Thursday, 21st May 2015, 20:48 by dowan
It's sort of like saying "I think the game would be much better if the combat system worked in an entirely different way than it does now, so the devs should spend 80 hours coding it up to work the way I want. If you don't want the devs to spend 80 hours on this idea, you have to prove to me that the current system is better than the imaginary system in my mind"
How can we 'prove' a different system is worse, when that different system doesn't even exist yet! You have to point out the flaws in the current system, and show that your proposed new system fixes those flaws, without introducing enough new flaws to make it just as flawed as the old system. And since you want the devs to spend time on it, you're also saying 'My proposed system is not only better than the existing system, it's also better than the existing system with the 80 hours of improvements the devs would have been working on instead of my proposed system"
If there wasn't such a standard, the devs would do nothing but code up people's half assed ideas they can't be bothered to back up with proof.
EDIT: Well, it looks like the posts this was responding to were deleted while I was writing up this response. Oh well, trust me, it made sense in context...