codereader on 30/10/2007 at 10:25
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Oh right, you want to stop us from cheating. That's very noble of you.
You think we just want you to stop from cheating? That's wrong, in fact we can't.
What we're trying to do is to make the life of mappers easier, because, I may cite:
Darkmod is in significant part a tool-set.jay pettitt on 30/10/2007 at 10:28
Quote Posted by codereader
Well, we already posted the reason. ;)
It's hardly a compelling reason though is it? A compelling reason would be to address performance, usability or stability issues. Removing stuff because you want to make it hard for people to change things seems a bizarre stance to take. Still, if you're minded to maintain two separate builds, I guess we'll mostly be downloading the map makers edition.
codereader on 30/10/2007 at 10:35
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
It's hardly a compelling reason though is it? A compelling reason would be to
address performance, usability or stability issues.
Exacly, agreed. I don't see any disagreement with what I was trying to say before though.
Quote:
Removing stuff because you want to make it hard for people to change things seems a bizarre stance to take. Still, if you're minded to maintain two separate builds, I guess we'll mostly be downloading the map makers edition.
You seem to be very concerned about
cheating changing things, aren't you? ;) And who is that "we" you're mentioning?
R Soul on 30/10/2007 at 10:45
I'm not arguing about removing some of the more advanced variables, but:
Quote Posted by sparhawk
As an example, I introduced a variable where the ingame model for the lightgem can be changed via a cvar.
...
This definitely doesn't serve any purpose for anybody and doesn't need to be changed by anybody either unless you are rewriting the lightgem code
I imagine the authors of T2X would have liked that ability. So just in case someone wants a mission about a n00b becoming a thief, can you leave that one in? :)
Dram on 30/10/2007 at 10:48
Quote Posted by R Soul
I imagine the authors of T2X would have liked that ability. So just in case someone wants a mission about a n00b becoming a thief, can you leave that one in? :)
You will still be able to change the lightgem model itself anyway. It is just a regular lightwave object model, so for a fan mission you could just package up a different model. I already played around with this before and you can do some crazy things with it, like making the gem only react to red light or green light etc through filters. The material handling system is quite robust :)
Briareos H on 30/10/2007 at 10:51
If I recall correctly, CVARs are not tools for the FM maker, they are variables that only the end user would change, which is why I don't understand jay pettitt's point. Thief is all about playing a mission within the limited universe that only the author envisions and finding ways of getting stuff done with or around those constraints. Thief is not about tweaking game-breaking variables* so you can finish the mission the author created more quickly, that's just a lack of respect.
* not including walk speed, FOV and that kind of obvious tweaks
Dram on 30/10/2007 at 10:57
Well currently in creating Blackheart Manor I use many commands and cvars - namely the movement speed of noclip, noclip itself (for getting to a further part in the mission quickly), god (of course), and basically give ammo commands. This is all stuff for use as a fm developer but I can only imagine those same variables/commands being used as cheats to finish a specific part of a mission.
Naturally those are all needed for fm creation, so tagging them to a single developer shortcut is probably a good idea. That way you can have several shortcuts to dark mod, one of which is used for testing etc and another for playing. I currently use 4 shortcuts - one for the editor, one for playing, one for creating cubemaps, and one for fraps recordings.
jay pettitt on 30/10/2007 at 11:06
Quote Posted by codereader
Exacly, agreed. I don't see any disagreement with what I was trying to say before though...
You don't? you never mentioned performance, stability or usability. You've argued that it's somehow morally wrong to be able to deviate the gameplay mechanics of the DarkMod and that you therefore have a responsibility to mappers to make it difficult to do so.
Quote:
...You seem to be very concerned about [cheating] changing things, aren't you? And who is that "we" you're mentioning?
Yes, you're right. I am concerned about your stance on 'cheating'. There are times when I like to do things not intended for no other reason than I've got 10 minutes spare and it's something to do. Sometimes I get frustrated by my lack of ability to make progress and want to skip something out, sometimes I like being nosy and seeing how things are done. Sometimes I do a spot of beta testing for maps, despite not being a map maker myself and have a doubly legitimate reason for doing so beyond for my own gratification of whimsy. I think you'll find these are fairly common amongst gamers as well as map makers; hence the 'we'. I presume 'we' will have access to the map makers builds.
Mostly though I'm surprised that you seem not to be embracing the idea that people will want to further modify DarkMod outside of the official builds, or just have fun poking about and seeing how things work and that you think it should be necessary that players need to download a separate edition should they decide at some point down the road to have a go at this map making malarky. I'd have thought the emphasis would be on leaving as much of this stuff in as possible, rather than stripping it out in an attempt to prevent modification.
codereader on 30/10/2007 at 11:14
I never said it's "somehow morally wrong" to alter The Dark Mod. Nor was I not embracing the idea that people will modify the Dark Mod after its release. In fact I welcomed that idea.
You're deliberately misinterpreting my statements, I'll stop arguing here.
snowcap21 on 30/10/2007 at 11:21
Quote Posted by sparhawk
We are also considering a development build for mappers, so that players don't have all the cvars available that mappers may need, as it is way to easy to cheat in Doom and if it is accessible it will be used, which spoils the experience.
Not to question the teams decision here, as you can obviously do as you like, but I think you misjudge the average thief player here. Most of us are happy to play a mission "as it is meant to be played" by the author. And people here are really intelligent enough to realize, that cheating can break a mission, so the example of someone never finding the "right" (interesting) way seems a little bit far fetched to me.
But I can easily think of missions, where - after having played a mission properly - I like to wander around and have a look. Now I either ko everybody or load the mission in Dromed.
My point is: for the normal player you don't need to remove those options, maybe just put it in an extra menu, so it is clear, that changing them can have a serious impact on gameplay. The real cheaters will use your developers build anyway, so there's no way to stop them. And I'd use it too, just not to "break" anything;)
Thank you very much for all your work and dedication. I'm really looking forward to the release :)
