Mod / Map separation

[Otherside]

at most this warrants an icon similar to the attention icon next to NAT travesal hosted games, next to the map but even then i doubt people will read it or notice it unless you pull something blatant like the old Eyes widget and that is just stupid.

if mappers want to make there own splash screen(like CA communism) when there mod loads or maybe custom loadscreen (is that possible?) but forcing this would be hard and most people would not be bothered

[Regret]

that exists, it happens when you select the mod. This map would not override gundam.

It is irrelevant that this particular map does not override your game, it was an example, it takes near zero effort to create a map which would override your game and most of other games with a game of your choice.

ok so in order to do anything you want players to HAVE TO enable it? yeah I am against that.

It does not hinder any mapmaker, it only hinders the ability to force-override game content without the users consent.

Not really, if I download it and play gundam I am willing to bet it doesn't override gundam

It is irrelevant that this particular map does not override your game, it was an example, it takes near zero effort to create a map which would override your game and most of other games with a game of your choice.

yeah and when users do not click it and shit breaks in other projects. Seriously, I don't think you are thinking it through.

It could be on by default.

[CarRepairer]

and you think one unobvious check box is going to solve the problem??

Something is better than nothing. Come up with a better idea and I'll listen.

Might aswell start removing CA mod options because they give an unfair representation of the mod.

What about if people played every CA game with Concept Lab on.

Go remove the mod options id be so happy :]

So you hate mod options in CA... then take this example:

Imagine if I took out the checkbox for concept lab and made it so all CA games played on every other Tuesday have the concept lab. Do you not agree that this is worse than no checkbox at all? At least the checkbox is something available to a normal user of spring who can see it in the lobby. But hiding the implementation in the mod (like hiding a mod in a map) is not available to him at all. So you should agree with me based on this.

Besides, both lobby clients are really good about showing changed options in bold in the battleroom chat tabs now.

[knorke]

iam not really against it, i just dont see the need? it doesnt seem to add anything new or make things easier. and keep in mind more options make the interface even more messy.

pros:
-noobs dont get fooled this way anymore
-maps and mods are played the way its meant to be
- ??

hm, i dont know. does not confience me

[lurker]

This topic is now about the merits of the idea. Let's try to avoid getting personal, and use the other topic for implementation discussion only.

[zwzsg]

This is getting confusing with all the post disappearing and moving, but thanks for reopening.


Regret, you think of maps as just texture + heightmap. However, maps should not be limited to just that. A map is the world you play in. A world in its own right, with its own specific rules. Rules like: The ships sails in the blue water and not in the green grass. Or like: There is no wind on the moon. Or like: Cheap fusion in speedball. Or like: This plate is a teleporter. Or like: Here is a city. The rule and the scenery goes together as a consistent whole. If you brutally separate the two, it would be as ugly as a maiming a live puppy then offering it to a child.

To be less theorical, I'll give you an exemple. That map Palladium I made, if you block the gadget, it's just a flat expanse of terrain, where the texture on the ground do not correspond to anything. I do not want anyone to play it in such condition. I do not want anyone to think I released a flat uniform map with weird paiting on the ground. I do not want anyone to associate my name with what it would be with the gadget blocked. It would not just be "blocking a feature of the map", it would be making unsuspecting people play on an abominably wrecked up form of my design. They'd think I'm an idiot for making such an awful map, while in fact it would just be because YOU had been wrecking MY work, while still presenting YOUR wrecked up version as mine.

So I request that you should not be allowed to ruin my works, or any other mappers work, in such an abominable way. I say it's abominable because you could completly remove the point of map, turn a masterpiece into a dung, while still pretending it's the orginal form since, to the unsuspecting eye, since the file is the same, not re-released, then it must be the orginal, and so the blame for making the bad map would fell on the mapper instead of the host who ticked the option to strip map of half its content.


Also, the point about "play another authost", and "play another map", are not trolling, but valid point. If you do not like a map, you shouldn't be allowed to twist its creator vision into ways he doth not want. Instead you should respect the creator vision, and if it doesn't suit your taste, just step back and go fetch something you like more.

Your point about "what if the map was good without the extra feature" is not valids, because there is no map shortage, so there's no such a case where you desparetly need a modified version of map. Also, if you manage to be civil, you can just ask the map creator if he'd be inclined to fix this and that flaw you noticed, or to make a variant like this but without that. However, that way, it would still be the creator of the world that'll decide where to split, how to modifiy, and so it would be done in a consistent way. Automated programs cannot be trusted to understand how to modify maps in a sensible way, but a map creator, if he agrees to your pov, could modify while still preserving the map coherency. For exemple, again, on my map Palladium, I made map option to disable the ramp lowering/rising in midgame. But still kept the initial terrain deformation that makes the map what it looks like. How would a raw one-algorithm-fit-all could know precisely which lines to keep and which lines to throw, when they are in the same .lua files? Of course it can't! That is why you should never add a tickbox to strip maps of half their comment.

There, a long post discussing the feature and not refering to meta-discussion about how Regrets ways of arguing are despicable.

[Regret]

To be less theorical, I'll give you an exemple. That map Palladium I made, if you block the gadget, it's just a flat expanse of terrain, where the texture on the ground do not correspond to anything. I do not want anyone to play it in such condition. I do not want anyone to think I released a flat uniform map with weird paiting on the ground. I do not want anyone to associate my name with what it would be with the gadget blocked. It would not just be "blocking a feature of the map", it would be making unsuspecting people play on an abominably wrecked up form of my design. They'd think I'm an idiot for making such an awful map, while in fact it would just be because YOU had been wrecking MY work, while still presenting YOUR wrecked up version as mine.

The same reasoning can be applied to the point of view of a game maker. The maker of a game should be allowed to protect presentation of his work just as a mapper. Hence the problem of how to achieve this so neither damages the work of the other. The obvious example of this being DSD special.

This is what is the whole problem. Who to allow to ruin the work of other? The game maker to ruin mappers work, or mapper to ruin game makers work.

[zwzsg]

If a map comes with settings so wild it will ruin a mod, then that map will soon stop to be played. Report DSD special if you think it's no fair to steal BA and DSD names like that, talk Sienna into making a mod instead of such an heavily mutated map if you believe the changes are so great they warrant being a mod of their own (which they are ofc), or just realise DSD special will soon sink into oblivion and is no reason to amputate Spring of such a nice feature as maps with units.

[Regret]

If a map comes with settings so wild it will ruin a mod, then that map will soon stop to be played. Report DSD special if you think it's no fair to steal BA and DSD names like that, talk Sienna into making a mod instead of such an heavily mutated map if you believe the changes are so great they warrant being a mod of their own (which they are ofc), or just realise DSD special will soon sink into oblivion and is no reason to amputate Spring of such a nice feature as maps with units.

You misunderstood, you yourself said it is important to protect your work from being ruined by others, currently only mappers can ruin the work of game makers, not the other way around. What I am asking for is a compromise between these two so neither can be ruined, or both can be.

[lurker]

Mods can easily ruin maps. A mod could ruin Palladium with a scant few lines of code.

[zwzsg]

If a map ruins a mod, no one will think the mod is to blame, because it's more likely that you'll play the same mod on diverse maps than the same map with diverse mods. And also, mods are better known than maps. Also, you can't give the priority to the mod file that change units 100% of the time because then you're basically removing the map any ability to change units, while if you give priority to the map that don't use it 99% of time then both get their chance and it's more fair.

Or what lurker said.

[Google_Frog]

Just add a little tick box to decide who's work ruins whom. Let's assume for a minute that end users are intelligent enough to see the little tickbox and know that it means that they may not be playing the map/mod they way the map/mod maker designed.

[zwzsg]

Tickbox galore are not the answer to everything.

End users are idiots. Not always their fault, sometimes they just want to play and not gaze upon the meaning of a mysterious tickbox-filled gui. Getting Spring in working order is hard enough, we don't need more options for newbs to break it.

Also, as a general rule, in apps, options are very rarely used. The default value would be used like 97% of the time. If it defaults to breaking my maps, I'll get angry, even if Advanced User that WTFM have a chance to not break it by ticking some unclear option somewhere in the fifth sub-tab of the fourth tab of the third frame of the second window.

[Google_Frog]

Then make it on by default. And how is the mapoptions tab obscure?

[Regret]

Tickbox galore are not the answer to everything.

End users are idiots. Not always their fault, sometimes they just want to play and not gaze upon the meaning of a mysterious tickbox-filled gui. Getting Spring in working order is hard enough, we don't need more options for newbs to break it.

Also, as a general rule, in apps, options are very rarely used. The default value would be used like 97% of the time. If it defaults to breaking my maps, I'll get angry, even if Advanced User that WTFM have a chance to not break it by ticking some unclear option somewhere in the fifth sub-tab of the fourth tab of the third frame of the second window.

If end users are idiots, it is arguable if they care about who made what, and an option would not change that. The tickbox that is proposed here is not something magical or confusing, in fact it is quite clear as to what it does. It should default to be off (as in default to current behavior) to avoid the issue you mentioned.

The host screen is not filled with confusing tickboxes as you make it out to be, it is pretty clear and did not cause any problems due to being overcrowded with tickboxes as far as I know.

[SirMaverick]

The same reasoning can be applied to the point of view of a game maker. The maker of a game should be allowed to protect presentation of his work just as a mapper. Hence the problem of how to achieve this so neither damages the work of the other. The obvious example of this being DSD special.

There was no damage made to anyone's work. TheFatControler gave Senna the rights to apply the changes. The only critical thing was, that these changes were not mentioned/visible to the end user before the game started.
Disabling something without the acknowledgment of the creator is damaging work - like this feature would do.

[Regret]

There was no damage made to anyone's work. TheFatControler gave Senna the rights to apply the changes. The only critical thing was, that these changes were not mentioned/visible to the end user before the game started.
Disabling something without the acknowledgment of the creator is damaging work - like this feature would do.

From what I understand TFC gave senna a go to make a separate mod called Advanced BA, not to do what he did. I may be wrong but DSD special is only used as an example here and it is not the point of this discussion to argue about who gave a right to who about it.

[zwzsg]

Mods can easily ruin maps. A mod could ruin Palladium with a scant few lines of code.

Destroying is easy. Creating is not. Tomorrow I maek mod that coerce every map into being Palladium. And then make it turn Palladium into DSD.

[Regret]

Mods can easily ruin maps. A mod could ruin Palladium with a scant few lines of code.

Destroying is easy. Creating is not. Tomorrow I maek mod that coerce every map into being Palladium. And then make it turn Palladium into DSD.

Let's not get carried away again. Try responding to the suggestion of a the tickbox being default off (as in current behavior).

[SirMaverick]

-noobs dont get fooled this way anymore

Already an indicator, that the maps changes something, without changing the map stops fooling noobs.

-maps and mods are played the way its meant to be

Does only apply to mods. Maps are meant to be played with the changes.