Multi Monitor/Window

[AlamoVampire]

In light of recent polls and discussions I thought I should toss my hat into arena. I submit you kind readers a poll on this subject that is as fair as possible. Please vote and share your opinions below.

 

204907292020

[linuxgurugamer]

Question 2 is irrelevant to the basic question. It's  inherently a biased question.

[pandaman]

Yes I am in favour, and yes I would use it  (but you know that already  )

Q2... Included and properly integrated at the outset would IMO be a better solution than bolting it on afterwards.  

[AlamoVampire]

11 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Question 2 is irrelevant to the basic question. It's  inherently a biased question.

1. No it actually is relevant to the topic as a whole, as some seem insistent it be developed now instead of later.

2. How is it biased? You really need to explain that one. It is NOT biased. Why? It asks that IF those features get incorporated into the game it asks when it should be focused on. I find your statement all the more puzzling because you yourself on July 14, page 1, 6th post into “Advisability of multi-monitor support. (Split from an unrelated thread.) and I quote:

“...it takes time ti implement and time to test. Time which, especially before the first release, is probably more profitable to invest in the main part of the game itself. At most I would expect them to put in hooks so this can be added later.”

I again find your declaration that my second quest is both irrelevant and biased. By all rights based on your reply in the afore mentioned thread you know that people think it should be done now, so my question of timing clearly is relevant. The larger question is how or why you who seem to agree that these are features that if done are best saved until later. I again ask you to justify how given these facts its either irrelevant or biased. Because it is relevant and there is no inherent bias in asked for a time frame, especially given the choices of now, later, no opinion. Sorry but bias is not present.

 

003007302020

[The Aziz]

5th thread.

This is getting annoying, either leave the topic or stick to one thread. More polls aren't gonna solve anything, nor more clarified questions.

[Deddly]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

5th thread.

This is getting annoying, either leave the topic or stick to one thread. More polls aren't gonna solve anything, nor more clarified questions.

I think that, having been involved in the other threads, AlamoVampire seems to have some more nuanced questions he is interested in.

[mcwaffles2003]

56 minutes ago, Deddly said:

I think that, having been involved in the other threads, AlamoVampire seems to have some more nuanced questions he is interested in.

It's literally the same questions though

• should it be in the game
• when should devs work on it
• would you use it

[linuxgurugamer]

7 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

1. No it actually is relevant to the topic as a whole, as some seem insistent it be developed now instead of later.

2. How is it biased? You really need to explain that one. It is NOT biased. Why? It asks that IF those features get incorporated into the game it asks when it should be focused on

It is not our job or position to say “when” a feature should be added.  It is biased asking the question by itself without asking a hundred questions about all the other features in the game.  I didn’t say the other two questions shouldn’t  be asked.  But how can you prioritize one thing without even mentioning all the other items needing prioritization? 
 

I'm about done with these  polls.  Polls made by people who don’t understand how polls work and how bias can creep into them, are not valid polls, they end up being unwitting extensions of the opinion and/desires of the person making the poll.  Regarding my comments in a previous thread; those were made in reply to comments in that thread, not this one.

 

[Bej Kerman]

8 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Question 2 is irrelevant to the basic question. It's  inherently a biased question.

How is it? My opinion depends on when it's implemented.

[linuxgurugamer]

45 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

How is it? My opinion depends on when it's implemented.

Your opinion as to whether it is a desirable feature or not has no relation on when it's implemented.  Either you want it or not.  The "when" has no impact on the basic question

[Bej Kerman]

42 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

How is it? My opinion depends on when it's implemented.

Your opinion as to whether it is a desirable feature or not has no relation on when it's implemented.  Either you want it or not.  The "when" has no impact on the basic question

IDC because it does for me.

[linuxgurugamer]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

IDC because it does for me.

Really? 

Let's explore this statement a bit:

• Let's assume that you only want it if it is done immediately. 
• You say that if it won't be done for (let's say) 3 months that you don't want it. 
• Let's further assume that it is released 3 months after the game is released.  

So your statement is implying that if it isn't released immediately, that you will never use it, regardless of when it is released.

This is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.  What makes it any less desirable if it isn't released immediately?  

Let's look at this in another light:

• Brake lights on cars were not initially on the cars.
• Brake lights were added  in the late 1910's-mid 1920's.

Would you say that brake lights are useful?  What if you owned a car which was purchased before brake lights were mandated, would you refuse to put on brake lights because "they weren't required when I purchased the car"?

This is an extreme comparison, but I hope it illustrates the point: 

• The desirability of a feature does not depend on when it is added.  It is either desirable, or not desirable, whether or not it is available at the time the desire is expressed

 

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, linuxgurugamer said:

16 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

IDC because it does for me.

Really? 

Let's explore this statement a bit:

• Let's assume that you only want it if it is done immediately. 
• You say that if it won't be done for (let's say) 3 months that you don't want it. 
• Let's further assume that it is released 3 months after the game is released.  

So your statement is implying that if it isn't released immediately, that you will never use it, regardless of when it is released.

How about you ask me instead of assuming

1. I wouldn't "only" use it if it was done immediately. What I've voted for is that I wouldn't mind multimonitors as long as it was done after indev reserving time for the core of the game to be done.

2. Read 1.

3. Read 2.

[linuxgurugamer]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

How about you ask me instead of assuming

First, because of your statement, you already said::

19 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

IDC because it does for me.

 

Second, because of what I said, which you seemed to ignore:

5 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Let's explore this statement a bit:

• Let's assume that you only want it if it is done immediately. 
• You say that if it won't be done for (let's say) 3 months that you don't want it. 
• Let's further assume that it is released 3 months after the game is released.  

I was exploring your statement using stated assumptions for the purpose of exploring the statement

I was trying to illustrate the point that saying something is only desirable if available is nonsense.  Which is why my initial post in this thread stated that:

10 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Question 2 is irrelevant to the basic question. It's  inherently a biased question.

 

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

How about you ask me instead of assuming

First, because of your statement, you already said::

27 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

IDC because it does for me.

 

Second, because of what I said, which you seemed to ignore:

11 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Let's explore this statement a bit:

• Let's assume that you only want it if it is done immediately. 
• You say that if it won't be done for (let's say) 3 months that you don't want it. 
• Let's further assume that it is released 3 months after the game is released.  

I was exploring your statement using stated assumptions for the purpose of exploring the statement

I was trying to illustrate the point that saying something is only desirable if available is nonsense.  Which is why my initial post in this thread stated that:

10 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Question 2 is irrelevant to the basic question. It's  inherently a biased question.

I'm not having an argument. Regardless of what you think, I wouldn't be voting if Q2 wasn't there.

[linuxgurugamer]

2 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'm not having an argument. Regardless of what you think, I wouldn't be voting if Q2 wasn't there.

Why not?

And, I thought we were having a discussion

Edited July 30, 2020 by linuxgurugamer

[Deddly]

I think what Bej is getting at is along the lines of "It's a nice feature, but I don't want them prioritising it over other stuff I'd rather they spend time on prior to release."

[AlamoVampire]

@linuxgurugamer so going by your words here your opinion is conflicted. [snip] In one thread you champion the idea that its more advantageous to work on these feature in depth later, but here, you say or rather appear to be championing a completely different stance. That is troubling.

As it stands you think its biased to ask when we the paying customers, the target demographic would like to see such work done [snip]. It has been stated that the devs view the forums, and polls like mine give us a chance to make clear what we the customer is thinking.

Lets take Flight Simulator 2020 as an example. Today it reached Closed Beta and it goes full commercial release in 19 days. Now, if it was not for the people in the 5 Alpha brackets and throngs of fans voicing our concerns, our wants and desires it very well may have not been able to have such a short closed beta. Not a perfect example, but valid.
 

If you dislike these polls thats fair enough, but, it begs why bother coming into the thread then? If I may venture a guess, part of you cares about the potential of these features to be a thing or potentially harm critical development that you feel on some level compelled to speak. I just ask you to try to understand where our polls are coming from and that we ALL want to see the best outcome.
 

We the customer can be agents of change, but, we cannot be agents of change if we do not speak up. If our polls as conflicted between the various ones are with each other, offer up some idea of how we as the target audience feel, then by golly its worth it. I hope you understand and sympathize and empathize with the fact we want to try to help in what ever way we can, and if polls are what we need, then polls we have to use. If you refuse to vote, then do not vote. Please understand that. 
 

184207302020

184307302020

184407302020

Edited July 31, 2020 by Vanamonde

[Vanamonde]

Don't make it personal, please. Some comments have been removed. 

[Vanamonde]

And thread locked by OP's request.