The Dark Mod - TTLG Forums

Fidcal on 29/10/2007 at 13:05

That would be great if so. It's not a deal-breaker but it certainly would be easier for me and some others. Creep as well - though I personally can manage OK with ONE shifted movement key but two is awkward.

One other key I wanted to use but can't - though I'm doubtful much can be done about this - is I always 1 to 0 for the weapons like almost everyone but I also use the key on the left of those to put away all weapons - and that is the key that brings up the Doom console! I've had to substitute the one below it - the tab key. Trouble is, I frequently hit the wrong key I've been doing it so long in Thief.

Mmmm... in all this time, the moment I wrote that I just remembered the default console key is a shift or ctrl or something with that key so maybe if I restore that... I'll look how convenient that is, I'm obviously using console a lot but it's not as important as a game key. :)

phide on 30/10/2007 at 03:12

Quote Posted by codereader

This kind of "cvar hacking" shouldn't be necessary (nor possible) in the first place. :)

But why restrict it? TDM is a singleplayer experience, so I see no particular issue in allowing cvars to be set to seemingly obscene values. If the player wants to blast through the map at 500 feet per second, why stop him?

On the subject of speed and bindings, a Splinter Cell approach might be interesting. The scroll wheel could increment or decrement the walk/run/creep speed. I'd guess that this is totally doable within the confines of D3's binding system (but then I could be wrong).

You can disable the ~ to console cvar by setting com_allowConsole to 0, by the way :)

New Horizon on 30/10/2007 at 04:16

Quote Posted by phide

Because a lot of the cvars are simply there for tweaking purposes. Some will remain I'm sure, but the good majority should be removed because they have no practical use beyond fine tuning.

Fidcal on 30/10/2007 at 07:46

Quote Posted by phide

Yes, I was just thinking of players who fine tune say run speed to how they like it, say 5% more than default, and always play that way, not in the sense of cheating but just a comfort, preference adjustment. But it then makes it harder for the mission developer to test. Say it's important that the player can't just run round a guard and get in a gateway at the start of a mission. Instead the player has to traverse all around - the main mission is that other route - and the player only exits by that gateway, KOs the guard, mission over. The mission developer tests, beta testers test. Everything OK, a two hour mission. The 5% plus player comes along and complains 'I don't get this mission, I just run in the gateway, steal the treasure and get Mission Complete all in two minutes. He never even finds the main route. He did not intentionally cheat.

jay pettitt on 30/10/2007 at 08:01

Quote Posted by New Horizon

Because a lot of the cvars are simply there for tweaking purposes. Some will remain I'm sure, but the good majority should be removed because they have no practical use beyond fine tuning.

Don't take this the wrong way, but DarkMod is going to:

* need some fine tuning after release.
* be all grown up and headed off into the big bad world to sleep with strangers and not be your baby anymore after release.

Given which, it might pay to leave variables variable.

codereader on 30/10/2007 at 08:15

Beta testing and tweaking is one thing, but leaving console variables with gameplay-breaking potential open to the public is another. As Fidcal pointed out, it makes mission design harder than it has to be, and it makes supporting the mod not exactly easier.

We're not talking about options with minor impact to gameplay like HUD transparency - we're talking about CVARs like "Well, people, let's turn the lightgem off, I don't like being seen, har, har"

sparhawk on 30/10/2007 at 08:39

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

Don't take this the wrong way, but DarkMod is going to:

need some fine tuning after release.

AH! That was this thing that constantly nagged my mind and I couldn't put my finger on.

Quote:

Given which, it might pay to leave variables variable.

You can be sure that we will make the decision before we release. ;)

jay pettitt on 30/10/2007 at 08:47

Quote Posted by codereader

I thought that Darkmod is in significant part a tool-set. My mistake.

Even the example you give may be useful. If switching off the lightgem has the effect of causing you to become in effect invisible, then it may of use for some mad keen person wanting to test the behavior of a new community made AI character, or to make way for a strange new lightgem. I'm really not sure why there would be the motivation to remove that kind of testing functionality.

codereader on 30/10/2007 at 08:59

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

I thought that Darkmod is in significant part a tool-set. My mistake.

I think you're getting me seriously wrong, don't be so polemic.

The Dark Mod is indeed a toolset, one that is aimed to be used for actual gameplay. Creating good gameplay requires certain conditions to be fulfilled, this includes a consistent set of rules and behaviour.

Please, can you explain to me what the benefit is of leaving the jumpheight exposed to players as a console variable?

jay pettitt on 30/10/2007 at 09:04

Yes. Somebody may want play low gravity thief, or experiment with gravity ideas while planning for a new fan mission. It's not as daft as you think; you've played the Constantines mansion mission from thief 1 right? Or perhaps someone wants to make a mission with a high-jump potion and wants to see how the idea might affect gameplay before investing time making and coding the potion proper.

The thing is, if DarkMod gets to be the success we all hope it will be, there's no telling what people will want to do with it; so it seems strange to want to remove that kind of testing functionality.