Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
plainguy

Should be a sticky here on what can or cannot be done.

Recommended Posts

I think it would go a long way for any suggestion and feedback if the Devs would just state what can or cannot be done with this 12 year old game. 

 

E.G

Request- I want to have swing travel power.. 

Answer - You can't because the buildings are not set up with anchor points for swing line.  You also can't because game engine doesn't allow for upward swing like that.

 

Request- I want 4 arms

Answer- We can't because we would have to redo every single costume part to accommodate 2 other sets of arms.

 

End result you would cut down on the background noise of the impossible request.  

Someone wants 4 arms..

You point them to the sticky.  

Someone says I want swing I don't care if its an invisible bind point in the sky. 

You point them to the sticky.

 

So instead of people expending energy trying to request and explain and design things that are just unfortunately impossible, they might be better suited expending that creative energy and thought process on something that might be doable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People ignore explanations. Or throw out stuff like "So it would be hard, that's not -impossible-!" and go on about their merry way.

 

In the MM Pets thread I explained why Customized Pets can't be done. I explained why Pre-selected layouts of pets can't be done. I even explained by Clone Pets using Doppleganger Tech can't be done.

 

People are still going on and on about how you should be able to customize your pets or trying to invent new ways to do it like "Model Swapping" which I had to also explain can't be done...

 

Nothing will stop people from wanting their pet ideas. That's why Game Designers have such a hard time balancing game mechanics and making new and engaging content... Producers and Directors have a tendency to get a Pet Idea in their head that they want no matter what, and when the guys who know the code and the game say "We Can't because (Reasons go Here)." the Producers and Directors say motivational bullshit like "Never say Impossible! Never say Can't!" and ram the change through and then everything goes to hell.

 

Shit like shoehorning 'Endgame Raids' into City of Heroes. Or how WoW keeps implementing broken-ass Trinkets that are so good for a specific Class or Spec that they're the Best in Slot item for the rest of the expansion even though they drag the character's item level down by upwards of 80 levels. It's also pretty common in games like ESO where high end new stuff interacts in 'unexpected ways' with high end old stuff. The designers tell the Big Wigs 'We can't do X because it will cause Y problem" and it goes through over their objections and 6 weeks later they're told to fix Y problem.

 

... sorry. That got a bit ranty.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having some FAQs might be a good idea, but with a caveat that that what's feasible can also change. I remember a recent knockback discussion and whoever it was who was ranting about what simply could and couldn't be done and how the whole discussion was a waste of time. Then a dev came in and said that with new powers tech that had been recently implemented, the ideas that person was so forcefully trying to dismiss were actually quite plausible.

 

The beautiful thing about a living, evolving game is that even if an idea is currently "impossible", it can still be resting in the back of a dev's mind. One day in the future, if and when the underlying infrastructure is set to be altered, they can try to guide those changes towards something that might support these currently out-of-reach dreams... but only if they can see that those wishes are out there waiting to be fulfilled.

 

We want to keep expectations realistic and share what the devs have said in the past to inform conversations, but at the same time, it has to be done with some care. Creating an avenue for critics to try to shut conversations down altogether probably isn't something that the devs or mods really want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Yoru-hime said:

Having some FAQs might be a good idea, but with a caveat that that what's feasible can also change. I remember a recent knockback discussion and whoever it was who was ranting about what simply could and couldn't be done and how the whole discussion was a waste of time. Then a dev came in and said that with new powers tech that had been recently implemented, the ideas that person was so forcefully trying to dismiss were actually quite plausible.

 

The beautiful thing about a living, evolving game is that even if an idea is currently "impossible", it can still be resting in the back of a dev's mind. One day in the future, if and when the underlying infrastructure is set to be altered, they can try to guide those changes towards something that might support these currently out-of-reach dreams... but only if they can see that those wishes are out there waiting to be fulfilled.

 

We want to keep expectations realistic and share what the devs have said in the past to inform conversations, but at the same time, it has to be done with some care. Creating an avenue for critics to try to shut conversations down altogether probably isn't something that the devs or mods really want.

That was me! I was talking about how the game engine was not designed with optional vectors in Knock and now 'Negative Knock' didn't work!

 

Only I didn't know that Leandro and his team set up vectoring as part of their i25 update because it wasn't part of any patch information. So... it was there, I just had no idea.

 

And then I acknowledged I was wrong and cheered for the team because WOO!

 

That said, while there's very little that is factually impossible to do, there is "Currently Impossible" and "Functionally Impossible"

 

Like how it's functionally impossible to include broken ass trinkets to the raiding scene and get people to not use them without nerfing them when you introduce weaker trinkets, later, BLIZZARD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I seriously didn't remember and I wasn't looking to name names or shame anyone. It's more the idea that closing the book on an idea as technically impossible is something we should do with caution.

 

 

Gotta admit, I'm kinda holding my breath to see what they do with some of that tech now that it's there. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take no shame in being wrong. I'd rather be wrong and learn it than be wrong and act like I'm right forever.

 

But in my defense: I was saying what had been impossible, based on the Live Devs explaining it repeatedly. I was wrong out of ignorance of what had been changed, not wrong out of stubbornness to acknowledge truth. And that's something we all have to fight against.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...