To all contributors, players won't playtest each and every PR

[Alec_White]

As I was told to post it somewhere else.

Regarding https://github.com/CleverRaven/Cataclysm-DDA/pull/20892#issuecomment-317653619

[quote=“Night-Pryanik”]Night-Pryanik commented 11 hours ago
Everyone had plenty of time to test and criticize this PR before it was merged. But most of the players’ feedback popped up and problems flashed out after it was merged.[/quote]

Thinking that “players” will test PRs before they are merged is unrealistic as the vast majority of players either uses an experimental version or use the launcher.

Your average player won’t bother to install git, set up a compile environment and all the stuff needed to compile the game, and then one by one playtests all the PRs.
It has never happen and it will never have. And for proof of it we have all the issues arising after the PR was merged, and readily available as a release.

This is a reminder to all contributors to not forget that players won’t playtest PRs until they are merged.

[End_Transmission]

Actually I was just wondering as a clueless player where to download the latest experimental build? Would I have to compile it for myself? feels dumb

[Alec_White]

You don’t need to compile the experimental and they are done automatically every now and then, go to http://en.cataclysmdda.com/ and you’ll have them on the right side of the page.

I would suggest to use rremyroy’s awesome launcher, that downloads it directly, keeping your save and configs plus a lot more of features.

[kevin.granade]

You’re taking the quote out of context, Night-Pryanik was replying to DangerNoodle, who does in fact have git and a dev environment set up, and commented in the original PR.

[quote author=Alec White link=topic=14778.msg302952#msg302952 date=1501038337]

[quote=“Night-Pryanik”]Night-Pryanik commented 11 hours ago
This is a reminder to all contributors to not forget that players won’t playtest PRs until they are merged.[/quote]

Sure thing, I’ll be sure to keep doing what I’m doing and push experimental features so players CAN give feedback on them.

There’s a catch-22 in the recent discussions around this particular PR, where we are evidently supposed to both hold back on pushing features until they’re “totally done”, which of course involves incorporating player feedback, but we can’t get that feedback without pushing the code.

This is why the development model is to push changes before they’re “done”, it’s completely intentional, and as I keep saying, if you don’t want to be exposed to “bleeding edge” builds, you need to back off on switching to the latest build, and check for issues before switching builds. Also we recommend backing up games you care about any time you change versions, but especially if it’s a very recent build.

This is the only way we have available of keeping players in the loop with development.

[Alec_White]

He seems to be referring to player’s feed back, not contributor’s feedback. If so I doubt he would have said “players” instead of “contributors” repeatedly throughout the post.

Specially as he mentions that the problems and feedback happened after merging it. So everything points out that he refers to players and not DangerNoodle or any other contributor.

And if anyone thinks that the only available way of keeping players in the loop with development is by merging. Then I would like to remind to those people that the forums has a sub-forum that seems dedicated for discussing and receiving feedback of future changes and features.
A bit of communication between contributors and players will go a long way in making a fun game.

[kevin.granade]

Misremembered the conversation, my bad.

The point there was valid though, we can’t get the feedback unless we push the code.

[quote=“Alec White, post:5, topic:14034”]And if anyone thinks that the only available way of keeping players in the loop with development is by merging. Then I would like to remind to those people that the forums has a sub-forum that seems dedicated for discussing and receiving feedback of future changes and features.
A bit of communication between contributors and players will go a long way in making a fun game.[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? There’s already a place where people can follow the development process, GitHub. We’re not going to post something about every PR on the forums just in case someone has feedback, but can’t be bothered to follow development where it’s actually happening.

You can’t have it both ways, if you want to be a part of the development process, you need to follow progress on GitHub.

[End_Transmission]

[quote=“Alec White, post:3, topic:14034”]You don’t need to compile the experimental and they are done automatically every now and then, go to http://en.cataclysmdda.com/ and you’ll have them on the right side of the page.

I would suggest to use rremyroy’s awesome launcher, that downloads it directly, keeping your save and configs plus a lot more of features.[/quote]

Thankee-sai.

[Valiant]

To all the complaints about “it was not tested thoroughly”, “it was not tested adequately” and the like.
I tested it. Obviously it wasn’t a perfect test, as I’m not perfect. Kevin tested it. His test probably wasn’t perfect too, as he is not perfect too. How else should I test it?

[quote=“Alec White, post:5, topic:14034”]He seems to be referring to player’s feed back, not contributor’s feedback. If so I doubt he would have said “players” instead of “contributors” repeatedly throughout the post.

Specially as he mentions that the problems and feedback happened after merging it. So everything points out that he refers to players and not DangerNoodle or any other contributor.[/quote]

Why do you separate players from contributors? By “players” I meant “everyone who have interest in CDDA, if it will be in simple playing or actively contributing”.

[Alec_White]

Why do you separate players from contributors?

Because as I said I said, players won’t bother to installing git, set up a compile environment and all the stuff needed to compile the game, and then test the PRs. Only contributors do it.
And as evidence, here you have the whole CBM painkillers.

[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:6, topic:14034”]What the hell are you talking about? There’s already a place where people can follow the development process, GitHub. We’re not going to post something about every PR on the forums just in case someone has feedback, but can’t be bothered to follow development where it’s actually happening.

You can’t have it both ways, if you want to be a part of the development process, you need to follow progress on GitHub.[/quote]

I’m talking about making big or important additions or changes to already existing mechanics. Like deciding to make CBMs more realistic.

You can have it both ways, if you want to of course. There’s absolutely nothing stopping you from making a thread in the forums to discuss about PRs and plans to change and add big things(like making CBMs more realistic).
And as yourself has pointed out multiple times, GitHub is not a place to have feedback and discussion regarding game design and mechanics, only implementation of it. And several times when it has happened, you yourself have redirect people to the forums(example whether or not straight milk of the cow is totally safe for consumption).
Is very contradictory that in GitHub you want people to give feedback of things in the forum, and in the forum you want people to give feedback on GitHub.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that in CDDA everyone work on whatever they want and PR whatever they want, and I like that part.
Which brings me back to my point(and the thread’s topic) that assuming that a PR will be playtest by players; and by players I don’t mean the dozen or so people that are active in GitHub but the other people that don’t even know what compiling means and haven’t touch an IDE in their lives. I mean the people that just want to play to have fun.

And I think that making that extra effort of improving communication between contributors and players, will go a long way in making the game more fun and avoiding future problems.

[kevin.granade]

[quote=“Alec White, post:9, topic:14034”][quote=“Kevin Granade, post:6, topic:14034”]What the hell are you talking about? There’s already a place where people can follow the development process, GitHub. We’re not going to post something about every PR on the forums just in case someone has feedback, but can’t be bothered to follow development where it’s actually happening.

You can’t have it both ways, if you want to be a part of the development process, you need to follow progress on GitHub.[/quote]

I’m talking about making big or important additions or changes to already existing mechanics. Like deciding to make CBMs more realistic.

You can have it both ways, if you want to of course. There’s absolutely nothing stopping you from making a thread in the forums to discuss about PRs and plans to change and add big things(like making CBMs more realistic).[/quote]
There’s a huge one, time. This one request you’re making would make development crawl to a halt. Counterproposal, you post threads in the forums to discuss features under development.

And as yourself has pointed out multiple times, GitHub is not a place to have feedback and discussion regarding game design and mechanics, only implementation of it. And several times when it has happened, you yourself have redirect people to the forums(example whether or not straight milk of the cow is totally safe for consumption).

That’s a terrible example, that was a conspiracy-theory level derail of the feature being implemented. I told them to take it to the forums more because they were wrong and noisy than because of the kind of feedback.

Feedback along the lines of, “if I do x, this will kill me”, i.e. your main feedback would be welcome on github. It however does require you to either build and test the change, or understand the code well enough to predict the issue without testing it.

Which brings me back to my point(and the thread’s topic) that assuming that a PR will be playtest by players; and by players I don’t mean the dozen or so people that are active in GitHub but the other people that don’t even know what compiling means and haven’t touch an IDE in their lives. I mean the people that just want to play to have fun.

You’re fixating on an offhand statement by one developer. We are aware that the vast majority of players are not building PRs and trying them out. Your suggestion of, “communicate more” isn’t productive, we already have a process that includes non-developer players, and if they’re interested in more involvement they’re free to follow development directly on github.

If you or anyone else wants to follow github and post about features on the forums, they can, but as far as I’m concerned the current process is working.

[Alec_White]

That’s a terrible example, that was a conspiracy-theory level derail of the feature being implemented. I told them to take it to the forums more because they were wrong and noisy than because of the kind of feedback.

For long term storage of freshly milked milk and contamination, is a valid concern. One which I chose to ignore in favor of reducing the difficulty, even after all the arguments in supporting some kind of contamination or difficulty.

I told them to take it to the forums more because they were wrong and noisy than because of the kind of feedback.

They were not wrong, it’s just your opinion.

All kinds of discussion that arise from different types of feedback will be bound to be lengthy. As long as it stays civilized and doesn’t turn out in to insulting, it isn’t important how “conspiracy-theory level” it turns to be.
Once everyone explains their points of view regarding their feedback the back and forth of opinions and ideas, thoughts and suggestions is from that where you eventually can come up solution that would satisfy the majority or at least coming up to a compromise. It requires minimum effort by the contributor that wants to add or change anything and it reaps a lot of benefits.

That’s how feedback between the players and developers works.

Feedback along the lines of, “if I do x, this will kill me”, i.e. your main feedback would be welcome on github.

That’s not feedback, that kind of single line comment is appropriate for bug reports and technical issues. Short, direct and simple.
But it does not help with the design choices of the game or its mechanics.

but as far as I’m concerned the current process is working.

And that’s once again your opinion. And you are entitled to have yours as I am to have mine.

There are some of features like dirty clothes, CBMs painkillers, acid zombies and the nutrition system that are either half done or unbalance, or people just don’t like it and opt it out by using mods.

I do realize that you can’t make everyone happy. But this is not even trying to listen to the feedback and work a solution.
That’s why I think in a open source game, we can have the luxury of things like mods to disable the parts that players doesn’t like, and gets in the way of their fun.

And there’s no need for heavy handed restriction regarding where, how and what kind of player feedback is or isn’t acceptable as long as it stays civil and productive. Helping people having fun with the game.

[Treah]

[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:6, topic:14034”]Misremembered the conversation, my bad.

The point there was valid though, we can’t get the feedback unless we push the code.

[quote=“Alec White, post:5, topic:14034”]And if anyone thinks that the only available way of keeping players in the loop with development is by merging. Then I would like to remind to those people that the forums has a sub-forum that seems dedicated for discussing and receiving feedback of future changes and features.
A bit of communication between contributors and players will go a long way in making a fun game.[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? There’s already a place where people can follow the development process, GitHub. We’re not going to post something about every PR on the forums just in case someone has feedback, but can’t be bothered to follow development where it’s actually happening.

You can’t have it both ways, if you want to be a part of the development process, you need to follow progress on GitHub.[/quote]

I agree with you here that yes there is no way to get any type of realistic feedback on a PR unless its pushed unless there is a problem with code in which another developer can take a look at it or there is a mechanics problem with what is being proposed. I will agree my original wording was a bit vague as I was talking about mechanics not code. However the Author addressed this by responding to my question on github and advised me he felt the PR was complete so this is why he had stopped development on it.

So if the normal development model is to push the code and then get feedback then I have to ask as a neutral party here why is said feedback not being looked at? I created a poll to get what members of the forums felt as I am aware of what the users on IRC feel and from my view point generally this change was not liked or many felt the the change needed some tweeking. The latter of that is more prevalent however.

From what I can see from reading the problems around this is that there is a majority of the users who feel like the change needs some work ( me included ) and there is a minority who are upset at it and want it removed. There is also you and a few others who are defending it to the point of ignoring all feedback on it. ( maybe im wrong here ) but you have closed any attempts at feedback or discussion on it on github. We have seen where people give feedback there and the issue is closed because it has nothing to do with coding… So we cant expect users to give feedback after a PR is merged on github if were going to turn them away with that statement.

As a user I am actually not sure where feedback should even be given actually. Many times I do so on github and its ok ( most of the time ) however there have been a few times where I have and have been told ( this is not a place to discuss this take it to the forums ). Or just been accused of harassment, for which im not sure I did.

I’m sure at this point no one really wants to submit a PR to do any tweeking on the system since its unclear if any such changes would even be welcome and thus would be a waste of the users time coding it out. Defense of this has reached a personal level and any change will be seen as some type of threat.

I think everyone needs to really take a step back a deep breath and stop thinking of this in such a personal way. This is a game after all and its developed by people who are giving their free time to make it great. I for one appreciate all the hard work everyone does to make it better as sometimes it can take a large amount of work to manage and that can make you feel like someone is personally attacking you if they don’t like something you did.

[kevin.granade]

However the Author addressed this by responding to my question on github and advised me he felt the PR was complete so this is why he had stopped development on it.

The author replied that initial development of the feature was done, he had adressed the feedback provided by the core contributors.

why is said feedback not being looked at?

I can see where you’d get that impression, but it’s not the case:

More ways that can negate the check for painkillers when installing CBMs

Added more informative text when trying to install bionics depending on player's first aid skill

http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=14746.msg302522#msg302522
http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=14746.msg302476#msg302476
http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=14746.msg302417#msg302417

There is also you and a few others who are defending it to the point of ignoring all feedback on it. ( maybe im wrong here ) but you have closed any attempts at feedback or discussion on it on github. We have seen where people give feedback there and the issue is closed because it has nothing to do with coding… So we cant expect users to give feedback after a PR is merged on github if were going to turn them away with that statement.

It’s difficult to keep answering questions with the right level of nuance to reject what you want to reject without giving the impression that you’re also rejecting other things.

Some balancing is definitely needed with the new "take painkillers to install...

tl;dr one legitimate issue that was nevertheless complaining about a specific detail of the feature that was and is intended, and two agressively worded troll issues.
If someone had opened an issue like, “I took 4 doses of oxycotin over 20 minutes and ended up dying”, I would have left that issue open and started discussing it, instead it was:
“CBMs needs painkillers regardless of being new or used” - working as intended
"CBM are supposed to be a kit of the bionic and all the tools needed to install it." - wrong
"A brand new CBM looted from a locked cage in a lab should not need anaesthetic or any kind of tool to install it." - wrong
"This seems to be a rather lazy and incomplete implementation" - accusutary and insulting.
“kills the player due to being forced to take a lethal dose of painkiller” - totally inaccurate

Basically, I check GitHub on a Saturday morning and a bunch of people are ranting incoherently at me.

As a user I am actually not sure where feedback should even be given actually. Many times I do so on github and its ok ( most of the time ) however there have been a few times where I have and have been told ( this is not a place to discuss this take it to the forums ). Or just been accused of harassment, for which im not sure I did.

Sorry for the confusion, that was addressed at DangerNoodle’s extremely rude reply. (for context this one https://github.com/CleverRaven/Cataclysm-DDA/pull/20892#issuecomment-317641930 )