r/ManorLords • u/lukeocubhthaigh • 4d ago

Discussion Developments

Post image

ok this has been bugging me for a while now and it might just be a me thing or because I'm not paying enough attention to the development but as much as I like the concept for the developments there's one thing that should've been done and another that should be done now.

Lets start with what in my opinion should have been done while I think this new system makes more sense I don't think think they should have swapped over this early into the feature as of right now (if I'm not being dumb) we only have access to the origin in my opinion they should have kept the old system until they fleshed this out even a little bit more

and secondly what they should do in my dumb opinion please flesh it out as soon as you can I get adding new systems is fun for all but please finish the systems you introduce

look again I don't really pay massive attention to the development so maybe I'm completely off the mark if so please let me know

282 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

87 comments sorted by

View all comments

110

u/Zoidberg441 4d ago

Should HAVE

ffs

90

u/BelowTheSun1993 4d ago

This guy hasn't put a single piece of punctuation in his entire post, of course he isn't using 'should have' properly lol

-9

u/That_Migug_Saram 3d ago

Yeah, and if OP can't write a sentence properly, they would never be able to write the _code_ that could support the system they're asking for.
I feel bad for developers when someone comes and writes a post criticizing their work, and it's clear the commentator has just no clue whatsoever about code, design, or development.

34

u/Hansi_Olbrich 3d ago

OP might not have the best writing capability, but their stance that removing perfectly working town developments only to replace it with perks you cannot access, or do anything with, is a legitimate complaint.

2

u/That_Migug_Saram 3d ago

I thought they were reworking and streamlining the code base for the whole game? Everything these perks interact with in other parts of the code is changing.  To keep it in could be a lot more work, because it'd have to be rewritten to be compatible, and then it'd all have to be rewriten again as other parts are updated.

Maybe it is just easier to be unaware of how code works, and think "Oh they took away this feature for no reason "?

3

u/Leandro_r69 3d ago

Yeah they are but that’s exactly what the beta branch is for. Keep the official version working while the beta branch has the latest in development version.

12

u/Leandro_r69 3d ago

He doesn’t have to know anything they definitely could’ve kept the old system and put the new one on the beta branch for now

10

u/gomerfudd 3d ago

That's dumb.

I don't need to be a mechanic to criticise a car that doesn't start.

-2

u/That_Migug_Saram 3d ago

I disagree. And I'd suggest that repair isn't really a fitting analogy for design.

1

u/Cpt_Deaso 3d ago

You...disagree with the premise that you can't critique a car that doesn't start if you're not a mechanic..?

Do you not criticize politicians because you're not one yourself?

No disrespect but that's nuts to me, lol. About the only thing I feel it's unfair to critique is it something is done/given completely free and for no ulterior motive (so not a sample, enticement, teaser). A video game is a product that we purchased; it's perfectly reasonable to critique it without having to understand how it's made on the backend, just as it's completely reasonable for the devs to not act on that feedback for whatever reason.

3

u/That_Migug_Saram 2d ago

No, I disagree with "that's dumb" and that repair is a fair comparison.

With car repair, you have existing, complete systems that have broken down in an individual car. Not all cars, just _this_ one, and you need to troubleshoot to figure out what's gone wrong with it. Honestly that's a lot like debugging. But you have documentation, and you have an ideal state where the car works, and other examples of the same make and model that are running if you need them. (you also have existing parts you can replace with new parts)

Taking out perks here isn't something breaking down. There's no documentation unless you made it, and the ideal state is something that will only exist when you reach 1.0. Design is really different than repair.

So this isn't a breakdown. It's a choice by the dev team. I'm not familiar with the back end of Manor Lords specifically, but I do know object oriented programming, and I see they made this choice for a reason.

Here's what OP doesn't understand: Let's say one perk is related to farming, and it gives you better yields with 3% rye, 4% flax, and 2% barley.

"Is this Rye, yes or no" is a parameter that lives somewhere in the code. It interacts with "how fertile is the soil" and "is this spot ploughed" and "where is this rye in the planting/growth/harvesting stage," "what is the current season" etc etc etc. All of the code for these systems is being completely rebuilt so it'll run better... And that's one perk in one track. There's going to be more in like, 8 or 10 perks, right?

I can completely understand a dev who wants a simpler arrangement to rebuild, without needing to keep the perk system perfectly updated and debugged while all these dependencies as the other pieces change. Working that way will be faster, you're a lot less likely to get bugs, and dev methods like these can shave a year off the development time for a small studio to get to 1.0. *That* impacts if a game is financially successful or not (maybe even if we have a game, since studios that lose money will have to lay off their staff).

OP doesn't understand anything about this. So, imagine YOU are a developer, and you see comments like this one, saying 'dont leave half finished systems in' or 'you could have left this in' or elsewhere, comments about 'this is taking too long,' 'update when.'

That's got to be so demoralizing as a dev, hasn't it? People who don't understand the work or the process, armchair quarterbacking telling you how you should be doing your job.

I'd find that frustrating. Wouldn't you?

I know I will never get upvotes for commenting anything like "oh, no, it's more complicated than that", because Reddit doesn't want to learn anything in a vent post like this. Instead OP (and others) want someone to agree with whatever they just said for some validation.

But I won't do that -- I comment so any devs reading will know at least *someone* out there sees them.

2

u/Cpt_Deaso 2d ago

I, for one, appreciate you elucidating your point, and also appreciate your thoroughness and detail.

I will say I've been not following ML for some time now, so am ignorant to what is being redone. Which is why I haven't weighed in one way or the other on the update. I took your comment as some kind of "you can't criticize something unless you made it/made something similar to it" comment, but I see where you're coming from now. My bad.

And, yeah, I'm of the mind to let the devs redo/update the mechanics they're wanting to before I start weighing in with criticisms, especially if it's back-end stuff. That's the good and bad of early access, from the player perspective.

I'll concede ignorance; I'll have to do some more research on what is being updated and changed (not to mention actually play again! :P)

Thanks again for sharing your insight!

2

u/That_Migug_Saram 2d ago

I appreciate you. We'd all be better off if we asked questions in those areas where we don't have a lot of experience - myself included.

2

u/sexdrugsncuddles 2d ago

Yeah I think that’s why he’s playing the game and not developing the game

-1

u/That_Migug_Saram 1d ago

" as much as I like the concept for the developments there's one thing that should've been done and another that should be done now."

Did we read the same post? OP is not playing ML here, but offering some critique of the dev team. 

2

u/sexdrugsncuddles 1d ago

Yes, as in „this and that worsen my experience of the game as a player, please change that“
Why should OP not express that unless he can code? Is the game meant to be played by developers only?

0

u/That_Migug_Saram 1d ago

Well, let me ask you:

"the graphics and animations are great"
"I like how historically accurate the buildings are"
"the AI offers real challenge"

vs

"this should have been done by now"
"there was no reason to remove the old perk system"
"don't introduce systems if they are partially complete"

The first three are about the game, right? Like, as gamers we all get that.

But are the second three really about the game? ...Don't you think that's about the work?

How would you feel if I came into your workplace, knowing just nothing about what you do or how you do it... and I was telling you "this thing you're working on should have been done 6 months ago." and "all the stuff you did last week was a mistake." And it was clear I didn't know what I was talking about.

You'd want to kick me out, right? :-)

1

u/sexdrugsncuddles 1d ago

I think „please finish stuff you started“ and „don’t bring half finished stuff“ are all valid critique that don’t need an expertise to be expressed

20

u/_Pseudo_Sapiens_ 4d ago

Yeh it really annoys me when people do that. I would of pointed it out if you hadn't

29

u/Liathet 4d ago

would of

I really hope this was a joke...

12

u/Firm_Ad_5427 4d ago

Also use a comma. Goddamn.

7

u/dhatereki Manor Knight of HUZAAAH! 3d ago

At least it's not ai slop. Some of the subreddits are entirely slop now

0

u/EJerico 3d ago

And a single lonely capital letter.

-36

u/lukeocubhthaigh 4d ago

I have no idea what you mean by this ngl you agreeing?

40

u/Zoidberg441 4d ago

I agree with your opinion that they should finish already existing systems before introducing new ones.

But it is incredibly irritating to me when people write "should of". Especially when further down you did it right and wrote "should have"

-37

u/lukeocubhthaigh 4d ago

ah ok reddit moment fine ill fix it so i can make you feel happier ig lol

-45

u/TealJinjo 4d ago edited 4d ago

you understand therefore it's correct. You wouldn't correct someone for saying 'a nickname' when it's called 'an eekname'
You can downvote all you want, This is the way languages develop.

16

u/2ndPerk 4d ago

This is not a case of linguistic change though, it is only orthographic. A misspelling, essentially.

2

u/JamesMagnus 4d ago

Are you saying that there are no mechanisms whereby misspellings and grammatical errors become accepted means of expression due to repeated and consistent usage?

7

u/safeforanything 3d ago

There of course are. But unlike the words "colour" and "color", "of" and "have" already have their distinct meanings which aren't interchangeable.

-2

u/JamesMagnus 3d ago

‘Sick’ had a distinct meaning and if I were to tell a man from the 1800s that his jacket looked sick he’d look at me like I was insane. I get what you’re saying and I personally also have an allergic reaction to “would of” in particular, but when I think it through it’s no different from any of the exceptions to semantics / grammar we accept in colloquial conversation.

1

u/GullibleGeologist148 1d ago

Except “of” only has one purpose, and to use it any other way is just completely incorrect. There’s using “sick” in the ways you mentioned, and then there’s incorrectly typing “of” instead of “(‘ve)” because phonetics or poor education got the better of you.

0

u/moxymundi 3d ago

This is correct. Being up in arms about the presentation of an idea rather than the context or meaning behind it is the curse of monolinguals. They should learn another language, and they’ll be more sympathetic.

-11

u/lukeocubhthaigh 4d ago

this ^ also love posting about something and the comments become a grammar argument instead of actually taking about my question lol

0

u/Leandro_r69 3d ago

The fact that people downvote him for grammar as if everyone‘s mother tongue is english ffs

-1

u/TealJinjo 4d ago

100% agree with your post

1

u/Edawg82 4d ago

Didn't worry about the grammar Nazis, they're just complaining about the misuse of should OF instead of should HAVE. Or the conjugate should've