We didn’t have a specific ‘abuse NPC’ button before this thread began and we still don’t.
Our standards are no different now than they were before this thread.
The only people I’ve seen doing anything remotely close to panicking are the ones who are whingingly desperate to ram their desire for such a feature down our collective gullets.
I’ve stayed out of this circlejerk of a thread until now because both KA101 and Kevin Granade have already covered why it’s not happening, and I had little to contribute beyond that, but this is just stupid. No amount of logical fallacies, special pleading, or whinging will change our minds on this.
[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:80, topic:8641”]There’s no “moral panic”, nothing about our stance on this sort of thing has changed, it’s simply a case of people suggesting something that is over the line and us making it clear that it’s not going to happen.
A reminder, this discussion was over for all practical purposes 4 pages ago. Unless you’re interested in the discussion for it’s own sake, don’t feel obligated to argue against npc experimentation or anything else proposed in this thread, they’re not happening.[/quote]
And what about my idea about volunteer testing and the mechanics included with it? I don’t really need forced testing, but volunteer testing should at least be possible.
I would find it very strange if survivors wouldn’t reach for every straw possible and that includes testing/experimentation to see if your made improvements work how you wanted, ofc you would need purifier as a safeguard for the volunteers.
Nothing has changed... Our standards are no different now than they were before this thread.
Well then what are the standards? Your standards right now appear to be a vague obscenity statement. How about a list of general guidelines? KA101 said "No features increasing suffering", add that to the list if you want. If I knew what the standards were, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. And despite how crystal clear they are in your head, I'm no psychic.
As far as actually having it included, that was obviously off the table after the reception the idea got. On the other hand do I think the reasoning behind barring it is absurd? Absolutely. And so far I’ve watched you, the developers, give me an argument consisting of “It’s my project so that’s the way it is” again and again.
And I understand this. It’s your project, your vision, whatever. I can’t force you to do anything. And you’re right, I can make my own fork to add this dumb little feature, it would be a spiteful exercise in futility, but it’s there. That’s not the problem though. It comes down to this, if you’re going to argue with me, argue with me. Prove me wrong, that’s the point of an argument. You don’t need to tell me “It’s my project and I’ll do it the way I want”. That’s understood. Nobody in this thread can force you to do anything, you hold all the chips here.
But you are getting yourselves involved in the discussion. You are responding to us, you are saying we are making logical fallacies, you are dodging some of the issues we brought up. If you’re going to do that, I would expect you to explain yourself. It’s just that simple, and I’ll call you out for it if you don’t. At no point have I said you must include this in your game, but you’re all reacting as if I did. And it’s all very easy to just drop by and say “You’re all being stupid”, it’s not so easy to make valid counterarguments.
If you have nothing to say about it, that’s fine too, just don’t make it out like I’m brow beating you into submission. You’ve allowed for the discussion, and now you’re having it with me and others. Let me remind you that you can just as easily walk away from it.
Alright, now that this is hopefully resolved, Lock the thread into oblivion.
I do note, that I shall miss this feature, and I would endorse it. Of course, if anyone really wants to add this, suggest it on the Necromancy mod… (Or make your own mod.)
May I add that the devs only are against the forced experimentations (as far as I can read out of their comments) and seem to ignore the ideas of a volunteer system?
I have the feeling that our devs/mods are (seemingly) flatout against giving us the ability to improve/research mutagens if it involves NPCs and simply block/ignore any argument for allowing ANY version of it? Or is my feeling wrong?
You devs/mods have stated that there will be no forced experimentation on NPCs, yes I understand that and you even gave good reasons for it.
BUT you NEVER EVER directly gave reasons against volunteer testing and act like it was never a thing we suggested AND now you are simply stating: “Nope NOTHING of it will happen, you may discuss for the sake of discussing but that won’t change anything.”
THIS kind of sentiment is what is hated by most gamers: We can understand it that you won’t include things that don’t fit your view if you tell us beforehand and tell us the reasons or immediately stating that it won’t fit in ANY VERSION, but if you simply cut down a suggested feature that won’t conflict with your view without any mentioned reasons (volunteer testing idea), you can not expect us to to simply take it, give us reasons or else you can bet that people may get mad about it.
I’m not mad because the feature gets (maybe) not included. I’m mad because of the lack of stated reasons why a feature, that doesn’t conflict in any kind with your views (at least the volunteer testing), gets cut down without the mention of ANY reason leading to such action.
If you would simply have said: Hrmm doesn’t feel fitting / the idea in itself doesn’t fit: Ok, no problem for us.
But the fact you argued about the idea not fitting with your views and then simply ignoring the ideas that fit your views: That is a thing I can’t understand…
(You can exchange “views” also with “ingame consitency” if you want.)
[size=8pt]I think I’ll walk around my city in Cata and get rid of some steam…[/size]
May I add that the devs only are against the forced experimentations (as far as I can read out of their comments) and seem to ignore the ideas of a volunteer system?
They don't seem against it. Read the thread.
[quote=“KA101, post:41, topic:8641”]If you use quotes, it isn’t really volunteering.
AllisonW’s A, B, and E points are good. C and D I wouldn’t care to merge. There’s enough exploitation that happens IRL and I don’t feel like making it part of DDA.[/quote]
Look into that quote for some more information on it.
EDIT: Wait, you were there. What’s the problem? KA101 seems fine with it.
And now take a look at Kevins post at page 2: “Feel free to keep arguing if you want, but if both KA101 and myself are completely opposed to it (and we are), it’s not happening short of someone forking the game.”
He is clearly against the forced way (I’m with him in that aspect), but here is the problem: he never talked about the suggestion about volunteer testing, which would (as far as I understand) fit their view, and (seemingly) ignores it. And he seems to consider everything after his post on page 2 as irrelevant. He stamped this thread right from page 2 as irrelevant/will never be implemented and that without mentioning ANY reason other than the froced way getting against his views and without taking into account the volunteer idea…
[quote=“KA101, post:11, topic:8641”]The current crafting system kinda requires folks to know what they’re making, so the closest we can currently get to a PC-driven research program would be making Obfuscated Mutagen_Foo and letting the player take notes…which only works until the info finds its way onto the wiki and forums.
[quote=“KA101, post:11, topic:8641”]The current crafting system kinda requires folks to know what they’re making, so the closest we can currently get to a PC-driven research program would be making Obfuscated Mutagen_Foo and letting the player take notes…which only works until the info finds its way onto the wiki and forums.
So yeah, currently not feasible.[/quote][/quote]
I have no problem with KA, he gives reasons and all, like: “Currently not feasible.” I know that such a research system would need good amounts of thinking and working on. But pay attention to the CURRENTLY, he thinks it could be implemented but not yet.
Kevin on the other hand just seems to want to shut this idea down without any chance of it EVER getting put in.
And frankly the more you complain about this, the more I’m inclined to think I should have done what Kevin did and just disresmeggingarded this thread.
I’m gonna do you folks the favor of locking it so you don’t dig your hole any deeper.