Customization

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
penguin
macOS Packager
Posts: 239
Joined: April 17th, 2004, 5:16 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by penguin »

I'm not following what's going on here at all, just a note: Wesnoth does compile in VC++6. At least, it did, I don't think Dave's started taking out compatibility for it in favor of VC++7 yet.
isaac
Inactive Developer
Posts: 173
Joined: January 15th, 2004, 5:09 pm
Location: Zaragoza, Spain
Contact:

Post by isaac »

muxec wrote: An example of what we can do with overexperience:
As lots of people have already said: "You can do that without changing any Wesnoth code".
miyo
Posts: 2201
Joined: August 19th, 2003, 4:28 pm
Location: Finland

Post by miyo »

muxec wrote:These ideas are frequently proposed, it means almost one third of players want them implemented.
So? How many % of devs like the idea?

- Miyo
muxec
Posts: 119
Joined: September 21st, 2004, 5:02 pm

Post by muxec »

Oh s...t! Did you all read my messages? I do not advocate drastical rules changes the default game rules must remain the same. If implemented everybody who loved old rules will be able to play the same game exactly they would not suffer from it. Those who desired these changes would only benefit. Who suffers? Even developers do not suffer as these modifications take only dozens of lines to rewrite or add and I'm ready to do so. And many of game fans who want these changes too.

And why do I want this to be included officially is:
1. Standartization.
2. No need to recompile everytime.
3. I recomended this game to my friends who love strategies of this kind. They said "game sucks as..." I said "I can mod it so that......". The reply was that if the initial official version sucks it does not worth playing anyway.
4. Recompiling, etc take up time and diskspace. Switching version is also an issue.
Also remember those who write on this forum are gamefuns who got the point of the game. Not hardcore fans, "just players", do not post here much, their opinion is hidden from you while they are the majority.

Read this 25 times till you understand : No one loses from customization but somebody gain. Again no one suffer and many benefit.


Dave I'm not criticizing you. If you want I'll say that you are genious 25 times without Copy->Paste ;) I respect your effort and skills and I thank you. Your product is great.


[offtopic]
Why USAians and Scandinavians are so conservative? If they take something in mind they are absolutely invulnerable for reason, they do not hear what you say them. During the discussion I read all posts of other players from the beginning too the end and changed my mind in some points (I already do not want reviving, i want to keep old rulesset as default). And if one explains me the drawbacks of turnoffable customization in official version I'll change my mind.
[/offtopic]
muxec
Posts: 119
Joined: September 21st, 2004, 5:02 pm

Post by muxec »

As lots of people have already said: "You can do that without changing any Wesnoth code".
And you need to manually copy/mod 100s of files for that and if the unitset changes a little you need to do this again.

Somebody please test my modification in code.
miyo
Posts: 2201
Joined: August 19th, 2003, 4:28 pm
Location: Finland

Post by miyo »

And have you considered multiplayer? Or are you only talking about changing this for single-player?

Maybe you should join IRC (#wesnoth on irc.wesnoth.org, which is alias to irc.freenode.net).

- Miyo
muxec
Posts: 119
Joined: September 21st, 2004, 5:02 pm

Post by muxec »

miyo wrote:And have you considered multiplayer? Or are you only talking about changing this for single-player?

Maybe you should join IRC (#wesnoth on irc.wesnoth.org, which is alias to irc.freenode.net).

- Miyo
Only for multiplayer. In singleplayer rulesset must remain the same (i do hear what people say me, goblin pillager was right).

In multiplayer the default rulesset is curent but in case of mutual agreement players play with rulesset modifications.
Ayin
Inactive Developer
Posts: 294
Joined: March 30th, 2004, 4:45 pm
Location: Nîmes, France
Contact:

Post by Ayin »

muxec wrote:Read this 25 times till you understand: No one loses from customization but somebody gain. Again no one suffer and many benefit.
There have been / have / will be lots of users suggesting lots of different, supposedly great, features and improvements to the game. If we had to implement all of them, with each one being controlled by a checkbox or whatever, the game would be a huge mess, and would certainly have died long ago of featuritis. One of the things Wesnoth is about is Simplicity. Which is incompatible with having pages of incoherent features added so that each of them pleases a particular user which likes it a given way. So we've got to choose which feature will be in, which feature will be an option, and which feature will be out. And those won't be chosen according to people being more vocal/annoying about defending them, trust me.

I won't comment your declaration about Gates and what you erroneously call "freeware". To be polite, I will just say you are totally mistaken.
[offtopic]
Why USAians and Scandinavians are so conservative?
[/offtopic]
I am neither, but nonetheless agree with my fellow Wesfolk and Northerners : p
LordTobias
Posts: 59
Joined: September 14th, 2004, 5:03 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Post by LordTobias »

Alright, I just read through that (not 25 times, though, sorry!) and I'm still a little bereft of EXACTLY what you want to have done.

You make mention of these changes, but the incredibly poor use of English is a HUGE deterrent in understanding what you mean. I'm not trying to be offensive, but it's a real [censored] trying to understand what you mean when I can barely read the stuff.

Anyways...Wesnoth is fine as it is. If you really want to contribute, go make a user made campaign. Don't [censored] about changing rules and adding this and that and that and that and this.

As it's been said, Wesnoth is a simple game. It should be kept simple, and doesn't need all sorts of changes, yadda yadda yadda. And, yeah, it's true that the devs make all the decisions. If you don't agree with their decisions, go make a user-campaign, or go make your own game, or find one where the opinions of one person who probably just wants everything his way actually mean something.

Anyway, no matter how many times you say a person is good, you're STILL proposing all sorts of useless rule changes. Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron, in some respects?

Anyway, I think the topic should be dropped. The devs are NOT going to change the rules unless it's something so ground shattering they must have it. And there's only one way to prove that. Do it, test it, make sure there's nothing wrong with it, test it some more, test it some more, fix what's wrong, test some more, and so on and so on.

Maybe then the devs might decide to implement something. I doubt it then, too.

Like I said, the only thing Wesnoth needs is to finish the already made official campaigns, and add some more campaigns. (With the same factions, preferably -- save for vampires; check my thread in ideas)

~Tobias
User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

muxec wrote:Oh s...t! Did you all read my messages?
yes.
muxec wrote: I do not advocate drastical rules changes the default game rules must remain the same.
yes you do. "default" rules mean nothing if there are options. as i said before... add an option, and users will assume devs support it, causing even more trouble,since the devs don't like the idea in the first place.
muxec wrote: If implemented everybody who loved old rules will be able to play the same game exactly they would not suffer from it. Those who desired these changes would only benefit. Who suffers? Even developers do not suffer as these modifications take only dozens of lines to rewrite or add and I'm ready to do so. And many of game fans who want these changes too.

this is 1) irrelevant and 2) false. Just because we are able to play same game doesn't mean it changes nothing. How are we supposed to compare save-games if we don't know what mode we're in? If there are 4 options, 2^4=16 different games being played, so for all i know I am not playing the same game as any of my friends.

muxec wrote: And why do I want this to be included officially is:
1. Standartization.

this is why I want it NOT included: if its not in, the game has standard rules. With it in, there is too much change in game rules so, as i said before, comparisons become less meaningless.

muxec wrote:2. No need to recompile everytime.
3. I recomended this game to my friends who love strategies of this kind. They said "game sucks as..." I said "I can mod it so that......". The reply was that if the initial official version sucks it does not worth playing anyway.
4. Recompiling, etc take up time and diskspace. Switching version is also an issue.

honestly, I don't give a **** how much trouble you have making a change to the game that is not supported by devs...

muxec wrote: Also remember those who write on this forum are gamefuns who got the point of the game. Not hardcore fans, "just players", do not post here much, their opinion is hidden from you while they are the majority.

irrelevant and false, again.

muxec wrote:Read this 25 times till you understand : No one loses from customization but somebody gain. Again no one suffer and many benefit.

again, false, see above.

muxec wrote:Dave I'm not criticizing you. If you want I'll say that you are genious 25 times without Copy->Paste ;) I respect your effort and skills and I thank you. Your product is great.

1) um.. your flattery sickens me. :P
2) there is no product. that is the problem. you are approaching it like we are producing a product for general consumption and we want it as popular as possible. this is false.

muxec wrote:[offtopic]
Why USAians and Scandinavians are so conservative? If they take something in mind they are absolutely invulnerable for reason, they do not hear what you say them. During the discussion I read all posts of other players from the beginning too the end and changed my mind in some points (I already do not want reviving, i want to keep old rulesset as default). And if one explains me the drawbacks of turnoffable customization in official version I'll change my mind.
[/offtopic]

We hear, listen, and logically reject. Tis you who are being illogical/unreasonable/etc.
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
Dacyn
Posts: 1855
Joined: May 1st, 2004, 9:34 am
Location: Texas

Post by Dacyn »

Dave wrote:If we start down this murky road, we will end up with a game where every single rule that is the slightest bit controversial is optional.

I think my signature applies to end user options more than almost anything else. End user options show that designers could not decide the best way to do things. The less options there are, the better.
muxec wrote:Read this 25 times till you understand
:wink:
muxec
Posts: 119
Joined: September 21st, 2004, 5:02 pm

Post by muxec »

Sorry for my poor English. I'm not a native speaker that's why you need to read 25 times;)

OK. Explaining.
Theorem A: developers do not suffer from my customizable overexperience.
Proof A: With this feature implemented the game loses none of the features (default mode is the same) the developers do not need to code anything as it's simple and already coded by me.

Theorem B: old conservatibe players do not suffer from my customizable overexperience.
Proof B: if conservative player clicks in the same sequaence as previously he gets default old standard rules set.

Axiom A: Innovative players who want this feature exists, see Bandobras's post earlier in this thread.

Theorem C: Innovative players benefit from my customizable overexperience as official feature.
Proof C: They do not lose the ability to play by old rulesset (see theorem B). Innovative players gain an ability to play an another rulesset that they like more. Implementation as official feature is better as they do not need to switch files to play, as there would be no issue due to difference in implementation of overexperience by different players.


Is it clear!!!!????
miyo
Posts: 2201
Joined: August 19th, 2003, 4:28 pm
Location: Finland

Post by miyo »

I don't know any feature that hasn't complicated code and sooner or later caused bug(s). Even if it is implemented cleanly now, some futures changes might change some code parts so that something becomes broken. Since Wesnoth project started we have seen this more than once =)

- Miyo
muxec
Posts: 119
Joined: September 21st, 2004, 5:02 pm

Post by muxec »

You can see the code. What can be wrong with it?
Bandobras
Posts: 51
Joined: August 20th, 2004, 7:49 pm
Location: Poland

Post by Bandobras »

muxec wrote:Axiom A: Innovative players who want this feature exists, see Bandobras's post earlier in this thread.
Oh, my... What have I done! :shock:

Now:
1. AMLA will never be accepted by the noble devs.
2. I will be frowned upon in the forum to the end of my miserable Wesnothian life. :cry:
Post Reply