Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Squeatus" data-source="post: 7611666" data-attributes="member: 6689967">I usually don't bother replying to anything you say. You've never once accepted that another viewpoint could exist, much less changed your mind as a result of a single criticism or adopted a single feature request as necessary at any point.Case in point, not a single point I raised was even acknowledged, everything I said was absolutely 100% (or 99% lol citation please) incorrect, and I am alone in my opinion that improvements can and should be made.But I'll point out that at in least one instance, the 2nd Ed ruleset, was aided by the advancement (no, the PUSH) by a skilled developer who stepped in, ignored the gatekeepers and territorial pissing, and patiently but consistently pushed for answers that weren't ever made available in the documentation, but rather held in the heads of a few information hoarders who argue that digging through a decade of forum posts is a rite of passage any ruleset coder should endure.  I think it's more like big fish in a little pond keeping the api and tooling obscure.Oh, and that didn't happen *this year*, it's happened over *several* years.  Authoring can't always be easy, but it shouldn't take *years* to refine a system like 2ed on a platform that has three other versions of D&D already. At least not by someone competent, on a platform that's *designed* for building rulesets and has *fully functional examples* of D&D games to examine and/or crib from.As to the backward compatibility issue, I completely misrepresented myself on that.  I'm not saying backward compatibility shouldn't have been a thing.  I'm saying they could've done that AND vastly improved the experience.  Nothing that is accomplished with the current (ancient) design principles can't be achieved using more modern sensibilities.  Like other options for layout than absolute positioning, or a separation of concerns (like layout items and db objects?), or not having 14 sizes of png files in order to scale UI elements, etc.I guess it's because following along with the "backward compatibility" discussion, it seems not so much that there's backward compatibility (which is sensible), but a direct translation of all the limitations, quirks, and shortcomings as a result of the screaming demands that nothing move forward from a vocal number (way less than hundreds, btw) of traditionalists that don't want anything to change.I hope I'm wrong.  I hope there's no XML schema available 15 years in because they're moving on to something amazing, and not just because six grognards scream it isn't necessary or useful to provide testing/validation and that directing folks to a vbulletin board full of 7 year old posts on how to use notepad++ and "save backups and copy to new folders" version control is some kind of best practice *might* contain a nugget of advice that isn't deprecated or simply broken.Changing engines was dramatic, and the Unity ecosystem allows them to substantially improve the FG authoring ecosystem as well without requiring them to reinvent any wheels.  There's just zero reason why the ruleset or module authoring tasks should require relying on third party software being written to handle the process of formatting text.But, ya know, any change proposed by a non 12-year-veteran is met with a stone wall of "why absolutely everything you said is wrong, I will not concede a single point" and I imagine that kind of environment can weigh pretty heavily on smiteworks, or bend their development process in a direction (everything will stay the same forever) that really just...sucks.</blockquote>

Verification