You are the one who first made baseless claims that things would have no cost because they are already there, just leave them and implement a new one on the side
I know, i was there ...
And i still believe it.
* You must now test both implementation when something changes
Thats why we have EA ... people do that.
* You must support an UI that allows selecting which implementation you wish to use plus localization for that
You allready have UI that supports first implementation ... all you need to do is not rework it i order to support new idea.
Localisation is exactly the same.
This really dont seem like an argument, this is common logic ...
If you have stables for horses ... and decide to also raise elephants ... and you therefore demolish your stables, in order to create biger one for those elephants ... you cant cry afterwards about not having any place for your horses. O_o
Actualy spellcasting is perfect example:
*NOW*
When you click on "level 1" filter, all "level 1" spells show up ... but once you click some, you get to "choose spell level" screen of that spell, instead of casting.
Why? Bcs Larian deleted previous implementation!
*Back then*
We were able to put any spell level on our hotbar ... you pick, you click, you cast ... easy.
It had its own problems ofc, bcs there was not enough space on hotbar and spells took too much, since you had to have every spell level separately.
So Larian invented popup windows ... since then, lowest spell levels were not spells anymore, but icons that opened popup window, where you pick level for casting.
What we (read as i) asked back them was to keep curent system ... instead of deleting spells lvl 1 from our spellbook and replace them with popup-window-spells-icons ... implement instead some new row of memorized spells where you can get theese icons, but keep spells as they were so you can also pick any Spell lvl 1 and drag it to your hotbar.
This way everyone would be happy.
And just for the record, there was also several pictures for UI design, that would support both options.
*NOW*
Larian would save lot of time and effort, since in last build people are coplaining that when they pick level 1 spells filter ... and then they pick spell and click on it ... they want to cast and not pick level again.
If previously asked option would be presented, Larian would not need re-invent icons for level 1 spells.
So ... funny enough, this example should show quite clearly that every decision may potentialy have its cost ... even if you decide *not* include option, it might come and bite you in the ass in the future.
* You must support the mechanics of switching between implementations
Logicaly ...
But that dont answer me the question how can some mechanic that supported option A can stop supporting it, once option B is implemented. O_o
I mean, if you are implementing options, you should keep them both in mind while implementing mechanics that will work with them ... this should go without saying. :-/
* Since there are two implementations and everything that interacts with this thing, will have to work with both implementations
This is exactly the same point as abowe. O_o
* Users will have to make a choice which implementations they use (this is not always a positive thing)
No, they dont ... there is allways a default setting.
I would expect you as a software developer, to know this. O_o
You dislike what you have > you check options and potentialy switch it ... you do > you leave it ... easy.
* System/code complexity is higher, leading to higher cognitive load for designers/developers and increasing chance of bugs
The important word here is "chance" ...
Also, as far as i know, system/code complexity is something that only affects curently used system ... if you have two options, that one that is turned off does nothing in your system. O_o
Sure, the bigger the code is the bigger is chance that someone made something wrong ... but thats why we have hotfixes. O_o
This certainly isnt problem that affects specificaly only options.
* All future changes will need to be made for both implementations
Obviously, but that was allready told twice abowe.
but you must understand that each option will have a cost.
Each new option you mean ... yes, that is true.
But how can something you allready have done, implemented, tested, prepared, and perfectly working ... cost you any extra, that is beyond my understanding. :-/
It does when you mess with it, that is true ... if you have done, implemented, tested, prepared and working mechanic ... and then you change single thing about it, it can set whole cascade of effects ... but as long as you leave it be, its done, implemented, tested, prepared and working ... and therefore it dont cost anything anymore.
---
I would like to see some specific examples to be honest, since that is the best way for me to imagine it ...
I mean just take some options people want really often around here ... i take inspiration from Mega-threats:
1) 6 member party.
I gues nobody can be surprised that this one goes first.
Now lets take your points fast:
Testing > EA is there for that ... solved.
UI > The game is allready supporting it, tested through Mod ... solved.
Switching > The game works for both options the same (at least to me) ... solved.
Working with both > Same as abowe ... solved.
User choice > 4 member is default, 6 member is option ... solved.
Chance of bugs > In whole EA 1 was found, can be solved quite easily ... maybe in next patch, maybe never, dunno.
Future changes > Since the UI is allredy prepared for this option ... and no ballance is required by most people supporting it around here ... solved.
I see no problem with this option whatsoever. O_o
2) Spellcasting.
As mentioned abowe, i know it dont have megathreat, but i want it anyway. :P
Testing > EA is there for that (yes i will repeat exactly this every time)
UI > It is demanded since the UI changed in last patch, so they would need to do it anyway.
Switching > There is no switching in this case, both options can coexistent at once.
Working with both > Same as abowe (yes i will most likely repeat this one aswell)
User choice > Same as abowe.
Chance of bugs > Basicaly we can claim that curent state is bugged ... this would be solution.
Future changes > They better count with both ... low level spells are quite important.
I see no problem with this option whatsoever. O_o
3) Reactions (Yes, i purposefully left some topics out.)
Larian want them to be automatic ... we want full control ...
Suggested option:
Set reactions for Automatic / Ask / Off ...
Automatic > leave thigs as they are now.
Ask > popup window that shows to player every reaction he can do, every time he can use some ... as long as they are set for Ask. (Aka. exactly as in Solasta.)
Off > reaction will be ignored at all time.
Testing > EA
UI > People are complaining for reactions UI in curent state ... it would require some work, suggested UI change would require only to create one more visual effect on their icons.
Switching > Not sure what to say here ... obviously we would need mechanic that would allow us to switch mods for each reaction.
Working with both > That is the idea.
User choice > Same as abowe.
Chance of bugs > Unknown.
Future changes > Should certainly keep this both in mind, yes.
I can see some slight difficiulties with this one ... but since Swen himself repeately confrimmed that they are curently working on better reaction system, it will most likely get reworked anyway.
Now ... please, tell me where i am wrong.
---
OP as it seems refuse to give me at least those 10 options ...
So i dare to presume s/he was unable to find so many of them ... and therefore main point of this topic (aka: there will be too much) will be concidered void by myself. :-/
