The *idea* is popular. The implementation will likely have to wait until Professions are COMPLETELY redesigned.
Can you imagine if the collect all button did so for tasks that weren't done, so needed you to pay AD to finish them quick? People would lose their minds.
'Well, exclude those tasks!' you might say.... maybe they can't. Maybe the way tasks are designed now make it not feasible to implement this feature, especially if professions are going to be redone at ANY point in the near future.
At this point, I would start asking (and putting forth ideas) for a complete professions redesign. Its the only way a major change like Collect All will happen.
I don't see why a Collect All button would be difficult, it sounds really simple to me. You use conditional statements to do exactly what you are talking about: is task complete? Yes then include in collect all, No then exclude from collect all. The calculation time it would take to check all 9 tasks when you press the "Collect All" button is completely insignificant compared to the calculations the game engine makes when you press your at-will attack just one time at a target dummy for example.
Each time a task is collected, lots of things happen. Is the task complete? Ok, is there a possibility of multiple outcomes? Ok, calculate outcomes, and create objects to be assigned to the player. Ok, will the objects created be able to fit in inventory? If no, CANCEL EVERYTHING, and print a message that people will ignore when they call support/post on forums saying "My tasks are BROKEN!!'
There are more decision points that could occur, but I stopped at the first one that could go wrong. And that doesn't take into account any backend issues, like updating the tasks database (adding, updating, deleting records en masse), additional testing for every new task they add to the game, and don't get me started on what happens when someone's Forgehammer of Gind gets eaten by accident!
OK but you were talking about if a task would be collected if it was not complete, so I pointed out that a simple check to see if a task is complete before including it in the "collect all" would be very simple. You don't need to check any other "decision points" at that point, just check if it is complete or not.
0
plasticbatMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 12,208Arc User
The *idea* is popular. The implementation will likely have to wait until Professions are COMPLETELY redesigned.
Can you imagine if the collect all button did so for tasks that weren't done, so needed you to pay AD to finish them quick? People would lose their minds.
'Well, exclude those tasks!' you might say.... maybe they can't. Maybe the way tasks are designed now make it not feasible to implement this feature, especially if professions are going to be redone at ANY point in the near future.
At this point, I would start asking (and putting forth ideas) for a complete professions redesign. Its the only way a major change like Collect All will happen.
I don't see why a Collect All button would be difficult, it sounds really simple to me. You use conditional statements to do exactly what you are talking about: is task complete? Yes then include in collect all, No then exclude from collect all. The calculation time it would take to check all 9 tasks when you press the "Collect All" button is completely insignificant compared to the calculations the game engine makes when you press your at-will attack just one time at a target dummy for example.
Each time a task is collected, lots of things happen. Is the task complete? Ok, is there a possibility of multiple outcomes? Ok, calculate outcomes, and create objects to be assigned to the player. Ok, will the objects created be able to fit in inventory? If no, CANCEL EVERYTHING, and print a message that people will ignore when they call support/post on forums saying "My tasks are BROKEN!!'
There are more decision points that could occur, but I stopped at the first one that could go wrong. And that doesn't take into account any backend issues, like updating the tasks database (adding, updating, deleting records en masse), additional testing for every new task they add to the game, and don't get me started on what happens when someone's Forgehammer of Gind gets eaten by accident!
OK but you were talking about if a task would be collected if it was not complete, so I pointed out that a simple check to see if a task is complete before including it in the "collect all" would be very simple. You don't need to check any other "decision points" at that point, just check if it is complete or not.
The simple solution is to request "collect all completed" feature instead of "collect all".
*** The game can read your mind. If you want it, you won't get it. If you don't expect to get it, you will. ***
The *idea* is popular. The implementation will likely have to wait until Professions are COMPLETELY redesigned.
Can you imagine if the collect all button did so for tasks that weren't done, so needed you to pay AD to finish them quick? People would lose their minds.
'Well, exclude those tasks!' you might say.... maybe they can't. Maybe the way tasks are designed now make it not feasible to implement this feature, especially if professions are going to be redone at ANY point in the near future.
At this point, I would start asking (and putting forth ideas) for a complete professions redesign. Its the only way a major change like Collect All will happen.
I don't see why a Collect All button would be difficult, it sounds really simple to me. You use conditional statements to do exactly what you are talking about: is task complete? Yes then include in collect all, No then exclude from collect all. The calculation time it would take to check all 9 tasks when you press the "Collect All" button is completely insignificant compared to the calculations the game engine makes when you press your at-will attack just one time at a target dummy for example.
Each time a task is collected, lots of things happen. Is the task complete? Ok, is there a possibility of multiple outcomes? Ok, calculate outcomes, and create objects to be assigned to the player. Ok, will the objects created be able to fit in inventory? If no, CANCEL EVERYTHING, and print a message that people will ignore when they call support/post on forums saying "My tasks are BROKEN!!'
There are more decision points that could occur, but I stopped at the first one that could go wrong. And that doesn't take into account any backend issues, like updating the tasks database (adding, updating, deleting records en masse), additional testing for every new task they add to the game, and don't get me started on what happens when someone's Forgehammer of Gind gets eaten by accident!
OK but you were talking about if a task would be collected if it was not complete, so I pointed out that a simple check to see if a task is complete before including it in the "collect all" would be very simple. You don't need to check any other "decision points" at that point, just check if it is complete or not.
The simple solution is to request "collect all completed" feature instead of "collect all".
My thinking was that "Collect All" would be to collect all tasks that are complete and have the option to "Collect Result" on the button. If it's not complete then the button says "Finish Now" so technically it is not a collect result button in that state.
This seems pretty silly to be talking about this, I thought the idea of a Collect All button was a simple and straightforward topic
0
plasticbatMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 12,208Arc User
The *idea* is popular. The implementation will likely have to wait until Professions are COMPLETELY redesigned.
Can you imagine if the collect all button did so for tasks that weren't done, so needed you to pay AD to finish them quick? People would lose their minds.
'Well, exclude those tasks!' you might say.... maybe they can't. Maybe the way tasks are designed now make it not feasible to implement this feature, especially if professions are going to be redone at ANY point in the near future.
At this point, I would start asking (and putting forth ideas) for a complete professions redesign. Its the only way a major change like Collect All will happen.
I don't see why a Collect All button would be difficult, it sounds really simple to me. You use conditional statements to do exactly what you are talking about: is task complete? Yes then include in collect all, No then exclude from collect all. The calculation time it would take to check all 9 tasks when you press the "Collect All" button is completely insignificant compared to the calculations the game engine makes when you press your at-will attack just one time at a target dummy for example.
Each time a task is collected, lots of things happen. Is the task complete? Ok, is there a possibility of multiple outcomes? Ok, calculate outcomes, and create objects to be assigned to the player. Ok, will the objects created be able to fit in inventory? If no, CANCEL EVERYTHING, and print a message that people will ignore when they call support/post on forums saying "My tasks are BROKEN!!'
There are more decision points that could occur, but I stopped at the first one that could go wrong. And that doesn't take into account any backend issues, like updating the tasks database (adding, updating, deleting records en masse), additional testing for every new task they add to the game, and don't get me started on what happens when someone's Forgehammer of Gind gets eaten by accident!
OK but you were talking about if a task would be collected if it was not complete, so I pointed out that a simple check to see if a task is complete before including it in the "collect all" would be very simple. You don't need to check any other "decision points" at that point, just check if it is complete or not.
The simple solution is to request "collect all completed" feature instead of "collect all".
My thinking was that "Collect All" would be to collect all tasks that are complete and have the option to "Collect Result" on the button. If it's not complete then the button says "Finish Now" so technically it is not a collect result button in that state.
This seems pretty silly to be talking about this, I thought the idea of a Collect All button was a simple and straightforward topic
Nothing is simple. Just think about new RP and RQ implementation. What we thought about certain features mean did not match what dev implemented it. Some can understand what your "collect all" means and some may not. To make it crystally clear, make the button to have a clear and straight forward label.
If we don't spell out exactly what it is, dev (if they do implement it) will probably implement "collect all' to really collecting all. That happened many times already. Remember they are not players like we are and they probably don't do profession like the way we do (i.e. daily).
*** The game can read your mind. If you want it, you won't get it. If you don't expect to get it, you will. ***
collecting only finished tasks would be quite trivial.
Perhaps you are just a better programmer than the rest of us, but the reason(s) I mentioned are real issues, that take time/resource allocation/funding/upkeep/testing/etc. Maybe they are better at project management. I'm not sure.
I think you're overthinking it just to be a contrarian for some reason.
There you go, making it personal. I get MY stuff moved to the lower depths for less than that. Be careful. Its a dark place down there... I *KNOW*. I've looked.
Actually, I just dislike when people think game design management is the kind of thing that folks with lattes get together in a meeting room and just agree on what makes sense for the players. There's so much more than that, its insane,
One can say that it's low priority, or that they don't want to because in terms of in-game economy more RP will be generated, or have bots as an excuse, or have long term plan and don't want to invest resources now, and it can be valid more, or valid less, it's their resources allocation and planning, but If they can't make a collect all button due to code issue, they need to pack up their things, and look for other fields of work, one that does not involve computers, like gardening.
What I was saying is, basically....
Treat code like cash. Changing code is like spending someone elses money. People should stop trying to say how rich people are and stop trying to spend other people's money. Better to ask, and nicely.
1) There is a simple way to design the process, not program, but design it.
2) There is a lot of behind the scenes checking that would need to go into a simple collect all button.
3) In the case of things not fitting into your bags...there's overflow for a reason.
4) I have zero faith that these guys could make this system work properly right off the bat, if ever. I would expect a glitchy launch where people would find that 4 unfinished tasks get cashed out with AD when you hit collect all. Followed by pitchforks and uproars. Then would come the demands for compensation. Followed by.....silence. Deafening silence telling you exactly what kind of compensation you will receive. None. Zero. Zilch. You'll be ignored for weeks with maybe 1 pop-in from someone saying "we're looking into the situation and will update you when we have more". Then a little hamster will come out with a broom and quietly sweep the issue under a rug until the next one comes along.
5) Yes, code is like cash in the same way that time is like is cash. You know what that is? An excuse. I work in programming and yes, we make lots of excuses. Projects get out of hand. Code gets out hand thanks to countless people touching, tweaking, not commenting properly, etc. All of that means NOTHING to the consumer and never will.
It's like going to a restaurant (everyone loves eating analogies) and getting a burnt steak. Then the waiter tells you, our head chef kicked it off but then a line cook stepped in. He didn't tell the head chef what he did or how long he cooked it. Then the busboy came though and dropped a bucket of water so we got distracted by that emergency, and...aw heck you get what you get, just eat it cause sometimes things happen and we couldn't figure out a way to fix it without putting time into it.
In conclusion, it's easy, but it's not, odds are they can't do it without breaking something, and we all love food around here.
Rename Collect Result button to Collect and add Repeat button (so 2 buttons for each slot), which does this stuff with just one click: 1) Collects result 2) Takes reward 3) Starts the same task again using the same assets as before
There you go, making it personal. I get MY stuff moved to the lower depths for less than that. Be careful. Its a dark place down there... I *KNOW*. I've looked.
Actually, I just dislike when people think game design management is the kind of thing that folks with lattes get together in a meeting room and just agree on what makes sense for the players. There's so much more than that, its insane,
Apologies, I didn't mean to make it sound personal. I'm just not sure why you seem insistent on this being a problem. Like Micky said, there are a variety of more likely and reasonable concerns. To use another food analogy, it comes across to me like being out of milk, but saying we'll have to wait until grocery day next week to pick it up because there might be wreck along the way today and if there is, there might be a traffic jam and we'd use too much gas. I mean, sure, it's possible, but "I don't feel bothering with it right now" or "I'm busy" are much more relevant and realistic reactions.
To continue the analogy, *if* you go out to get milk, and there *is* a wreck, 10,000 to 100,000 people don't get pissed off, jump on the forums, and create bad PR. When there is more than milk on the line, people should consider things carefully. In this case, those someones (the people paying the Dev) considered this appropriate at this time.
We can always ask, but I see a LOT of people with no idea how distributed app project management works, getting online and declaring these changes simple. I just like to balance these people with a dose of Glum from Gulliver's Travels.
2) There is a lot of behind the scenes checking that would need to go into a simple collect all button.
This one I do not agree with, because as I mentioned before this is extremely simple compared to something like activating an at-will attack against a target dummy. I use that as an example because that action is commonplace and might appear to be simple, but I can only imagine how many different variables are being checked before the damage is registered, and some with table-top gaming background might think it's similar to rolling some dice.
To paraphase what @micky1p00 said in another post in this topic, you really can't use the excuse that this would be difficult to implement as a reason for not working on it.
Honestly, the entire profession system probably just needs a rewrite. The leadership profession is the most "worth it" and even that is in shambles after all the changes. The other professions have niche products but for the most part, are not worth it. Masterwork is pretty much a muse for the rich to siphon some credits off the poor. I still laugh at thinking about trying to make a lot of potions from alchemy - takes waaaay to many steps.
I appreciate that you guys are thinking things through, but I think you guys are WAAAAAY over thinking this. For Collect All Completed, build a script that works like the RP process - each item is handled individually and the results displayed. Unfinished tasks are simply ignored, as they are not complete. Add in a "Repeat Last Task" button, that fills the slot with the last task and resources that were used, and if a resource is not available, an error is displayed about a missing resource (or do the check ahead of time and grey out the button if resources arent available).
Would it be work? Yep. Would it be worthwhile - if players think so, then yes. Would it have an impact on botting? Not really, because remember, bots don't care how many clicks they have to make - humans do.
To continue the analogy, *if* you go out to get milk, and there *is* a wreck, 10,000 to 100,000 people don't get pissed off, jump on the forums, and create bad PR. When there is more than milk on the line, people should consider things carefully. In this case, those someones (the people paying the Dev) considered this appropriate at this time.
We can always ask, but I see a LOT of people with no idea how distributed app project management works, getting online and declaring these changes simple. I just like to balance these people with a dose of Glum from Gulliver's Travels.
I think we're talking in circles at this point. Also, I think we are probably closer in thought than we appear, but are just arguing over severity of semantics. I get annoyed too when I see armchair critics blindly declaring something would be easy, especially when it's something *I* am suppose to do. I just think that, in this particular case, it most likely would be easy (comparatively speaking), while you are less sure. I'm just going to leave it at that and try to focus on the merits of the idea and leave the plausibility to the devs.
To continue the analogy, *if* you go out to get milk, and there *is* a wreck, 10,000 to 100,000 people don't get pissed off, jump on the forums, and create bad PR. When there is more than milk on the line, people should consider things carefully. In this case, those someones (the people paying the Dev) considered this appropriate at this time.
We can always ask, but I see a LOT of people with no idea how distributed app project management works, getting online and declaring these changes simple. I just like to balance these people with a dose of Glum from Gulliver's Travels.
I think we're talking in circles at this point. Also, I think we are probably closer in thought than we appear, but are just arguing over severity of semantics. I get annoyed too when I see armchair critics blindly declaring something would be easy, especially when it's something *I* am suppose to do. I just think that, in this particular case, it most likely would be easy (comparatively speaking), while you are less sure. I'm just going to leave it at that and try to focus on the merits of the idea and leave the plausibility to the devs.
Just for the record, I appreciate the honest, clear posts and arguments.
I'm beginning to notice a trend of certain nay sayers on the forums about any improvements in QoL for players. One says "the cost/benefit is too low" to everything, the other says "they'll never do it" to everything. I always wonder what the point of either opinion is? If they won't do it, they won't do it. If the "cost/benefit" isn't good then, again, the devs won't incorporate it.
My qualm is what does stating something that you have no control over, nor any idea about, nor influencing factors, add to discussions? If you don't think it will be incorporated, you gain nothing more or less by being quiet about the topic than you do adding these useless quips?
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
I'm beginning to notice a trend of certain nay sayers on the forums about any improvements in QoL for players. One says "the cost/benefit is too low" to everything, the other says "they'll never do it" to everything. I always wonder what the point of either opinion is? If they won't do it, they won't do it. If the "cost/benefit" isn't good then, again, the devs won't incorporate it.
My qualm is what does stating something that you have no control over, nor any idea about, nor influencing factors, add to discussions? If you don't think it will be incorporated, you gain nothing more or less by being quiet about the topic than you do adding these useless quips?
Yeah, that's what got me going here. I understand the impulses, but they are pretty unconstructive.
The "they'll never do it" naysayers aren't even talking about the idea under discussion (despite what they may think), it's just an opportunity to take a shot at the devs over general angst and disappointment. At best, it can also be a subconscious attempt to shame the devs into acting. Good luck.
The "cost/benefit" naysayers are *slightly* more constructive, but still. I think it's been on the rise lately because the devs have been much more open to the community these last few months about how things actually get done. This has garnered some sympathy, which is a good thing. When thinking up suggestions, it can be helpful to look at things from their perspective and try to think of more efficient (to implement) ideas and solutions with the hope that something might actually get done. Cooking up elaborate Rube Goldberg QoL improvements or solutions to problems are far less likely to actually get implemented, and it can be useful to point that out. However, some people seem to take it too far and use it against even simple ideas. That's not useful and just derails discussion.
Ultimately, any cost/benefit criticisms without at least an attempt at coming up with a more efficient solution are counter-productive and rather pointless.
Ultimately, any cost/benefit criticisms without at least an attempt at coming up with a more efficient solution are counter-productive and rather pointless.
^ This, so much this. Contributing versus detracting.
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
Well, wait. Now you are saying that people asking for changes to the client can just post whatever they want, but anyone who isn't on board has to provide the time/effort to come up with/detail/write up a solution that is 'more efficient'? Also, who would decide?
Look, other than ToS issues, this is pretty much a free forum. If you don't want to encounter dissenting ideas, don't put it out there in the first place. And this is said as someone who would *like* to see updates to the UI, and someone who provided a more likely scenario.
I could say that if people reality checked their requests before posting, people would be more 'positive' (read:agree with whichever OP). But that is a bridge too far? Come on...
Finally, 'Contributing versus detracting' is subjective. Everyone 'contributes' whether you consider so or not, but if it doesn't agree with the idea, you consider it 'detracting'? That's your prerogative, as it is mine to disagree. Let's try to see things through a reasonable lens, rather than being upset with people who don't agree with us.
Well, wait. Now you are saying that people asking for changes to the client can just post whatever they want, but anyone who isn't on board has to provide the time/effort to come up with/detail/write up a solution that is 'more efficient'? Also, who would decide?
Look, other than ToS issues, this is pretty much a free forum. If you don't want to encounter dissenting ideas, don't put it out there in the first place. And this is said as someone who would *like* to see updates to the UI, and someone who provided a more likely scenario.
I could say that if people reality checked their requests before posting, people would be more 'positive' (read:agree with whichever OP). But that is a bridge too far? Come on...
Finally, 'Contributing versus detracting' is subjective. Everyone 'contributes' whether you consider so or not, but if it doesn't agree with the idea, you consider it 'detracting'? That's your prerogative, as it is mine to disagree. Let's try to see things through a reasonable lens, rather than being upset with people who don't agree with us.
I didn't say what people can or can't post as I don't have any say in that. The same way you have no say in what will or will not be incorporated in terms of suggestions for QoL. I simply said those who say "you're wasting your breath" are wasting theirs telling us we're wasting ours...
Forum goers are welcome to come along and rain on anyone's parade, I'm just saying it's a waste of text.
More simply put saying "they're not going to do that" is not adding to a conversation, nor is it of any real use unless a simpler or more efficient solution to a dilemma is presented. Alternatively giving "negative" feedback such as "that would make it worse because...." is useful feedback because it presents possible negative side effects to a proposed solution that the OP may not have considered.
My issue is with people who say "I've had x number of hours doing x type of programming and I say they won't do this", or even less impressive "they'll never do that, they haven't done anything like that till now, why would they change?". These statements are detracting and offer zero benefit to the conversation. They're pure speculation, and often ill informed speculation at that. Those types of quips, to me, seem irrelevant.
Post edited by ltgamesttv#0999 on
On ambush rings: "How would you like PVE if all the mobs were invisible?"
Comments
This seems pretty silly to be talking about this, I thought the idea of a Collect All button was a simple and straightforward topic
If we don't spell out exactly what it is, dev (if they do implement it) will probably implement "collect all' to really collecting all. That happened many times already. Remember they are not players like we are and they probably don't do profession like the way we do (i.e. daily).
There you go, making it personal. I get MY stuff moved to the lower depths for less than that. Be careful. Its a dark place down there... I *KNOW*. I've looked.
Actually, I just dislike when people think game design management is the kind of thing that folks with lattes get together in a meeting room and just agree on what makes sense for the players. There's so much more than that, its insane,
Treat code like cash. Changing code is like spending someone elses money. People should stop trying to say how rich people are and stop trying to spend other people's money. Better to ask, and nicely.
1) There is a simple way to design the process, not program, but design it.
2) There is a lot of behind the scenes checking that would need to go into a simple collect all button.
3) In the case of things not fitting into your bags...there's overflow for a reason.
4) I have zero faith that these guys could make this system work properly right off the bat, if ever. I would expect a glitchy launch where people would find that 4 unfinished tasks get cashed out with AD when you hit collect all. Followed by pitchforks and uproars. Then would come the demands for compensation. Followed by.....silence. Deafening silence telling you exactly what kind of compensation you will receive. None. Zero. Zilch. You'll be ignored for weeks with maybe 1 pop-in from someone saying "we're looking into the situation and will update you when we have more". Then a little hamster will come out with a broom and quietly sweep the issue under a rug until the next one comes along.
5) Yes, code is like cash in the same way that time is like is cash. You know what that is? An excuse. I work in programming and yes, we make lots of excuses. Projects get out of hand. Code gets out hand thanks to countless people touching, tweaking, not commenting properly, etc. All of that means NOTHING to the consumer and never will.
It's like going to a restaurant (everyone loves eating analogies) and getting a burnt steak. Then the waiter tells you, our head chef kicked it off but then a line cook stepped in. He didn't tell the head chef what he did or how long he cooked it. Then the busboy came though and dropped a bucket of water so we got distracted by that emergency, and...aw heck you get what you get, just eat it cause sometimes things happen and we couldn't figure out a way to fix it without putting time into it.
In conclusion, it's easy, but it's not, odds are they can't do it without breaking something, and we all love food around here.
1) Collects result
2) Takes reward
3) Starts the same task again using the same assets as before
Mass Repeat button also would be nice.
We can always ask, but I see a LOT of people with no idea how distributed app project management works, getting online and declaring these changes simple. I just like to balance these people with a dose of Glum from Gulliver's Travels.
https://youtu.be/q4FXPdFpXY8
To paraphase what @micky1p00 said in another post in this topic, you really can't use the excuse that this would be difficult to implement as a reason for not working on it.
I appreciate that you guys are thinking things through, but I think you guys are WAAAAAY over thinking this. For Collect All Completed, build a script that works like the RP process - each item is handled individually and the results displayed. Unfinished tasks are simply ignored, as they are not complete. Add in a "Repeat Last Task" button, that fills the slot with the last task and resources that were used, and if a resource is not available, an error is displayed about a missing resource (or do the check ahead of time and grey out the button if resources arent available).
Would it be work? Yep. Would it be worthwhile - if players think so, then yes. Would it have an impact on botting? Not really, because remember, bots don't care how many clicks they have to make - humans do.
Alas....its a dream for maybe mod 15.
My qualm is what does stating something that you have no control over, nor any idea about, nor influencing factors, add to discussions? If you don't think it will be incorporated, you gain nothing more or less by being quiet about the topic than you do adding these useless quips?
The "they'll never do it" naysayers aren't even talking about the idea under discussion (despite what they may think), it's just an opportunity to take a shot at the devs over general angst and disappointment. At best, it can also be a subconscious attempt to shame the devs into acting. Good luck.
The "cost/benefit" naysayers are *slightly* more constructive, but still. I think it's been on the rise lately because the devs have been much more open to the community these last few months about how things actually get done. This has garnered some sympathy, which is a good thing. When thinking up suggestions, it can be helpful to look at things from their perspective and try to think of more efficient (to implement) ideas and solutions with the hope that something might actually get done. Cooking up elaborate Rube Goldberg QoL improvements or solutions to problems are far less likely to actually get implemented, and it can be useful to point that out. However, some people seem to take it too far and use it against even simple ideas. That's not useful and just derails discussion.
Ultimately, any cost/benefit criticisms without at least an attempt at coming up with a more efficient solution are counter-productive and rather pointless.
Look, other than ToS issues, this is pretty much a free forum. If you don't want to encounter dissenting ideas, don't put it out there in the first place. And this is said as someone who would *like* to see updates to the UI, and someone who provided a more likely scenario.
I could say that if people reality checked their requests before posting, people would be more 'positive' (read:agree with whichever OP). But that is a bridge too far? Come on...
Finally, 'Contributing versus detracting' is subjective. Everyone 'contributes' whether you consider so or not, but if it doesn't agree with the idea, you consider it 'detracting'? That's your prerogative, as it is mine to disagree. Let's try to see things through a reasonable lens, rather than being upset with people who don't agree with us.
Forum goers are welcome to come along and rain on anyone's parade, I'm just saying it's a waste of text.
More simply put saying "they're not going to do that" is not adding to a conversation, nor is it of any real use unless a simpler or more efficient solution to a dilemma is presented. Alternatively giving "negative" feedback such as "that would make it worse because...." is useful feedback because it presents possible negative side effects to a proposed solution that the OP may not have considered.
My issue is with people who say "I've had x number of hours doing x type of programming and I say they won't do this", or even less impressive "they'll never do that, they haven't done anything like that till now, why would they change?". These statements are detracting and offer zero benefit to the conversation. They're pure speculation, and often ill informed speculation at that. Those types of quips, to me, seem irrelevant.