tarcellius wrote:I think this feature would be cool, too. But I'm not really posting about that. I have observed that in this suggestions forum it is all too common for the people who seem to be speaking for CC to belittle the suggestion. I recognize that these people are probably volunteers (at least that's my assumption), but come on, you're in Consumer Relations!
This suggestion has been brought up in the past and rejected; clearly, the OP (for either of the original threads) did not bother to do their homework and see that, forcing us to repeat ourselves on why it was rejected in the first place. Furthermore, neither of them bothered to use the form that we have here. If they are not going to respect our Suggestions process, I am not going to go out of my way to be particularly nice.
"You don't need an undo feature, just don't make mistakes". Or whatever the quote was. That's just inappropriate.
That being said, this is not at all what I said. I was making it clear that if it's one or two mistakes, you're going to have to live with it as a low priority issue. If it's mistakes occurring constantly, it's in your hands because you're very much in the minority of users. I honestly did not know which scenario it was, so my statement was reasonable.
The refrain about prioritizing feature requests is fine, and should have been used first instead. However, it can be used *without* saying how this request is so obviously a low priority. That prioritization should, at least partly, be in the hands of the consumers (there was a thread about that earlier).
Did you happen to see who the author of that thread was?
The opinion of one consumer relations person should matter very little (or as just one vote).
I was not speaking from my own opinion when I said it was a low priority -- I was speaking from the community's point of view. They have put loads of time and effort into the suggestions currently in Submitted. If this thread gets dozens or hundreds of posts in support of the feature, we'll throw it in the pile. But when it's been brought up in the past, the general response from the community
has indeed been "try not to make mistakes."
Lastly, implementing undo may indeed be tricky, depending on the current architecture. But conditionally turning off the undo feature for freestyle games would be trivial. I'm pretty sure your technical people would agree.
This would only be true if the game engine were customizable for each particular type of gameplay. I see no reason why the engine would have been implemented this way, it seems like a lot of extra work for no substantial gain (though I could be wrong).