Skilzat99X wrote:
These ideas sound nice when you don't general disagree with any major changes. But once this system starts working against you, suddenly it's more than just "whining". Suddenly your contradictory but perhaps thought-out opinion becomes "whining about changes".
Of course. But from what I gather, it is not the people who have well thought out opinions who are considered 'whiners.' It is the ones who talk about how the faf team is 'ruining' the game or what-have-you, but whose only input is 'leave it the way it is.' After all, the "system" has done things I've viewed as 'working against me' already. There are a few changes (although you might consider them minor) that I'm not happy about, and I'm not a fan of the engymod's core concept. But I'm not complaining about them because complaining doesn't accomplish anything other than getting people to tune you out. If I'm going to speak up I need to find a way to do it that will provide an alternative course of action that might actually be palatable to those in charge. When certain people are in charge and they have their minds set on something, the only way to be a part of things is to have a hand in guiding the path, not to try and change directions entirely.
This is why I don't suggest banning these people, I suggest giving them a specific location to voice their concerns - my comment about 'ignoring' them was meant somewhat facetiously, I apologize. I don't want anyone's ideas to be ignored (least of all my own, since ideas are all I have to offer!) but not everyone has their ideas laid out well initially. Starting many new threads simply make comments on changes makes the forum very messy and can feel overwhelming. It may be easier to simply have a thread for people to make comments and receive some feedback, and then they need only start a new thread when they have suggestions/ideas to present that have been more thoroughly fleshed out.
But it's not like this site is particularly busy, so none of that is probably necessary right now. I was responding to sentiments I had seen about people who are, in regards to their opposition to change, vehement to the point of sapping the enthusiasm from those who are working on the project.
Skilzat99X wrote:Mycen wrote: I would be willing to bet that if people were not given a choice, they would accept the changes.
The problem with this mentality is, what if the leads decided to push a really bad, generally not agreed upon change. I'm not saying they will do this, they probably won't. But if we adopt this mentality, they can. And they may have the right to do that, but really how wise is that? Is there any arena where simply disregarding others opinions, or chalking them up to "whining" is intelligent? Just because someone is critical of an idea, suddenly their opinions are 'valueless'? That's not smart.
But maybe that's just because I'm never for discouraging intelligent discussion. "But the opinions of people on X side aren't intelligent." No, failing to see the values in the opinions of others even if they disagree is unintelligent. I wouldn't even want to see changes that I like pushed through without other opinions being heard out.
Again, exactly right. That's why I'm all for people's ideas being heard, and I'm a big fan of the whole faf concept. I'm used to the world of tabletop wargaming, do you know how exciting it is for me to actually be able to provide input that those in charge might consider? But I found out about faf shortly after gpgnet went down for good, right around when the discussion about the last major balance patch was ramping up, and I was stunned to find out that I was not even allowed to make a suggestion because I didn't have a rating over 1700. (Of course, many did anyway, but I've always been one to try to follow the rules.
) This has somewhat colored my outlook on how things operate around here, so when I see comments about how people are getting banned for disagreeing with changes, how people should just accept whatever happens, or how if people don't like things the proverbial ball will be taken home, I feel some concern. Although I am quite the 'SupCom conservative' and do feel that I have valuable input about the game, I like faf enough that I would rather see changes implemented without my approval than things be shut down.
Rienzilla wrote:
I think the number one reason of not keeping something like engymod (or any other kind of change) in a mod, is that a smallish community like faf will be hurt severely by fragmentation. At some points of the day it's hard to get your games going; splitting the community in parts will make that problem a lot worse. If we take that for a fact there is two options: change the main game, or not change it. In any case, we may never fork it.
Well said. I too would rather play a game that's a different than not play a game I'm familiar with.
Rienzilla wrote:
I can only come to the conclusion that there have been vast improvements while keeping the nature of the game intact. Since vanilla, every once in a while someone stumbles upon a bug, a certain strategy turns out to be overpowered, or a unit turns out to be underused. We can either go in and change them, or leave them be.
I personally think that the current version of faf is much better than vanilla supcom at release time, and I see no reason to freeze development now. We still run into things, and there are still things that have never been addressed. Faf is excellent as it is, but addressing imperfections can make it even better. I personally favor that, and that's why I work on it.
Very true. I also think that the faf version of the game now is a far (superior) cry to what we had on gpgnet, or even the first iterations of 3603. The attitudes I have been seeing regarding engymod have just been frustrating because, while I don't want to have to relearn the game and the changes are not in line with what I see as making sense in the SupCom setting, I am totally baffled by the idea that people would rather not play at all than deal with some changes. That's outrageous! I don't trust the top players to do everything by themselves, but that doesn't mean I'm against what they propose. And it certainly doesn't mean that I would rather they quit than do what they want.
If there's one thing I've learned from playing tabletop games, it's that even though it can be really annoying, a significant shift in how the game operates every so often can extend the longevity of a game almost indefinitely. As I'm sure you all already know, the faf team has done a truly incredible job in this regard.
Thanks guys!
Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 22 Apr 2013, 18:09
]]>
- that way whiners can go there to vent and be ignored. This is how I see most other well-moderated community gaming forums do it. (Of course, those are all tabletop gaming forums - an overall much more civil and polite crowd, in my experience.)
