Mod / Map separation

[Google_Frog]

I'm all for an option to disable this but I think it should be in the lobby. What if a map breaks the gameplay of a game that the map was not made for due to custom features? The map may be really good if it weren't for those features so wouldn't it be nice if the players of that game could change the map so can be played even if it was designed for a different game?

[lurker]

Definitely in the lobby. A paranoid mod shouldn't ruin legitimate maps. I don't know what to do about a mod that wants to have it default on, though. Engineoptions gives the mod complete control, even to hide the option. But where else to put it, hardcode the lobbies?

[Regret]

A paranoid mod shouldn't ruin legitimate maps.

Maps are made for games, not the other way around. If a gamemaker does not want maps to redefine his game he should be able to enforce it. It is not ruining legitimate maps.

[Otherside]

theres 100's of maps you can just play another and in this case there is a normal version of a map

[Regret]

theres 100's of maps you can just play another and in this case there is a normal version of a map

Can you just shut the fuck up already? You keep repeating the same thing over and over, the problem is not being unable to play another map, the problem is the ability of users to create mods in maps that hijack the name of a mod.

[Tobi]

Only thing that should be done IMO is map not being allowed to override mod files.

Map should still be allowed to add units, use those units in LuaGaia, etc.

Whether the map would be allowed to change for example the build tree of the mod, hence making the new unit actually buildable by players, could be a user/mod configurable thing.

[zwzsg]

Can you just shut the fuck up already?

Is this the only argumentation you can provide?

[Regret]

Is this the only argumentation you can provide?

the problem is not being unable to play another map, the problem is the ability of users to create mods in maps that hijack the name of a mod.

Try reading more than one sentence. Also otherside is just following me around threads and keeps trolling, hence my proper response.

Only thing that should be done IMO is map not being allowed to override mod files.

Map should still be allowed to add units, use those units in LuaGaia, etc.

Whether the map would be allowed to change for example the build tree of the mod, hence making the new unit actually buildable by players, could be a user/mod configurable thing.

Which is exactly what i proposed!

It would be specified inside the mod whether map can override its files, not user specified. All that is required is disallowing maps to overwrite files that are already in the modfile and disallow of including LuaRules gadgets.

[zwzsg]

Also otherside is just following me around threads and keeps trolling, hence my proper response.

Only if by "trolling" you mean "disagreeing".

It would be specified inside the mod whether map can override its files, not user specified.

No, it should be lobby specificed. Though I'm against the option anyway.

The internet has more than one web server.

Any map that is neither on jobjol nor SpringDownloader is non-existent for all intents and purposes.

Do you want to start a race?

A lone man cannot outrace an angry mob.

Do you seen any mirrors of Yan's Ba 6.7? If no, you'd have the removal of first BA hijack was pretty effective, and didn't require any engine change.

[Regret]

Only if by "trolling" you mean "disagreeing".

From another thread:

this is stupid pointless whining you can just go another autohost and play normal dsd its not exactly hard to get a BA game or voting for normal maps

He did not say anything constructive then, he didn't say anything constructive now.

No, it should be lobby specificed. Though I'm against the option anyway.

The whole point is to disallow map-mod overhauls, providing a button to turn it off makes it useless.

What was proposed would still allow for any sort of fancy fauna and critters and whatnot in the maps, it would only prevent maps from overriding mod files and including LuaRules gadgets.

[zwzsg]

I already made one map with a LuaRules gadgets, and plan on doing more, and I don't want you to force an engine change that would break them just because you refuse to even try the other way to deal with mod hijacks.

[Tobi]

The fact that LuaRules works in a map is a bug anyway, so I don't consider that a problem: http://springrts.com/mantis/view.php?id=944

Code: Select all

        Init(LuaRulesSyncedFilename, LuaRulesUnsyncedFilename, SPRING_VFS_MOD);

Note the 'SPRING_VFS_MOD'.

[zwzsg]

Well, make LuaGaia less limited, then I can start using it instead of LuaRules.

[jK]

it is in 79.1

[Regret]

I already made one map with a LuaRules gadgets, and plan on doing more, and I don't want you to force an engine change that would break them just because you refuse to even try the other way to deal with mod hijacks.

As I said before, an OPTION for gamemakers to use, as in NOT FORCED ON EVERY GAME MADE.

[zwzsg]

Yes, because yelling makes you more right.

As I said before, an OPTION for gamemakers to use, as in NOT FORCED ON EVERY GAME MADE.

Except it will be turned on in every game made. Therefore I request an option for mapmakers to disable your option. But don't worry it won't be forced on every map made!

this is stupid pointless whining you can just go another autohost and play normal dsd its not exactly hard to get a BA game or voting for normal maps

He did not say anything constructive then, he didn't say anything constructive now.

You just quoted him offering a simple and effective solution. But because it wasn't the one you want to hear, you label a "troll", and "non constructive".

I can do it too: Hey Regret you're a troll! You keep posting non-constructive threads! Get out of spring forum!

[Regret]

Yes, because yelling makes you more right.

I wrote it in caps because I already said it in this thread, then quoted what I said once more. This 3rd time I wanted to make sure the letters are big enough to be read by people that are a bit vision impaired.

It was not to persuade you about it being right, it was to communicate what I said so you can comprehend that it is not proposed to be obligatory.

Except it will be turned on in every game made. Therefore I request an option for mapmakers to disable your option. But don't worry it won't be forced on every map made!

It would not make sense to block out a block out, games should logically be in power over what they do with maps, not the other way around.

You just quoted him offering a simple and effective solution. But because it wasn't the one you want to hear, you label a "troll", and "non constructive".

He did not offer any solution to the present problem. He offered to ignore the problem.

[CarRepairer]

I'm all for an option to disable this but I think it should be in the lobby. What if a map breaks the gameplay of a game that the map was not made for due to custom features? The map may be really good if it weren't for those features so wouldn't it be nice if the players of that game could change the map so can be played even if it was designed for a different game?

That's what I meant, for those options to be in the lobby.

[knorke]

games should logically be in power over what they do with maps, not the other way around.

why? both should be able to manipulate each other.
kernel panic uses the metalmap to place sockets.
is that cool? yes. why is it bad the other way around?

the speedball maps by Trademark (i think) add a fusion to the buildtree of the commander to make for a nice lol-map.
this works for all mods, at least the *a ones i played it with.

if the map cant add such a unit anymore you would have to change the mod itself and make a ba_6.1_fusion.
when a new ba comes out you also have to release ba_6.2_fusion.
a map can stay the same and work with all versions!
oh, and also needs ca_5221_fusion, xta_9_fusion etc.

i think there are some cool options, so far they just are not really used other than some funmaps.
what if you make a map with rivers of lava that kill units?
you could add a lava-resist hovercraft via the map, again this would work for all mods. or maybe you could even do a CTF that works with all mods, iam not sure.

People just want to kill that feature because some attentionwhore used it to fake a modname before others could use it for cool stuff.

i think a
[x] use map settings
option when hosting would solve the problem, starcraft did it that way and it worked. maybe there could also be a second description text, saying what get changed. so you keep the normal description of the map with credits etc.

[CarRepairer]

It's the deceit that irked me. He placed his mod into a map and piggyback off the most popular mod name "Balanced Annihilation" to get people to play it. This is wrong because

[*]People who know they want to play BA are tricked into playing another mod and their time is wasted.

[*]New people to spring will assume this is BA and that's a false impression which is unfair to the makers of BA.

[*]It's immoral to use deceitfully someone else's popular name to promote your own product, because you didn't earn that popularity.

It's as though you sell your own drink recipe in a glass when the sign outside your store says Coca Cola.

It would not make sense to block out a block out, games should logically be in power over what they do with maps, not the other way around.

This is what it comes down to and where the debate ultimately lies. Right now, the map has complete and ultimate power over the mod. There is nothing a mod can do. Hence my suggestion:

[ ] Enable mod contents?
[ ] Enable map contents?
[ ] Map overrides mod [ ] Mod overrides map.

It sounds stupid but what choice do we have? If I make something, I want people to know that they are playing what I made, not thinking they are while playing something else. Map or Mod.

At least with these options there would be an indication to players that they aren't purely playing the mod. Since Senna made no attempt to put it in his map's description, this would be the indicator instead.