General question about cooperation in this community
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
I want to say thank you very much for Yogibear for that enlightening post, and to KnightKunibert for bringing up a topic I have long felt merited serious discussion (namely, that of open discussion).
If I can contribute to this thread, I want only to offer a similar example from another game that isn't exactly open source, but has been developed for free for the past 7 years. The game is Myth, released by Bungie in 1997, and long since abandoned by it's original developers.
Faced with a program rapidly becoming obsolete in the face of new operating systems (the original program ran on Win95 and MacOS classic), a group of programmers that still played the game decided to undertake an updating. They obtained the source code and permission to modify from its completely disinterested owner, Take2, and went to work.
They soon realized that, with their newfound access, they could not only bring the code up to date, but they could fix a number of outstanding bugs within the code. After internal debate, the decided to undertake improving the game code along with updating compatibility.
Perhaps predictably, this entailed at least one fundamental change in gameplay (namely, melee pathfinding, a system that most experienced players had to learn the oddities of in order to perform well) that ignited a firestorm among the remaining community members. As all players were forced to get the new version in order to stay current, they were basically stuck with this fundamental change that nobody could really say for sure whether it was for the best.
As it happened, the community forums were located on separate entities from the game developers. This meant that basically no holds were barred in the ensuing flamewars (except of course for racial slurs, obscenity, etc. as per usual).
However, interestingly, not all of the posts were "OMFG YOU DEVELOPERS SUCK. YOU RUINED MYTH" comments. In fact the vast majority were serious (if often passionate) arguments over:
• whether or not the code should be changed, or whether the code should simply be brought up to date (ie. the same argument the developers had amongst themselves)
• if the code is to be changed, what determines what is a bug, and what is a gameplay feature
In a lot of ways, we were lucky. Unlike Wesnoth, for example, nobody was still around who developed the original game, rather, we inherited it, having played since the original developments, and had to determine the best course of action in terms of modernization.
Anyway, the end result of these arguments (open to all to comment in whatever way they would) were two very interesting consequences:
• With regards to how the game "should" be coded, the general feeling was to leave the mechanics the way they were as much as possible, however the gold standard for changes was the word "intuitive." If previous code had units behave in a counterintuitive way to someone who had just picked up the game, changing the code could be justified as a "simplification," and hence was carried out (eg. a healing unit, when clicked to heal, would occasionally turn around before healing, when the player did not direct it to turn. you would expect that when you tell a unit to heal, it would omg heal and not wheel around in circles sometimes. this was then fixed so that when directed to heal, the unit would simply heal without turning).
Further changes to pathfinding (which there were a few) and other game mechanics were all made in order to get in line with player expectation. To determine player expectation, of course, demanded input from the players. This paved the way to the second most interesting consequence:
• After the ruckus of that patch, the developers henceforth adopted a new approach to development, deeply involving the community. Players that would vociferously protest patch developments were sought out, brought into the discussion, and many even became testers of private betas. The end result has been no less than THREE subsequent patches, EACH heavily endorsed by the player community.
As it stands, Myth is an impressively distinct version from what it was 10 years ago. While perhaps no piece of code will ever be completely bug-free, there are no major bugs left in the game, and every small bug I have ever been made aware of has long since been quashed. Devs have since moved on to adding and expanding the program (adding in higher resolutions, detailed textures, etc.) in other nice ways, and the game mechanics need only be tested now and then to make sure no new bugs are introduced.
As for what motivates these developers? Well, you'd really have to ask them. It may simply be for the love of the game, but whatever it was, I think I can speak for most of the remaining Myth players when I say we are supremely grateful for the work they've done, and the feats they have accomplished. As far as "open source" projects go, I think they provide a great example, and I will defend their accomplishments until my dying breath.
And I am only a player/tester.
The moral of this story, however, is that the Myth code, while indeed somewhat sacrosanct, isn't that way because of a refusal to discuss change, it is because every facet of the system has stood the test of debate and discussion. Quite honestly, I can't remember the last time somebody even brought up a game mechanics issue. Every time it has been brought up, it has been addressed. Myth is a game run by players, maintained by players, loved by players, and until it either revives or finally dies, that is its legacy.
Anyway, having come from that tradition, it really saddens me to see relatively harmless threads about core issues (RNG) locked, moved, or otherwise shunted without serious discussion. Personally, I have read every page of the RNG thread, and I am not satisfied that it is conclusive, for many reasons similar to the ones Yogibear mentions in his post. I wish no ill will on anybody, but I, as many others, have come to care about this game and wish to contribute. That there could and should be an avenue for these player contributions is a worthy topic that I think KnightKunibert rightly raised.
I think the fact that Wesnoth is still run by the original developers is a big reason for this discussion model. the general feeling is "well, if you don't like OUR game, you can go make YOUR own game." I don't get the feeling that threads are locked because there has been sufficient discussion, it's more like "we don't feel like discussing this, and we control development. therefore, by order the draconian system of procedural rules we created, this is locked."
I have objections to the lessluck era solution as well, though I don't think this is the right thread for it. In any case, it's really not worth investing much thought, reason, or fight into it if it's just going to get locked sans discussion.
Anyway I've written far more than I intended. Again, thanks KK for bringing this up, I was rather hoping somebody else felt the same way.
If I can contribute to this thread, I want only to offer a similar example from another game that isn't exactly open source, but has been developed for free for the past 7 years. The game is Myth, released by Bungie in 1997, and long since abandoned by it's original developers.
Faced with a program rapidly becoming obsolete in the face of new operating systems (the original program ran on Win95 and MacOS classic), a group of programmers that still played the game decided to undertake an updating. They obtained the source code and permission to modify from its completely disinterested owner, Take2, and went to work.
They soon realized that, with their newfound access, they could not only bring the code up to date, but they could fix a number of outstanding bugs within the code. After internal debate, the decided to undertake improving the game code along with updating compatibility.
Perhaps predictably, this entailed at least one fundamental change in gameplay (namely, melee pathfinding, a system that most experienced players had to learn the oddities of in order to perform well) that ignited a firestorm among the remaining community members. As all players were forced to get the new version in order to stay current, they were basically stuck with this fundamental change that nobody could really say for sure whether it was for the best.
As it happened, the community forums were located on separate entities from the game developers. This meant that basically no holds were barred in the ensuing flamewars (except of course for racial slurs, obscenity, etc. as per usual).
However, interestingly, not all of the posts were "OMFG YOU DEVELOPERS SUCK. YOU RUINED MYTH" comments. In fact the vast majority were serious (if often passionate) arguments over:
• whether or not the code should be changed, or whether the code should simply be brought up to date (ie. the same argument the developers had amongst themselves)
• if the code is to be changed, what determines what is a bug, and what is a gameplay feature
In a lot of ways, we were lucky. Unlike Wesnoth, for example, nobody was still around who developed the original game, rather, we inherited it, having played since the original developments, and had to determine the best course of action in terms of modernization.
Anyway, the end result of these arguments (open to all to comment in whatever way they would) were two very interesting consequences:
• With regards to how the game "should" be coded, the general feeling was to leave the mechanics the way they were as much as possible, however the gold standard for changes was the word "intuitive." If previous code had units behave in a counterintuitive way to someone who had just picked up the game, changing the code could be justified as a "simplification," and hence was carried out (eg. a healing unit, when clicked to heal, would occasionally turn around before healing, when the player did not direct it to turn. you would expect that when you tell a unit to heal, it would omg heal and not wheel around in circles sometimes. this was then fixed so that when directed to heal, the unit would simply heal without turning).
Further changes to pathfinding (which there were a few) and other game mechanics were all made in order to get in line with player expectation. To determine player expectation, of course, demanded input from the players. This paved the way to the second most interesting consequence:
• After the ruckus of that patch, the developers henceforth adopted a new approach to development, deeply involving the community. Players that would vociferously protest patch developments were sought out, brought into the discussion, and many even became testers of private betas. The end result has been no less than THREE subsequent patches, EACH heavily endorsed by the player community.
As it stands, Myth is an impressively distinct version from what it was 10 years ago. While perhaps no piece of code will ever be completely bug-free, there are no major bugs left in the game, and every small bug I have ever been made aware of has long since been quashed. Devs have since moved on to adding and expanding the program (adding in higher resolutions, detailed textures, etc.) in other nice ways, and the game mechanics need only be tested now and then to make sure no new bugs are introduced.
As for what motivates these developers? Well, you'd really have to ask them. It may simply be for the love of the game, but whatever it was, I think I can speak for most of the remaining Myth players when I say we are supremely grateful for the work they've done, and the feats they have accomplished. As far as "open source" projects go, I think they provide a great example, and I will defend their accomplishments until my dying breath.
And I am only a player/tester.
The moral of this story, however, is that the Myth code, while indeed somewhat sacrosanct, isn't that way because of a refusal to discuss change, it is because every facet of the system has stood the test of debate and discussion. Quite honestly, I can't remember the last time somebody even brought up a game mechanics issue. Every time it has been brought up, it has been addressed. Myth is a game run by players, maintained by players, loved by players, and until it either revives or finally dies, that is its legacy.
Anyway, having come from that tradition, it really saddens me to see relatively harmless threads about core issues (RNG) locked, moved, or otherwise shunted without serious discussion. Personally, I have read every page of the RNG thread, and I am not satisfied that it is conclusive, for many reasons similar to the ones Yogibear mentions in his post. I wish no ill will on anybody, but I, as many others, have come to care about this game and wish to contribute. That there could and should be an avenue for these player contributions is a worthy topic that I think KnightKunibert rightly raised.
I think the fact that Wesnoth is still run by the original developers is a big reason for this discussion model. the general feeling is "well, if you don't like OUR game, you can go make YOUR own game." I don't get the feeling that threads are locked because there has been sufficient discussion, it's more like "we don't feel like discussing this, and we control development. therefore, by order the draconian system of procedural rules we created, this is locked."
I have objections to the lessluck era solution as well, though I don't think this is the right thread for it. In any case, it's really not worth investing much thought, reason, or fight into it if it's just going to get locked sans discussion.
Anyway I've written far more than I intended. Again, thanks KK for bringing this up, I was rather hoping somebody else felt the same way.
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
KnightKunibert:
Let's recap what you have said.
Other than that, I hope you continue to enjoy wesnoth.
Let's recap what you have said.
The point is that you are claiming this community isn't open in the following statements:jb wrote:
Well, the massive quantities of UMC prove just how warped your opinion is. I see you on the MP server at this very moment, enjoying the benefits of this open community.
What the point of playing on the server regarding this discussion?
You developers think and i get this point that discussions rise expectations which have have to be fulfilled someday by you. Well, i expect from open source projetcs openness.
if devs are not going to change their mind from time to time wesnoth will have no future ...
And in my opinion discussions like this one should be open as well ... that's all!!!
In my opinion the Wesnoth project will benefit from an open discussion between all corresponding persons independently of the subject.
You can find the luck thread here.Why don't you leave the discussion at least open ? The fact that different people (i am not the only one) rise nearly the same question should be ignored. At least the people should have a forum to discuss this question.
Then should irrelevant posts be locked without explanation? This topic has had dozens of threads.I already tried it and maybe i should talk with zookeeper about this extension. However, i think it is no good style to tell something and simultaneously lock the post.
You can't expect to attack me privately and I won't respond. And yes, you did claim I'm segregating the community. I can post your exact quote if you like? It's hard to blatantly lie when there is written proof. And any moderator will agree there are two sides to each story, and people are generally not as innocent as they originally claim.1st: When i send you a private message i want it to kept private!
2nd: I didn't tell you anything about segregation ... i just asked you how to delete my account!
I did read your posts. It consists of this one idea.3rd: Zookeepers Era doesn't do want i have proposed. Maybe you should read my posts more seriously.
Great, try it. Please share your results with us. After all this is an open community and we encourage people to contribute to the game.I don't suggest to remove the RNG totally, but maybe to reduce it's effect by maybe 30% ? I think this would be worth to try.
I have the feeling you guys are quite irritated by my posts. I am sorry for that ...
Apology accepted. My irritation spawns from your overreaction to having your thread locked, and because you are spreading false information. Quite frankly, you are acting like a child, threatening to delete your account because your thread got locked.If any of the developers got irritated i am sorry about that.
Other than that, I hope you continue to enjoy wesnoth.
Last edited by jb on January 10th, 2010, 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edited wrong link to luck thread
Reason: edited wrong link to luck thread
-
Thrawn
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: June 2nd, 2005, 11:37 am
- Location: bridge of SSD Chimera
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
Also, if you wanna play with a g radiation of randomness, try sauron's mod. At the least, you could see how he did it, and maybe even update it for 1.7/1.8. That would give you exactly what you are looking for. It's different from zookeepers in that you could select the amount that luck played in hitting units/dealing damage.
...please remember that "IT'S" ALWAYS MEANS "IT IS" and "ITS" IS WHAT YOU USE TO INDICATE POSSESSION BY "IT".--scott
this goes for they're/their/there as well
this goes for they're/their/there as well
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
I think there are some fundamental misconceptions behind this discussion.
Yogi is only partly right that its our right as developers to chose the nature of this game. In reality its only partly that. There are certain aspects of this game that we;ve put together that are considered core and unchangable. Remember that wesnoth is an organization like any other. Open source really only refers to what we do with the intellectual property we produce (though programs such as ours are commonly referred to as using an open source model.) Wesnoth as an organization uses open source property and publishes a game from it. With the mass of information available we need to have a system of discrimination. And thats where principles. For developers to be productive and effective, we can't design a game that is always changing in its principles. It also allows us to provide a reliable game experience for users.
Some are theories, like Options are Bad and Wesnoth is not Realistic. Others are aspects of the game, like the hex based board, terrain based defence and the like. One of the Core ones is the random combat system. To the developers its as integral part of gameplay as the turn order system. The same argument for its inclusion as an option could plausibly work for something like multi-hex attacks or simultaneous turns. If we went with this policy we could plausibly add everything and have a game that has a weak conceptual core and that would be a real problem for development.
Does that mean these are all unchanging and not up for debate? Of course not. However RNG is an issue that probably has received the most attention, possibly save for true ranged attack. We've had a number of discussions on this topic, where the developers have made their views clear. This has happened maybe one every three to six months.
However after about two years of this discussion nothing new ever gets raised. Its the same arguments that get rehashed without any variance. We;ve had good discussions about this, before where the views get raised. They often turn ugly too, which doesn't help at all. But after several years its just the same arguments. Moreover its tends to be the same people who raise these issues. This isn't a majority view; in reality its a minority that can't accept it. Options have been made available as add ons, and they aren't popular at all. We don't see thousands clamoring for it. A large majority of top tier players (those who are critical for this game's development) don't want this change. In reality having core principles means we won't please everybody. We won't please everybody if we change it either. So we've decided to stick with our design as is and go from there.
So in conclusion we can go either go over this topic for the 9th time and just make the same arguments over again. Honestly Knight, you haven't brought up anything we haven't seen before. But its time consuming and it gets annoying for us. We don't need another "honest discussion" on this topic because we've had this enough times. Its the reason why we posted this rationale thread.
I think thats encapsulates our view on this topic.
Yogi is only partly right that its our right as developers to chose the nature of this game. In reality its only partly that. There are certain aspects of this game that we;ve put together that are considered core and unchangable. Remember that wesnoth is an organization like any other. Open source really only refers to what we do with the intellectual property we produce (though programs such as ours are commonly referred to as using an open source model.) Wesnoth as an organization uses open source property and publishes a game from it. With the mass of information available we need to have a system of discrimination. And thats where principles. For developers to be productive and effective, we can't design a game that is always changing in its principles. It also allows us to provide a reliable game experience for users.
Some are theories, like Options are Bad and Wesnoth is not Realistic. Others are aspects of the game, like the hex based board, terrain based defence and the like. One of the Core ones is the random combat system. To the developers its as integral part of gameplay as the turn order system. The same argument for its inclusion as an option could plausibly work for something like multi-hex attacks or simultaneous turns. If we went with this policy we could plausibly add everything and have a game that has a weak conceptual core and that would be a real problem for development.
Does that mean these are all unchanging and not up for debate? Of course not. However RNG is an issue that probably has received the most attention, possibly save for true ranged attack. We've had a number of discussions on this topic, where the developers have made their views clear. This has happened maybe one every three to six months.
However after about two years of this discussion nothing new ever gets raised. Its the same arguments that get rehashed without any variance. We;ve had good discussions about this, before where the views get raised. They often turn ugly too, which doesn't help at all. But after several years its just the same arguments. Moreover its tends to be the same people who raise these issues. This isn't a majority view; in reality its a minority that can't accept it. Options have been made available as add ons, and they aren't popular at all. We don't see thousands clamoring for it. A large majority of top tier players (those who are critical for this game's development) don't want this change. In reality having core principles means we won't please everybody. We won't please everybody if we change it either. So we've decided to stick with our design as is and go from there.
So in conclusion we can go either go over this topic for the 9th time and just make the same arguments over again. Honestly Knight, you haven't brought up anything we haven't seen before. But its time consuming and it gets annoying for us. We don't need another "honest discussion" on this topic because we've had this enough times. Its the reason why we posted this rationale thread.
I think thats encapsulates our view on this topic.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.
Don Hewitt.
Don Hewitt.
-
KnightKunibert
- Posts: 36
- Joined: November 8th, 2008, 5:21 pm
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
1st : Well, i think it makes no more sense to go on this way. Your are taking phrases out of its contents trying to prove i am a childish person. It's true i was kind of pissed of by getting locked without any discussion. If you think that's the way you should handle discussions in this forum just go on you are in charge. But I think you are totally wrong. And btw, many other players think the same way like me. Maybe i tend to overreact sometimes but you behave arrogantly. I think that's much more worse, since on the long run it damages wesnoth. Nobody accepts this for long ...jb wrote:KnightKunibert:
Let's recap what you have said.
The point is that you are claiming this community isn't open in the following statements:jb wrote:
Well, the massive quantities of UMC prove just how warped your opinion is. I see you on the MP server at this very moment, enjoying the benefits of this open community.
What the point of playing on the server regarding this discussion?
You developers think and i get this point that discussions rise expectations which have have to be fulfilled someday by you. Well, i expect from open source projetcs openness.if devs are not going to change their mind from time to time wesnoth will have no future ...And in my opinion discussions like this one should be open as well ... that's all!!!In my opinion the Wesnoth project will benefit from an open discussion between all corresponding persons independently of the subject.You can find the luck thread here.Why don't you leave the discussion at least open ? The fact that different people (i am not the only one) rise nearly the same question should be ignored. At least the people should have a forum to discuss this question.
Then should irrelevant posts be locked without explanation? This topic has had dozens of threads.I already tried it and maybe i should talk with zookeeper about this extension. However, i think it is no good style to tell something and simultaneously lock the post.
You can't expect to attack me privately and I won't respond. And yes, you did claim I'm segregating the community. I can post your exact quote if you like? It's hard to blatantly lie when there is written proof. And any moderator will agree there are two sides to each story, and people are generally not as innocent as they originally claim.1st: When i send you a private message i want it to kept private!
2nd: I didn't tell you anything about segregation ... i just asked you how to delete my account!
I did read your posts. It consists of this one idea.3rd: Zookeepers Era doesn't do want i have proposed. Maybe you should read my posts more seriously.
Great, try it. Please share your results with us. After all this is an open community and we encourage people to contribute to the game.I don't suggest to remove the RNG totally, but maybe to reduce it's effect by maybe 30% ? I think this would be worth to try.
I have the feeling you guys are quite irritated by my posts. I am sorry for that ...Apology accepted. My irritation spawns from your overreaction to having your thread locked, and because you are spreading false information. Quite frankly, you are acting like a child, threatening to delete your account because your thread got locked.If any of the developers got irritated i am sorry about that.
Other than that, I hope you continue to enjoy wesnoth.
2nd: You tell me you have to react on my private message. How about sending a private message back instead of making it public? And actually i didn't wrote you are segregating the community but segregating people. Meaning segregating users like me by using your lock-off tactics.
3nd: Your statement that I spread false information is an allegation which I take personally. I think you are are very polemic person trying to prove your are right. All the posts before you started to post were friendly and constructive. Maybe you should think about that ... if you can ...
-
KnightKunibert
- Posts: 36
- Joined: November 8th, 2008, 5:21 pm
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
Hello Noy, can can understand our point to some extend. What I do not get is the problem of having some people, discussing a wesnoth related subject. Maybe they find out something new and interesting. And maybe it is worth to be implemented into the code. However, nobody is forced to join the discussion ...Noy wrote:So in conclusion we can go either go over this topic for the 9th time and just make the same arguments over again. Honestly Knight, you haven't brought up anything we haven't seen before. But its time consuming and it gets annoying for us. We don't need another "honest discussion" on this topic because we've had this enough times. Its the reason why we posted this rationale thread.
I think thats encapsulates our view on this topic.
That's my point ...
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
Your post is exactly why we don't discuss luck anymore. You think you're being helpful bringing up this discussion. You ignore the fact this has been one of the largest and most in detailed areas which we've discussed. You don't even bring up any reasoning in your other thread except that you don't like it. That to us is kinda rude when there is a extensive post here that goes into our reasoning for our design decision. In addition there are tons of other thread you could have read about this. Instead your post is basically one step away from a rant, which we don't accept under any circumstances for any issue. Thats not what this board is for.KnightKunibert wrote: 1st : Well, i think it makes no more sense to go on this way. Your are taking phrases out of its contents trying to prove i am a childish person. It's true i was kind of pissed of by getting locked without any discussion. If you think that's the way you should handle discussions in this forum just go on you are in charge. But I think you are totally wrong. And btw, many other players think the same way like me. Maybe i tend to overreact sometimes but you behave arrogantly. I think that's much more worse, since on the long run it damages wesnoth. Nobody accepts this for long ...
2nd: You tell me you have to react on my private message. How about sending a private message back instead of making it public? And actually i didn't wrote you are segregating the community but segregating people. Meaning segregating users like me by using your lock-off tactics.
3nd: Your statement that I spread false information is an allegation which I take personally. I think you are are very polemic person trying to prove your are right. All the posts before you started to post were friendly and constructive. Maybe you should think about that ... if you can ...
Then your next move make an post here where you question our sincerity, when you haven't made any effort whatsoever to actually engage the literature on this topic. You ignore all the things we've already discussed this just to push your point, when you've done nothing to show that you can even have a useful and effective discussion on this issue. Frankly, jb's response is not surprising nor is it unwarranted in my mind.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.
Don Hewitt.
Don Hewitt.
-
KnightKunibert
- Posts: 36
- Joined: November 8th, 2008, 5:21 pm
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
if i am that wrong, why do so many people in this post agree with me. OFC, i am guilty not to read all posts about RNG. However, either all the other people didn't read those posts either nor there is a point for discussion. And why ib did not move my post to the right position were people can talk about RNG impovements ?Noy wrote:
Your post is exactly why we don't discuss luck anymore. You think you're being helpful bringing up this discussion. You ignore the fact this has been one of the largest and most in detailed areas which we've discussed. You don't even bring up any reasoning in your other thread except that you don't like it. That to us is kinda rude when there is a extensive post here that goes into our reasoning for our design decision. In addition there are tons of other thread you could have read about this. Instead your post is basically one step away from a rant, which we don't accept under any circumstances for any issue. Thats not what this board is for.
Well, again in this posts you can read other peoples opinion about openness of some developers on RNG discussion. Don't get me wrong, i can understand that it is annoying for you to read a RNG discussion. But on the other hand, there is imo no point to give some space to discuss even political incorrect subjects ...Noy wrote:Then your next move make an post here where you question our sincerity, when you haven't made any effort whatsoever to actually engage the literature on this topic. You ignore all the things we've already discussed this just to push your point, when you've done nothing to show that you can even have a useful and effective discussion on this issue. Frankly, jb's response is not surprising nor is it unwarranted in my mind.
I think this behaviour is not wise ...
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
Does it matter that people agree with you? Thats not the point. Ignoring the fact that a few people agreeing with you isn't representative of much except who bothers to post, the central issue is the relevance of the arguments, which you don't even make one. Instead you post something that is functional equivalent of this post, but with a bit better language.
Finally, don't lecture us about how we act. Your initial actions ignored everything what we've said before and when we identified how you were wrong, you claim we're being unfair. You may have even been dishonest in your correspondance with a developer You're far from an authoritative source on this matter. Acting as if you're the victim here, after what you said to jb in pm, shows more about you than us.
Finally, don't lecture us about how we act. Your initial actions ignored everything what we've said before and when we identified how you were wrong, you claim we're being unfair. You may have even been dishonest in your correspondance with a developer You're far from an authoritative source on this matter. Acting as if you're the victim here, after what you said to jb in pm, shows more about you than us.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.
Don Hewitt.
Don Hewitt.
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
jb's response is disrespectful, ad hominem, and, quite frankly, obvious (intentional or unintentional) flame bait. so what if KK raised an issue you've read before, Noy? To you, does that really warrant disrespect?
If we question the rules you put in place, does that give anyone else the right to violate them?
Also, just out of curiosity, what "top-tier" players are you referring to? From my experience on the ladder, though not all-encompassing, the RNG system is about the most universally complained about aspect of this game there is. Players don't talk about where they're from and how the weather is, they talk about how ridiculous was this or that event. Also, several top 20 players have quit after particularly unlucky games, citing as the principle reason the luck-part.
I don't make it a habit to complain about luck, and I sometimes meet others who do the same, but never have I encountered someone else on the ladder who enjoyed an EV-ridiculous game and defended the luck system. Shoot, click on any player in the ladder, and start reading the game comments. What do you find?
edit: I just read KK's posts again. His English isn't perfect, but I don't really see how you can read it as him being disrespectful, I thought he was merely raising an issue for discussion (namely, the grounds for locking a thread "because it has been discussed before" perhaps aren't conducive to better community function). This isn't just about whether the RNG should be changed (although that discussion is relevant to this one), this thread is about whether and under what guidelines should topics be addressed (at least, that's how I read it).
If we question the rules you put in place, does that give anyone else the right to violate them?
Also, just out of curiosity, what "top-tier" players are you referring to? From my experience on the ladder, though not all-encompassing, the RNG system is about the most universally complained about aspect of this game there is. Players don't talk about where they're from and how the weather is, they talk about how ridiculous was this or that event. Also, several top 20 players have quit after particularly unlucky games, citing as the principle reason the luck-part.
I don't make it a habit to complain about luck, and I sometimes meet others who do the same, but never have I encountered someone else on the ladder who enjoyed an EV-ridiculous game and defended the luck system. Shoot, click on any player in the ladder, and start reading the game comments. What do you find?
edit: I just read KK's posts again. His English isn't perfect, but I don't really see how you can read it as him being disrespectful, I thought he was merely raising an issue for discussion (namely, the grounds for locking a thread "because it has been discussed before" perhaps aren't conducive to better community function). This isn't just about whether the RNG should be changed (although that discussion is relevant to this one), this thread is about whether and under what guidelines should topics be addressed (at least, that's how I read it).
Last edited by Death on January 10th, 2010, 2:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
KnightKunibert
- Posts: 36
- Joined: November 8th, 2008, 5:21 pm
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
1st: I think the other peoples opinion matters a lot.Noy wrote:Does it matter that people agree with you? Thats not the point. Ignoring the whole issue that a few people agreeing with you isn't representative of much except who bothers to post, the central issue is the relevance of the arguments, which you don't even make one. Instead you post something that is functional equivalent of this post, but with a bit better language..
2nd: I think there have been a lot of arguments in this post. The other post was locked quite quickly.
3rd: I am sorry for not being a native speaker. But I hope you get at least my intension ...
I think you and ib you arfe a good team. Your are good at blaiming other people and you are good as well in turning the truth. I think it is really not worth to continue the discussion either with you nor with ib ...Noy wrote:Finally, don't lecture us about how we act. Your initial actions ignored everything what we've said before and when we identified how you were wrong, you claim we're being unfair. You may have even been dishonest in your correspondance with a developer You're far from an authoritative source on this matter.
-
KnightKunibert
- Posts: 36
- Joined: November 8th, 2008, 5:21 pm
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
Thanks Death, it's sad that Noy and ib behave like they do. However, i hope the other developers are not of that kind ...Death wrote:jb's response is disrespectful, ad hominem, and, quite frankly, obvious (intentional or unintentional) flame bait. so what if KK raised an issue you've read before, Noy? To you, does that really warrant disrespect?
If we question the rules you put in place, does that give anyone else the right to violate them?
Also, just out of curiosity, what "top-tier" players are you referring to? From my experience on the ladder, though not all-encompassing, the RNG system is about the most universally complained about aspect of this game there is. Players don't talk about where they're from and how the weather is, they talk about how ridiculous was this or that event. Also, several top 20 players have quit after particularly unlucky games, citing as the principle reason the luck-part.
I don't make it a habit to complain about luck, and I sometimes meet others who do the same, but never have I encountered someone else on the ladder who enjoyed an EV-ridiculous game and defended the luck system. Shoot, click on any player in the ladder, and start reading the game comments. What do you find?
edit: I just read KK's posts again. His English isn't perfect, but I don't really see how you can read it as him being disrespectful, I thought he was merely raising an issue for discussion (namely, the grounds for locking a thread "because it has been discussed before" perhaps aren't conducive to better community function). This isn't just about whether the RNG should be changed (although that discussion is relevant to this one), this thread is about whether and under what guidelines should topics be addressed (at least, that's how I read it).
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
So we should agree with everybody who makes a suggestion, no matter if they haven't read all the source materials or even understand our position? Of course not. We've discussed this issue for the better part of five years, we understand most peoples problems, but in the interests of our own game's development, we're sticking to it.
Also while jb and I agree on this, note that none of the developers are in disagreement on this. Moreover I generally stick up for developers when I know they are right; they are all hard working intelligent individuals who try to do the right thing. Jb, like all the others, don't deserve the attitude you displayed in this thread, especially when you failed to do the absolute minimum when required.
Acting as if you're the victim here, after what you said to jb in pm and here shows more about you than us.
Also while jb and I agree on this, note that none of the developers are in disagreement on this. Moreover I generally stick up for developers when I know they are right; they are all hard working intelligent individuals who try to do the right thing. Jb, like all the others, don't deserve the attitude you displayed in this thread, especially when you failed to do the absolute minimum when required.
Acting as if you're the victim here, after what you said to jb in pm and here shows more about you than us.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.
Don Hewitt.
Don Hewitt.
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
Here is the deal with the RNG: Some time ago the development team decided that the random number generator is one of the core systems in wesnoth and it won't be changed. I didn't make this decision but I agree with it.
Mods are available as an alternative for those who still don't agree with this decision. These mods rarely gain momentum because in reality it's a small minority who disagree with the core RNG system.
We've also decided that the luck discussion has been rehashed over and over. So, now the policy is any new luck thread that doesn't offer anything new will be locked. They are considered distractions, and this thread proves that point.
KK was unaware of this policy because he didn't read the history of luck threads. That is fine. It's not cancer and we can all settle down. He then opened this thread to question policy because of his own ignorance on the subject, as well as sending me a PM. He was untruthful about the contents of said PM (though he himself later admits it). That is also fine. I've been accused of much worse than promoting segregation. Throughout this thread he has refused to look through the archives of luck threads to understand why this policy exists.
Additionally, he is now more interested in the forum rules than fixing his original problem of being unhappy with the RNG. I hope this post will explains the current policy on locking luck threads. Through all this KK has only offered a single suggestion about the actual RNG. A very vague "what if we lower the luck by 30%". It's been tried before (by Sauron with his mod), but lack of interest resulted in the project being abandoned.
Mods are available as an alternative for those who still don't agree with this decision. These mods rarely gain momentum because in reality it's a small minority who disagree with the core RNG system.
We've also decided that the luck discussion has been rehashed over and over. So, now the policy is any new luck thread that doesn't offer anything new will be locked. They are considered distractions, and this thread proves that point.
KK was unaware of this policy because he didn't read the history of luck threads. That is fine. It's not cancer and we can all settle down. He then opened this thread to question policy because of his own ignorance on the subject, as well as sending me a PM. He was untruthful about the contents of said PM (though he himself later admits it). That is also fine. I've been accused of much worse than promoting segregation. Throughout this thread he has refused to look through the archives of luck threads to understand why this policy exists.
Additionally, he is now more interested in the forum rules than fixing his original problem of being unhappy with the RNG. I hope this post will explains the current policy on locking luck threads. Through all this KK has only offered a single suggestion about the actual RNG. A very vague "what if we lower the luck by 30%". It's been tried before (by Sauron with his mod), but lack of interest resulted in the project being abandoned.
-
Thrawn
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: June 2nd, 2005, 11:37 am
- Location: bridge of SSD Chimera
Re: General question about cooperation in this community
Not to be self serving, but this type of fighting is why I strongly feel we need mods that are separate from the developer base. They could just lock threads, post links to the old discussions, and explain that it shouldn't be discussed. The mods would take the brunt of the "hate" and the mods could actually chime in w/o then being accused of abusing forum power as well as game dev. power.
KK: You aren't listening. Read the threads about luck NOT created by you. You seem to think that when people discuss past threads, they mean the one by you that was locked. They mean the *history* of such threads, which you haven't explained at all, despite exhortation from noy and jb to do so, why you "don't like." Before you continue this posting, read the rational thread, and old threads on luck. Next time you argue for your points, please try relating them to the rational thread, and older discussions.
Also, regarding the PM. Even if you meant it as a private comment, by continuing the fight here, you aren't allowing jb the grace to continue this out of public eye. Because he can't graciously back off, you're forcing him to defend himself, and in doing so bringing up the PM. If you intent to continue this discussion via PM, replying to him here not a smart move.
KK: You aren't listening. Read the threads about luck NOT created by you. You seem to think that when people discuss past threads, they mean the one by you that was locked. They mean the *history* of such threads, which you haven't explained at all, despite exhortation from noy and jb to do so, why you "don't like." Before you continue this posting, read the rational thread, and old threads on luck. Next time you argue for your points, please try relating them to the rational thread, and older discussions.
Also, regarding the PM. Even if you meant it as a private comment, by continuing the fight here, you aren't allowing jb the grace to continue this out of public eye. Because he can't graciously back off, you're forcing him to defend himself, and in doing so bringing up the PM. If you intent to continue this discussion via PM, replying to him here not a smart move.
...please remember that "IT'S" ALWAYS MEANS "IT IS" and "ITS" IS WHAT YOU USE TO INDICATE POSSESSION BY "IT".--scott
this goes for they're/their/there as well
this goes for they're/their/there as well