Ask a dumb question and you get.....

[Argus]

Howdy,

Just to start off before my rant I'd like to say how impressed I am with the dedication and knowledge I've seen here on FreeOrion. I've run the current game version and I liked what I saw of it (before it crashed that is lol) and I hope to play the game when it's finished and perhaps contribute towards that goal as well.

Just a (not-so)little (not-so)small (not-so)tiny thing that really extremely annoys me!

I want to be able to contribute but I don't know what the issues of the day are so I read the forums to find out what's what. Sounds like a plan I say to myself! But the more I read the more confused I get and the more I don't know how to contribute.

This is the way every thread I've read starts out: We the programmers/designers/thinkers want forum input about this blah-blah-obscure in my point of view topic. Tell us what you think. Then about five or six posts later the person who opened the thread will say: Stop it you guys you're getting completely off topic OR Stop it you guys this conflicts with something we've already decided on. Why? When I reply I only have my personal point of view to draw on and my personal point of view just happens to be that what I wrote is in fact on topic OR doesn't conflict with what I think has been decided on.

So you guys are in whatever version of your implementation. All the previous versions implemented something different. That's all in the road map. Fine but implemented this or implemented that doesn't say how exactly it was implemented or why it was implemented in that way.

Also saying that we are implementing something in terms of some game I might or might not of played or even heard of is of no use to me at all. I really hate acronyms. Or for those that do IRHAs! lol!

Also (again) saying that we implemented this by refering to some topic thread where fifteen people give their obscure opinions and then continue to argue obscure points doesn't help either if no real conscensus is given at the end is of absolutely no use.

I've downloaded the code and taken a look. I really don't like pointers and my C++ is apparently out of date but all I see is code and no documention in the code. I don't get any ideas on what this code does or how this code interacts with other code and why. I'm assuming there is some reason for the different directories each is stored in but I'm at a loss on how the whole thing comes together.

Okay I guess it's time to get to my point. When asking for forum input about a given topic given decided game mechanics please specify exactly what the topic is about and what decided game mechanics will come into play on how it will be implemented or talked about preferably with links to well defined and non-forum documents.

I think this would help alot towards getting better forum feedback since more people would feel informed enough to give their ideas. I don't know how many times I've started to make a reply on a thread thinking it was about one thing and having a great idea just to find out it was actually about a different topic and then not posting the idea cuz I didn't want to pollute the discussion.

Ah that's better....

Argus

P.S. I just wanted to have my rant. I'm not going to defend it! Ignore it or take from it what you will.

[Carbon Copy Man]

I agree with this. Except in my case, the desire to talk outweighs my apprehensions. o_o;;

I'd actually volunteer to work on keeping the Wiki updated with highlights from the forum, but I still have a lot of catching up to do before I'm in that sort of position.

[noelte]

Hmm, same happend to me two years ago. It's realy difficult to get an insight here, no question. At winter-times, every day comes something new and if you don't visit this site on a regular basis, you risk loosing track. But i really see little hope for making first steps much more easy. To get an idea of fo the only way is reading, reading, reading, and (you guess) reading. It's quite the same for coding. Maybe you should play around with the current cvs. Try to fix an bug or another small thing. By doing it you will get an idea of how things work.

[Geoff the Medio]

This is the way every thread I've read starts out: We the programmers/designers/thinkers want forum input about this blah-blah-obscure in my point of view topic. Tell us what you think. Then about five or six posts later the person who opened the thread will say: Stop it you guys you're getting completely off topic OR Stop it you guys this conflicts with something we've already decided on.

Could you link to a few examples of this? (paste the thread url)

Why? When I reply I only have my personal point of view to draw on and my personal point of view just happens to be that what I wrote is in fact on topic OR doesn't conflict with what I think has been decided on.

By "Why?" do you mean "Why does this conflict? I can't find anything that documents that..." or "Why do people make posts complaining about things being off topic or conflicting with prevous decisions, since as far as I know they are on topic?"

If the former, for major decisions about the overall design, the decisions and reasons are probably on the forums in old design threads, but that's not very useful since they're mixed in with all the contrary suggestions. Some older stuff might have been on the old forums that were lost. As noelte said, the only practical way to get fully acquianted with the project and what's been decided is to read the forums and wiki and ask questions and just stick around until you get a better sense of what's going on. For minor decisions, there may not be any particular justification for every little detail. In some cases, when designing the details of some system, or in particular content, there's not really much discussion generated, or it's impractical to debate every minor point, so things are written up and done the way they are just because it needs to get done somehow. These probably aren't ones that your new suggestions and ideas are conflicting with, however...

If the latter, well, obviously people don't want the discussion to get off topic. Sometimes it can be hard to get into the mind of someone else to know what they would or wouldn't know about or why... And regardless, even if you don't realize it when you post, if someone is off topic, the original poster will probably want to stear the discussion in a more 'appropriate' direction... It's probably not personal.

So you guys are in whatever version of your implementation. All the previous versions implemented something different. That's all in the road map. Fine but implemented this or implemented that doesn't say how exactly it was implemented or why it was implemented in that way.

The roadmap is a very high level general document... it's not meant to outline all the details or justifications for every design decision. For that, you'll need to do as suggested above, and learn the project better and attempt to contribute...

Also saying that we are implementing something in terms of some game I might or might not of played or even heard of is of no use to me at all. I really hate acronyms. Or for those that do IRHAs! lol!

Yes, this has annoyed me on occasion as well... Best to just ask for details or an explanation. Or check other threads... the idea of doing X system like game Y might have been discussed at length elsewhere, and is just being brought up again, so that it doesn't seem necessary to re-explain it in detail again in the new thread (to the poster anyway)...

Also (again) saying that we implemented this by refering to some topic thread where fifteen people give their obscure opinions and then continue to argue obscure points doesn't help either if no real conscensus is given at the end is of absolutely no use.

Some examples of this?

I've downloaded the code and taken a look. I really don't like pointers and my C++ is apparently out of date but all I see is code and no documention in the code. I don't get any ideas on what this code does or how this code interacts with other code and why. I'm assuming there is some reason for the different directories each is stored in but I'm at a loss on how the whole thing comes together.

The code is laid out rather reasonably, I think... Most of the separate directories are for subsystems of the game that are more or less independent and self-explanitory, I think. It's quite practical to start working on one section without needed to understand the whole project. A year ago I rewrote the starlane generation code without knowing anything about how the UI works (and I still don't really...) or how networking happens or how the star positions themselves are generated, or most everything else. Learning the code won't happen overnight, but it's doable.

Okay I guess it's time to get to my point. When asking for forum input about a given topic given decided game mechanics please specify exactly what the topic is about and what decided game mechanics will come into play on how it will be implemented or talked about preferably with links to well defined and non-forum documents.

That's not really a practical suggestion... Any topic might bump up against any other decided issues from other topics in unpredictable ways, depending where the discussion heads... and it's unlikely that any post starter will remember every such relevant detail. And someone might even remember a bunch of relevant discussions on the forums, but won't necessarily be able to find useful forum links to those discussions... and even if they can find a thread, it might not be easy to find a single simple to understand post that outlines the relevant final decision... and there might not be an easy to read non-forum document to use in place of those forum discussions. There's always the latest requirements document on the wiki, but IMO that's not terribly well written in many cases. It's not an ideal situation, but it's not simple to fix.

You're probably better off asking specific questions about previous decisions than asking for an broad-scope change in posting practices... And I realize that knowing what to ask itself might be difficult in somse cases... but with time you'll get a better sense of what's been decided and where the project is headed.

[Dreamer]

Well. I had the same problem a while ago and probably you already got the idea from previous posts, but for any newbie out there:

1.- Version 0.2 binaries are only an example, they are more than a year old so don't go there to look for bugs or any other feedback. Use the latest CVS if you can, but since most people wont, try to see screenshots.

2.- Actually AFAIK (as far as I know) acronysms are not that bad (I know they are not ideal) once you get to know them. Especially if you are short of time to writte a reply. So try to learn some ASAP (as soon as possible) or ask in the same topic and somebody will answer. IMHO (In my humble oppinion, the "H / humble" is optional) acronysms are too used widely to make any attemp to remove then futile. LOL (laugthing out loud). And those are the ones I know... IRHA beats me

3.- Don't think that the brainstorming forum will reach any concensus. AFAIK the design forums are the actual place where consensus is reached and desitions passed. The brainstorming is just a place to debate ideas so they are fresh when design problems arise, it's useful to have previous ideas and solutions. Anyway, I also think that the forum, or part of it, can be divided in categories: tech, combat, UI, etc... to pool all related conversation snearby, narroy searches, etc.

4.- For now the design thread is inactive. I think it's because there is already a lot to do in coding and there is no point in going furhter right now. But that is only my impression of how things are here. I tried to give feedback in 0.3 requirements but they are already settled in most cases (except really small adjustments that can be made, like renaming an environment). So we'll have to wait for 0.4 discussions.

That's all I have learned so far about the process since I'm here. Any of the older guys out there can correct me of course and please forgive me my bad use of the english language. Cheers!

[Aquitaine]

I'm not sure if you're referring to the brainstorming threads or the design threads -- if you're talking about Brainstorming, then Dreamer's pretty much got it, it's a free-for-all.

For the design threads, we don't always know exactly how things are going to interact; we give as much detail as we can, but it is often the case that we don't have enough exact detail to be able to predict the answers you're looking for. That is to say, our process is somewhat inexact on purpose (at least for now). The design team usually brainstorms a little bit, opens the flood gates on the public input design threads, and then surgically takes the best of what we get out of that. To make the process more exact, to make it as efficient as you're asking, we'd have to use a more closed process -- private boards, that kind of thing. We do get a lot of off-topic posts and other chatter that make public input difficult, but for now, that's the price we pay for the level of public involvement in the process.

I think this will be a smaller process as we progress, since we're dealing so much with high-level design decisions. Once the discussions have more to do with implementation and less to do with over-arching game mechanics, those discussions will be easier to get involved in.

[Tyreth]

Speaking of discussions to get involved with, the 'Tech Tree Design' forum is not inactive at the moment - there's a current thread waiting for people's input. If you want a practical way to contribute, then I would recommend looking into doing this. Then you can see the fruits of your labour in 0.3:
viewtopic.php?t=1137

This is the most useful way a person who is not an artist or programmer can contribute at the moment.