RJFerret
-
Posts
1064 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by RJFerret
-
-
I have different taste than others, enjoying Flakebridge Monastery, Builder's Influence and Beleaguered Fence more. I do agree with popular opinion on Tears of St. Lucia though. But other missions by Jesps (like Flakebridge), really did it for me.
-
Not to be tremendously sarcastic, but way to support and motivate our developers! <end sarcasm>
Sorry but beating this point and demotivating the team isn't particularly productive, or going to endear any of them to wish to address your personal agenda either I wouldn't imagine.
Others have been more tactful over the days in regards to this, but you've made your point repeatedly, you'd apparently prefer that volunteers work for you, rather than pursue what they desire, got it. (<--please don't quote this line out of context defensively--this is an extreme of the impression I personally have gotten, nothing more)
Might there be something constructive to offer, contribute, produce, generate or help with instead?
-
2
-
-
Aluminum? in the ..what... 1300s? or 1600s? or whenever TDM takes place. Copper, maybe but I'd guess many old downspouts/gutters were either way to thick sheet metal or even cast iron/clay tile...
Very good point about the lack of aluminum, Romans used brick/clay guttering, then came wood and gargoyles (-1200 AD from most sources), then lead downspouts replaced gargoyles, 1700 saw cast iron replace lead, copper was apparently never popular until modern times interestingly.
Lead is soft/not sturdy (particularly attached to rotted wood above), and cast iron is ridiculously brittle and weak in tension when new, nevermind corroded (although impurities in the cast metal back then slowed rusting).
But either way, it may be completely preposterous, but such is the nature of the video game. I'd prefer the game-play be in than the believability be in.
-
Nope, the original image is covered by creative commons lic - http://wellcomeimage...t&_IXMAXHITS_=1
Did you look at the license? It's Creative Commons Attribution. Exactly an element that has been removed here! Also a derivative work can't grant a more lenient license than that of the materials used. (Nobody suggests they legitimately can license it that way for legal use anyway.)
I'm no expert, but it seems it's not just plagiarism of the bible, but attribution of the image is obviously required as well, ugh. There's another point to add to the list unless TDM already includes that facility in the licensing.
Meanwhile, all the other points remain, why co-opt Christianity for TDM theology?
PS: But frankly, aside from the ethics, it doesn't sound like ya'll are likely to get sued, just offend a major religion.
PPS: Talking with others, not only does the bible need to be credited, and the website that scanned it, but the work that it came from as well, perhaps "T. CrouchLondon" from my read of your linked source?
-
Cool graphic work Biker. None of the following is meant as a critique in that regard certainly! :-)
2. Builder theology isn't Christianity, although it's heavily inspired by it. Just like Bridgeport isn't London or Constantinople, although it's heavily influenced by them.
So then why use an actual Christian direct Bible quote if the theology isn't Christianity?
We have several problems here.
1. It's plagiarism in it's current form (lacking citation of a quote from a published work).
2. Changing "Jerusalem" to "City" has altered the original author's intended meaning.
3. Copyright, while obviously the original biblical texts are in the Public Domain, the modern translations are not.
4. Sacrilege.
In it's current form, it's plagiarism. The citation has been removed. I'm not Christian and I've never read the bible, but I easily recognized that was from the book of Revelations because the citation was there. I verified it before posting my first suggestion of removal, by googling a part of that line, and it came up from multiple online bible sites.
So if the line is used, the bible citation should go back in to avoid plagiarism.
Paraphrasing would be better, but that would mean expressing similar via different words, instead of superficially altering a direct quote from a copyright work.
I imagine folks of Christian persuasion might be offended that a quote from their holy text is being perverted to this use. Especially if the Builders have been defined as not Christian. This is using Christian's holy words in support of heathens. Simply removing the name of their heavenly city, "Jerusalem", and replacing it with generic "City", is conscripting the sentiment.
It all just seems to tread dangerous ground to me.
-
It's actually a very appropriate line for Builder theology, if you replaced "Jerusalem" with "City".
Oh? Why change Jerusalem then, if literal bible quotes are good, and Builder theology simply is Christianity, then Jerusalem is the name for their "City".
-
But if it will be possible to close a door silently that way... ...Nobody has yet confirmed this, but I guess it must have been the reason to add the feature in the first place, no?
Not from what I've read. Only one single person has talked about noise/silence in relation to it. That seems to simply be an assumption.
-
1
-
-
I cant see where that is and to be honest if its not at the end of beginning of a sentance it aint gonna happen.
It's the line: "There shall in no wise enter into the Heavenly Jerusalem, anything that defileth, or worketh Abomination." Revelations. 21:27.
It's right above words, "The Sixth Edition, Corrected and Enlarged". It's after the line, "...practice became barren and diseased." Ironically it's both the beginning and end, as it's an entire sentence from the bible.
Oh, it's also the part in italics.
-
While you are at it might you want to change/remove the bible quote/Jerusalem/Revelations reference?
-
This just came up in a beta test and it occurred to me applicable for discussion here.
Most missions design beds to not be accessible by AI. I've provided steps so AI might chase players on beds since it's makes no sense the player can step up there and be invulnerable, but others can't to me.
In one circumstance I communicated that to the player by having an AI start out seen on a bed, and walking off it. But that relies on luck of the player seeing that first. It also confused a beta tester, as they didn't expect to see an AI standing on/walking off a bed.
The more I think about these topics and see the contentious views here, the more it seems individual perspectives undermine conventions.
For example, it makes no sense to me for gutter downspouts to be climbable, since most can't support tens of pounds (half a dozen kilos) and are made of aluminum and copper that you can bend with your fingers. Yet multiple missions requiring climbing such.
Meanwhile, I expect to climb trees (and giant spiderwebs), which often aren't. Again I conveyed that ability to players by having AI do it. Similarly my AI can climb ladders, which is unconventional, so the first view of a ladder in one of my missions you witness an AI coming down it.
On the flip side, narrow walls that are perfect for chimneying often aren't climbable, despite people with no climbing talent being able to do that.
-
4
-
-
I don't have any great ideas for a solution to this, however.
Internal consistency in the map at least.
-
My suggestion is to put a list of map-specific conventions in the readme and loading screen, especially if they differ from a norm. I do that with v2 of my FM for openable windows.
Certainly a good idea but don't expect players to read them. You see that repeatedly in comments posted in forum threads on FMs where players didn't know about X, when X was listed in that manner. The bigger the wall of text, the more likely people will click past without reading, so I'd suggest limiting it to the most important points.
That's why when it became critical I used the first screen of the briefing and included an alert in all caps so folks wouldn't just click past unread, which seems to have worked (although certainly not a convention I'm recommending--as it was a very unusual circumstance).
-
I generally like many of those Airship ideas, but a couple of them I have these comments on:
Lights don't work well that way in a game designed to avoid the bright (cue Gollum's "it burnsess"). Yes, I know humans and mammal eyes and brains are designed to register bright moving things first. But in this game, we seek the shadows. Put a light somewhere to drive me away from there, not toward it!
What you dub "random loot" isn't for most players, it's for loot completionists who do enjoy exactly what some don't. I've yet to see a map/objective requiring all loot to complete. The nice thing about TDM is it may provide pleasure to a wider range of players than many other environments. If those extra bits of loot weren't tucked away in some odd spots, it would remove a whole avenue of game-play for those who enjoy that, meanwhile not getting loot you wouldn't want to pursue anyway doesn't affect others particularly.
However a theme of your post relates to the psychological concept of "Flow", which measures fun, and a key element is that the reward be commensurate with the effort to achieve it. So a quick empty room with little to no reward is actually more fun than a quick room with a big reward. Similarly, if someone takes the effort to dive down to the bottom of something, and we have to expend a breath or health potion, or make multiple trips to pick a lock while down there, a big cash-out is more fun than feeling gypped for all that effort.
-
The impetus to raise this as an issue came from a specific instance in Window of Opportunity. There is a small, lit room that an AI comes into every half minute or so, with two readables. The scroll goes into inventory, but the book did not, forcing me to try and read it in short bursts while constantly watching for the AI to come in. While it certainly created tension, it was a completely artificial tension IMO...I could see no particular reason why I shouldn't have been able to carry the book in the same way I could carry the nearby scroll.
That was player choice. I spent a lot of time calibrating the design so you could read the book in a semi-safe shadow (with plenty of audio warning).
At the time I didn't know about alerts for missing items I don't believe, it wouldn't be logical for a thief to take an item from an area he knows a fidgety AI frequents, to discover her personal diary is missing. Hence choosing a fixed book.
In the future I might design such so if the book were taken, it would alert the AI--the only bad part of that would be the player not knowing until the AI showed up and freaked out.
-
(Previously posted but erroneously moved to an unrelated thread.)
One thing I see that trips up new TDM mappers repeatedly (in the limited time I've been active even), is using opaque fake windows instead of clear glass with full buildings.
Clear glass that can be seen through means everything inside/outside gets rendered as well, defeating half the purpose of visportals. Where clear glass is used successfully is spaces that are meant to be rendered as well, are limited in size, and defined in scope. A display case, a small guard room that otherwise would just as likely to be completely open or have metal bars, in dividing walls, or looking onto interior courtyards (without clear glass on the far side).
It is possible to do on buildings when combined with opaque shutters that are closed and open into limited spaces.
PS: On the subject of windows, many can easily have their textures flipped horizontally, rotated 90°, or both, to create variety,
instead of each window being an exact video-game-y clone of each other.
Heh, perhaps rename the thread to "TDM Mapping Contentions"?
-
Um, my post was about glass and was in the "TDM Mapping Conventions" thread so when new mappers search for such they could find the info.
It has nothing to do with readables.
I also joked about the name of that thread, which makes no sense here.
If you'd like me to take the aside (the postscript) out and post that separately here, that might make sense, otherwise let me know to post a new post back in that thread with a copy of my post please.
Wait, nevermind, no point in you doing more work.
-
FYI, different places in the US permit varying levels of nudity. In New York State, toplessness is legally permitted in public places due to women suing for the right and overturning the former prohibition.
In western states, full public nudity is tolerated to a greater degree than in eastern states (and fewer prohibitions).
In Maine several years ago a couple women were arrested for jogging completely in the buff, they got off as the law proscribed exposing genitals, which the arresting officers never saw exposed (pesky internal genitals).
-
That, or also as you started describing your premise, an art spotlight came to mind highlighting those of value (if an electric setting).
-
Readable books and scrolls should be the type that can go into inventory. Players should not be forced to read a book without being able to move it, unless there is some obvious reason why the book can't be moved (it's chained up or is too heavy or whatever).
Oh yeah, good point, most books and scrolls should not go into inventory. ... readables (only those required for completing the map not easily remembered should go into inventory)...
Edited out stuff nonsensical in this thread.
-
Style of handle doesn't help me, I can't see it in the dark across the street anyway. I'm with G-man, if there's no handle, I know the door is meant to be decorative rather than functional. If there's a handle, know I will be wasting my time going up to the door to "try" it and will be annoyed.
There's a default convention I wish more mappers would break. They use mostly the same "half dozen" standard loot items (with their attendant variations). Often you don't even need to enter a room, just glance from the doorway and see there's nothing inside you want. It's easy enough to change the skins so other bottles on a wine rack may be the precious vintage, it's easy enough to change models so other busts or jewelry or trinkets may be valuable. Obviously, if you rely on frob highlights to indicate to players atypical valuable items, then don't have oodles of movable/frobable non-valuable items to confuse them in the same map. This restores a bit of that initial exploration you got to do the very first time you played, back when you didn't know what was valuable or not.
-
And those that we do have are hidden away from the rest of the models, only accessible through a different dialog, if you even know to look for them.
-
From my understanding/readings, only LOD objects are affected, and that may include SEED entities. In other words, that setting will have no affect on the vast majority of maps.
In addition, the distances are so great, it's only maps that feature said objects with long enough sight lines that performance impacts would be noticed. Jesps has a map that might apply (big open grassy area around a balloon) and I know my InnBiz is affected as I tested different levels for the grass and bushes in the cemetery (diagonal sight line from one corner of the map to another) in efforts to maximize performance. Other maps that I know of SEED usage I do not know if LOD objects were the SEED entities, and they have smaller visleafs I believe.
-
*nods at most your perspective except this part
The problem isn't quite non-existent. Players being able to operate a door or chest with a light shining on it without stepping into the light thwarts mappers' designs.
Erm, except in current designs, mappers have specified how far the light should shine, either by moving it, or adjusting it's radius. Why define those choices as a "problem"? If you can operate a door without stepping into the light, that was intended, or the mapper would have moved/increased the light. (See an earlier reply of mine for the game-play balance ramifications, likely there's frequent AI observation of that doorway.)
Making such a change (reducing frob distance for doors) simply means future maps will need to have smaller light radii if they wish to allow the player to grab the door from the shadows. Where's the net gain?
-
I haven't been able to find a way to make only the handle highlight, and not the door itself.
Normally you have to provide the "frob_peer" spawnarg to accomplish that, but it might be happening automatically behind the scenes for doors, as I don't see that spawnarg listed in the inherited args. (This could relate to the issue if you bind loot to a door, when it moves, it also activates the ka-ching as if you are collecting loot, which can't be suppressed.)
This is the problem when things are not left up to mappers. ;-)
If we leave it to mappers, though, aren't we opening the door (so to speak) to widespread non-uniformity of how players manipulate doors?
If a door highlights at X units in Map A, won't I become frustrated when it doesn't highlight at that distance in Map B because the mapper has set the distance to something considerably less than X?
Sure, if you also are frustrated by some chests highlighting the bottom of them so you can't get loot out without endless fiddling after climbing on the chest (a default I believe should be changed). If you are also frustrated that some electric lights have switches and some don't. If you are frustrated that some maps only provide certain tools and no store. If you are also frustrated at other variations in mapper styles. Of course, if you are frustrated by such things, it's unlikely you'd be playing a mod specifically designed for mappers to showcase their own unique designs instead of preventing them from designing, because all that's available is a limited standard of conformity. (If the answer to, "how do I change it so players have to get closer to manipulate doors", or, "I have a big door, how can I let the player be further away to open it without blocking it" is "you can't, we decided it should be standardized to X setting"--THAT would be frustrating.)
Doors have operated differently in different maps for a long time now, without significant complaints afaik. The only one I do remember seeing is some folks not liking when mappers use auto-close. But then they also don't like when maps have lower performance (a common reason to use auto-closing). I was cognizant of my first map using auto-close to both simulate gravity and improve performance, but not a single unfavorable mention about it.
Generally players learn quickly the nuances of specific maps and mappers. For example, I know certain designers tend to alternate lock-picks, rather than mixing up the sequence. If there's something unusual, players then start looking for that aspect in a map. Typically it doesn't cause frustration, but delight. (Conversely, a beta tester didn't like the length of picking I'd initially put on a coinbox, to motivate players to pick pocket the key. There the mapper reverted to more of a norm and an attribute of potential game-play was diminished.)
Also, generally mappers are lazy. You'll note that most doors are left at the default. It's only if there's motivating reasons to do otherwise they get changed. Doesn't this seems to be fostering a solution to a non-existent problem?
Adjusted Door Handling
in The Dark Mod
Posted
@wesp5
And I didn't mean to diminish your passion either! :-) Sometimes there aren't answers, because there aren't specific answers yet. Or answers are nonsensical, like affecting game-play...affect it how, for better? For worse? It's subjective. If things become broken or not as originally intended, then they are fixed before release.