安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I left the quote-box in-tact, so you should be able to click it in order to go to read Celendrin's response from here.
Here's a link to go to read mine:
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/492379439676975487/?ctp=22#c1747893074673413653
I believe my perspectives on this matter are different than Celendrin's.
But to hit on a few key-points that I think set my response apart from Celendrin's...:
- I do not use line-breaks EVERY time I add a comma. I guess that's just his writing style but I find it just makes the post bigger than it needs to be.
- His or her third point starts off as a fair one but if this affected EVERYONE'S achievement rates then there wouldn't be anything seemingly unfair about it anymore. All Steam users would simply have single digit achievement completion rates, some of which would still be higher than others.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that a lower achievement percentage is "destroying you" either though. That's a fair bit over-dramatic.
- Additionally, in their third point, Celendrin attempts to relate this concept to harassment of women (how about we please just make it humans in-general, yes?), which is questionable if it's even harassment since Celendrin states that the hypothetical woman decided she does not want further contact but does not state whether she actually EXPRESSED this point or not (Personally, I would not have left out such a pertinent detail, even from my hypothetical.), nor does Celendrin state whether the hypothetical woman refused to respond to the person contacting them, which would be a potential sign, though still not a clear expression of one's wishes.
I have known many women who actually respond to people who try to talk to them then complain about it later - like... well, a good place to start would be to NOT ENGAGE the person! (Which, btw, there happens to be a way to do this with Steam games too. You don't have to engage them with your primary account before you try them out; a point that I addressed in my post.)
And while hitting on all of the things wrong with - calling it harassment because someone didn't want to be contacted but possibly never expressed it and may have even engaged people contacting them - might not be addressing the point Celendrin was intending to make, it's a response that should be wholly expected if you're going to attach a potentially controversial issue to your points as a hypothetical.
- Additionally, I would try to avoid yelling at Steam devs in my own posts or AT THE VERY LEAST, I'd probably avoid assuming or presuming what they might "think". Though, I might make a post berating some of their design or coding decisions if I thought the design or coding of something was poorly executed.
- I also put no stock in "a sense of calm" in seeing a completion bar or percentage... like... for me, I grew up playing Nintendo games that had no such thing so, I just go... "\o/ who cares?!"
That's not to say that I'm dismissive of this whole topic but I find the "sense of calm" point of a completion bar or percentage to be a big irrelevant, "so what".
However, some people, like Celendrin, DO care about this, so it's a fair enough point, just not one that I agree with.
Celendrin also mentioned wanting Steam to act like a drawer that they keep their digital games in, so on that note, here's something that might be useful information for anyone who feels that way...
In order to open a Steam Window that essentially has that "drawer" functionality:
On Windows, you can right click the desktop, click "Create New Shortcut", name it whatever, and set the following as the destination:
steam://open/minigameslist
There you go. A games list without any of that other stuff that you apparently don't want to see from the Library.
You're welcome.
Let's be real...
Every time you post in this topic you just say that it should be locked.
If you despise it so much, you should know that there's a button on the right (upper right corner) to unsubscribe from the discussion so that you don't have to be so annoyed every time anyone contributes anything of potential value to it.
Also, my previous post was only long because it was responding to, what I consider, the best 14 posts that were made in this topic (hadn't seen it before then). I actually read all of the posts in this topic before adding my 2 cents.
Even when that isn't the reason for my posts getting long, the fact of the matter is, it isn't useful to be shallow or terse (or dismissive) when contributing to a conversation, so I take my responses in the exact opposite direction.
Now, you might think that I, and others (though, I don't think they're actually taking the time to read it) should just go read a hit novel or something but maybe that's not the sort of thing / genre I want to read. Certainly, I find the responses in here to be more honest and wholesome than most news articles. (Even if some are a little whiny and ignorant of other viewpoints; the expression seems to be an honest conveyance of one's perspective.)
I guess it doesn't matter, though, you deleted your earlier post that username: "An Easy Target", responded to; you'll probably just delete this one too...
That's not necessarily the case. It could take them - or any big entity like them - a while to get around to it. This sort of a change MIGHT be profitable but probably not AS PROFITABLE as other things that they could currently work on. Like some people say about things like this, "Maybe he'll get to it; have you seen all the other stuff he does?"
Also, even though I joke about this wild idea, it would probably be the most equal and fair solution to the primary complaint that people have here so I think it might be worth re-iterating in this shorter post:
...what if instead of removing achievement sets from peoples' total completion percentage rates, ...instead all achievements ever added to Steam, that are still achievable, were included when calculating peoples' achievement rates, including all the games they don't YET have?
Also, if you're willing to put in that much work for an achievement percentage number appearance, I'd recommend making a second account for yourself that you family share your own library to and try all games that you play through that second account FIRST then.
It would be a lot less work than trying to retro-actively go back and add achievements via SAM every time they come around.
It's not ideal but it works how it works right now and we can discuss better ways to manage what we currently have on our own.
Nah, I just try not to play new or free games that I'm not sure.
I mean, come on, it's a simple matter of choice. It's not that difficult
Case in point? My profile. Only 'cause I played spiral knights a long time ago (and have since removed it from my account because it ceased to work on my PC) and bought Guns of Icarus after it was deceased (thus I refunded it), 4 of my 6 rares achievements belong to those games. I don't want that to be the case, so why don't I at least have the option to hide them on the rarest achievements showcase OR at least show the % of people that own the achievement I select on the achievement showcase when you hover over it
if(game.removedFromAccount == true){
HideAchievements(game);
}
As far as your FOSS suggestion goes - I recently(ish) e-mailed the Audacity team about some issues in the user interface but that's it, really. I don't post much elsewhere because that would require that I... REGISTER an ACCOUNT! ...which I'm not up for doing right now.
Plus some higher priority stuff has come up for me (which ironically enough, requires that I learn how to communicate more directly, concise, and not go into elaborating upon every little detail and aspect of subjects. ...you know... like I always do. (which also means leaving some information behind in discussions because it doesn't reach a certain threshold of importance / relevance))
That's a fair point.
I'd say no but it seems like whenever I think I've considered all of the possibilities for a subject, there's still more to find if I push myself harder or someone surprises me.
(This is easier for me to assess with puzzle sets where I know what the maximum amount of arrangements or intended result is but not how to get to that end result - for the obvious reason that, in those situations, if I've thought of everything, it will be provable.)
Pretty sure there's not a lot to add to this one anymore, though. It's not like it's a super straight-forward subject but there really is only so much that you can say about achievement completion rates. Now, if you get into the art of DESIGNING achievements (which admittedly, a few people in here did but only so far as it related to the completion rate) then you get a much deeper and more interesting topic to discuss.
The example code that someone posted on this most recent page is new but it's a bit of an oversimplification and how the back-end system is actually coded might or might not actually be compatible with such a simple solution (a point that was addressed earlier just without a code example).
The more I think about it, the more I realize that it probably would work except for the fact that it doesn't account for retro-active implementation which would be a huge mess to deal with in order to get it standardized as a newly implemented rule in the code functions for Steam Achievements. Implementing a new data-storage rule is easy but making sure that it's consistent with already existing data requires huge sweeping changes that are not nearly so easy to implement. Oh, you might be able to come up with a simple loop function for that too but actually getting it to run on the billions of entries that currently exist is a whole other story.
There was a lot more to say about the French Courts topic (than this one) that I never got around to reading the last 10 posts of and it's questionable if it would be permissible to post there now that it has been so long and no one has bumped it (though, a new topic would likely just get merged so... probably permissible?) or if it's even still unlocked but that reached somewhere around 60 pages (if I recall correctly) plus a bunch of links leading to long, overly complex legal documents, so it was getting really hard to keep up with everything.
Too bad too, I'd written something that used math & evidence available on the Steam shop to counter a recurring point dismissing the relevance of indie-games (they take up about 47% of the Steam Shop, iirc). A point I was a bit disappointed in myself for not having brought up sooner (no one else did either) in the topic but got perfectionistic about my presentation of the subject before posting it (as well as a directory to reference the multitude of views in an organized manner) and ultimately, as a result, just didn't end up posting those.
lol