Dave Worley wrote:The amount of people that seem to think that the world is all roses and we can recreate it on this forum is baffling me.
If you suggested to someone who was volunteering to do a pub quiz something along the lines of "why don't you include questions on x-topic next week", I imagine they'd be annoyed too - and tell you where to go.
I think this forum is fine. It rolls along good enough. We are in a position where enough "noobs" that don't ask stupid questions stick around to keep the game going. The ones that get annoyed after being told that the VOLUNTEER (READ IT AGAIN) developers don't wish to develop the game as they wish can just ... go forth
Until lhere I agree with your
and multiply...
Now I hope they won't do that, or the problem will only grow
Honestly, as a community, I'm not entirely sure we WANT the ones who do nothing but 'suggest' absurdly difficult, complex, and mostly useless things without doing anything to make it happen but whine. Or those who want to be the boss of a vehicle set but say they can't code or draw. Can't code? Can't draw? There's no excuse for not trying.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction. - Albert Einstein
I must say, despite how stupid and n00bish i may be being, i don't appreciate being flamed at every turn of a corner. I am glad this thread is here, as i was about to come and make one myself.
PikkaBird wrote:I thought yexo's reply was perfectly reasonable. Of course, I suppose if he had just said "this is a silly idea" instead of taking the time to explain why it was a silly idea, you may have got a little less butthurt.
And of course just because yexo or anyone else thinks it's a completely unnecessary feature doesn't stop you from coding it.
There is a difference between explaining and downright sarcasm but whatever. I wasn't actually referring to that one particular post.
I agree that people thinking an idea is silly doesn't stop it being coded; my zero knowledge of C# does that instead!
Having hung around enough forums, I know how repetitive ideas can be but I have also noticed that sometimes simply saying "We have looked at that before [here] and decided not to do it. However if you think you can find a new way forward, it would be interesting to hear" is far more effective that simply n00b-bashing or sarcasm. There needs to be a balance. One way that might help could be to force people to read the FAQ and answer questions on it before they post but that would just be silly.
Take a look at the recent subways suggestion. It has been said many times before that it isn't possible, and won't be done, but then with discussion, it is becoming slightly more feasible...
If anyone has a problem with particular replies, etc, please do report them. I would prefer it if, on the whole, we were more welcoming to newcomers, although I do understand that it can be frustrating when new users post messages without reading up and realising that [x] has already been requested twenty times in the past month, etc.
PikkaBird wrote:I thought yexo's reply was perfectly reasonable. Of course, I suppose if he had just said "this is a silly idea" instead of taking the time to explain why it was a silly idea, you may have got a little less butthurt.
And of course just because yexo or anyone else thinks it's a completely unnecessary feature doesn't stop you from coding it.
There is a difference between explaining and downright sarcasm but whatever. I wasn't actually referring to that one particular post.
I agree that people thinking an idea is silly doesn't stop it being coded; my zero knowledge of C# does that instead!
Having hung around enough forums, I know how repetitive ideas can be but I have also noticed that sometimes simply saying "We have looked at that before [here] and decided not to do it. However if you think you can find a new way forward, it would be interesting to hear" is far more effective that simply n00b-bashing or sarcasm. There needs to be a balance. One way that might help could be to force people to read the FAQ and answer questions on it before they post but that would just be silly.
Take a look at the recent subways suggestion. It has been said many times before that it isn't possible, and won't be done, but then with discussion, it is becoming slightly more feasible...
Exactly. One thing builds on another and then we get somewhere. The idea that gets flamed today might make the trunk in a year or so, you never know. And on the subject of reporting flames and annoying replies, I am currently admin of a professional forum using invisionfree, so if the admins ever need any help, that is one place I do know what I am doing.
Which recent subway suggestion thread are we talking about? I have to ask cause there are a few of them. I don't recall any ideas which significantly moved subways forward. Almost every implementation idea I have seen in a subway thread is either just way too much work or has already been suggested and has known problems.
I believe they're talking about the "subways" thread (notice the scare quotes). Where the best idea so far has been to implement subways, effectively, as invisible road vehicles.
I could be wrong though.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction. - Albert Einstein
If that's the case, saying it makes subways more feasible is a huge stretch. This is nothing like subways that have been suggested before, and has huge limitations. When most people talk about subways here, they mean underground railways, which means all the building options of railways with trains allowed to move between the above ground and underground railways. Road vehicles without any clipping/collision detection and invisible graphics != subways.
The difference with the subway suggestion, IMO is the difference between those two types of suggestions:
"I want subways, underground. I have no idea how, but just make them, ok?"
"Is there a possibility of having subways? Is there a workaround? I have thought about solving it this way, but I don't know if this is the most efficient way of working around the built in limitations. Any ideas? Oh btw, I got some graphics done as well."
Yes, and the second thing is not bad, it's just that usually it stops being about subway fairly quickly, even if that's where the talk started. There's also the 3rd group who try and approximate it using tunnels, but it still tends to use quite a lot of above ground space.
Well, without going into the content of the discussion, there's people trying to find a solution themselves and asking for help with that, and there's people who just expect other people to get it done.
Well i'm clearly talking about the thread i am involved in, where we are trying to discuss an implementation that will work around the existing code without interfering with the road vehicles and trains. I am currently learning coding, slowly, but i'm working it out, so bear with me and stop with the flaming
Leanden wrote:Well i'm clearly talking about the thread i am involved in, where we are trying to discuss an implementation that will work around the existing code without interfering with the road vehicles and trains. I am currently learning coding, slowly, but i'm working it out, so bear with me and stop with the flaming
Purno wrote:Well, without going into the content of the discussion, there's people trying to find a solution themselves and asking for help with that, and there's people who just expect other people to get it done.
Simply put:
You can ask it in a constructive fashion or you can start demanding stuff.
My observations tell me that the first one is the most appreciated.
