POLL: Possibility for mappers to create missions where you cannot save manually, but use checkpoints or other systems instead.

[skacky]

What OrbWeaver said. TDM is already a difficult game, do you really want to make it even more difficult by restricting saves? I know lots of newbies who won't touch the game anymore if they stumble upon these save-restricted missions by accident.

[Obsttorte]

@Orbweaver: It is not about us telling that people are playing the game (so TDM as a whole) wrong, but I think the mapper should ahve a certain amount of control. The problem is, that many people are complaining about it before it was even tested. No thief game thus far used this concept, but everyone is sure that it is bad.

 

In addition, and I am repeating myself, noone says or wants this to become the standard for tDM, neither do I think that many mappers would use it, due to the objections against it. But some may want to. But from the beginning everyone has a problem with it, and this is why I am getting a bit frustrated to be honest, and this may be understandable.

 

Also I don't see any trend in TDM missions becoming more and more difficult, I don't know how you get that idea. In the last missions released I saw nobody complaining about the game being to difficult. It is vice versa, many changes have been made to allow the player to easen the game.

 

@skacky: This may sound counter-intuitive but restricting saves or checkpoints do not neccessarely mean that a mission becomes more difficult, it can also cause the opposite. If the mapper can use this feature, he already has a mighty tool to manipulate the difficulty, and therefore does not need to fallback on tricks like tons of guards, high sensivities, lots of light, low item and weapon amounts and difficult jumping passages.

 

I think the discussion is a bit heated. And I think, that those of you who have objections to that (what is your good right) are taking a lot of room to stress that. But neither did anyone bring up a good argument against it (the system itself, not implications of its wrong usage), nor do you seem to be willing to accept that this will NOT affect tdm by default, but only if some mappers wants it for THEIR missions. And you do not seem to be willing to accept that some people may be searching for a higher challenge.

 

Most missions are way to easy for me, but I don't complain. If there will be a few missions among those who get released in the future which are too difficult for you, is there no way that you can say "OK, I live with it: Not ecverything can suit my personal taste."?

 

Just to bring up the relations: If this gets added to the core mod, thus far only two mappers seem to be willing to actually use it in a mission. Sotha and myself. All the other mappers will most definetely not use it. Melan, Springheel and Grayman already stated their objections, so they will not use it. I don't know what other mappers think, but most of them may also not use it. So overall, for those who don't like it almost nothing changes. But for the others who would welcome this (and from the poll and from former discussions on that matter this seems to be roughly the half of the forum members) this feature would be a very positive addition.

 

So you are argueing against a chance which may bring lots of pleasure to some, but not you, just to avoid that maybe one or two missions of the next dozen who gets released may not be entertaining for you (what you just guess, you don't even now).

 

We are a real community.

[Obsttorte]

EDIT:

members are declining it because they may fear the snivelling in the forum.

This formulation may appear a bit harsh. What I meant is that we are aiming more and more into a direction where TDM should please everyone, which is, and this is ironic, exactly the thing most of us are criticising on AAA gaming companies.

 

Regarding the "marking missions using this"-issue: The downloader shows the mission description. A hint (manual saves disabled for example) could be placed there b the mission author. Problem solved.

[Sotha]

Orb, You interpret the text very malignantly, and I do not understand why.

 

I didn't call people boring. I was just stating, in clean honesty, that I find it boring and unsatisfying, and that I wish people would discover a new level of fun, by trying new stuff out. Taking new challenges. Moving forward. Being open to new experiences.

[skacky]

I realize it would only affect specific missions, I even wrote this. I'm not trying to divide the community or anything, just offering my point of view.

Also I know a fair bit about checkpoint saves, I worked on a game that used checkpoint saves and in retrospect it was a wrong design decision for several reasons:

 

- Restarting checkpoints over and over again is frustrating;

- Save corruption means you're completely screwed with no way of getting your save back (we had that issue a lot);

- You cannot experiment as much as with quicksaves or manual saves;

- Something unexpected happens during the checkpoint save, for example a NPC rushing towards you and killing you instantly. This is more frequent that you'd think;

- You are more or less a slave to the game since as a player you have no control on where the game saves. This is more or less a tie-in with the above point.

 

If you want to go ahead and experiment with it by all means do it, but I sure won't be playing that mission. I don't want to have the freedom to save whenever I want removed from me, especially in a stealth game where it's important to be precise.

Edited August 20, 2014 by skacky

[Lux]

I love when you type a long post in and instead of typing F5 you hit the key and then the post is deleted...note to self, always type lengthy posts in notepad and paste the contents..

 

I agree with skacky with emphasis on pt. #2, #3, #4.

 

Its a bad idea if you ask me, removing choice for the player. The scientist in us likes to experiment and we used to be able to using quicksave and now we can't? Thanks! would be my sarcastic reply.

 

Having both is an idea however, with the current system, what's stopping the player from creating a hard save when they want and not using F5?

 

This is already replicatable under the current system, and forcing players to do something isn't a way to win votes.

[Xarg]

You're saying you've never got sucked into a mission, gone without saving for 20-30, made some serious progress then fucked it up and got sent back to your save? I've been there plenty of times. It isn't that you can't save, it's that you're too engrossed in playing the game to remember to save - then something goes wrong and you lose a lot of progress. Especially on missions where you can't be detected, like HoLS. One little slip up after a solid period of edge-of-seat sneakin' and you're done.

[esme]

I'm sorry but I'm the one playing, I make the decisions about going left or right or taking an incredibly risky leap across a chasm because it looks like there might be something interesting on the other side and dying in the process.

 

I rarely play missions where my KO's are limited why should I play missions where if I die I go back to some point not of my choosing ?

 

Then there's real life getting in the way, phone ringing, postman making a delivery, collapsing through lack of sleep because you haven't reached a checkpoint and aren't safe so you can't turn the PC off and go to bed, silly example I know - please ignore that one

 

So no, sorry if I'm not playing the way you want me to but I'm not interested, if you do implement this I won't be using it and I won't be playing any missions with it in.

 

It's a game not a test of endurance.

 

-- EDIT --

 

I should add I'm not a TDM mapper, yet, I did make a level for T2 and I'm looking at darkradiant at the moment but pressure of work is preventing me from doing much.

Edited August 20, 2014 by esme

[161803398874989]

Obs, this is the most civil "heated" discussion I've ever seen on the internet. I wouldn't get upset over how heated it is.

 

I have not much to add to the discussion, other than that I do not feel very strongly one way or another. However, I do strongly agree with what Xarg is saying: the times I've forgotten to save and ended up ruining all my progress because fit hit the shan are very numerous. Checkpoints would save a lot of the headaches and frustrations that occur in this case. So I think at least including checkpoints is beneficial (not necessarily with save restriction), and I don't think there are many people here who would argue otherwise.

The debated point is whether or not to restrict the amount of saves the player can make (whether that is 0 or some other finite amount). And on this point I have the following to say: I've played a lot of games where there was no manual save option, and the biggest headache I got from that was that my speedrunning segments became too long so I had to exclude difficult tricks. That's literally it. I've never had any problems with checkpoint-only systems during regular play. I'm so used to not saving that I keep forgetting to do it in TDM.

 

Bottom line is: I feel that the addition of being able to save wherever and whenever I want in TDM has not particularly improved my gameplay experience, and I don't think removing it will particularly damage the gameplay experience provided the checkpoint system is set up right. Sure, you'll take fewer risks, but that's how the mapper has set it up.

[Springheel]

I've been around this discussion a few times, so let me see if I can summarize the points of each side. First, I don't think anyone is against checkpoint saves as an option, so I won't bother discussing that...the real issue is whether to limit manual saves.

 

There's no denying that the game becomes more tense if you're not saving. The game is essentially leveraging your progress against the chance of failure, so there is a genuine consequence for failing. It also forces players to deal with mistakes. No more reload-on-sight play. If you're spotted by AI you'll have to deal with it.

 

The flip side to this is that sometimes you fail for reasons that aren't your fault. These include crashes, getting stuck on geometry, and bugs. Extra consequences just make these things more frustrating than they already are.

 

The biggest argument on the other side of the issue is lack of freedom. Saving games is not just part of a gameplay style (although it is that too). It also transcends the game--there are multiple reasons why I might want to save my progress that have nothing to do with the game (RL interruptions, a laptop prone to crashing, bug reports, etc).

 

Limiting gameplay styles is a greyer area--mappers can already do this to some degree by restricting your equipment or including certain objectives--but it is something mappers already do, so I don't think it can be a valid argument against. Some people don't like "no KO" objectives, but we wouldn't argue (I suspect) that mappers should be barred from ever using them.

 

An issue not mentioned yet is that limiting saves forces a gameplay style that can be selected by choice. People can, if they wish, unassign the quicksave key, or simply choose not to use it. In general, players tend to resist being told what gameplay styles they can and can't use. Forcing someone to iron-man a mission is similar to forcing them to ghost--not all players are going to appreciate it. Presenting it as an option is another matter entirely.

 

That leads me to a couple of suggestions. First, I actually endorse what limiting quicksaves is attempting to do. I WANT players to experience tension. I WANT them to deal with the consequences of getting spotted. It bugs me to see someone reload the moment they're spotted, because that person is missing out on a lot of the cool things that make TDM fun, in my opinion. And there's the rub. It's just my opinion, and I know not everyone finds the same things fun that I do.

 

So rather than forcing players to play a certain way, I'd rather look for ways to encourage them to play that way. TDM doesn't force you not to kill people, but the game DOES encourage you not to kill, by making it difficult, and as a mapper I can provide difficulty options so players can choose that restriction.

 

I think we should treat saved games like no-kills. Mappers could choose "Iron-man; quick-saves disabled" as either a menu option (like nuThief), or as a difficulty option in a specific mission (frex, "No Saves" on Expert). Players who don't want that restriction don't have to choose it.

 

As for encouraging players not to spam quicksave/loads, there are a few possibilities. One is to list the number of quickloads on the stats screen at the end (if this is possible). Another is to disable quicksave/load, but allow loads/saves from the main menu. The extra step may be a deterrent. Allowing saves only on exiting the map is another possibility that still allows the player to save when they need to, but limits casual saves.

 

That said, just like I wouldn't tell a mapper they can't make a map with No-Kill objectives on every difficulty level, I wouldn't tell them they can't make a map that doesn't allow saves. They just have to accept that many players may not like it. As long as the restriction is presented up-front, players still have the choice.

[buck28]

OrbWeaver said:Sorry, but last time I checked it is up to ME to decide what gameplay experience I find exciting and satisfying. Adding mapper control over saves will just encourage the endless race towards ever-more-challenging maps which already make this mod largely inaccessible to casual or less-skilled gamers.

 

I absolutely agree, and voted as such.

[Obsttorte]

That said, just like I wouldn't tell a mapper they can't make a map with No-Kill objectives on every difficulty level, I wouldn't tell them they can't make a map that doesn't allow saves. They just have to accept that many players may not like it. As long as the restriction is presented up-front, players still have the choice.

That is what I was trying to say. Mappers can choose if they use it and how, under which difficulty levels and so one. And as all maps noramlly pass a beta-testing phase, they won't make the final decision alone anyway. The fact that it may not be liked by some people (or many), is a risk the mapper takes, nothing that influences the player.

As for encouraging players not to spam quicksave/loads, there are a few possibilities. One is to list the number of quickloads on the stats screen at the end (if this is possible). Another is to disable quicksave/load, but allow loads/saves from the main menu. The extra step may be a deterrent. Allowing saves only on exiting the map is another possibility that still allows the player to save when they need to, but limits casual saves.

This should be doable. It could be added to the mission statistics that are available via script, too, so mappers could even use this information in their missions.

 

But currently I'm not sure if it's worth investing the time, as I still don't know whether it will be added or not.

[RPGista]

"Mappers can't tell me how to play my game" is a ludicrous notion. If the mission is a huge sandbox where you manage your progress, thats literally because the mapper wanted so.

 

Springheel has encapsulated the topic very reasonably. Limited saves is a gameplay feature with pros and cons that mappers could definitely use to make their mission play in a certain intentional way. The same for checkpoints. Mappers should obviously be free to use what they will for their own mission design, as a general rule, the more features supported the better, more possibilities for you to nail down your vision.

 

We as players can choose to play what we like. We can know in advance what the mission is all about by reading the author's description. I for one would love to see a mission where this system is well implemented, with some great mappers around, this sounds like some fun missions in potential.

[HMart]

People are always comlaining that the bad thing about a savegame system differing from the current one is that you may have to replay a very long amount of time, or that you have to do so because of a problem that is not the players fault (see the FarCry example). However, these are not problems with the system, these are problems with the level design. A completely different matter. Checkpoints could also mean that the game gets saved every three minutes, depending on your playstyle.

 

There seem to be some sort of fear here, if I read the responses of those who are against it. If a lot of people don't like this feature, then this will also be so for mappers. And of those few who like it, only a couple will actually go and implement it. So we are talking about the possibility that a few missions of those who will get released in the future may use this feature. Why is this such a problem? You wil still get loads of missions using the default system. And all missions released thus far will not be affected.

 

But mappers get another tool to experiment with. One thing that was always said about TDM being good is that it is open source, and that it gives the mapper a lot of possibilities to let their imagination become true. Stim and Response, scripting, custom materials, particle effects, entities and even weapons and inventory items.

 

And regarding the player restriction: I don't understand this argument about player freedom at all. In no game you have absolute freedom, neither do you have so in TDM. Not restricting the player in any way is just a lame excuse, because a mapper may could do something by that that does not please everyone.

 

With the new thief everybody complaints that the designers made decisions to reach a broader audience, that they have included action passages with explosions, advanced possibilities for takedowns, the focus system giving you overhelming power. This is a commercial game, and they have to earn money with it.

 

TDM is in the nice position that mappers don't earn their living with that, so in theory they don't have to please everyone. But if the mapper can make a decision that does not please everyone, all people start crying about that.

 

Personally I don't even care what other people think about my missions. As said, I don't earn my living with that. I do it for me, and I want to do something I like. If other peoples like it to, that's great, but not my main intend. I consider myself as an artist in that respective, and I don't want to create the same stuff over and over again just because people are used to it and fear everything different, and members are declining it because they may fear the snivelling in the forum.

 

In the past players complained about blackjacking being too difficult, so we have increased the kobox on the ai's head, which affects all missions.

 

The player has the possibility to adjust lockpicking difficulty, ai hearing and seeing apart from the main difficulty setting, which affects all missions.

 

Now myself (who is the guy answering most of the questions in the editor's guild) and Sotha (who is the guy that has released the most missions by now) would like to get a new tool to play around with, something that will only affect a few missions, and everybody is going nuts.

 

TDM is open source and the license allows me to release my own version. If I want to I can use that feature, and players who would like to test that would have to exchange two files in their darkmod folder to get it working. But is this really desireable? Or can't we just commit to the fact that not all missions released must please all players? I don't like all the FM's either, but did I ever complain? Isn't it better to motivate the few mappers we have by giving them the tools they require instead of talking them to the ground?

 

It's up to you folks.

 

I totally comprehend your point and i'm not against the inclusion of checkpoints that's why i voted the second option, but from all my years of gaming they were never something i liked, they never made a game better or more fun imo, save anywhere is and will always be the better option to me, a badly implemented checkpoint can lead to frustration and ruin the fun, i have experienced tons of cases on the games i played, some even made me stop playing the game entirely, that never happens with save anywhere. But if you want to implement checkpoints do it but please be careful on where and how you put them.

 

 

I have recent example were not being able to save when i wanted made me stop playing a game. I was playing the Stargate mod for Crysis the Starcry mod and it was very hard even on the easy option but they add save anywhere so i continue playing, them i got to the first boss where i add to fight with a tank and they disabled save anywhere and put a checkpoint at the start of the fight, the first minutes it was a reload fest before i learned the boss weaknesses, then i was able to stay alive for longer but again the difficulty to even control my tank was brutal and the constant reload at the start was making me very frustrated, one time i was very low on health but was almost killing the Boss, for what seemed many minutes, when because my tank was not able to move faster (because of low health) he was able to strike me with a rock and kill me, that made me rage quit the mod and just give up on it.

Edited August 20, 2014 by HMart

[New Horizon]

I have no problem with checkpoints being an option, but I don't feel they should be enforced on players. If a mapper chooses to design their mission with them, it should still be possible to disable them and use the manual save system. Something like an option that says 'disable checkpoints in supported missions'.

[OrbWeaver]

The problem is, that many people are complaining about it before it was even tested. No thief game thus far used this concept, but everyone is sure that it is bad.

 

Not every suggestion needs actual playtesting to determine if people want it or not. Nobody has tested allowing mappers to force a particular movement keybinding (because WASD is far too limiting and not fun enough) or a particular display gamma (because most people have their monitors far too bright and it ruins the immersion), but I am quite sure I don't want either of these features in my own gameplay.

 

I have, on the other hand, played other games which don't allow saving, but these are online RPGs where the state of the world is tracked on the server and saving the game state locally doesn't make any sense. It is also the case in such games that death is more of an annoyance than anything else, rather than Game Over like it is in TDM and the Thief series.

 

In addition, and I am repeating myself, noone says or wants this to become the standard for tDM, neither do I think that many mappers would use it, due to the objections against it. But some may want to.

 

If it is indeed limited to a small number of missions (and these missions are clearly marked at the point of download) then I cannot object to the presence of the feature itself. However, if the main defence for such a feature is "mappers won't use it" then this suggests that it really isn't very popular with the end users. Hopefully the result of the poll will shed more light on this aspect of the debate.

 

Also I don't see any trend in TDM missions becoming more and more difficult, I don't know how you get that idea.

 

It is based on my own experiences of playing a few years ago. Admittedly my views may be out of date and recent changes may have made the game more accessible (I understand there are now AI acuity sliders, for example). However, based on the conversations I have seen in the forums the general trend has been in favour of new features which increase realism, and therefore difficulty, so I suspect my overall impression of TDM being very challenging is still fairly accurate.

 

Orb, You interpret the text very malignantly, and I do not understand why.

 

I didn't call people boring. I was just stating, in clean honesty, that I find it boring and unsatisfying, and that I wish people would discover a new level of fun, by trying new stuff out. Taking new challenges. Moving forward. Being open to new experiences.

 

I do not ascribe any malice to you or Obsttorte. I was simply highlighting the sorts of attitude that tend to come to the fore (possibly unintentionally) in these debates about game difficulty and the needs of the playerbase. It often seems that the people who want these sorts of changes are motivated by a desire to force their own particular idea of "fun" onto everybody else.

 

Not everybody considers "fun" and "challenging" to be synonymous. Many people (myself included) play games because they want to relax.

[Lux]

It would be good to get our, "bad cache offset" issue fixed prior to utilitizing an autosave. It would be awful to die and go back to the last checkpoint only to find...it won't load.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Lux

[Sotha]

It often seems that the people who want these sorts of changes are motivated by a desire to force their own particular idea of "fun" onto everybody else.

[...]

Not everybody considers "fun" and "challenging" to be synonymous. Many people (myself included) play games because they want to relax.

 

But is it right that people who just want to relax while playing will deny a feature that would give people who like the challenge a lot of fun?

 

Give the mappers more options. The players can freely choose what to play and what not to play. Nobody is forcing anything onto everybody else.

[Obsttorte]

Regarding the savegames I cannot say much, as I never encountered any troubles. But checkpoints or not, this can also happen with the current system. I guess most players are mainly relying on quicksaves, so they have only one savegame and if that gets corrupted, it is indeed an annoyance. As I have stated before (iirc), the mapper decides upon the names of the savegames. Different names = different savegame files. Mappers could also set it up in a way, that the autosaving for example would alter between a certain amount of files to avoid that you end up with lots of savegames.

 

When using the limited but free savegame approach, the player decides upon the name, and can therefore use different names there, too.

 

Another slight misunderstanding here is that

• I consider an autosave-option to increase the fun a mission provides
  
• I think so because it could increase difficulty
  

I've already stated, that I think autosaves would allow mappers to create a challenging experience, without making it neccessarely difficult. In these terms, "challenging" and "difficult" aren't synonymous. Difficult is rather independent from the players approach. If I restrict the arrow aount, it will be more difficult, independent from what the player does or how he plays the game (except if he don't use them at all anyways, but let's keep such discussions aside). A challenge can be overcome.

 

The current savegame system invites you to try and error yourself through the levels, although may not everybody will do this. But if you know that the possibility of failure holds a potential for frustration (for example that you have to replay the last three minutes or so), you think twice before you act. In that regard I think that such a system could even encourage the player to take some time exploring the map, as he will be more focused on finding a way that is as easy as possible. A slow-paced tactical game like TDM could benefit from causing the player to think before the act.

 

I may also state that besides the fact most mappers may not use it, I'm, like Sotha, of the opinion that it would not suite all mission types. A mission using this would need to be designed around that perspective of gameplay, and would therefore differ from current missions. I mean, it's like light placement. In most games, they aer placed based on artistical decisions. It shall look nice. But in a stealthgame they affect the gameplay, so you have to consider that, and all mappers are doing so.

 

Regarding the first point dotted above: It may be confusing but is also for me that most players evaluate gameplay features by the amount of fun it provides. Surely, games can serve entertaining purposes, and I understand that many people play them for exactly that reason. But similar to movies, music or books some people may also expect a bit more. I mean, if you watcha drama or a war movie, do you have fun? If you watch a documentation dealing with the life of a family with a disabled child, do you have fun? If you read a scientific book or a technical guide, do you have fun?

 

I guess this medium is capable of more. No, I'm sure of it.

[Obsttorte]

Spring, your post is gone.

[Tels]

I voted "I'd like to see it". Especially because I actually like the "no saving required" that Torchlight brings. The game always progresses and is always saved and you can never really die.

 

It is really a mapper decision and the player is free to ignore such FMs. Just like some people absolutely hate undead missions, or missions with spiders, or missions where you cannot kill anyone etc. Having the possibility is good.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Tels

[New Horizon]

People are free to ignore any mission they want, but why would we want to intentionally put someone off a mission they might otherwise play simply because it enforces a save mechanic that doesn't work with their playstyle or lifestyle?

 

I have two kids. The amount of time I get to play doesn't allow me to depend on games with check points. I play for a bit, save and go back to my life outside of games.

 

It's fine if a mapper wants to make it an option in their map, but I don't think it should be forced on anyone who might have otherwise really enjoyed the mission. It's silly to do so.

[gnartsch]

Short answer:

I think this feature could give a really nice touch to a few missions that are designed to make proper use of it.

 

Long answer:

Sometimes there are mission were I am basicly stuck - virtually for hours - without making any reasonable progress,

but picking up some loot and equipment here and there.

I would hate it like hell if I was dying in the course and not being able to save my game as I please.

So, this feature would be nice, but it should be used in fairly linear missions only, imho.

[Obsttorte]

... why would we want to intentionally put someone off a mission they might otherwise play simply because it enforces a save mechanic that doesn't work with their playstyle or lifestyle?

Because it may invite other persons to play that mission exactly for that reason. Or in other words

• why would we want to intentionally put someone off a mission they might otherwise play simply because it contains undeads or spiders
  
• why would we want to intentionally put someone off a mission they might otherwise play simply because it does not give the player a blackjack
  
• why would we want to intentionally put someone off a mission they might otherwise play simply because it restricts knockouts or tells you to not kill unarmed persons
  
• why would we want to intentionally put someone off a mission they might otherwise play simply because it requires you to solve puzzles although you may not want to
  
• why would we want to intentionally put someone off a mission they might otherwise play simply because it does not contain rope arrows
  
• why would we want to intentionally put someone off a mission they might otherwise play simply because it does not contain a map (this is annoying for me personally)
  
• why would we want to intentionally put someone off a mission they might otherwise play simply because it has lots of optional goals in it but does not communicate that it would beneficial to complete those so I can outweight the time and equipment needed compared to what I may gain (this annoys me, too)
  

Everybodies darling is nobodies friend. You can't please everyone. (The first sentence was actually the headline of the review of Thief 4 in a german game magazine. )

The amount of time I get to play doesn't allow me to depend on games with check points. I play for a bit, save and go back to my life outside of games.

This has been stated before and I don't get the quintessence. Having checkpoits for example does not mean that the game only saves every 30 minutes. You could actually bring up the same argument against a mission that is mainly story-driven and focuses on readables and conversations. If you have quit from the mission for whatever reason, you may have forgotten lots of things before you get back to it, and will not get the full enjoyment.

 

You cannot expect that mission authors take every situation of every person that may play the mission into consideration when designing their missions. If you don't have much time for your hobby, you have to live with the restrictions coming from that. This may sound harsh, but that's life. I think you would survive that.

[Tels]

People are free to ignore any mission they want, but why would we want to intentionally put someone off a mission they might otherwise play simply because it enforces a save mechanic that doesn't work with their playstyle or lifestyle?

 

The same goes for missions with Undead or missions that are only available in Polish. They simply might not be for everyone. Why would the players force the mapper to make a mission in a way they want? Would you also add a "remove all Undead" button to the menu?

 

The is no true "right or wrong" with the ability to save at will. It is a design choice, and this choice is made by the mapper. The result might be good, or not, but why would you not even allow the choice?

 

I have two kids. The amount of time I get to play doesn't allow me to depend on games with check points. I play for a bit, save and go back to my life outside of games.

 

It's fine if a mapper wants to make it an option in their map, but I don't think it should be forced on anyone who might have otherwise really enjoyed the mission. It's silly to do so.

 

My example was different: manual saving could be completely unnec. in a mission. No savegames. You just always enter/exit the mission and it gets saved automatically. Or the feature could be restricted to certain parts of the map.

 

Yeah, that might not be your aeverage TDM mission, but why would the TDM engine deny mappers the possibility to create such a mission? In my opinion, the TDM engine should allow more freedom for mappers - if the result is garbage, player will ignore it, anyway.

 

However, to be able to do so, the feature must be supported first.

 

Remember, TDM started out as a mod to D3 - why is it so unfathomable that there are mods to TDM? Why can't players imagine that there is a mission which is simply not a TDM misison and is simply not for some to play?

 

With that mindset a really cool FM like "Spring" would never have been created

 

 

Edit: Oops, Obstorte basically answered almost the same thoughts. I swear, we are NOT twins separated at birht!

Edited August 20, 2014 by Tels