The reasoning behind my "silly ideas"

Talked to Sprung and he told me that even if my ideas are ok in some kind of perspective, they lack the reasoning behind it. Weird fact is that a long time ago some of my ideas got implemented by time. Example

I talked in the zk lobby dev channel about DROP CARGO FEATURE, and from what I remember I got totally ignored.
Thread proof : http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/3431

I talked about more modules for commanders and more complexity and now it got implemented in some way...
I tried to find the thread made by me, but clearly I posted on threads made by other people and it will take a lot of time to gain some proof.

I talked about specific modules for chassis of commanders that are in a way implemented:
http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/7527

I don't want to brag or something, it's just that I always knew that making commanders more complex for this game will bring more depth for it. And now I started to talk about [Spoiler]

And still negative thinking regarding these ideas. Forgot to mention the Transformer commanders thing that i talked about...

My point is that I just wanted for you guys to have a better game, and please forgive me that I don't know how to explain the depth changes the game will have in case some of my ideas get implemented. At least some of the big things that I talked over and over again on threads and lobby are here now. Hope you guys will implement some more.

quote: The reasoning behind my "silly ideas"

> Talks about how his past ideas were sometimes implemented, apologizes for being unable to provide reasoning

I'm not even sure about the point of this thread. You're always free to inspire people with what you have in mind, but don't demand people invest time into implementing every idea. You can lobby for them by providing reasoning, but "some of my other ideas were implemented in some shape or form" is not an actual argument.

you down voted me?

I just like to support people with positive attitude, usually play smallish community games that rely on input from the player themselves and found that its best to be appreciative of people trying to make a difference.

We all just want to have more fun together after all.

You give feedback to improve the game? Who would have guessed!

Commanders have not been made more complex at all. I would say their complexity was reduced because some the modules were removed. The word you seek is probably "depth" but I don't think that the change was that dramatical for the game.
It will undoubtfully affect balance, gameplay and thus meta but its more of an conviniance upgrade. Commanders after all are still not worth using, even though we were given an option to decide how many and how to produce them.

Just because the devs did what you wanted does not necesserly mean they were influenced by your opninion. In fact I find it quite unlikely considering as you admited yourself, they did not have any explanation behind them.
I am pretty certain that you were not the first person to speak about dynamic commanders but if my memory serves right you were supportive of them. However I am sure that you were the first (and one of the few) that brought the idea of respawnable commanders via striderhub. So pat yourself in the back I guess?

Oh and I get what you overall want from this thread: You want acknowledgment, aprisal, to someone say "you did good Forever!". You want to feel important and boast that you were the one that were right and the others were wrong and that your word should be taken more seriously and your other ideas should also be implemented.
Do you know why I know the nature of this post? From self-autopsy.

After all this is internet and one's voice often matters not.

Ps. Yeah I might be a little harsh in this post (sorry) but its because I see a lot of what I would like to say sometimes and thus it's a bit personal for me.

eh never mind

Oh yes indeed, if I say that I did not do something it instantly becomes a real thing.
Firstly boasting that you were right and then saying "I am not bragging" does not mean that you were not in fact, bragging.

I just wanted to cool your head a little. Not every change you propose. Not every feedback you give is going to be fruitful on sole basis that one of your ideas were sort of implemented.

Its kinda your vision of what you want ZK to be and I am not arguing that you want to have a "brain game" out of it. Its fine, I don't question your opinion here. The point of my post (like I already said) was to say that you have not gained any authority just because devs did something what you wanted to have implemented.

1) you cannot get rid of APM in a real-time game. Fast clicking will always be an advantage.
2) complexity itself does not increase depth. Depth comes from decisions. For example:

• things like infinite module stacking would probably not increase depth by much since you'd do that only if you were already doing some comm-only build.
• attack speed module would be only slightly different to damage booster. Effectively it's just another +dps module and it doesn't really matter which you choose.
• reducing decloak range is a no-brainer for cloaking comms and useless for others. Again, not really creating a decision.
• decloak aura would be a new mechanic which potentially obsoletes light unit screening. Adds complexity but could reduce depth.

3) adding depth to commanders is not necessarily wanted either. If a lot of the decision making revolves around the comm the RTS part of the game becomes less relevant.
4) again, even if some of these ideas are alright the reasoning is useless.

• "Adds fun": subjective.
• "Adds depth": see above.
• "Adds flavor": does not compute.

and again