Bro thinks satanism is about worshipping satan
He boutta flip when he finds out it’s just atheism with morals.
Fishing Overhaul
https://forum.arcaneodyssey.dev/uploads/default/original/3X/0/c/0cc2189413a440ef227c39b3fd590a088091744b.jpeg
effort
4.642857142857143
14
quality
4.733333333333333
15
reasonability
4.2
15
Why the dictionary only got one definition, and one that’s less right?
Anyway, I’m eepy, and I won’t get closer to empires by spending eight hours AWAKE.
Why don’t you research into it instead of making assumptions? Would it prove you wrong?
I don’t think I need to do much research into quite literally “satanism” it’s practically got neon bulbs flashing around it in terms of definition
yipee, another random asshole is going to get a suggestion that I spent time and effort writing closed even though the vast majority of people agree with it.
I can’t wait to see moderation show up and use none of the solutions at their disposal to get the discussion back on track instead of instantly shutting it down like the last 4 times.
In an attempt to rerail this topic: what is in your opinion the best replacement for the fishing game currently?
AFR’s fishing minigame is easily the most enjoyable fishing I’ve had in a game when it comes to minigame alone.
It’s like everything we’ve argued for is going to nothing.
Please learn to read and make suggestions better.
You’ve made your point, can you leave already?
Anyway, I don’t mind feature creeps when it comes to the suggestions though, because this sort of thing entirely depends on the developer who wants to implement these features.
And if somebody is going to reject this suggestion on the basis of too many features for a simple mechanic, my answer would be “Just don’t implement everything then”.
Also, I don’t think feature creeps impact the product’s quality though, but the reason you wouldn’t want it anyway is that it’ll make implementing stuff harder I guess? So there’s nothing wrong with feature creeps from the player’s perspective.
Having more options is pretty nice anyway.
3 Likes
Feature creep isn’t entirely bad as long as it’s tied to the core mechanics of the game. Let’s use a popular game with good feature creep, Stardew Valley. This game’s notorious for having a huge feature creep but overall, rather than making the game bad, it improved the gameplay experience if you tried it out. It’s gonna be hard to list them all here but all I could say is that you should definitely play the game to see what I mean.
A popular game with bad feature creep would be minecraft. For a non-story sandbox game, it sure is lacking identity with the recent updates. Adding a ton of features that would end up entirely being useless after some time or forgotten (Minecart variants, sniffer, phantoms, turtles, conduit, beacon etc.). Minecraft doesn’t know whether it’s still going for a building sandbox genre or an rpg, and giving it a story or not. The only reason it’s still alive now is because of mods and nostalgia fr.
Overall you get the point, feature creep is bad when it isn’t gonna be interacted or forgotten in the long run, this suggestion however, isn’t like that. The only problem with it is the priority over other planned features since fishing is in the minority.
2 Likes
Then it should’ve been made known that it would’ve been made optional. This suggestion says that each rods needs a different fishing method which doesn’t sound too optional to me.
And it’s better to judge all of what’s there instead of assuming that only a few features of the suggestion would be cherry-picked out.
I understand your point but according to various people fishing is supposed to be simple in design. This goes against that and makes it extremely over complicated.
At this point I’ve been speaking in circles but at least you’re not screaming about how I’m a piece of shit and not taking criticism lol. I’ll give you that.
The level of complexity that this suggestion brings is low not gonna lie. All rods can use the mentioned techniques, although he didn’t mention how exactly, including the current fishing mechanic. From how I look at it, all this suggestion does is expand on how you can catch fish and items.
The only problem I have with this suggestion though is the bait feature since it’s basically another form of controllable luck that affects fish which brings back the problem with infinite leg scales.
The rest are alright, though I’m pretty sure trawl net or something similar is planned since Vetex mentioned something about an attachment that passively catch fish as you sail.
He didn’t say that?
What I mean is that suggestions shouldn’t be rejected solely because they have too many features.
I never said anything about rating a suggestion based only on the best parts of the suggestion instead of everything the suggestion has.
Sorry for the double replies, but I think putting this part inside my first reply would make it look too messy.
3 Likes
The existence of 5 different methods is what makes it complex, especially from a game dev perspective. Like why do that when only 1 suffices? I said this before but if we apply this mindset to other features in this game then things get out of control very quick
mistype on my part.
It can be rejected based on that. If it negatively affects the game or its development then it can be rejected.
You said the following before
Isn’t this very much cherry picking though? I say that I judge everything in the suggestion and you’re response is to not implement everything that’s there.
I think you might have misinterpreted what I am trying to convey here.
Let’s say we have a suggestion where 50% of it is pretty terrible, but the rest are pretty good. What I think should be done is that only the good parts should be implemented*, not rejecting the entire suggestion including the good parts just because half of it is horrible.
*: If it’s not possible to implement good parts without also implementing the bad parts then it’s fine to reject them.
But that doesn’t mean you should only rate the suggestion based on the good parts and ignore everything else that’s bad though. I’ll still judge the entire suggestion but that doesn’t mean I will not implement it even if there are some good parts I can salvage out of it.
I get your mindset but I guess this is just an agree to disagree thing. Most people hyper-focus on a bad part of a passage (negativity bias), in my case if I see that half of a suggestion is good and the other is bad then obviously the bad parts would reflect poorly on the suggestion as a whole.
It’s like in the other thread how I judged the suggestion based off being poorly written, my criteria for rating is just extremely strict.
This isn’t to say that nothing here isn’t salvageable though because as I said in the first comment the ideas are genuinely cool. The attitude of the suggestion maker isn’t helping to persuade me either.