Why are we afraid of change?
the_x5
the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">new ideas always met with harsh resistance</div>This is a long standing trend in NS. Whenever a new community member gives and idea, several people will find it necessary to flame him/her without fully listening and think of what benefits it could merit as instead of just the consequences. New ideas are always going to be rough. When implemented they aren't as extreme as they may first sound.
So why are we in general so hostile to new ideas in a mod that has been ever-evolving? I think it's human nature to fear the unknown. And then we tend to exaggerate ideas and take what they could mean to the extreme.
Discuss. (and please stay on topic)
So why are we in general so hostile to new ideas in a mod that has been ever-evolving? I think it's human nature to fear the unknown. And then we tend to exaggerate ideas and take what they could mean to the extreme.
Discuss. (and please stay on topic)
Comments
Personally I'm all for changing parts of the game, the gameplay and strategies are stale and overused, nobody ever does anything new or innovative within the game mechanics and imo that needs to change.
If you could be a bit more specific with the ideas getting rejected since there are also tons of hovaring scorpion threads with no point floating around. It's a bit difficult discussing since I don't think I've recognized the threads that have ideas possible to implement in ns.
I don't think the game should be changed just for the sake of being different. It's natural that you're going to get tired of a game after playing it for years, that doesn't mean major changes should be patched in. It's not a good idea to make changes to cater to people who don't want to play anymore rather than those who still are.
Personally I'm all for changing parts of the game, the gameplay and strategies are stale and overused, nobody ever does anything new or innovative within the game mechanics and imo that needs to change. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, completly agree with that. I heard somewhere, maybe my science class, that humans like to keep things the way they are just because its simpler. Why do you think alot of people prefer CO over NS?
I personally think that we should include some of the newer idea into NS, even if they mess up the balance and the game in general. Thats why they make beta editions, so that we can try something out. If the new idea screws up the whole game, fine, we remove it, but what if an idea is a good one?
I kinda see NS1 as a test for NS2 at the current moment. We would be better off if we had tried new whacky ideas right now then, come NS2, the devs have no idea if an idea is good or not and make it more like the current NS than it should/could be.
Of course there are ideas like "free guns" or "marines have no comm" that will never get into the game, but there are good ideas that come up which just get put down.
I probably got off topic here a bit, but thats what I think.
<!--quoteo(post=1617137:date=Mar 26 2007, 06:35 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Mar 26 2007, 06:35 PM) [snapback]1617137[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> A lot of the ideas people give are anywhere from poorly thought out to just plain bad. Many of them lack a real justification other than "Wouldn't this be cool?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes some ideas are bad but there are many good ones people just cut down. Narrowmindness is more common on these boards than bad ideas. Does and idea really need a justification? That's why it's just an idea. When brainstorming you give all ideas good and bad. Now granted people will take your idea seiously if you do a good job laying it out and show that you put some thought and time into it rather than an idea with grammatical errors and poor logic; but I don't think we should have to justity.
<!--quoteo(post=1617137:date=Mar 26 2007, 06:35 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Mar 26 2007, 06:35 PM) [snapback]1617137[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think the game should be changed just for the sake of being different. It's natural that you're going to get tired of a game after playing it for years, that doesn't mean major changes should be patched in. It's not a good idea to make changes to cater to people who don't want to play anymore rather than those who still are. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok I see where you're going: you shouldn't make changes just because you can. Ok that makes sense and that's not what I'm talking about. You are acting like you are threatened by a new idea which is rather silly. I don't think people want massive changes just because, I think people want specific problems fixed and new content added. And most of us I think would agree that there is something critical that needs fixing and something great that could be added. So... Why are we not open to new ideas? Some changes even if radical seeming at first can still be wonderful changes. If you do try then you may never know.
Here's what disturbs me: this community not only is narrowminded to new ideas but attacks the idea maker as a n00b, clanner, idior, etc. Yes I think the moderators could do more to pay attention to such things, but can we not be civilized in our discussions? It's the same despicable highfalutin rudeness I see in-game towards newbies. THIS IS KILLING NS, STOP IT PLEASE.
Now I return the floor you you all.
NS2 brainstorming is most assuredly taking place now, as it should.
Most of the ideas here are good for a single group of players while the rest are not doing great. For example removing blink favors lower skill pubbers while the rest totally disagree. Or the startres to 15, gorge cost 0 would turn the early game into a huge mess. It's not worth changing the whole early game just because of one idea that really doesn't improve the game mechanics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Thanks for your opinion.
But tell me since when is helping the majority (pubbers) a "single group of players", while helping the clanners turn into "the rest"? You can not like it, but your perspective is skewed here.
I'm always up for change, but for ones that help everyone equally rather than a select group of players. Rather than an extremely hard feature that only the top 5% pro players can abuse well, I'd like to see easy changes such as giving hive the mc ability. I'm for those that don't require a mountain of skill to use. +movement is definitely a step there.
Change in these forums is met by resistance, because people do not try to see the situation from other perspectives. They think the lens they use is the only lens there is and don't try to see it globally. So if you introduce a change that will make the game easier, they make an assumption that you are a terrible player and say, "GET BETTAR". If you try to add a new feature, then they say you are unbalancing the game. They forget that new features always get tested and get perfected as we get more builds.
I'm for ideas that everyone can use.
Thanks for your opinion.
But tell me since when is helping the majority (pubbers) a "single group of players", while helping the clanners turn into "the rest"? You can not like it, but your perspective is skewed here.
I'm always up for change, but for ones that help everyone equally rather than a select group of players. Rather than an extremely hard feature that only the top 5% pro players can abuse well, I'd like to see easy changes such as giving hive the mc ability. I'm for those that don't require a mountain of skill to use. +movement is definitely a step there.
Change in these forums is met by resistance, because people do not try to see the situation from other perspectives. They think the lens they use is the only lens there is and don't try to see it globally. So if you introduce a change that will make the game easier, they make an assumption that you are a terrible player and say, "GET BETTAR". If you try to add a new feature, then they say you are unbalancing the game. They forget that new features always get tested and get perfected as we get more builds.
I'm for ideas that everyone can use.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want to turn this into a clan vs pub once again, but I think "the majority" of pubbers doesn't exist like that. Some of the are skill-driven too, some enjoy teamwork, some tactics, most of them all of the elements together. If you were referring to the blinkless fade, I think most pubbers like the blink as it is if not 3.1 blink (try making a poll if you want to). That's turning ns into something it has never been. Ns has always required the skill to play and I feel its fine that way. Changes like that are changing the whole ns experience I've enjoyed for some 3 and a 1/2 years now. Thats not improving the gaming experience, but drastically changing it to your favour.
Those i&s threads are open for anyone registered. If the majority of the pubbers want to change the game, they should let it show. I for example post complete nonsense in many threads, just to show that I think the mapping project or idea has a lot of potential or deserves attention. Its kinda bad when you create a map and nobody posts to its release thread, no matter if the map is great or not.
Many of the good ideas are just small changes into the game that allow something new to be done. They sometimes get forgotten just because they're too small to get the discussion going. They are quite perfected as they are and so nobody posts in them and the thread gets overrun by tons of new threads of new aliens, movable turrets and secondary firing modes that get the replies.
[rant]
For example I posted an idea of using ut2k4 styled voice communication (channels for casual chat and team and a chance to create new ones whenever necessary) in ns:s. I really believe it could help the public gameplay to improve and reach some of the potential it has. Still, it never got replies and got buried because people are only replying on threads creating very specific and utopistic ideas for the ns:s that nobody has ever played, hasn't got a single idea of the gameplay or the game mechanics and so on.
[/rant]
The forums are a place for discussion. If you think and idea is great, let everyone know of it and we'll have some discussion.
e: Hmh, I tried to answer the question why I don't want most of the suggestions to be implemented, I guess I didn't really manage to write it down clearly.
So... I myself say no to most of the suggestions because they'd radically change the ns experience without improving it at all or very little. I like the way how ns combines individual skill, tactics and teamwork in the same fast paced game. Most of the suggestions would:
a) make ns even more horribly difficult to balance even if they were succesfully implemented
b) slow down the game tempo into a passive and boring stationary warfare
c) remove some of the crucial elements (including skill) of the game
d) do nothing really, just some cool and silly feature that wouldn't affect the gameplay or the atmosphere in any real way.
Still, those topics are all good. There's nothing wrong with suggesting.
<b>You <i>all</i> are derailing my thread and I don't appreciate it.</b>
This much of what SmoodCroozn said I agree with:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Change in these forums is met by resistance, because people do not try to see the situation from other perspectives. They think the lens they use is the only lens there is and don't try to see it globally. So if you introduce a change that will make the game easier, they make an assumption that you are a terrible player and say, "GET BETTAR". If you try to add a new feature, then they say you are unbalancing the game. They forget that new features always get tested and get perfected as we get more builds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But why?
People like playing the game the way it is, and hence they don't want to see it changed incase they no longer enjoy playing it - would be my guess.
Personally I'm all for changing parts of the game, the gameplay and strategies are stale and overused, nobody ever does anything new or innovative within the game mechanics and imo that needs to change.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
most new ideas are ones that would change the game to be worse, subjectively or objectively.
also the reason why strategies tend to be stale is the small clanbase, not the game itself
As for change, no one wants to see the game get worse, radical changes are met with skeptisism probably because people are content with the current gameplay dynamic. There'd be little support to see blink removed because people enjoy it and +movement has already made it so much easier that the only people we'd be catering too are the truely new, a better move would be to include some tutorials and videos to allow the player to come to grasps with the lifeform and the theory behind controlling it. I've always liked the idea of including a few videos of the lifeforms ingame (preferably from good fades) so you can see what it's actually capable of from first person.
For all the people who think that the "pro" players can't see thinks from a pub viewpoint, you are wrong. Everybody started as a pubber. A vast majority of clanners still play on pubs. And I'd argue we actually have a better understanding of the game and a less skewed worldview than your "OMG MARINES WIN 80% OF THE TIME BECAUSE THEY SPAWN CAMP NERF MARINES"
You can't tell me that all ideas are bad. For me I can probably list an equal amount of new ideas that are terrible and wonderful. If you hate all new ideas then I would venture to say that <i>you</i> are afraid of any change. What's a new idea you like?
With such a lack of competition there is little need to specialize strategies either to the map or the team.
As for change, no one wants to see the game get worse, radical changes are met with skeptisism probably because people are content with the current gameplay dynamic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
goodjob repeating what i just said a post above yours <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/turret.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::sentry::" border="0" alt="turret.gif" /> (this is my sentry turret) <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/fade.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::fade::" border="0" alt="fade.gif" /> (this is you)
It's not good versus bad players. It's people who've played this game for years and some for weeks. If we had some sort of a player data system, we could match players with others that are like them. Again, I point at Halo 2 and Warcraft 3. But of course, that doesn't exist - yet.
However, if you are going to throw them into the same basket, the pattern will continue that the new players will be raped. So the solution would be to modify the game to give the good players a challenge and lesser players a chance.
Maybe you enjoy game after game where a few players dominate the game, but others don't. Your inability to see beyond your own perspective makes discussion with you pointless.
Underwhelmed, same applies to you. Just because someone doesn't happen to like the same colors, eat the same foods, speak the same language as you, doesn't mean they are inferior. So stop using your egocentric perspective and look towards the rest of the community.
Replacing blink with say ACID ROCKET will reduce the skill required to play as an effective fade. But why is this a bad thing? Let's roll back time to say... 1.04. Fades had this! O that's right! The game WAS playable. The only person that blocks you from seeing this idea as a reality is yourself. It has been done and it WAS
accepted.
The people that speak here will be good players, because most of the pub players just do that - pub, and don't bother to register for these forums. But when you see games that are decided after 5 minute spawn campings and hive lockdowns, there's something wrong when this happens 80% of the time. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who believes this.
PS: TOmekki can you please not flame others in my thread?
NS DOESNT have the population to support such ideas, and there are much more important things the developers could waste their time on. (think of the skill distribution given playerbase then you come to the conclusion that segregation isnt gonna cut it)
Ive watched for 4 years as ns pubbers get dumber and dumbers, to the point where wandering infants bashing on the keys of their keyboard could form a more cogent strategy. THAT IS NOT BECAUSE I AM MORE EXPERIENCED.
Good players may make a significant impact on games, but it is very unlikely theyre going to carry the entire game unless the whole team balance is severely skewed. I went random for 3 years, almost always without fail, and Ive seen the teamwork disappear, ive seen the will to cooperate crawl up and die now I see people ###### that marines having 9 nodes the whole game because they simply couldnt be bothered to do anything about it.
I am a bad player, but I can make up for it by being a smart player -- skill has naff all to do with it.
You just want this game to play itself for you, do yourself a favour and go play an MMO that actually does that
You can't put a number on how skilled/experienced someone is. It's like going up to someone irl and asking them "how good are you at walking down the street, between 1 and 10?" it isn't something that you can accurately depict.
Just as an example take the ltdm player Tripas, player whos been around the scene for a long while, nobody really would have rated him until this season. Nightcup7 finals and a couple of matches this season he's been an absolute aimbot, other games he's done horribly. So how would you rate that, great aim but bad gamesense? Good player but inconsistant? You can't put a number on that, and that is precisely the reason why a skill-stat system will fail to find fair matchups time after time for FPS games.
ZiGGY, go play on BAD or G4B2S and see how far playing "smart" will get you. You are always going to have to confront marines in the game and in those situations, it comes down to reflexes. You either have them or you don't. You'd wonder why 80% of the time, games in these servers are skewed, when all they had to do is play "smart".
x5, there are a couple ways you could distribute even teams. There's the records system. You could play on a server and the server would log your steamid and your stats and create some sort of ranking for you. But the problem with this is that the server would decide what team you would be on, so the readyroom would be pointless.
Then there's the option of handicaps to add to this. If a player does extremely well, tone him down with either health or damage. This would have the benefit of the player choosing what team they would like to be on. Some problems with this is deciding what exactly to tone down a player on to maintain balance.
And one of my other ideas was simply making the game easier. Well, it's not that simple, since it's more of a concept or a goal. The exact changes aren't specific. For example of what I mean by easier, xenocide is fairly simple to use by all players; click and run to a marine. Or how building in the game is just clicking menus. The execution is easy, but building is important.
Eh, but I realize it's a FPS game. Units are actual people, so you will have people perform differently. Perhaps the easiest solution would be cap for top players such as limiting how much RFK can be generated by them.
Eh, you seem to dodge the example of Halo 2, when it's been played by millions of players, has had 2 games in it's series and now for a third and IS accepted. If NS were to do something of the sort, at least Halo 2 would prove that it IS in fact possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not dodging it, I'm saying it works badly and is a poor example.
<!--quoteo(post=1617453:date=Mar 28 2007, 05:50 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Mar 28 2007, 05:50 AM) [snapback]1617453[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
ZiGGY, go play on BAD or G4B2S and see how far playing "smart" will get you. You are always going to have to confront marines in the game and in those situations, it comes down to reflexes. You either have them or you don't. You'd wonder why 80% of the time, games in these servers are skewed, when all they had to do is play "smart".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you want to balance the game for ridiculous (24-30+) size servers, when the game is actually designed to be played with 12-16 players?
<!--quoteo(post=1617453:date=Mar 28 2007, 05:50 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Mar 28 2007, 05:50 AM) [snapback]1617453[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
x5, there are a couple ways you could distribute even teams. There's the records system. You could play on a server and the server would log your steamid and your stats and create some sort of ranking for you. But the problem with this is that the server would decide what team you would be on, so the readyroom would be pointless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funnily enough, when I join a server, I want to be able to play whichever team I damned well want, not to be auto'd to a team full of idiots (which is an all too common occurrence on public servers nowadays).
<!--quoteo(post=1617453:date=Mar 28 2007, 05:50 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Mar 28 2007, 05:50 AM) [snapback]1617453[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Then there's the option of handicaps to add to this. If a player does extremely well, tone him down with either health or damage. This would have the benefit of the player choosing what team they would like to be on. Some problems with this is deciding what exactly to tone down a player on to maintain balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, I dont think its possible to cater more to 30 man servers and destroy the game balance more decisively with any other change.
<!--quoteo(post=1617453:date=Mar 28 2007, 05:50 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Mar 28 2007, 05:50 AM) [snapback]1617453[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
And one of my other ideas was simply making the game easier. Well, it's not that simple, since it's more of a concept or a goal. The exact changes aren't specific. For example of what I mean by easier, xenocide is fairly simple to use by all players; click and run to a marine. Or how building in the game is just clicking menus. The execution is easy, but building is important.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Making the game easier is not going to change anything - it needs to be more accessible and intuitive, and easier to learn, easier to be taught how to do certain 'hard' things within the game (for example, bhopping, fade air control etc)
<!--quoteo(post=1617453:date=Mar 28 2007, 05:50 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Mar 28 2007, 05:50 AM) [snapback]1617453[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Eh, but I realize it's a FPS game. Units are actual people, so you will have people perform differently. Perhaps the easiest solution would be cap for top players such as limiting how much RFK can be generated by them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, looks like you finally grasped what I said. You can't balance against a dynamic.
PS: TOmekki can you please not flame others in my thread?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" /> (this is me) <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /> (this is you)
Eh, you seem to dodge the example of Halo 2, when it's been played by <b>millions of players</b>, has had 2 games in it's series and now for a third and IS accepted. If NS were to do something of the sort, at least Halo 2 would prove that it IS in fact possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's your problem right there bud. You don't seem to realize that NS is in the thousands of players, not the millions. Any segregation at all would totally destroy the game, utterly and without sympathy.
It looks like you finally get that FPS games are inherently based on skill. NS has more of a tactical component to it, due to the RTS portion, but it is still a FPS based game. Not everyone should be able to do the same things at the same skill level, that would just be a boringly simple game. I'm surprised that you haven't suggested something like increasing the field of fire as the player's ratio goes up, thereby making it harder for him to keep killing stuff.
The majority of us aren't afraid of change. We just don't want to see something unnecessary done when the person suggesting the change hasn't thought through the consequences. I have yet to see someone post a suggestion and IN THE STARTING POST list all of the problems they see with it and ask for helping coming up with a solution for it. Do you know how much better a well-thought out post like that would be accepted? Most of the suggestions are just "do this, it'll be cool" or "this feature sucks, get rid of it" with absolutely no basis in fact. If someone were to actually post pro's and con's to their own idea, I guarantee that it will, at the very least, not be flamed by people that actually know how to think.
The majority of us aren't afraid of change. We just don't want to see something unnecessary done when the person suggesting the change hasn't thought through the consequences. I have yet to see someone post a suggestion and IN THE STARTING POST list all of the problems they see with it and ask for helping coming up with a solution for it. Do you know how much better a well-thought out post like that would be accepted? Most of the suggestions are just "do this, it'll be cool" or "this feature sucks, get rid of it" with absolutely no basis in fact. If someone were to actually post pro's and con's to their own idea, I guarantee that it will, at the very least, not be flamed by people that actually know how to think. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completly agree with you, except for the fact that sometimes its hard to think through the cons. When I come up with an idea, I'm usually thinking of the pro's, and can't really think of the cons, its human nature. If we all could have that kind of rational thought, we surely wouldn't be burning fuels in cars and destroying the environment. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
But besides that, I agree with you.
I completly agree with you, except for the fact that sometimes its hard to think through the cons. When I come up with an idea, I'm usually thinking of the pro's, and can't really think of the cons, its human nature. If we all could have that kind of rational thought, we surely wouldn't be burning fuels in cars and destroying the environment. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
But besides that, I agree with you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly the point. It <i>is</i> hard to think of the cons to your own idea. When you post the cons along with the suggestion, it carries that much more weight. It demonstrates that you have thought the idea through, and, even if you need a little help doing it, that you think the idea could be refined enough to be implemented.
As I said before, most of the posts that I read on these forums that propose new ideas are just "this would be cool" and "why don't we do this." For once I would like to see someone post an idea that they thought out and can see the negative sides to their proposal, not just the positives.
That's exactly the point. It <i>is</i> hard to think of the cons to your own idea. When you post the cons along with the suggestion, it carries that much more weight. It demonstrates that you have thought the idea through, and, even if you need a little help doing it, that you think the idea could be refined enough to be implemented.
As I said before, most of the posts that I read on these forums that propose new ideas are just "this would be cool" and "why don't we do this." For once I would like to see someone post an idea that they thought out and can see the negative sides to their proposal, not just the positives.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Ok, I guess you haven't been here long enough to play Beta 5 on the earlier 3.X builds where you had be at the hive to egg. Or when lerks HAD pancaking. O wait, with you're logic, we wouldn't be able get anywhere, because you're assuming we predict the future to make sure it's perfect, in order to do something.
O what's this? IS IT CALLED BETA? Oh how revolutionary! Now we can try something new, yet change it in the official release!
OH AND WHAT'S THIS? We can add .X numbers after our builds? WOW? I NEVER KNEW PATCHES CAN MODIFY THE GAME TO... FIX MISTAKES!
All you need is the balls to make the idea. Make it, test it with betas and patch it if it doesn't work. A lot of new additions in NS have gone through this cycle.
Ok, I guess you haven't been here long enough to play Beta 5 on the earlier 3.X builds where you had be at the hive to egg. Or when lerks HAD pancaking. O wait, with you're logic, we wouldn't be able get anywhere, because you're assuming we predict the future to make sure it's perfect, in order to do something.
O what's this? IS IT CALLED BETA? Oh how revolutionary! Now we can try something new, yet change it in the official release!
OH AND WHAT'S THIS? We can add .X numbers after our builds? WOW? I NEVER KNEW PATCHES CAN MODIFY THE GAME TO... FIX MISTAKES!
All you need is the balls to make the idea. Make it, test it with betas and patch it if it doesn't work. A lot of new additions in NS have gone through this cycle.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm confused, when did I say that every idea had to be perfect? Way to completely miss the point of my post. Read it again and maybe you'll figure it out.