The Tavern

archaeo wrote:There's almost certainly a way to do this in your rc file. I bet you could get it to eat for you if your hunger state changes too.

I'm sick of seeing this. Great, you can change your RC files to fit your personal preference, that's just fine as a side note but can people please stop mentioning this as there only talking point? First of all, people shouldn't mention this PERIOD unless they give specifics on how to do it(at least that is useful for people waiting until their wanted change is implemented, I can agree with this). Second, the proposal is for the game itself and as a means of improving gameplay for everyone, not just themselves.

If you don't have anything besides this to say, just don't post in the thread. You diminish the value of a persons proposal while adding nothing to the thread of equal worth, stop it.

On a more related note, I don't like the proposal at all, single click channeling already exists with staff of energy and it is only slightly better than aa channeling, arguably worse since it takes longer.

Tiktacy wrote:
archaeo wrote:There's almost certainly a way to do this in your rc file. I bet you could get it to eat for you if your hunger state changes too.

I'm sick of seeing this. Great, you can change your RC files to fit your personal preference, that's just fine as a side note but can people please stop mentioning this as there only talking point? First of all, people shouldn't mention this PERIOD unless they give specifics on how to do it(at least that is useful for people waiting until their wanted change is implemented, I can agree with this). Second, the proposal is for the game itself and as a means of improving gameplay for everyone, not just themselves.

If you don't have anything besides this to say, just don't post in the thread. You diminish the value of a persons proposal while adding nothing to the thread of equal worth, stop it.

On a more related note, I don't like the proposal at all, single click channeling already exists with staff of energy and it is only slightly better than aa channeling, arguably worse since it takes longer.

In my experience, "This can be changed in your RC file" is a polite way of saying "This is unlikely to be changed in the game as a whole, but you are welcome to change it to suit your preference", which is honestly the fastest way to respond constructively to a thread like this, and usually better than saying "It's a bad proposal." Of course, it's best if the person gives specifics on how to do it, but given the choice between someone not posting specifics with it and not posting at all, I prefer to see people post the general tip without specifics.

Tiktcay wrote:while adding nothing to the thread of equal worth

How is literally saying that the feature is already in the game (sort of) "adding nothing of worth"?

I've moved this for being off-topic; it may have been sparked by my reply to bcadren's thread, but it's definitely its own topic.

As for my suggestion, I suppose I could've been more thorough, but I dashed off a reply without really thinking about it, and truth be told, I know very little about rc files. I'm not going to claim that this was some kind of optimal GDD reply, but I also think it's totally valid to say, "What you want is achievable via lua." I think the fact that the OP was bcadren is the main reason I didn't add "Feel free to go to the Coding subforum for help setting up your rc file," since I assume bcadren probably can figure out who to ask for help if he can't put it together on his own .

It's not that it's rude (and the fact that archaeo chose that title demonstrates that he took a ridiculously uncharitable reading of Tiktacy's post). It's just completely useless to say. Of course you can implement new interface features in lua, everyone knows that already. Using that as some kind of argument against adding an interface feature to the game is nonsensical; you could just as well use it to argue that autoexplore, autofight, long rest, autotravel, etc. etc. should be removed from the game, because hey, players can implement them in their rc anyway, right?

You'll note that I didn't use it as an argument against adding an interface feature, duvessa. I just said, "There's almost certainly a way to do this in your rc file." (edit: which is admittedly not the most useful contribution I've ever made to a GDD thread, but seemed like a. something that was inevitably going to be pointed out and b. worth posting if only because somebody might be like, "Oh, yep, here's my code that does this exactly." I considered bringing up gammafunk's breadswinging code, which I assume does something in the same ballpark, but since I'm doing my best to not give gammafunk opportunities to make fun of my idiocy, I decided against it. )

As for the idea that "everyone knows" about lua and rc files, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who have no idea what's possible there. I doubt bcadren is one of those people, but hey.

edit2:

duvessa wrote:It's not that it's rude (and the fact that archaeo chose that title demonstrates that he took a ridiculously uncharitable reading of Tiktacy's post).

When somebody quotes your post, and then says it's an example of something that they're "sick of" before going on to say, "just don't post in the thread," and "stop it," I don't think it's terribly uncharitable to assume that they found the post rude, much less ridiculously uncharitable.

The last time I posted an RC file solution for a GDD suggestion, the OP thanked me and considered the issue closed. I was more instructive than archaeo was here but I don't think that is rude at all. It would be rude if he tried to dismiss the idea or closed the thread, but to me the fact that some feature I want is obtainable in an RC file is genuinely exciting. It means I don't have to wait for consensus and development to get it, it's available as soon as I toggle a flag or write a function or what have you.

johlstei wrote:The last time I posted an RC file solution for a GDD suggestion, the OP thanked me and considered the issue closed. I was more instructive than archaeo was here but I don't think that is rude at all. It would be rude if he tried to dismiss the idea or closed the thread, but to me the fact that some feature I want is obtainable in an RC file is genuinely exciting. It means I don't have to wait for consensus and development to get it, it's available as soon as I toggle a flag or write a function or what have you.

This js wear I draw the line. I completely agree that mentioning that its available for self implementation is a good thing.

It needs to be used in the context of the thread topic though. Bcadrens thread wasn't about how he can edit his rc files, it was about adding a feature into the game. If you mention the rc file edits, you need to make it supplamental or else it diminshes the value of the persons proposal.

So for example, you could say "there exists an RC edit for this: [LINK] So it wouldn't be especially difficult to inplement and it shows that lots of people already seem in favor of it."

That would be acceptable imo, I would even argue that would make for a very solid response to a thread. But if instead they just gave a link on how to edit rc files to fix the issues the proposal is trying to solve without any other content then I would say that kind of post deserves to be removed since it contributes nothing to the thread and can potentially derail it completely as a result(I've seen this happen multiple times).

johlstei wrote:The last time I posted an RC file solution for a GDD suggestion, the OP thanked me and considered the issue closed. I was more instructive than archaeo was here but I don't think that is rude at all. It would be rude if he tried to dismiss the idea or closed the thread, but to me the fact that some feature I want is obtainable in an RC file is genuinely exciting. It means I don't have to wait for consensus and development to get it, it's available as soon as I toggle a flag or write a function or what have you.

Last time I posted an RC file solution, complete with what is in my RC, I basically got told to fuck off. Ergo, if someone actually wants an answer along those lines, well, tough shit I guess, because I won't be doing that anymore.

what, because someone told you to fuck off? euphemistically, at that?

Tiktacy wrote:But if instead they just gave a link on how to edit rc files to fix the issues the proposal is trying to solve without any other content then I would say that kind of post deserves to be removed since it contributes nothing to the thread and can potentially derail it completely as a result(I've seen this happen multiple times).

This strikes me as bizarre - most people post things because they themselves want them and "the thing you want is already in the game, here's how to use it" is often what they most want to hear. It's different if the post is "lets add this to the default rcfile" but they almost never are. Please don't remove the most helpful posts in a thread because they violate some rule in your seriousdude forum rudeness calculus.

johlstei wrote:
Tiktacy wrote:But if instead they just gave a link on how to edit rc files to fix the issues the proposal is trying to solve without any other content then I would say that kind of post deserves to be removed since it contributes nothing to the thread and can potentially derail it completely as a result(I've seen this happen multiple times).

This strikes me as bizarre - most people post things because they themselves want them and "the thing you want is already in the game, here's how to use it" is often what they most want to hear. It's different if the post is "lets add this to the default rcfile" but they almost never are. Please don't remove the most helpful posts in a thread because they violate some rule in your seriousdude forum rudeness calculus.

The thread name was made by archeo, I simply didn't change it because I thought duvessa's comment on it was absolutely hilarious.

The Tavern

Is Suggesting RC Solutions Rude? (was: Channel Tab?)

Is Suggesting RC Solutions Rude? (was: Channel Tab?)

Re: Channel Tab?

Re: Channel Tab?

Re: Is Suggesting RC Solutions Rude? (was: Channel Tab?)

Re: Is Suggesting RC Solutions Rude? (was: Channel Tab?)

Re: Is Suggesting RC Solutions Rude? (was: Channel Tab?)

Re: Is Suggesting RC Solutions Rude? (was: Channel Tab?)

Re: Is Suggesting RC Solutions Rude? (was: Channel Tab?)

Re: Is Suggesting RC Solutions Rude? (was: Channel Tab?)

Re: Is Suggesting RC Solutions Rude? (was: Channel Tab?)

Re: Is Suggesting RC Solutions Rude? (was: Channel Tab?)

Re: Is Suggesting RC Solutions Rude? (was: Channel Tab?)