're neutral on the topic? It's good to elaborate on why.

there's no current issue with it, you give the modelling team your reference(s) and they make it and ask if you like it :/

 

[Yonio]

-1

Before I comment on this suggestion, I should clarify that I’m not fully up to date with the server’s current models. However, based on recent screenshots and screensharing I’ve seen, I’m assuming the server has continued down the path of using texture-reliant models rather than focusing on voxel-based designs or high element counts.

---

With that said, I understand where you’re coming from. When requesting a 3D Custom Item, it’s reasonable to want it designed to your preferences, especially when it involves a real-life purchase. Nonetheless, I'm going to have to disagree with this due to the implications it may have in the long run. Let me explain:

1. Homogeneous artstyle
This is probably the main reason you or others have been given when a modeller has rejected model modifications that don’t suit the server style. Considering how many players buy Custom Items on SchoolRP, it’s inevitable for the Media Coordinator to hear differing opinions on how their models should be designed. Here are a few examples I’ve personally encountered a few years ago:

• "Can you make the model more detailed?"
• "Can you make it look more round?"
• "Can you use this specific colour palette?"

While these questions can be valid in some contexts, they are often fueled by players' subjective preferences. This usually happens because they’re thinking in a very “isolated” way, without considering how their model will fit into the broader context of SchoolRP.

2. 3D-Modeller Diversity
SchoolRP is no longer a niche server with just a handful of players. It’s a large community with over a decade of history that has developed its own distinct style (buildings, pixel art, models, etc.). In the past, the modelling team was more divided in terms of style, which is why older models may have a more "detailed" appearance.

However, relying on individual modellers to adapt their style to each customer’s demands isn’t always possible. It’s much easier and better for maintaining the server’s overall aesthetic to work with a single, cohesive style rather than struggling to find the right modeller to suit the customer's demands.

3. Detailed =/= Better
As foreshadowed earlier, in the context of a game that relies on a "retro" pixel art style, creating high-definition assets can actually backfire. A perfect example of this is the recent update to the Vex's model. While the old model was more detailed, most Minecraft players would agree that the new version fits the game better, especially when compared to the Allay (see below).

Spoiler: Vex Comparison

This logic can also be applied to SRP models. While I agree you should have the creative freedom to request certain changes, the model is ultimately meant to be used on SchoolRP. Besides, asking for a more "detailed" model often increases the file size of both the model (.json) and the texture (.png). Over time, this can negatively affect the entire community’s experience due to lag spikes and longer loading times.

---

TL;DR - Customers (should) have a certain degree of creative freedom to commission their models, but their demands must be adapted to the server's reasonable limitations for the sake of server style, modeller feasibility and resource-pack file size.

PS - Despite what I said above, each case should be treated differently, and if you have any issues or concerns you'd like to bring up, there are proper channels to voice them and let the Media Coordinator know. It is up to their discretion to accept or reject your requests, or perhaps find a proper middle ground that satisfies both parties!

 

[Hirathex]

May I just say too, by actively pushing for EVERY custom item to fit the servers theme, you are in turn shitting on the modellers and limiting their talent. Let them shine, let them create absolute peak whether its in srps current shading style or not.

Not gonna lie, this comes off a lot worse than what you’re raising issues about. I’m very certain all current modelers are more than happy to work under this style and within certain guidelines. Saying all of our work looks terrible because it’s not your preferred style is pretty disheartening to read. More detailed doesn’t always equal better, and depending on the model type (eg. jewelry compared to cars), you can still have highly detailed models.

Speaking as a modeler, and for other people in this thread, we are more than happy to make changes to your custom as long as its within guidelines and you let us know! In the past, when I was still new, I had people dislike my models without ever asking for changes. Also, as some others have mentioned here, models do need to be consistent and also not increase the already very high pack size.

 

[twenie1]

-1

Before I comment on this suggestion, I should clarify that I’m not fully up to date with the server’s current models. However, based on recent screenshots and screensharing I’ve seen, I’m assuming the server has continued down the path of using texture-reliant models rather than focusing on voxel-based designs or high element counts.

---

With that said, I understand where you’re coming from. When requesting a 3D Custom Item, it’s reasonable to want it designed to your preferences, especially when it involves a real-life purchase. Nonetheless, I'm going to have to disagree with this due to the implications it may have in the long run. Let me explain:

1. Homogeneous artstyle
This is probably the main reason you or others have been given when a modeller has rejected model modifications that don’t suit the server style. Considering how many players buy Custom Items on SchoolRP, it’s inevitable for the Media Coordinator to hear differing opinions on how their models should be designed. Here are a few examples I’ve personally encountered a few years ago:

• "Can you make the model more detailed?"
• "Can you make it look more round?"
• "Can you use this specific colour palette?"

While these questions can be valid in some contexts, they are often fueled by players' subjective preferences. This usually happens because they’re thinking in a very “isolated” way, without considering how their model will fit into the broader context of SchoolRP.

2. 3D-Modeller Diversity
SchoolRP is no longer a niche server with just a handful of players. It’s a large community with over a decade of history that has developed its own distinct style (buildings, pixel art, models, etc.). In the past, the modelling team was more divided in terms of style, which is why older models may have a more "detailed" appearance.

However, relying on individual modellers to adapt their style to each customer’s demands isn’t always possible. It’s much easier and better for maintaining the server’s overall aesthetic to work with a single, cohesive style rather than struggling to find the right modeller to suit the customer's demands.

3. Detailed =/= Better
As foreshadowed earlier, in the context of a game that relies on a "retro" pixel art style, creating high-definition assets can actually backfire. A perfect example of this is the recent update to the Vex's model. While the old model was more detailed, most Minecraft players would agree that the new version fits the game better, especially when compared to the Allay (see below).

Spoiler: Vex Comparison

This logic can also be applied to SRP models. While I agree you should have the creative freedom to request certain changes, the model is ultimately meant to be used on SchoolRP. Besides, asking for a more "detailed" model often increases the file size of both the model (.json) and the texture (.png). Over time, this can negatively affect the entire community’s experience due to lag spikes and longer loading times.

---

TL;DR - Customers (should) have a certain degree of creative freedom to commission their models, but their demands must be adapted to the server's reasonable limitations for the sake of server style, modeller feasibility and resource-pack file size.

PS - Despite what I said above, each case should be treated differently, and if you have any issues or concerns you'd like to bring up, there are proper channels to voice them and let the Media Coordinator know. It is up to their discretion to accept or reject your requests, or perhaps find a proper middle ground that satisfies everyone.

First, thank you for your in-depth response. I appreciate the level of care you give when making these responses. Of course, I understand HEAVILY that SchoolRP has grown into its own distinctive community, being around for so long will do that no doubt. However, like you've said, I still believe we should have more freedom, and requests should be attempted as best as possible whilst trying to make it in the servers aesthetic.

HOWEVER, I do have to admit that I frown upon the whole "this is srp's shading style" because it isn't. There is several shading styles that srp has been accustomed too, therefore i think at least, we could be allowed to have an option of which shading the item will be.

 

[twenie1]

Not gonna lie, this comes off a lot worse than what you’re raising issues about. I’m very certain all current modelers are more than happy to work under this style and within certain guidelines. Saying all of our work looks terrible because it’s not your preferred style is pretty disheartening to read. More detailed doesn’t always equal better, and depending on the model type (eg. jewelry compared to cars), you can still have highly detailed models.

Speaking as a modeler, and for other people in this thread, we are more than happy to make changes to your custom as long as its within guidelines and you let us know! In the past, when I was still new, I had people dislike my models without ever asking for changes. Also, as some others have mentioned here, models do need to be consistent and also not increase the already very high pack size.

I never once said they were terrible. Some of my favourite models are from the current shading, but i feel it reduces the buyers requests a lot and the creative freedom we are suppose to have. I also just believe there are times with customs where they are downgraded to suit the servers style, in which i do not believe should be the case.

 

[OEightOne]

+1

Server cohesion does matter and performance matters, but neither should come at the expense of the community that funds it in the first place.
Here's why I agree with the suggestion, using the same format as Yonio.

---

1. Server Cohesion is used too broadly.
A cohesive art style should be a guideline and not a hard stop.

Cohesion is important, but enforcing it results in flattening everything to the lowest common denominator. If it does not fit, it's an automatic veto. The model can still read clearly in word, not increase file size, performance cost and the buyer explicitly wants it in a different approach, it still gets treated as "it does not fit". Which I think is not fair to use, plenty of older models do not fit the current style and the style slowly gets more and more different than it was before. One of the biggest issue with this logic is that the server style isn't even fully consistent right now. There are already many older models on the server that don't match the current modelling direction, have higher detail and use different shading approaches. Those models remain untouched. So, when new customs are rejected or downgraded in the name of stylistic consistency, it can feel unfair. The style has already evolved multiple times and clearly isn't static.

I'm not saying we bring back the older way of modelling. Just currently my models are getting downgraded, to "squiggles" when I want words.

2. Buyer preference matters.
This isn't a free cosmetic unlock. It's a paid commission. When someone pays for a custom item, they aren't asking to override the server. If the final product is downgraded to the point where it no longer resembles the buyer's request then the transaction stops feeling like a commission. And yes, more detail doesn't automatically mean better as Yonio said. There are many ways to add richness without bloating. Some models use a second texture layer to add depth without really increasing too much, but this isn't supported in all type of models, which I think I should be if more detail is NEEDED.

---

I do agree that the old modelling style shouldn't be the direction and I also fully understand why performance and optimization matters, especially on SRP. Just keep it as a guideline, please.

That saiiiddd... Some of the models I've commission barely resemble what I originally requested. I'm effectively unable to change them. At that point, it's not a compromise for the sake of the server, but it feels more like the buyer's intent has been overridden entirely. Having a different model from the request, with no room for revision is incredibly frustrating.

I've bought and got a lot of custom models and I'm happy with a lot and some which I thought were simplistic enough for the server, are forced to be changed, because "overlay" is a no for the custom. We don't need to oversimplify it like logos, I'm just asking for clearer communication during the process and reasonable flexibility where performance allows.

 

[urufu]

Neutral

---

The buyer is prioritised when you purchase something already. But there are regulations the models must follow. This is not information that is hidden, and if you are unhappy with your model you can request it be redone or made by a different modeller entirely.
If you are really unsure on if what you want can be done, you can always ask 6pancake or anyone of the modelling team what they think first.

 

[Sincriterio_]

+1

 

[twenie1]

Neutral

---

The buyer is prioritised when you purchase something already. But there are regulations the models must follow. This is not information that is hidden, and if you are unhappy with your model you can request it be redone or made by a different modeller entirely.
If you are really unsure on if what you want can be done, you can always ask 6pancake or anyone of the modelling team what they think first.

Not really, since most requests are tossed out the window for the sake of pack simplicity.

 

[urufu]

Not really, since most requests are tossed out the window for the sake of pack simplicity.

This personally has never happened to me or (as far as I'm aware) anybody that I know, so at that point I fear it's just a case of focusing on the few times they say they can't do something...

 

[Oli]

-1
When purchasing an item, you AGREE to the conditions under which the item is going to be delivered/commissioned. If you do not agree with said conditions, then you are not forced to buy the item, for it will not align with your vision. You aren't commissioning the item without already having signed a waiver of sorts stating that you expect a simple design. And the design is simplistic, not for the server's sake, but for the playerbase's sake. To have everyone be able to download the pack and play IS prioritising the playerbase.

With personal experience, every item I have commissioned has not only gone beyond my expectations, but has been executed perfectly. I am not sure what you expect from Minecraft Custom Items when our moddler team have done a most glorious, extravagant job with the customs they've delivered

 

[6Pancake]

Reviewed
Thank you for your suggestion!

- While it is understandable to be upset regarding the outcome of your cosmetic, it is made known from before the purchase, during the purchase, and after the purchase that certain guidelines (established in discussions between the Owner and Model Coordinators to ensure the best outcome for the server) must be followed by the Modelling Team during the creation of custom cosmetic items, and it is recommended to discuss any ideas before purchase to prevent any ultimate disappointment. See spoiler for more information.​

- Furthermore, during the creation of models, the customer will be informed by the modeller responsible for creating their item or me, if a feature of their model is not possible. Afterwards, the modeller will spend time discussing with the customer possible alternatives as a joint effort to find the best-suited option.​

Spoiler: Examples of Guidelines

SchoolRP Pack Information Post



SchoolRP Cosmetic Packages (Store)


Example Message sent in every ticket requesting changes to Cosmetics.

- Maintaining a consistent style across all models is important and healthy for the server for numerous reasons outside of style cohesion. As the style is simplistic, it prioritises optimised models that allow for a smaller pack size, which is therefore less heavy on players' computers and decreases the time that it takes for players to load the pack.​

- Certain methods, such as 'overlay' layers on models or the earlier 'voxel' style used in earlier models, are not appropriate to the style due to their unoptimised nature and unnecessary inflation of elements, which unnecessarily increase the size of a model and therefore the size of the pack when implemented.​

- Over the last few months, a few members of the Modelling Team and I have committed heavily to remaking a large number of models that are heavy on the pack, and as such, we are slowly removing older models and fitting them to the current, optimised and Java-esque style on the server.​