Page 1 of 9
Mod / Map separation
Posted: 06 Jun 2009, 23:56
by Regret
Ability to disallow loading of game-related content out of map archives.
i.e. way to block "mod in a map"
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 00:01
by Neddie
Ability to disallow mod or game tampering with map elements such as feature resources, typemaps, water depth, etcetera.
I don't know what you're whining about though, just don't play DSD Special. It isn't that hard.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 00:06
by Regret
neddiedrow wrote:Ability to disallow mod or game tampering with map elements such as feature resources, typemaps, water depth, etcetera.
EDIT:disregard that i suck cocks
neddiedrow wrote:I don't know what you're whining about though, just don't play DSD Special. It isn't that hard.
There already is a topic for this, go troll somewhere else.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 01:12
by Strategia
Wouldn't this lead to desyncs or other errors? If some players disable map-mod loading, they'll have other data than those that haven't disabled it. I'm no expert, but I believe this will just lead to streams of errors and desyncs.
Besides, mightn't this also cause proper map features to be blocked? I'm no expert, but I know some maps have custom features that are stored in the map itself, wouldn't this be tricky to manoeuvre between, legitimate features and map-mods?
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 01:17
by Regret
Strategia wrote:Wouldn't this lead to desyncs or other errors? If some players disable map-mod loading, they'll have other data than those that haven't disabled it. I'm no expert, but I believe this will just lead to streams of errors and desyncs.
Besides, mightn't this also cause proper map features to be blocked? I'm no expert, but I know some maps have custom features that are stored in the map itself, wouldn't this be tricky to manoeuvre between, legitimate features and map-mods?
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.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 01:33
by zwzsg
Please no, I still want to have specials maps with custom wildlife, or unit duplicators, or stuff like that.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 02:08
by Regret
Regret wrote:It would be specified inside the mod whether map can override its files
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 02:38
by Strategia
And if the large mods (BA/XTA mainly atm) use it, they'd basically be overriding legitimate custom features that are present in a lot of maps, so there'd be..... issues. I don't see how applying this to large mods really fixes anything. And with that, it basically becomes useless.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 02:41
by Pxtl
Many maps have custom features that will break the game if used on the wrong mod. Now, since a map works without any code, but a mod doesn't, it makes sense to allow the mod priority.
I'd like to see it in EngineOptions.
I mean, look at StarCraft - it had a huge community of Use Map Settings games, and all of those could be disabled to be vanilla melee maps.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 02:49
by zwzsg
Yeah, a tick box in the lobby would already be much better than a tag in the mod.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 03:54
by Regret
Strategia wrote:And if the large mods (BA/XTA mainly atm) use it, they'd basically be overriding legitimate custom features that are present in a lot of maps, so there'd be..... issues. I don't see how applying this to large mods really fixes anything. And with that, it basically becomes useless.
I don't see the problem with allowing gamemakers to control their game in this regard, it is the choice of the developers to allow you to make mods for their games.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 04:26
by lurker
It's the choice of mappers what games work on it.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 05:09
by Beherith
lurker wrote:It's the choice of mappers what games work on it.
+1
I think just ignoring the maps wind value is already stretching it.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 05:11
by CarRepairer
+1
If this were an option I'd totally say it should go into CA. I don't want people to play CA after I put so much hard work into it and
not even be aware that a map is drastically changing the gameplay and units.
Beherith wrote:lurker wrote:It's the choice of mappers what games work on it.
+1
I think just ignoring the maps wind value is already stretching it.
Oh really? If you make a map and balance it for "BA wind" then no other game should be able to use it?
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 05:31
by lurker
Mods already have a multiplier for how much wind is worth, ignoring the map trying to be high or low isn't a great policy.
Maps get to set anything they want. They can make the entire thing impassable and unbuildable for your game. Blocking a map from giving you a minifusion, or from having teleport zones, or from having meteor showers, or from having wildlife is not a good idea. I don't want people to play [map] after I put so much hard work into it and not even be aware that a mod is drastically changing the gameplay, flora, and fauna.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 05:34
by zwzsg
Have you tried contacting whoever runs Jobjol to get that DSD special map removed?
Have you tried contacting TheFatController to
blacklist that DSD special map in next BA?
No, of course not, instead you just want to ruin any chance of ever making maps with their own units or gadgets.
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 06:06
by Pressure Line
Has anyone tried asking Senna to update the description on Jobjol and have a detailed welcome message on the autohost?
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 06:20
by SirMaverick
I don't see the problem with allowing gamemakers to control their game in this regard
If someone puts a mod inside a map archive he is a game maker.
CarRepairer wrote:If this were an option I'd totally say it should go into CA. I don't want people to play CA after I put so much hard work into it and not even be aware that a map is drastically changing the gameplay and units.
It should be made more clear, that its not 100% CA.
If people want to play with a changed gameplay they won't play CA. (People do play speed maps. And speed maps are not the only possible changes that can be made.)
Oh really? If you make a map and balance it for "BA wind" then no other game should be able to use it?
BA wind work for several mods. CA wind just for one.
Maps get to set anything they want. They can make the entire thing impassable and unbuildable for your game. Blocking a map from giving you a minifusion, or from having teleport zones, or from having meteor showers, or from having wildlife is not a good idea. I don't want people to play [map] after I put so much hard work into it and not even be aware that a mod is drastically changing the gameplay, flora, and fauna.
+1
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 06:24
by SirMaverick
zwzsg wrote:Have you tried contacting whoever runs Jobjol to get that DSD special map removed?
The internet has more than one web server.
Have you tried contacting TheFatController to
blacklist that DSD special map in next BA?
Next version will be named: "DSD extraordinaire". Do you want to start a race?
Re: Mod / Map separation
Posted: 07 Jun 2009, 08:18
by CarRepairer
Lurker, I am officially taking down my +1.
This whole debate is somewhat moot as anyone can modify a map or mod to their whim in the end, and it's only a matter of whether we slow them down or not. So I thought about it and I hereby recommend an alternative to this request.
Add an engine option that allows enabling/disabling of the contents within the map, and one for the mod. If both are enabled, have an option to determine whether map overrides mod or mod overrides map, when both are enabled.
These options would then be an indicator to the player that he is playing a map's contents, or a mod's contents, or both and if so which is layered on which. Then all is fair.