Suggestion: plays as a real(ish) company

m3henry · Post by **m3henry** » 14 Apr 2007 21:17

Emohawk wrote:...we could even have an option to start as one of the big four companies.

tada, the speech draws to a close at the origional point!

SM9T8 · Post by **SM9T8** » 15 Apr 2007 08:17

But my mind had to go the long way round.

Pookey · Post by **Pookey** » 17 Apr 2007 07:29

m3henry wrote:
Emohawk wrote:...we could even have an option to start as one of the big four companies.
tada, the speech draws to a close at the origional point!

As no Dev's have posted, i'm going to assume that the feature is not possible...oh well.

m3henry · Post by **m3henry** » 17 Apr 2007 11:50

Pookey wrote:
m3henry wrote:
Emohawk wrote:...we could even have an option to start as one of the big four companies.
tada, the speech draws to a close at the origional point!
As no Dev's have posted, i'm going to assume that the feature is not possible...oh well.

not entirely true, if they havent posted then they havent specificly said its not possible

DaleStan · Post by **DaleStan** » 17 Apr 2007 15:55

It'd behoove you to read the thread entitled "How to tell what I think of suggestions" or somesuch.

m3henry · Post by **m3henry** » 17 Apr 2007 16:31

well to take just 3-5 minutes to explain why this is not possible would be nice.

DaleStan · Post by **DaleStan** » 17 Apr 2007 17:01

There's a difference between "impossible" and "TMWFTLB".

aahz77 · Post by **aahz77** » 17 Apr 2007 22:36

DaleStan wrote:There's a difference between "impossible" and "TMWFTLB".

In my opinion, there is no "impossible" in software development. BUT some things would consume the same amount of time as rewriting TTD entirely (or even more). As this is neither acceptable nor reasonable for any PatchDev (who still don't get paid for their brilliant work!), those things end up being classified as "impossible" (a kind of maximized "TMWFTLB"). So it's business-management-ly impossible, not technical.

And it doesn't matter if it's "normal" TMWFTLB or "real" impossible when no PatchDev speaks up - the suggestion will not be implemented anyway.

Post by **Dave** » 17 Apr 2007 23:29

m3henry wrote:well to take just 3-5 minutes to explain why this is not possible would be nice.

And who are you to ask that?

Can you do anything that DaleStan does towards the patch?

Website · Post by **Lakie** » 17 Apr 2007 23:48

We do not have to explain why we do not want to make patch based off a suggestion, it may be dislike of the suggestion, or that that developer feels that it isn't worth implementing that suggestion.

There are things which are 'impossible' due to the engine, if you rewrite the engine sure you could get round it, but that seems rather overkill for me.
If it is 'too much work for too little benefit', then another developer may think otherwise, look at Steven doing aRV's and Trams, or JGR making aquaducts possible.

Finally this feeling of ill will and pot shots at each other is rather childish, if it continues I will lock this thread, although it seems pretty clear no developers wish to take up this suggestion right now.

~ Lakie

Post by **Dave** » 17 Apr 2007 23:53

And be lucky you get explanations! I've seen forums where suggestions are 'welcomed', but suggest something even SLIGHTLY too much work, the developer(s) plants a TMWFTLB post in the thread, locks the thread, and makes it die.

I, for one, welcome our developers to do what the hell they like

Pookey · Post by **Pookey** » 18 Apr 2007 06:33

Dave Worley wrote:And be lucky you get explanations! I've seen forums where suggestions are 'welcomed', but suggest something even SLIGHTLY too much work, the developer(s) plants a TMWFTLB post in the thread, locks the thread, and makes it die.

I, for one, welcome our developers to do what the hell they like

Here, Here!

Raichase · Post by **Raichase** » 19 Apr 2007 11:41

Locked by request.

Transport Tycoon Forums

Suggestion: plays as a real(ish) company

Who is online