General > Discussion

Why is the "saved game during combat" thread locked?

<< < (5/10) > >>

Tekky:

--- Quote from: geever on August 28, 2009, 08:59:10 pm ---We don't need any more discussion about it.
--- End quote ---
Yes, several official developers have stated this opinion. But is this a valid reason to forbid any further discussion about this topic, by locking the thread? Such censorship is disrespectful to the UFO:AI community, in my opinion. It is also counterproductive, as it prevents people from posting new ideas they have on this matter.

Destructavator:

--- Quote from: Tekky on August 28, 2009, 10:08:53 pm ---Yes, several official developers have stated this opinion. But is this a valid reason to forbid any further discussion about this topic, by locking the thread? Such censorship is disrespectful to the UFO:AI community, in my opinion. It is also counterproductive, as it prevents people from posting new ideas they have on this matter.

--- End quote ---

"New ideas" are really irrelevant - A final decision on the matter has already been made, it doesn't need to be discussed any more, it isn't "counterproductive" because it has already gotten to the end.  If you want to make a mod that does it, fine, but please don't pick at it anymore.

Tekky:

--- Quote from: Destructavator on August 28, 2009, 11:41:33 pm ---"New ideas" are really irrelevant - A final decision on the matter has already been made, it doesn't need to be discussed any more, it isn't "counterproductive" because it has already gotten to the end.

--- End quote ---

I completely disagree. The "final decision" you are referencing was made by official developers and concerns only the official SVN repository. However, there may be other potential patch coders out there who would be interested in "new ideas" on this topic. Therefore, I cannot agree with your statement that such "new ideas" are "irrelevant".

For this reason, I continue to believe that the locking of the thread is counterproductive and against the spirit of open source.

Thyranim:

--- Quote from: Tekky on August 29, 2009, 01:16:25 am ---I completely disagree. The "final decision" you are referencing was made by official developers and concerns only the official SVN repository. However, there may be other potential patch coders out there who would be interested in "new ideas" on this topic. Therefore, I cannot agree with your statement that such "new ideas" are "irrelevant".
--- End quote ---

and because of this you can open a thread in "user modifications" so that anyone able to do this can create a mod for the game so you are able to save during battlescape...

but a discussion in the official forums / threads won't do or change anything

so discussion about anything possible to create a "save during battle"-mod should be started / continued in the user-mod forum

Destructavator:

--- Quote from: Tekky on August 29, 2009, 01:16:25 am ---I completely disagree. The "final decision" you are referencing was made by official developers and concerns only the official SVN repository. However, there may be other potential patch coders out there who would be interested in "new ideas" on this topic. Therefore, I cannot agree with your statement that such "new ideas" are "irrelevant".

For this reason, I continue to believe that the locking of the thread is counterproductive and against the spirit of open source.

--- End quote ---

Just because this project is open source doesn't mean the design game-plan is also open for anyone to come along and change whatever they want in the official blueprint - if that happened it would fall into a chaotic mess with everyone constantly changing things and that would be counter-productive.

There isn't any magical combination of words you can post to change our minds - Honestly, do you really think you can win this pointless argument?

As Thyranim - and many of the others here have said - If you want a mod, go for it, it can go in that section of the forum, but please stop pushing for it in the official release, it won't happen.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version