12 replies to this topic

[Shoshon the Elegant]

I think the title says it all.

 

I would like to request a feature to have higher level raft paths. I wonder if it would maybe work by adding Raft to the Triggered By(1) section.

 

If it would work better in another way, I would like to request it that way.

[ShadowTiger]

I'm going to pretend that I definitely don't know what "Higher level raft paths" are for a moment and ask what higher level raft paths are.

 

Because I'm definitely pretending not to know.  <.<

[Shoshon the Elegant]

I'm going to pretend that I definitely don't know what "Higher level raft paths" are for a moment and ask what higher level raft paths are.
 
Because I'm definitely pretending not to know.  <.<

Basically the idea is that if you wanted a level 2 raft, you could have raft paths that are triggered by the level 2 raft but not the level 1 raft.

[Emily]

Nope. Maybe higher level *dock*, but not paths

[Mani Kanina]

Nope. Maybe higher level *dock*, but not paths

I mean, for all intense and purposes that's the same thing, just that the implementation is non-literal to the request.

[Emily]

I mean, for all intense and purposes that's the same thing, just that the implementation is non-literal to the request.

Not true; the raft path implementation would imply you could have a branch that can only be turned at with a higher level raft. By saying only a dock, it no longer implies that (which, is the main difference)

[Mani Kanina]

That's splitting hairs though, both the original post and the clarification post should have provided enough clarity in that the main thing wanted here is just allowing different tiered raft paths in *some* shape or form.

[Shoshon the Elegant]

Nope. Maybe higher level *dock*, but not paths

 

 

I mean, for all intense and purposes that's the same thing, just that the implementation is non-literal to the request.

 

Basically yeah. It's definitely what I was thinking. I just wasn't sure how it'd work from a technical standpoint.

[Jamian]

You could also write a small script to give the dock flag to the level 2 docks only once the player has the second level raft.

[Shoshon the Elegant]

You could also write a small script to give the dock flag to the level 2 docks only once the player has the second level raft.

Yeah. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to easy to write. I might do that anyways. Can't imagine it's anymore that probably like 10 lines.

Just thought it might be nice as a feature for the program.

[Timelord]

That's splitting hairs though, both the original post and the clarification post should have provided enough clarity in that the main thing wanted here is just allowing different tiered raft paths in *some* shape or form.

 
Please go back and re-read post #3.

He specified paths, which implies branching. This is not a poor interpretation of the request, as phrased.

you could have raft paths that are triggered by the level 2 raft but not the level 1 raft.
(Emphasis, mine).

While it is now apparent that he wants docking pads for higher rafts, which I suppose might be possible, his OP and his explanation both stated paths, an these are mechanically a very different animal.

Having played many quests with complex, multi-screen raft paths with many branches, I could see people wanting that and not simply a launch point that requires a specific level. This part, could be a Dock combo variable.

[Mani Kanina]

Please go back and re-read post #3.

He specified paths, which implies branching. This is not a poor interpretation of the request, as phrased.

While it is now apparent that he wants docking pads for higher rafts, which I suppose might be possible, his OP and his explanation both stated paths, an these are mechanically a very different animal.

When reading and taking in requests from people you have to go by the assumption that they might both not have the technically expertise in the matter as well as not knowing how to articulate themselves accurately. You kinda have to parse what they are saying (or ask for further details if needed) rather than doing the exact literal thing that is asked. Because what is wanted might very well not be the exact literal thing asked, and furthermore, the exact literal thing asked is often not the best solution for the same problem. Flip the scenario and it makes even more sense: You wouldn't ask someone who has never coded at all what the best implementation for a screen drawing routine would be, to do so would be absurd. When working with people who don't have the same level of technical expertise as you necessitates trying to understand what they are thinking instead of what they are saying, same even holds true for people with technical expertise but whom haven't considered the problem in full.

My apologies to Shoshon, of course, no offense directed. But I am going to break down their posts a bit to help you understand why, to me, this request was obvious from the first two posts by the author that any solution that allows a higher level raft in the base engine is what was desired. Also, if you're going to link to posts in post to make your point Post #8 even confirms my view of the original request as non-literal.

Anyway, post #1:

If it would work better in another way, I would like to request it that way.

The very first post in this thread ends with this sentence. Which literally states that if another technical solution is better, that one should be done instead. It really doesn't get more clear cut than that.
Post #3:

Basically the idea is that if you wanted a level 2 raft, you could have raft paths that are triggered by the level 2 raft but not the level 1 raft.

You used this one to argue that they were being specific, but I disagree, actually. He doesn't "specify" "paths" as the technical solution at all. While everything is obviously up for interpretation, which is why asking for clarifications might be good, just consider how you would even talk about raft related things in ZC in a general sense. What would you call the rafting in Z1 up to level 4? A raft path, that's how you'd describe it. Yes, the combo flag is called a "Raft Path", but the context of the sentence really should be read as raft paths as entire complete paths from point A to B. Because the description the OP is providing about what they want is in layman's terms, not technical terms, jumping to that they want the exact technical solution specified is incorrect.

I'm breaking this down this way not to harp on and be rude or "prove I'm right" or whatever, I really do think it would be a good idea if you take a step back and consider this as an example for how to parse requests in the future. It's not as if anyone in this thread even disagrees on anything. Everyone seem to agree that the technical idea of a new combo flag or other variation of that which only works with a T2 raft is an awful idea. The more charitable way to approach this would be that faced with coming to the conclusions that that's what is wanted rather than rejecting that outright, consider if maybe they meant something different, and even if they didn't mean something different, consider if another solution is the better one. Which is something venrob already did but didn't actually provide an answer to if it would be done or rejected.

[Emily]

When reading and taking in requests from people you have to go by the assumption that they might both not have the technically expertise in the matter as well as not knowing how to articulate themselves accurately. You kinda have to parse what they are saying (or ask for further details if needed) rather than doing the exact literal thing that is asked. Because what is wanted might very well not be the exact literal thing asked, and furthermore, the exact literal thing asked is often not the best solution for the same problem. Flip the scenario and it makes even more sense: You wouldn't ask someone who has never coded at all what the best implementation for a screen drawing routine would be, to do so would be absurd. When working with people who don't have the same level of technical expertise as you necessitates trying to understand what they are thinking instead of what they are saying, same even holds true for people with technical expertise but whom haven't considered the problem in full.

He said 'Raft Paths'. That's a very different thing from 'Docks', mechanically. Enough so that clarification was required, thus why I clarified that docks would be possible, while paths would not.

My apologies to Shoshon, of course, no offense directed. But I am going to break down their posts a bit to help you understand why, to me, this request was obvious from the first two posts by the author that any solution that allows a higher level raft in the base engine is what was desired. Also, if you're going to link to posts in post to make your point Post #8 even confirms my view of the original request as non-literal.

The request being non-literal has nothing to do with anything here. The request, as written, required clarification; thus, in my reply, I clarified what would be possible.

Anyway, post #1:
The very first post in this thread ends with this sentence. Which literally states that if another technical solution is better, that one should be done instead. It really doesn't get more clear cut than that.

Thus why I clarified what would be possible.

Post #3:
You used this one to argue that they were being specific, but I disagree, actually. He doesn't "specify" "paths" as the technical solution at all. While everything is obviously up for interpretation, which is why asking for clarifications might be good, just consider how you would even talk about raft related things in ZC in a general sense. What would you call the rafting in Z1 up to level 4? A raft path, that's how you'd describe it. Yes, the combo flag is called a "Raft Path", but the context of the sentence really should be read as raft paths as entire complete paths from point A to B. Because the description the OP is providing about what they want is in layman's terms, not technical terms, jumping to that they want the exact technical solution specified is incorrect.

Ah, so you mean to say that I'm supposed to read people's minds to know exactly what they actually mean? Sorry, I don't possess that power.

I'm breaking this down this way not to harp on and be rude or "prove I'm right" or whatever,

That appears to be 100% exactly what you are doing; and de-railing the thread while you're at it. If you look at this thread, removing your posts and replies to them, it's a very clean-cut feature request thread; adding your posts, it now has become an argument over god damn semantics.

I really do think it would be a good idea if you take a step back and consider this as an example for how to parse requests in the future. It's not as if anyone in this thread even disagrees on anything. Everyone seem to agree that the technical idea of a new combo flag or other variation of that which only works with a T2 raft is an awful idea. The more charitable way to approach this would be that faced with coming to the conclusions that that's what is wanted rather than rejecting that outright, consider if maybe they meant something different, and even if they didn't mean something different, consider if another solution is the better one. Which is something venrob already did but didn't actually provide an answer to if it would be done or rejected.

Aye, I did not provide an answer. Because I don't have one. It's extremely common for a feature request to get a form of response which neither confirms nor denies the request.


Anyway, as I mentioned above, you are completely de-railing this thread, and making it about yourself instead of the actual thread topic; whether that is your intent, or not. I'll request that you refrain from posting any further here, unless it is purely on-topic; talking about T2 raft paths, not complaining about semantics of how we word our posts. If you continue de-railing the thread, I will be forced to call upon site staff.