Overriding tdm_weapon_arrow.script

[joebarnin]

3 hours ago, stgatilov said:

Probably something like:

  $player1.setImmobilization("missionspecific", IM_ATTACK);
  ...
  $player1.setImmobilization("missionspecific", 0);

No idea whether it works or not --- maybe it blocks using weapons, maybe also wielding them.

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.

[snatcher]

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.

[kingsal]

17 hours ago, stgatilov said:

I'd like to ask authors: why did you decide to override this script?
Perhaps we can add some customization points and delete overrides?

I override it so I can tweak the #define ARROW_ZOOMDELAY 3 //VOLTA MOD


There's a whole bunch of reasons why I do this, one of which is because it makes shooting the bow easier for most players. I dont really want to get into a debate about if thats better or not but I  would suggest you expose the variables in a  way that authors can tweak them. 

I sent you a DM about this exact thing. 

[stgatilov]

Speaking of ARROW_ZOOMDELAY.
Just changing it from 6 to 3 will not add any customization options.

I think all the macro constants should be converted into spawnargs.
Hopefully, we have a proper entityDef that can hold these spawnargs.

[snatcher]

1 hour ago, stgatilov said:

I think all the macro constants should be converted into spawnargs.
Hopefully, we have a proper entityDef that can hold these spawnargs.

Are we switching 10 scripts for 10 defs? What if the core def changes sometime in the future and we then have not 10 but 15 or 20 missions from different authors with this def? What if, in the end, nobody is willing to change/enhance/improve the bow because of the trouble?

This is the day people might look back to in the future, which reminds me:

[stgatilov]

2 hours ago, snatcher said:

Are we switching 10 scripts for 10 defs? What if the core def changes sometime in the future and we then have not 10 but 15 or 20 missions from different authors with this def? What if, in the end, nobody is willing to change/enhance/improve the bow because of the trouble?

The idea is that mapper can set spawnargs on map entity to override defaults from entityDef.
If some entityDef is used only to dynamically spawn entity without any map entity, then it does not fit. I guess this is the case with arrow weapons, sadly.

UPDATE: At some moment we discussed an option to specify "patches" to core entityDefs, but the idea never got far.

[stgatilov]

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.

[kingsal]

Cvars aren't a bad starting place, especially for fine tuning some of our gameplay elements. However,  we would want explicit control over them per pk4.  Or put differently, we wouldn't want to loose control of them  

 

[nbohr1more]

2.12 we introduced the mission.cfg

We just need to ensure that the cvars revert when switching missions.

[Wellingtoncrab]

38 minutes ago, nbohr1more said:

2.12 we introduced the mission.cfg

We just need to ensure that the cvars revert when switching missions.

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)

[Amadeus]

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

[snatcher]

10 hours ago, Wellingtoncrab said:

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)

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.

[Moonbo]

Hey @stgatilov, sorry for the late reply. In looking at the tdm_weapon_arrow.script in A House of Locked Secrets, there is a comment line that says "Adjusted to stop the raising and lowering animations during a realm transition."

From what I remember, when the player was switching between the physical and spiritual realms, if the player was holding a bow the lowering animation would play upon starting the switch and the raising would play after it. And so we modified the script to disable those animations during a realm switch. That was the only adjustment that should be present.

I think if you look for the line "if($info_player_realm.getKey("transiting") == "0")" it should be quick to spot where those checks were made.

Thanks!

-Gelo

[chakkman]

On 4/28/2024 at 2:49 PM, stgatilov said:

As you probably know, overriding core files which are not specifically designed for that is fragile and unsupported.
Indeed, it usually works... until it does not

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.

Edited April 30 by chakkman

[snatcher]

A House Of Locked Secrets: attached to this post are the Bow/Arrow, Blackjack and Shortsword scripts updated to 2.12.

I didn't take any liberties. Blame snatcher if something isn't right.

@Moonbo, @stgatilov

z_ahouseoflockedsecrets_212_scripts.pk4

Edited April 30 by snatcher
Re-uploaded (wrong folder structure)

[OrbWeaver]

18 hours ago, chakkman said:

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.

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.

[ChronA]

On 4/30/2024 at 6:55 AM, snatcher said:

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

I think this is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because the ability to customize exists does not mean most mappers will use it. On the contrary, if one considers the customization that are already available, we see that the overwhelming majority of mappers stick to the defaults.

The exceptions are interesting also. Kingsal's the only mapper that readily comes to mind who habitually deviates from presets seemingly just for the sake of being different. However everything they make is clearly in service of cohesive visions. Hazard Pay, no matter how you feel about it, unarguably loses a great deal of its survival horror character if you take away the napalm arrows or the punishing save system. The Voltas don't need to use Thief style elemental crystals in place of TDMs arrow model, but the fact that they are there makes a definite statement about the author's awareness of their inspiration for their work in TDM from the original games, which in turn draws attention to other, subtler creative choices.

I think it's also telling that some of kingsal's modifications have been adopted by other authors. As OrbWeaver said, "If the defaults are widely disliked, they should be changed." However, how can the community come to a consensus unless there are maps to showcase the advantages of new innovations? Requesting, or worse requiring, players to go in and manually change settings in order to experience a new mechanic is never going to gain any traction. Certainly it is not worth the effort of creating an entire map built around a new paradigm.

[Wellingtoncrab]

1 hour ago, OrbWeaver said:

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.

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. 

[chakkman]

13 minutes ago, Wellingtoncrab said:

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.

I don't think there's a consensus, or a general opinion that there are "issues" with the existing weapons. It's rather that FM authors take the liberty to change things to what they think is better. Or different. Or whatever.

Edited May 1 by chakkman

[chakkman]

22 minutes ago, Wellingtoncrab said:

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.

I hope you didn't forget the (controversial) discussion about his implementation of a Resident Evil style save room in Hazard Pay. Or the change to the arrows, which one head shot zombies.

These changes are anything but commonly accepted and wanted. Rather something he implemented, because he thought it was a good idea. Which is fair enough, but, it unfortunately leads to the lack of uniformity that I was talking about, when every FM author thinks he has to reinvent the wheel. Especially new players can't get used to how the game, weapons and enemies behave, if the behavior is different in every FM.

Edited May 1 by chakkman

[Wellingtoncrab]

5 minutes ago, chakkman said:

I hope you didn't forget the (controverse) discussion about his implementation of a Resident Evil style save room in Hazard Pay. Or the change to the arrows, which one head shot zombies.

These changes are anything but commonly accepted and wanted. 

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.

[chakkman]

Well that doesn't mean that everyone is d'accord with all the gameplay choices he made in these missions, does it?

All I can say is that I never got the impression here or elsewhere that there are issues with the weapon behavior in TDM. Maybe apart from the blackjacking, which has been a controversial topic in the past. 

I can only repeat myself in arguing that the big problem is the uniformity of essential gameplay elements. The game just doesn't feel coherent, if every FM author changes important gameplay dynamics, and it makes it difficult and frustrating, not just for beginners.

[Amadeus]

10 minutes ago, chakkman said:

 It's rather that FM authors take the liberty to change things to what they think is better. Or different. Or whatever.

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

[chakkman]

Just now, Amadeus said:

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.

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.

[Amadeus]

Just now, chakkman said:

Again, that's not the point, The point is that the game is all over the place, if every mission feels and plays different.

 

Yeah, some (myself included) would argue that is a feature, not a bug. The important thing is that the FM plays "well" and is "enjoyable".