GORT on 11/3/2019 at 12:18
That may be so for the old FMs. But since the beginning of NewDark FMs, authors may have relied on having new_mantle working on some fences and/or railings. I know I wanted it in TROTB 2.
marbleman on 11/3/2019 at 12:19
Then I don't understand why you want to specifically make iron fences and cemetery doors unmantleable. Mantling objects in OldDark was pretty bad overall. Where do you draw the line?
Moreover, FMs made for NewDark often rely on new mantle. A case in point is my own mission, which has a ton of objects that have to be mantleable because the mission would be unwinnable otherwise. No, those objects are not the cemetery door and iron fence. But they would have been unmantleable on OldDark.
voodoo47 on 11/3/2019 at 12:25
ok, but those particular two should be very safe. also, if you really, positively want to make something important mantleable in your mission, nobody is stopping you from slapping the prop onto the concrete to make dead sure.
anyway, points have been made as far as mods are concerned, so lets steer this away from the maybe questionable stuff found in TFix (T2Fix is much stricter with this if you haven't noticed) - @Jax64, how are the original executables handled? remember, cam.cfg cannot be shared between oldDark and NewDark, and saves should be separate as well, so some hexediting will be required if you want to mirror what TFix is doing. //installed the latest build with the original executables checked, and it seems like everything is set up and working. nice, but hoo-boy, oldDark sure is rough on the eyes and fingers.
Psych0sis on 11/3/2019 at 18:32
I think trying to change a game to accommodate for something the community introduced that wasn't entirely necessary is a dangerous path to walk down. Also leaving such changes and any other subjective enhancements as auto-enabled is very, very poor design choice.
On another note, I just noticed the mod has AM16's resource package, which also is problematic. It changes around the level triggers on some levels and also makes all metal doors unbashable/blow up-able, which was an intended mechanic and deprives the player of an option of strategy through the level, unless its been changes since then.
JarlFrank on 11/3/2019 at 18:53
Quote Posted by voodoo47
ok, but those particular two should be very safe. also, if you really, positively want to make something important mantleable in your mission, nobody is stopping you from slapping the prop onto the concrete to make dead sure.
Newdark has existed for a couple of years now, and with it new mantle.
And now you are placing responsibility of making objects that are mantleable by default with newdark upon the authors... retroactively? Just because these objects used to not be mantleable in vanilla? What if a new author who only worked with newdark and new mantle placed a torch sconce with the intention of making it mantleable, and you need to mantle it in order to beat the mission? The patch would break the mission and suddenly people would flood the FM thread with bug reports about something that isn't the author's fault.
"Fixing" this is a bad idea.
voodoo47 on 11/3/2019 at 19:29
guys, seriously, if you don't like what the patchers do, you (and anyone else, for that matter) have the perfectly valid option to not use them (other packages are available). we've been there with TFix - "we won't be satisfied until you remove everything what makes TFix TFix from TFix". and I've actually done it - TFix lite. guess that's still not enough for some reason? is adding "use this fm with TFix lite for everything to work as intended" to your readme that difficult?
Quote Posted by Psych0sis
AM16's resource package, which also is problematic.
you can fling crap my way all day long (sometimes I deserve it), but pissing on AM16's overhaul and the insane amount of work that went into it is rather pathetic, and I would very much like to see it stop. anyway, let me try to wrap my mind around this again - the patchers are just there, available for all those who want what they offer. they are fully optional, nobody is holding anyone at gunpoint. so essentially what you are saying here is that
you don't approve of other people downloading and using them, because that offends your perception of how the game should be played? have you ever considered maybe letting people use what they want? or asking yourself why anyone should care how do you feel about things?
that is, I believe, the fundamental difference between us - I'm not forcing anything on anyone. "here's some stuff I've put together, use it if you like it, or don't". and that's all there's to it.
anyway, this is starting to derail for quite a bit - if we really want to pursue this vein, feel free to create a topic in Tech or CommChat. I'll (un)happily continue this there. also, I'm kind of disappointed that we had to show Jax64 this part of our characters.
Psych0sis on 11/3/2019 at 19:44
Quote Posted by voodoo47
you can fling crap my way all day long (sometimes I deserve it), but pissing on AM16's overhaul and the insane amount of work that went into it is rather pathetic, and I would very much like to see it stop.
Where did I piss all over it? I said the inclusion of it by default is probably not the best idea because, again, it fundamentally changes the way the game can play, which is a problem. Don't go full "All fms are good cause they exist :angel:" type mentality. I don't really care how much effort or work went into it, I'm sure its pretty cool what he was able to do and some might appreciate it, but including it by default is just wrong.
So basically just improve your reading comprehension before you get offended next time :).
voodoo47 on 11/3/2019 at 19:54
it is the point of a patcher. you run exe, click next next next, you now play the game pretty. if you not want pretty, you no run patcher.
very simple. also I'm in no way offended (am I even capable of being offended? not sure), but if the AM16 pack is referred to as "problematic", I do find that slightly annoying. like when a drooling kid sucking on a lollipop comes to you and pokes your trousers with the sticky thing for no good reason, and you are considering a friendly slap, but then you just end up feeling sorry for the parents - that kind of annoying.
marbleman on 11/3/2019 at 19:59
We can also put it this way. So far, DMLs have been used to fix broken scripting and make unwinnable missions winnable. This seems more than reasonable.
However, I'm not sure there has been a DML that makes objects unmantleable, but I may be wrong here.
Now, imagine finding a FM where you can get out of bounds or blow up a door. Would you apply a DML for it without the author's consent? If that were my mission, I'd be pretty pissed. Now imagine doing this to every FM ever. The only person who decides how objects should function in their mission is the author. And "if you want to failproof your mission, do this and that" argument doesn't cut it for retired authors.
voodoo47 on 11/3/2019 at 20:08
that wasn't an argument, just a suggestion - I also do it here and there (SS2). and yes, TFix makes a lot of stuff unmantleable (that was not mantleable in oldDark), like, a LOT. no reports of broken stuff so far..
ok, the way I see it, there are two routes that can be taken, both are very valid - you either accept the patcher as the backbone and start to construct your FMs with it in mind, or simply tell people who are interested in playing your fm that using the lite version of the patcher is a hard requirement. I don't mind either way.
