Guidelines for moving gameplay features into mods

Game Talk The Drawing Board
1

[ul]Discussion what exactly is the requirements to move core gameplay elements into a mod. I did try and post this on the github where it would get more developer exposure but that issue was closed out of hand for being to broad and It was suggested that it be moved here.

This is in reference to a few changes that have happened in the past. One of these is the crazy cataclysm mod in #16180. This is not intended to discuss specific items or monsters at all but since that issue is used in recent changes to justify moving items out I thought it might be useful that guidelines for moving anything out of the game into a mod needs to be laid out in order to prevent community backlash to such changes. This will also hopefully prevent useless discussions on individual changes that are being proposed.

So let’s start with what Kevin put down as requirements for something to be added to the black list.

  1. They need to be Jokes
  2. They do not exist in reality.

Since this was blacklist requirements and not moving items into a mod they are bit lacking and I do think that a real discussion is warranted on this.

I think the main issue here is that what is core gameplay is an opinion of one person to the next so there is potentially precedent to move anything into a mod based on the opinion of such author.

I have come up with some guidelines below that hopefully is a starting point for such a discussion.

  1. Moved elements must have concise and understandable relationships between each of them so that they are grouped correctly.

  2. Mod titles need to be easy to understand what type of elements are being added and not require a user to go to the forums to read about to understand what it does ( possible rewrite on descriptions ingame dunno )

  3. Mod needs to have an active maintainer, elements should not be removed into a mod that then will be ignored or not supported by the main dev team. Elements should not be moved into a mod in hopes of getting someone to do the work as that’s wishful thinking.

  4. An existing mod should be considered before a new one is created. This is to prevent mods with simply a few items as it adds little value and causes clutter.

  5. When considering making a new mod, elements for the existing game should not be removed then peppered into the mod just to give it a few “starting” items in hopes that others will add more. This is again wishful thinking.

  6. There needs to be a technical reason to move the elements out into a mod not simply because its felt they are not core elements or that it’s the opinion they don’t fit in.

I for one think 6 needs more clarification but I am at a loss to describe it better as it would have prevented Kevins change and I for one agree with that. Maybe if many users agree on it then it can override that requirement.

Let me know what you guys think and if you can please add a discussion flag to this it would be helpful.[/ul]

2

If a thing is being moved into a mod, the alternative isn’t keeping it in mainline, but outright deletion.
Keeping a strict guideline will mean that things that would otherwise be moved into a mod and ignored will be moved into the recycle bin and recycled.

There doesn’t need to be a strict reason to keep everything or anything.
Good reasons for removal include:

[ul][li]It causes problems with development (charger rifle was deleted because of that, vortex stone lost its powers that way). This one means that the thing in question will not be moved to mod, but deleted outright.[/li]
[li]It is crazy enough to need excuses instead of reasons and doesn’t have a gameplay role that would excuse excuses (flaming weapons)[/li]
[li]It is a detriment to the gameplay (the most important of all reasons, so far only filthy morale got it)[/li][/ul]

Once again: if something falls under those, it can be either moved to mod or re-moved. Into history. Into the place where failed ideas go to die.
Of course actually useful items will be spared even if they fall under those, but that’s like 10% of the items in game at most.

Moving things to mod is a big fat warning: this thing is bad and we don’t see a good way to make it not bad. If you have one, PR it.

While this generally causes a crapton of horrible reviews, that add less than nothing to the discussion, such as
"the idea was good but the implementation was bad",
"I would do it like this [insert a whole post of horrible ideas], which would fix the issue because I say so. No, I didn’t actually bother thinking about what will happen, I’m just throwing those ideas out because I’m sure they are great.“
or
"why is unmaintainable bloat, with year old bugs that no one reports because no one uses it, even a problem?”,
once in a while someone comes out and goes all
"We can make those items do x. This would be a pure json change and so can be done right now. This would give them a role as items doing x, because otherwise only endgame items can do x. Everyone wants an item that does x, because y is vulnerable to x and we all know that y is the most dangerous thing ever."
and we can actually implement the idea and it fixes the problem.

3

Those are all very good points and yes for some things it is a lot more preferable to move something into a mod rather then have it disappear altogether.

The filthiness trait was something that I agree was ok to move off into a mod as it generally was disliked by the players and the reasons for having it in the game were flawed.

However I don’t agree with you on the flaming weapons mod. It was done for seemingly no reason other then to make a mod that suggestions for other weapons could be dumped and the reasons for moving them out of the main game are shaky at best.

It is crazy enough to need excuses instead of reasons and doesn't have a gameplay role that would excuse excuses (flaming weapons)

See this is the main cux of the problem IMOO. Its the opinion that these have no gameplay role, the gameplay role is fun because its a GAME not a survival simulator. There are alot of things in the game that offer no gameplay value and are just there for fun sake and if items are going to be removed or dumped into mods because a few believe they should and they have the backing of being a dev or having PR write on git to make it happen then its a big FU to the community at large.

I am not trying to make a case for the flaming weapons mod to be re-integrated into the game thats not the point and for some reason that keeps getting latched onto as the point. The point is that it was generally disliked by the community and even some of the other devs but instead of listening or at least giving a good reason it was just locked. That shows questionable judgement and makes some feel like the person cannot take criticism to their actions. If your wanting to remove something from the game or move something off to a mod but cannot take criticisms for doing so maybe that should give you pause and ask if moving or removing it is the right thing to do.

The general concern here I think is that people are worried that the game is going to devolve into “everything needs to be realistic to be in the core game” thus removing the fun aspect completely and making it into a boring simulator, and that just because one dev thinks it doesn’t fit no one else is allowed to say no.

Even you listed a list of requirements here but thats the issue thats your list of requirements for removal. Is it shared by all the devs? only some? Having a standard saying if it fits these things or such and such its a good thing and can be used by users and devs alike.

I do like the work you guys are doing and all the hard work that goes into making this a great game and we all very much enjoy playing it even when we find bugs and act like giant turds with comments.

4

The flaming weapons mod PR isn’t merged yet so if someone can make a valid point to keep those in mainline, they may stay in mainline.

Still, they violate most of the principles of design we use:

[ul][li]Realism - they’re gunblade level of sanity.[/li]
[li]Usefulness - they suck.[/li]
[li]Not allowing items more dangerous to user than targets - not a written rule, but one employed nonetheless. Basically, if a thing would require horribly tedious side effects, it is not allowed. Flaming weapons fit here. This also covers things like holding items in mouth or elbows, putting your hands under your vest to heat them up and all those edge cases that wouldn’t be likely in real life due to more risk than reward.[/li]
[li]Avoiding “false variety” - that’s actually not used in many cases since a part of the dev base (Kevin, notably) likes infinitesimal choices and multiple items that differ mostly in name, but some of us are trying to cut down on clones[/li][/ul]

As for the closed discussion: once discussion reaches a certain size and no new arguments are added, it’s about making decisions, not listening. And the decision has to be made by a dev.
If you have good arguments, say them here. And you should have invoked those back then.
If not, then it’s basically voting. And voting should be resolved with a thread with a poll. And even in such a case, voting is low priority - if devs agree that something should be removed, voting won’t change that, arguments for keeping would.

The point is that it was generally disliked by the community and even some of the other devs but instead of listening or at least giving a good reason it was just locked.

It was locked because it turned into opinion sharing and finding edge cases rather than gameplay discussions or anything really worth reading.
A tiny change with 16 people discussing and 70 posts is a good indication that something is going wrong.
Voting isn’t criticism.

I avoid merging too controversial issues, so I’ll wait for a thread with a poll and then poll results (but not for long).
Oh and about controversial issues: most of those were merged without heavy feedback, especially not 70 posts of it from 16 different contributors. The biggest offenders often had <10 posts and no heated discussion at all. Says a lot about how much the community is aware of the problems.

the gameplay role is fun because its a GAME not a survival simulator. There are alot of things in the game that offer no gameplay value and are just there for fun sake

There are two roles for pretty much every item in the game: gameplay or realism. The realistic ones are the bloat that has no gameplay value, the gameplay items are often unrealistic.
Items that don’t fit in either role are basically just wolf suits, vibrators and flaming weapons.

5
The flaming weapons mod PR isn't merged yet so if someone can make a valid point to keep those in mainline, they may stay in mainline.

I’d appeal to flavor, atmosphere, whatever you want to call that certain something that makes CDDA produce way more fun than the average roguelike. So much of the charm of the game is in things that aren’t entirely on your gameplay/realism axes: sledgehammers exploding zombie children into gore fountains, practical uses for vibrators in the end times, accidentally eating your gun because you left some bionics on, etc, etc.

A big part of CDDA is post-apocalyptic pastiche and impractical weapons have an established place in zombie media. The chainsaw hand from Evil Dead is the best example I can think of, and I don’t think it would be out of place in the CDDA I love. If I’d never played before and someone told me “Yeah, you can play it straight and outsmart the zombies. Or you can go nuts on them with a chainsaw hand”, that would help sell me on the game. Flaming weapons and other gratuitous zombie-killing tools go toward the same end.

Thanks for coming in here and clarifying, btw. I don’t post much but I really appreciate that you keep an eye on the forums and actively respond to stuff like this thread and the needful things thread.

6

Ugh, getting dragged all the way off IRC for this argument.

When I started playing CDDA was cool for the unique futuristic spin, diverse enemies, and weird weaponry and vehicle options. Now… it’s less so. It’s hard to recommend a game on features that used to exist but now have to be modded back in. It’s kinda soul-crushing to look in on development and not only not have new features to try out, but also old toys getting binned.

CDDA is a game. It’s a game with a lot of zombie flavoured competition. If it doesn’t keep having unique things to offer right out of the box, I don’t see much point in playing it.

7

I don’t think anyone gonna manage to make a valid point to keep them in core when the reason to move them in a mod was never really said outside of “i don’t like this stuff and it feels like it take to much effort to balance this stuff when it just a copy-paste flavour detail”

so instead of that’ i would suggest having the mod target every more improb weapon rather then a select few to start with to make it a valid mod rather then a small dumping ground

that leads to this list form the top of my mind
“spraycan flamethrower” - to quote - "Not allowing items more dangerous to user than targets "
“pneumatic bolt driver and pneumatic assault rifle” - the recipes to make them do not make sense to start with…
“ferromagnetic rail rifle and heavy rail rifle” - i don’t even know how a survivor could build this without even a book giving at least blueprints…
“rock in a sock” - Might of been used less then the flame weapons themself

and there probably more… hidden

8

My thoughts on the matter have nothing to do with the specifics. I’ve never used the flaming weapons, nor do I see myself using them. However, the same could be said for many, many weapons in the game. That in and of itself is not a sufficient argument for relegating them to a mod. No one needs to argue why something should not be moved to a mod, but rather a compelling case for moving something to a mod needs to be made. The burden is to provide a sufficiently supported argument for moving something to a mod.

I would say CBMs or mutations make greater sense to be made into mods, each is thematically coherent, involves a sizeable set of items and mechanics, isn’t realistic, and not a integral part of the core game. It is entirely viable to play CDDA without either, even to the point mods already exist to disable them. Do I think they should be moved into mods? No, but the argument to move them is far more compelling and has a far greater impact on complexity and maintainability of the core game than shifting a handful of improbable, impractical, but arguably entirely realistic weapons to one.

If the issue is you just want fewer items to maintain, you could probably move 50% of the various firearms to a mod and I (and many others) wouldn’t even notice. Those who are really into guns will use the mod (in fact they could go into an already existing mod, or you could have “More Guns” and “Even More Guns” and a “All of the Guns” that includes guns that use live moose as ammo), and it would have a greater impact on the number of items that needs to be maintained in the core game.

9

I will only point out that CBMs and mutations have a much longer history than flaming weapons have - they existed in the original Cataclysm by Whales. Flaming weapons didn’t.

The OP also makes two very good points:

2. Mod titles need to be easy to understand what type of elements are being added and not require a user to go to the forums to read about to understand what it does ( possible rewrite on descriptions ingame dunno )
  1. Mod needs to have an active maintainer, elements should not be removed into a mod that then will be ignored or not supported by the main dev team. Elements should not be moved into a mod in hopes of getting someone to do the work as that’s wishful thinking

Especially 2 is very important. I objected to #18332 not because it’s a bad idea altogether, but because the name mugling came up with wouldn’t reflect the content changes at all.

10

I guess it’s quotes like these:

When I started playing CDDA was cool for the unique futuristic spin, diverse enemies, and weird weaponry and vehicle options. Now... it's less so. It's hard to recommend a game on features that used to exist but now have to be modded back in. It's kinda soul-crushing to look in on development and not only not have new features to try out, but also old toys getting binned.

that bloat these discussions while adding literally nothing of worth to it. It also shows that you don’t seem to get that these Items aren’t lost, they’re in a mod. That is in the default selection. Literally the only additional thing you have to do is three more keystrokes when creating a world.

11

http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=13275.0
(How do I into linking?)
Poll specifically for flaming weapons.

Explanation for why github shouldn’t be used for discussing opinions: