Search the Community

I just made an interesting discovery. In my FM that's in beta I have custom main menu music, but it doesn't always work. Basically it works: When you first start the game (whether the FM is currently selected or if you change to this mission and the game restarts) during the text briefing It doesn't work (i.e. you only get silence) When escaping back to the main menu while in-game After quitting a mission and it goes back to menu As far as I know I had all the correct settings in mainmenu_custom_defs.gui: /// Menu music after startup (not in-game) #define MM_MENU_SOUND_CMD "music fs_muslim;" /// Played in main menu when in-game (ESCaping out of the game) #define MM_INGAME_MENU_SOUND_CMD "music fs_muslim;" /// Played during non-video briefing #define MM_BRIEFING_SOUND_CMD "music fs_muslim;" It turns out the problem was I had this line set in the sound shader: leadin sound/ambient/ambience/silence.ogg Commenting that out on a hunch fixed the problem. So you might be saying to yourself 'that's all very interesting but who cares?'. My point is: Just an FYI in case someone else runs into this I don't think there is anywhere on the Wiki that covers menu customization? @Geep you've done a whole bunch around GUI scripting recently - is there somewhere you can recommend I can stick this?

Part of my point was that breakable electric lights could have an interesting contrast: They'd attract attention while also making it harder for you to get caught. When broken they should create a loud popping noise that makes nearby AI walk to them and investigate the disturbance, if they see the broken lamp even draw their swords and do an alert search... however once they've calmed down and moved on, you're rewarded with the ability to sneak there without being seen. The player will have one of two typical strategies: Either wait until there's no guards nearby in order to shoot a lamp, or shoot such lights if it's better to have guards searching but not able to see you compared to the guards being calm but able to spot you in bright light. Mappers would themselves place those lamps in areas where they want to create this particular challenge.

For the FM? For beta 1 it's here: https://drive.proton.me/urls/H1QBB04GA0#oBZTb1CmVFQb I've already done around 100 fixes though, so you might want to wait for beta 2 which should be ready in a couple of days hopefully. All links are in the first post of the beta thread here: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22439-the-lieutenant-3-foreign-affairs-beta-testing/

This topic is going in different directions and it is difficult to tell if we all are in the same page. Facts: Stgatilov wants to change (improve, I guess) something and while implementing the change he realizes he will break some mission in the process. Mappers have been including (now obsolete) core files in their missions and the developer wants to know why these files were included in the first place, as in: the purpose. Changes in two mission are unavoidable, unless the authors go back and revisit the entire logic of their missions. Changes in eight missions are avoidable, in the sense that missions remain essentially the same with or without these changes. Regardless, if the improvements are to be implemented ten missions need to be reviewed and updated. Now my opinion: Considering how the topic is going the next time Stgatilov wants to improve something similar he might think it twice (we all lose because of ten missions). If these same improvements were to be implemented in the future chances are not ten but fifteen missions would have to be reviewed and updated which begs the question, does the inclusion of core files in missions put the present and future development of some areas at risk? No, as long as things remain under control: preserve what must be preserved, encourage and support innovations, identify and address trends. This requires an effort by all parties involved.

That's a very valid question. Personally, I'd say the key is to watch what the otherwise-disengaged fringes of the community are saying. If first time posters or long time lurkers start coming out of the woodwork about well made new missions, praising them for their geometry and story but saying that innovative parts of the gameplay felt frustrating or off, that's probably the first sign that the innovations are starting to get out of hand. For a more concrete example, re-read the comments on Hazard Pay. As much as I and many others love that mission, it's clearly a case where the author strayed further than many people were comfortable with. It also points to the likely endgame if authors do take their customization too far. After getting the negative feedback, kingsal made adjustments, and now the mission is much more friendly towards player preferences that don't match the author's original vision. You don't need to restrict the mapmakers' tools to stop them from straying too far from the traditional formula. When people start speaking up, the authors will rein themselves in on their own.

Speaking of actions for the missions which only tweak zoom delay. What would you prefer right now? Mission broken on the latest dev build (as it is now), but working as intended in the latest release. Mission working as intended on the latest dev build, but working without customization on the latest release.

Arrows are a core part of TDM. They should be moved to C++ and have dedicated Cvars for both players and mission authors. Plan: 1) Implement Arrows in C++ ( evaluate changing some old defaults ) 2) Make associated Cvars "non-archived" 3) Mappers add mission.cfg to enforce their customizations 4) Players can alter mission.cfg to their preference Along the way, reduce some of the performance impact of the weapon script constantly invoking "raise torso" and other nonsense due to using scripts rather than C++ https://bugs.thedarkmod.com/view.php?id=4203

Well, I disagree. I play this game for the features it offers, not the features some mission author thinks he has to change to his personal favor. And, frankly, some of the more current missions offer too much of that "I think this works better" feature change. For example, the sounds some missions introduce add nothing over the original sounds, but are rather worse in my opinion.

Again, that's not the point, The point is that the game is all over the place, if every mission feels and plays different. If you want that, hey. But, in my opinion, that's a big mistake.

Damn right, and I personally am going to keep making changes on how I want MY mission to be played and what I think is best for MY FMs. If that's not to your tastes, then I'm sorry these changes don't align with your preferences, but there are tons of other missions you can play that do. FM authors have ZERO obligation to provide uniform experiences that try to cater to everyone. Some people are going to enjoy these custom changes (I really loved the Resident Evil style saves, and I can't wait to see more missions with that) and other players are gonna be unhappy about them, and that's a crying shame, but it is not going to stop me from making FMs how I want them to be. Never once has a beta tester or a player brought up an issue about these kinds of choices I made for my FMs

Gosh you're right. As a result it only managed to snag spot #10 in terms of highest user rated TDM missions on thiefguild. Kingsal could make a mission where you crawl around like a baby in moon gravity and I might be right there with you saying it was a bad idea. It'd still be his mission so his choice.

Sounds great. Unfortunately you don't have to get very far in any discussion about either changing existing gameplay mechanics or about giving players more in game customization options to see why mappers stop bothering with the debate club politics and instead divert the energy to do what they can to address what issues they can themselves. There is clearly also a disconnect between how people think they feel about these changes and how they do in practice. Kingsal's missions seem to be widely considered as some of the most polished missions in the game, because they are a holistic designs that look, sound and play a certain way. As a result I have never seen a player complain about something like the run modifier being increased in a particular missions thread and it’s clear there are very few players who are ultimately conscious of anything besides that the overall experience feels good. So there is reason these get adopted by other authors. The players are entitled to their opinion - but it's the mission authors choice ultimately. And I can only speak for myself, but I came to TDM because I saw working examples of things I wanted in my mission. These were not “stock” or “standard”. They were achievable by virtue of the games extendability. If the day comes where we get locked out of that kind of control of our designs, I would probably walk.

I agree entirely. Unless a mission is aiming to present a completely different gameplay experience (like making a rapid-fire archery-based combat mission instead of a stealth mission), I see no reason why things like bow aiming should vary on a mission-by-mission basis. If the defaults are widely disliked, they should be changed. If they are a matter of taste and there is no agreement on what the value should be, they should be configurable by the player and take effect in all missions. Imagine if every desktop application made its own tweaks to your keyboard layout or mouse acceleration because the author didn't personally approve of the default values. It would be a horrible user experience. Some applications actually do this with fonts, and yes, it's horrible. Potentially useful functionality made inaccessible because the author decided to ignore system font choices and DPI, and impose his hand-picked non-scalable 10pt font which I can barely read.

As a player, one thing I'm also not too fond of is the lack of uniformity. I think mission authors should take into account that especially players new to the mod want to figure out how the weapons work, and, they will have a hard time doing so, if many missions tweak the weapons. Apart from the "WTF" moment, they will also not know what the default behavior of the weapon is. Also not a fan of some other things some missions introduce, like the different sounds for foot steps etc. Most of them don't improve anything over the default sounds, to be honest. They're rather worse, and irritate me every time I play a mission with custom sounds.

Do you disagree with the core defaults in general or is this a character-specific setup for your mission? Or is it a test or...? ---------------------------------------------- Sometimes we must take things to the extreme to see the whole picture. Let's pretend all these years mappers have been tweaking the player slightly and depending on the mission: You walk faster or slower. You jump very high or you barely get off the ground. You jump long or fall short. You can mantle high or low. You make more noise or less. The lightgem is more sensitive or less. You inflict or take more damage or less. ... Any thoughts from anyone about this scenario? I wonder how the playerbase would feel. My opinion is that the above tweaks are justified when a different universe is competently established. Or when a new, fully realized character is introduced. Otherwise we are tweaking simply because we can, nothing to do with the story.

Tweaking cvars in a mission.cfg file is certainly a lot easier and more mapper-friendly than tweaking core scripts and def files, so this definitely seems like a good starting point

I used the mission.cfg feature in IRI2.pk4 and can confirm it works and they revert correctly after a mission change (at least for the cvars I edited)

2.12 we introduced the mission.cfg We just need to ensure that the cvars revert when switching missions.

Another possible option is to use cvars for these constants. However, such an option would be available only when proper mission overrides for cvars are implemented.

Yeah, as I said elsewhere, it's not so much that the missions are broken that is frustrating to me and several other affected authors, it's that there was zero communication to the affected authors that this was going to be happening beforehand. There is no reason why a message couldn't have been sent to the affected authors saying "hey, this will be broken in the upcoming dev build for X reasons. I thought you'd like to know before surprising you." Or even an open discussion beforehand about why these authors decided to make these customizations to begin with. Plain and simple, that's just a lack of respect. If you have the time to break these, you have time to communicate and see if there might be a solution to avoid all this (and there is!). And perhaps from YOUR perspective, you might think this reaction seems silly, unnecessary, and that this is totally fine, but from my perspective and that of a few others, it's not. EDIT: In addition, when creating or modifying existing assets, I and others take great care in making sure that these changes don't break existing maps. And if they do, we do whatever we can to own up to that and fix it. I do expect that same level of respect to be shown to existing maps so they aren't just broken with reckless abandon and no clear path forward.

You sure know but "missionspecific" can be anything: "byanyothername", "puzzle_solving_time"... Choose something that is unique to your mission not to conflict with any immobilizations in core.

That almost works perfectly. A slight modification completely solves the issue for me: $player1.setImmobilization("missionspecific", IM_ATTACK | IM_WEAPON_SELECT); THANK YOU @stgatilov!!! I'll fix that mission tomorrow.

Complicated, heavily linked to the mission: ahouseoflockedsecrets byanyothername ARROW_ZOOMDELAY (from 6 down to 3): cauldron_v2_2 good hazard moongate northdale1 northdale2 prize seeking snowed_inn written

The training mission’s job is not cover the diversity of FMs across the entire platform. There are lots of stuff in volta universe missions which are not covered: explosive barrels, ammo crystals, loot you dislodge by shooting it with an arrow, completely different undead AI with a completely different damage model, etc Just like in northdale missions: neutral/hostile areas, in game shops, simplified lockpicks, etc Why would you need to be told any of this is happening by anything other than the game itself? That’s how games communicate: you play them.

So what is the training mission for then? Apparently it's not showing standard tdm gameplay necessarily. Edit: Maybe it's not really worth it to keep discussing this. I mean I don't want to derail too much what the topic is actually for.