ZDoom

Graf Zahl wrote:

Tormentor667 wrote: After thinking about it for another while I simply think that a different way of displaying stats at the end of a map or hub is needed for the desires of speedrunners or similar audiences. If modders is NOINTERMISSION then it is for a reason. Overriding this with a cvar has nothing to do with obsessions for control but simply for aesthetics and atmospheric decisions.

E1M8, E2M8, E3M8 and E4M8 will have a word with you...

I requested this specifically because I missed the tally screen after these levels. Works like a charm, by the way.

Most functionality for textual output already exists, but currently there is no option to automatically print it when a level ends.

Hannah Goodwell wrote:Sorry to intervene, but howabout directing the level stats silently to the console?

Even now when a level starts it's title "MAP01 - Entryway" is written to the console.
The stats from the finished level could be presented in the same way when entering the intro screen or a new map in a hub.

It sounds good as an extra option. But I would not want it as a replacement for this one.

Sorry to intervene, but howabout directing the level stats silently to the console?

Even now when a level starts it's title "MAP01 - Entryway" is written to the console.
The stats from the finished level could be presented in the same way when entering the intro screen or a new map in a hub.

Mods are still backwards compatible, that has never changed. Taking off the save bit solves a lot of problems here - the player has to CONSCIOUSLY "break" these mods at this point. Or just be stupidly stubborn and stick it in their autoexec.cfg - but again, that's not your problem.

Your fretting over this issue would be the equivalent of me getting all bent out of shape because someone found a way to run GZDoom on DOS. There's virtually no way it'd work - but yet, if someone managed it, I'd say more power to them - but if something breaks, it's literally not my problem because I did nothing to sanction it in the first place. I can't anticipate every problem they'd run into if they run GZDoom in such an undesigned way, nor should I have to.

You really are making a much bigger issue out of this than it needs to be, over something that you literally should not even worry about. I think the user will understand the consequences of forcing a tally screen when one already exists. This feature is not going anywhere - that bit is non-negotiable. It doesn't break things anywhere nearly as bad as you think it does. And sometimes you just have to accept that users are going to do things you don't want them to do. How many bug reports do you get from people running BOA in Software rendering complaining it doesn't look right?

Why is NOINTERMISSION an engine-sidestepping? It’s a feature that is there for decades now and there never was a single reason for considering that users can override this in the engine. Modders never had the chance to either prepare for this.

In the end players will either get 2 tallys or they will get an intermission screen that does neither fit to the tc‘s design nor to the whole style of the mod if it doesn’t rely on an intermission screen at all for design reasons.

I simply think we need to make sure that players know that they will break the mods and design choices modders have made. Just saying that using NOINTERMISSION or creating your own intermission via ACS is sidestepping engine features is not a good call in my opinion. Is this new feature worth breaking old mods? I always thought GZDoom has a philosophy when it comes to keeping mods backwards compatible.

I just repeat myself: If you sidestep engine features, don't be surprised that feature extensions to these features may bite you in the ass later. That's the risk you are willing to take by doing that.

I am a bit sensitive when it comes to engine changes or additional features that potentially break old mods, even if it is just an aesthetical problem. I kinda understand that mods replacing the intermission with ACS (like KDiZD or Square) are a special case but what about mods that use NOINTERMISSION for a reason?

Sure, you can say „players are on their own“ but imagine them playing mods that used the NOINTERMISSION flag and players override it with their cvar option infame. They get a black blank screen, maybe a broken intermission screen after each map, totally destroying the atmosphere for mods that were designed not to use an intermission.

How will people know that it is not a bug in the mod but a „wrong option“ they set in the engine? Not everyone will post a comment about it somewhere. They will maybe use the option (kinda „Hey, I want stats after each map, why shouldn’t I? It’s informative“) and get to the conclusion that a lot of mods are buggy because it has 2 tallys or a broken one, but not talk about it. The experience is not as it is meant to be or how the modders wanted it.

The question is - if the feature is kept and the player is on his own with the options: How will he know that this specific feature will change some mods to the worse?

Oh, I'm very much from the "if the user breaks something by their options, it's their choice" camp. However, if a good middle ground can be established that allows the feature to exist, but minimises the chances of people inadvertently breaking mods, then that would certainly be the best outcome as far as I'm concerned.

This is all why I thought it prudent to try and set up this option as more of a "you are on your own" or "do this at your own risk" type of setup - and removing it from the config file. There really is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem that's going to make everyone perfectly happy, and I'd rather have this option than not have it. I am hoping the solution I put up is some sort of middle ground that everyone can be happy with - it's off by default which means in most cases it will respect the mod author's wishes, and reduces the likelihood that the user will accidentally change that.

I hadn't even thought about maps which provide their own tally. I've certainly released some like that.

I did it with my Burghead mod. From memory, most of the maps have no intermission, but a global count is kept by ACS of all the kills, items and secrets, as well as of any bonus information found and any prisoners rescued. These all get displayed on a custom ACS tally screen once the final map (map112) is complete. The final map (map112) is actually a map that had been visited earlier that you go back to after being on map113. If you have found additional items or rescued prisoners, the end sequence shown before the tally is altered slightly.

So, forcing tallies on that mod would mean getting the default Doom-style tally between most maps where it isn't intended (and tallies for gathered info etc would not be present), you would presumably get a (default Doom) tally on leaving map 112 to go to map 113, get another one on coming back to map112 from 113, then on completing map112 for the final time, you would get the end sequence followed by the ACS tally and then a default Doom tally.


I also did an ACS tally on my Heretic Thief map to show how much loot you had gathered during the map and to thereby assign you a "thief rating" as well as the usual kills etc. That's not as complicated as the Burghead situation but it would still, presumably, mean getting the ACS tally with all its loot etc stuff and then a default Heretic one afterwards as well.

But if you don't save it users will ask why it's not being saved.

I'll just remove the save bit from the CVAR then, and leave it in the menu.

@ AFADoomer & Tormentor667: Sometimes you just have to tell the end-user - "you are on your own." That's how it is with a lot of things. It's up to them to preserve or mess up their own experience - you are not their slave and you don't have to go to bat for every stupid thing they do.

Even if a mod has 2 tally screens - so what? It's not the end of the world. At least with it being removed from the config file now, though, it will require the user to have done it intentionally to themselves.

I don't think this is that much of a deal and don't like the idea of hash checking, that would be way overkill IMO.

Not saving it may make more sense but if we discount older mods we again have a situation where modders are not using the features made for a certain job but working around them.
It is not surprising that this may eventually backfire. It is virtually impossible to account for any trick in the book and deal with it while improving the experience for the end user.

Every trick and workaround of this kind that needs to be preserved means less options in the future.
Please always keep this in mind when deeming an official feature unsuitable and rolling out your own replacement for it!