User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
Moderator: GZDoom Developers
User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
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.
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.
- Graf Zahl
- Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
- Posts: 49056
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
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.
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.
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
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.
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.
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
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).
- Graf Zahl
- Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
- Posts: 49056
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
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.
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.
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 4949
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:59 am
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
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.
Yeah, I don't really have that much faith in the Doom community, especially with how much power ZScript is giving modders.
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
Quoting the relevant part of the proposal from the other thread:
It's just like nocrouch/nojump; for those who don't like the behavior, flip on the cvar and saves work again, permanently.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.
- Graf Zahl
- Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
- Posts: 49056
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
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.
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.
Same here. I think one can safely divide the community in two groups here:Blue Shadow wrote: Yeah, I don't really have that much faith in the Doom community
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.
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
Update: they are now OFF by default and are strictly opt-in. Settings are saved.
- 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)
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.
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.
- 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)
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.
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.
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
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...
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.
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...
aspect of it that pisses me off.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.
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.
- Graf Zahl
- Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
- Posts: 49056
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
About this, I'd like to point to a 1994 map called castevil.wadEnjay 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.
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.
Re: User-overridable save and automap blocker (MAPINFO)
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.
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.