User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Moderator: GZDoom Developers

User avatar
Nash
 
 
Posts: 17433
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Contact:

User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Nash »

https://github.com/coelckers/gzdoom/pull/756

This implements save and automap blocking via MAPINFO. User can simply override these so it will be like the feature isn't even there. Based on ideas by Rachael and Xaser.

Update: they are now OFF by default and are strictly opt-in. Settings are saved.
Last edited by Nash on Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Graf Zahl »

Forget it. You can ask as much as you want about such a feature, but the only way I'd consider it is that

a) the user preference is saved persistently and
b) the default setting is 'off', i.e. the user has to explicitly allow a mod to block these.

which, I guess, will render the whole thing useless.
User avatar
Nash
 
 
Posts: 17433
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Contact:

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Nash »

A) I was pretty sure I set the CVar to be archived... probably an oversight.
B) I can do that.

It can still be useful for project authors even if it's defaulted to off. A forked engine project can enable to opt in for this feature.
User avatar
Nash
 
 
Posts: 17433
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Contact:

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Nash »

Sorry for double-post. It looks from this post that you would have made dm(2)flags archived... should I go ahead and do that? Doing that would have this PR covered for issue (A).
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Graf Zahl »

The dmflags are not archived and I'm not sure if they should because it would be a major break from past conventions.
Regsardless, this isn't something that should be lumped in there but a separate setting. Unlike the other dmflags, which handle specific gameplay related elements, this one is a clear user preference.
gramps
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:16 pm

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by gramps »

I'm not sure if this is common, but because of the way LevelCompatibility currently works, I have a situation where saving the game really shouldn't be allowed without first exiting to another level in the hub to save, and then returning to the level being played on load (because my LevelCompatibility needs some info that's saved in a "static" thinker that's not loaded yet unless you load a different map first).

I can manage most of this for the player, and let them save (more or less) seamlessly any time, but this feature would be useful to keep the player from accidentally corrupting the savegame.
Blue Shadow
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:59 am

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Blue Shadow »

That sounds like something someone could abuse to force the player to disable saving. Me no like...

Yeah, I don't really have that much faith in the Doom community, especially with how much power ZScript is giving modders.
User avatar
Xaser
 
 
Posts: 10772
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2003 12:15 pm
Contact:

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Xaser »

Quoting the relevant part of the proposal from the other thread:
Xaser wrote:The gist: add a 'nomanualsaves' option to MAPINFO that works exactly like nocrouch/nojump: by default it prevents manual saves, but the user can set an 'sv_allowsaves' cvar that overrides it permanently.
It's just like nocrouch/nojump; for those who don't like the behavior, flip on the cvar and saves work again, permanently.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Graf Zahl »

There's one major difference: Jumping and crouching are part of the gameplay experience. Saving is part of the USER experience and that's a completely different can of worms.
Blue Shadow wrote: Yeah, I don't really have that much faith in the Doom community
Same here. I think one can safely divide the community in two groups here:

1) Those who care about making a good games within the engine's confines and let the player decide what they like. These will never ask for such a feature nor consider using it.
2) The control freaks who get sleepless nights when thinking about the possibility that someone playing their game might do something unexpected - and I believe that these would go to any length to force their vision down their users' throats. And let me clearly say that this is something I have strong reservations about.
User avatar
Nash
 
 
Posts: 17433
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Contact:

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Nash »

Update: they are now OFF by default and are strictly opt-in. Settings are saved.
User avatar
Kinsie
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:22 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: MAP33
Contact:

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Kinsie »

I feel like making this opt-in renders it useless outside of a stand-alone game that enables the CVar by default, and I think adding features to the engine that are only useful to one single project is kind of wasteful and leads to unpleasant debris further down the line.

EDIT: Also, I just noticed the bit about blocking the automap. This is a terrible idea, and the only reason anyone would ever want to disable the automap is because they are ashamed of their level design and wish to hide it from the player as much as possible.
User avatar
kevansevans
Spotlight Team
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:04 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Contact:

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by kevansevans »

I think what's leading to a lot of disagreement with the above proposals is a self projection on how "Doom" should be played, which if you ask me, is a load of poppycock. We're not reinventing or remaking Doom here, we're making mods. They are expected to make the game play differently. Ultimately, this feature would give a lot of options for the modder to craft a more unique experience for the player. The developer may want to make the save system a reward for good effort, or make the map a reward for careful observations. That's just off the top of my head, but a lot of people against this idea feel like they've never played a Resident Evil game, or really played Quake.

To assume the modder would abuse these features is a very poor argument, as any feature that's been added in the past has been abused just fine. No one's calling for the removal of hud message because people use it make terry traps.

I do support the option of a cvar to override this function, as it's the middle ground I think everyone can agree on.
User avatar
Enjay
 
 
Posts: 26516
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 4:58 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Enjay »

I am very much with Graf on this - perhaps even more so. If I came across a mod that was trying to prevent me saving, I'd probably just bin it unconditionally. At best, I'd enable cheats, run around any maps for a quick look, maybe try a feature or two and then bin it. It would certainly never end up on a must-play list.

I'm pretty bloody minded about it (not necessarily an attractive characteristic, I concede). If a mod somehow suggested that I should play it using only the saving provided by the mod autosaving (or whatever), I'd probably comply and try to play it "honestly". It's the...
Graf Zahl wrote:2) The control freaks who get sleepless nights when thinking about the possibility that someone playing their game might do something unexpected - and I believe that these would go to any length to force their vision down their users' throats.
aspect of it that pisses me off.

Make me a suggestion and I'm fine with it. Try to force what happens on my computer and the mod is consigned to the bin.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49056
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Graf Zahl »

Enjay wrote:I am very much with Graf on this - perhaps even more so. If I came across a mod that was trying to prevent me saving, I'd probably just bin it unconditionally. At best, I'd enable cheats, run around any maps for a quick look, maybe try a feature or two and then bin it. It would certainly never end up on a must-play list.
About this, I'd like to point to a 1994 map called castevil.wad

This is surely one of the most impressive things, if not the most impressive thing to be made in 1994. The problem: The map is so large that it exploded the savegame buffer.
The end result: It wasn't until 1998 that I finally played through it, for the simple reason that I could not save.
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13530
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
Contact:

Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)

Post by Rachael »

This is my stance on the issue:

I want the feature to be accepted because it IS a compromise - a middle ground if you will - to the whole debate. It's not so much the feature itself that I am interested in, as I am more interested in finally ENDING this fucking debate once and for all.

This is one of those polarizing issues where you're either staunchly for it or staunchly against it, and literally every time it comes up there's an argument somewhere about it and people are simply unmovable.

Look - if we don't come to SOME sort of compromise, this is one of those things that could legitimately rip close friends apart. It's not worth it over a fucking source port for a 25 year old game. So let's try to focus on something that would at least make us happy. If it's an opt-in feature - fine - but at least at that point it's even THERE in the first place.

I am very much in the same camp with Enjay and Graf on this issue, but even I have to acknowledge that it's time to find some middle ground on this. This issue has been plaguing us for too long - it's time to go back to petty arguments over whether unfiltered texturing looks better or if linear filtering looks better. I'm sick of this debate.

Sure - this feature can be outright rejected. Fine. But that's going to cause the issue to keep coming up - again, and again, and again, and again... like I said, I am SICK of it! This compromise gives both sides cake - let's just enjoy our cake, now that everyone gets a slice.
Locked

Return to “Closed Feature Suggestions [GZDoom]”