Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6624578" data-attributes="member: 177">Please don't do that on these boards.&nbsp; It is considered rude.I think MS Word and Photoshop are both fine examples.&nbsp; The latter, especially - Photoshop is so laden with arcane, jargon-ridden features as to have an oppressive learning curve, when most folks can get by with, say, Paint.NET for day-to-day use.Some military projects, yes, but most are more about poor design and lack of efficiency and graft.&nbsp; My understanding is the Bradley doesn't have *too many* features, but that it has the *wrong* features, which isn't the same thing.Eh, yes and no.&nbsp; Agile practices mean that the scope creep doesn't impact the pace of development.&nbsp; The process does not change teh impact of scope creep on the design or usability of the product after the scope creep has occurred.That's one way of looking at it.&nbsp; I think adding an extra splatbook to the game every quarter also qualifies.Not literally true, no.&nbsp; But human behavior is what it is.&nbsp; New players don't really know what's required.&nbsp; And rules bloat *is* a problem for some folks, and you don't get to just say, &quot;it ain't so&quot; and make their legitimate issues go away.&nbsp; Please don't try - it is dismissive and rude.Just so you know, there is room in the universe for more than one &quot;actual real fact&quot;.&nbsp; Yes, more books does lead to diminishing returns for the company.&nbsp; But we should not speak as if this is *the* one and only issue with having too many books.I am not sure anyone said that.&nbsp; I know I sure didn't.&nbsp; So, kind of a strawman, there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6624578, member: 177"] Please don't do that on these boards. It is considered rude. I think MS Word and Photoshop are both fine examples. The latter, especially - Photoshop is so laden with arcane, jargon-ridden features as to have an oppressive learning curve, when most folks can get by with, say, Paint.NET for day-to-day use. Some military projects, yes, but most are more about poor design and lack of efficiency and graft. My understanding is the Bradley doesn't have *too many* features, but that it has the *wrong* features, which isn't the same thing. Eh, yes and no. Agile practices mean that the scope creep doesn't impact the pace of development. The process does not change teh impact of scope creep on the design or usability of the product after the scope creep has occurred. That's one way of looking at it. I think adding an extra splatbook to the game every quarter also qualifies. Not literally true, no. But human behavior is what it is. New players don't really know what's required. And rules bloat *is* a problem for some folks, and you don't get to just say, "it ain't so" and make their legitimate issues go away. Please don't try - it is dismissive and rude. Just so you know, there is room in the universe for more than one "actual real fact". Yes, more books does lead to diminishing returns for the company. But we should not speak as if this is *the* one and only issue with having too many books. I am not sure anyone said that. I know I sure didn't. So, kind of a strawman, there. [/QUOTE]

Verification