Moving flaming weapons to a mod

Think I’ve worked out quoting…

After I unlocked it for further discussion one user began flooding. Repetition doesn’t advance the discussion any further and the purpose of re-enabling comments was to allow new users to give an opinion as opposed to allowing a minority to crowd out all other discussion by continuously repeating their viewpoint .

The github API publishes comments in real time so (for those who have the motivation) it’s possible to confirm that no posts were edited to misrepresent anyone’s argument. Stating in public that you are comfortable voting with an ulterior motive raises the question whether your future comments are github are to be considered sincere or opportunistic?

The format is definitely not Q&A. The goal is not to have someone else concede an argument via having the last word. If there are multiple authors try to reply in summary as opposed to each comment as it is made. We will take the best suggestions forward and those are usually the most concise.

Eh, I don’t know. It might allow things to get through, it might give them more time to be inspected before an update.[/quote]

[quote=“Coolthulhu, post:19, topic:12545”]From what I understand, it’s more about keeping one build each week in addition to the regular proper experimental builds, so that there is always a “less experimental” build in addition to the “fully experimental” ones.
This would allow merging experimental-experimental things by the start of the week, then fixing it before everyone complains about the whole game being broken.[/quote]

In that post I referred to continuous integration of a rolling release. In short all the developers try to merge contributions into a master copy which is immediately compiled for testing. This used to work quite well but the output of that testing process now makes it directly to your machine via the auto-updater. As stable is now ancient this experimental version is de facto the official copy. It’s hardly surprising that this leads to problems.

The options for releases are:

[ul][li]Continue as we are accepting that issues such as the temporary regression in volume units will be resolved in time[/li]
[li]Perform weekly releases with more careful testing and hopefully fewer issues[/li]
[li]Release builds when we reach an important milestone (how old is 0.C again?)[/li][/ul]

[quote=“Snaaty, post:10, topic:12537”]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.[/quote]

Too much of these sorts of post as of recent. The sky is not falling in. The world is not ending. The game is exceptionally and increasingly popular. We have more users than ever opening issues (currently 1200+) or proposing features. A series of similar posts by authors claiming to be the prophets of the projects apocalypse don’t appear to be founded and certainly aren’t helpful.

Probably should be

Valid argument

An absolute nightmare both to write and maintain. Firstly you have to find every single reference and this task then needs repeating every time you add a new item. Also how do you stop one mod blacklisting content required by another? This is harder than you might expect given that there are over a billion possible combinations of mods (precisely 18014398509481984 for those who are interested) before you even consider the effects of loading mods in different orders.

Making content into self-contained mods is much more supportable. If we are going continue the policy of both accepting and supporting mod content distributed with the game then we need to avoid such a maintenance nightmare

[quote=“mugling, post:41, topic:12545”]Too much of these sorts of post as of recent. The sky is not falling in. The world is not ending. The game is exceptionally and increasingly popular. We have more users than ever opening issues (currently 1200+) or proposing features. A series of similar posts by authors claiming to be the prophets of the projects apocalypse don’t appear to be founded and certainly aren’t helpful.[/quote]Agreed wholeheartedly. I mean, having people complain that the latest change is ruining things forever is nothing new; It’s been going on since before I even found this game, and that was two, three years ago? Lately though, it seems like it’s been hitting new and rather ridiculous heights over some really trivial BS, and that’s doing more to sour my experience with the game than filthy clothing ever could (let’s be honest, filthy clothing was a mild annoyance at worst). I mean, personally, I’m mildly against moving flaming weapons out of mainline, if only because I don’t think they’re harming anything in mainline and I don’t think bloating the mod list with former mainline game content is the way to go (I’ll save arguments, because Kilozombie stated my position better than I could myself), but you’re not going to hear me scream and wail about how realism is murdering the game if the decision winds up being to make the move.

[quote=“mugling, post:41, topic:12545”]An absolute nightmare both to write and maintain. Firstly you have to find every single reference and this task then needs repeating every time you add a new item. Also how do you stop one mod blacklisting content required by another? This is harder than you might expect given that there are over a billion possible combinations of mods (precisely 18014398509481984 for those who are interested) before you even consider the effects of loading mods in different orders.

Making content into self-contained mods is much more supportable. If we are going continue the policy of both accepting and supporting mod content distributed with the game then we need to avoid such a maintenance nightmare[/quote]

OK, completely fair point. However, this doesn’t justify moving certain things to mods, it justifies doing that as opposed to having them in a blacklist. Why are flaming weapons in a blacklist? --Why should they be in a mod? Not worth discarding opinions in here that it is thematic, or that it’s been used before.

Now you’re being paranoid. I stated in public that I was doing so specifically so people would know why I did so. I could have easily just voted and not said anything; I’m being very transparent here. The precedent set is that if I’m being opportunistic, I’m going to announce to everyone I’m being opportunistic, so they can treat my other comments as sincere.

[quote=“mugling, post:41, topic:12545”]An absolute nightmare both to write and maintain. Firstly you have to find every single reference and this task then needs repeating every time you add a new item. Also how do you stop one mod blacklisting content required by another? This is harder than you might expect given that there are over a billion possible combinations of mods (precisely 18014398509481984 for those who are interested) before you even consider the effects of loading mods in different orders.

Making content into self-contained mods is much more supportable. If we are going continue the policy of both accepting and supporting mod content distributed with the game then we need to avoid such a maintenance nightmare[/quote]
Mod conflicts and load order issues have been problems with modding for a very long time, and I doubt Cataclysm is going to find a way to fix that. Moving content into self-contained mods isn’t going to change that; it just inverts the issue. Instead of mods that are incompatible with other mods, you get mods dependent on other mods, and those other mods can contain things the player doesn’t want but needs to include anyway to use the first mod. And what if two people make two different mods that change the same thing in different ways? Ultimately if you’re going to allow user modding, the user has to accept a certain amount of risk and responsibility for the stability of their game when modding.

I love how you dismiss everything that goes against you, and only say “valid argument” to those that support you. Don’t go against the current, everyone here just doesn’t want this to happen, so do not do it. This isn’t your game, this is a community game.

[quote=“kilozombie, post:43, topic:12545”][quote=“mugling, post:41, topic:12545”]An absolute nightmare both to write and maintain. Firstly you have to find every single reference and this task then needs repeating every time you add a new item. Also how do you stop one mod blacklisting content required by another? This is harder than you might expect given that there are over a billion possible combinations of mods (precisely 18014398509481984 for those who are interested) before you even consider the effects of loading mods in different orders.

Making content into self-contained mods is much more supportable. If we are going continue the policy of both accepting and supporting mod content distributed with the game then we need to avoid such a maintenance nightmare[/quote]

OK, completely fair point. However, this doesn’t justify moving certain things to mods, it justifies doing that as opposed to having them in a blacklist. Why are flaming weapons in a blacklist? --Why should they be in a mod? Not worth discarding opinions in here that it is thematic, or that it’s been used before.[/quote]

Yes - its a choice between maintaining it in mainline or in a mod. A lot more people are going to be unhappy if it ends up in mainline

This PR helps enormously.

A hierarchical dependency of mods is something we already support. For example blazemod used to depend on tankmod

Also already supported. You are putting yourself at a considerable disadvantage here given that I wrote large sections of the JSON loading code and you don’t appear to have any knowledge as to how it functions.

Current policy is to support mods. We confirmed that policy with the recent cleanup of blazemod. Note that myself and Coolthulhu wrote an extensive set of automated tools to salvage that mod

The issue about crafting is valid and hasn’t previously been raised so it’s good to consider it.

As to prevailing opinion it’s obvious this poll will attract more dissenters than promoters and even then you only have 34.6% of the vote for retaining it in mainline. The vote was in favor for moving to a mod on github and as the controversy began early I suspect it has similar bias. Finally the majority (if not all) developers support it. You can be as vocal as you wish but hard facts are what is relevant here. Blacklist mods are hard to support and that content is unpopular. Moving it to a mod doesn’t deprive anyone of it and should never have consumed so much time

You voted the exact opposite to how you did on github!

Who will be unhappy though? I haven’t seen anyone who outright hates flaming weapons anywhere.

Now THIS is a flaming sword.

As to prevailing opinion it's obvious this poll will attract more dissenters than promoters and even then you only have 34.6% of the vote for retaining it in mainline. The vote was in favor for moving to a mod on github and as the controversy began early I suspect it has similar bias. Finally the majority (if not all) developers support it.

Mugling, I ask you to gain a bit of reading comprehension–

The title of the poll in this thread is Are you using flaming weapons?

34% said they use flaming weapons
34% said they don’t, but would consider it
20% said they don’t (and don’t plan to)
10% would like them in a mod/not at all

The poll has two options which imply that they could be used. Option “No, but I’d use them if they were strong” does NOT imply that they should be put into a mod.

If you’re going to twist arguments in your favor, at least do it without being blatantly wrong.

There are 483 contributors to Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead, according to Github. Have you asked all those developers?

Moving it to a mod doesn't deprive anyone of it and should never have consumed so much time

Objectively wrong. You haven’t read my arguments, and I shouldn’t have to state them again, but adding something to a mod will often end up depriving it from the game for players who don’t play with mods, like new players.

The burden of proof to add things to mods is on YOU. The burden of proof is NOT on people who DON’T want the change.

These answers are for keeping in mainline

Yes, I’d rather keep them in mainline 9 (34.6%)

These answers are for deletion (total 27%):

No, I don’t want swords on fire in my serious appocalypse 2 (7.7%)
No (other) 5 (19.2%)
Yes, but I’m fine with a mod, as long as it doesn’t get forgotten 1 (3.8%)

These answers are for reworking

No, but I’d use them if someone made them strong 9 (34.6%)

The answer that keeps the majority happy (35+27%) is mod content. As to burden of proof my argument is blacklist mods are hard to maintain and Coolthulhu argument appears to be that they re poorly designed content for mainline.

[quote=“mugling, post:50, topic:12545”]These answers are for keeping in mainline

Yes, I’d rather keep them in mainline 9 (34.6%)

These answers are for deletion (total 27%):

No, I don’t want swords on fire in my serious appocalypse 2 (7.7%)
No (other) 5 (19.2%)
Yes, but I’m fine with a mod, as long as it doesn’t get forgotten 1 (3.8%)

These answers are for reworking

No, but I’d use them if someone made them strong 9 (34.6%)

The answer that keeps the majority happy (35+27%) is mod content. As to burden of proof my argument is blacklist mods are hard to maintain and Coolthulhu argument appears to be that they re poorly designed content for mainline.[/quote]

Are you a robot or something. The poll never says about taking them away or not. So don’t excuse yourself.

Stop trying to butcher the game, man. Let’s go reverse with your argument for a moment, alright? If you don’t want it, don’t use it.

I’m ambivalent about the content itself. I don’t want to have to maintain the blacklist mod, especially when there is an easier alternative

Both pretty terrible arguments.

First of all, they shouldn’t be in a blacklist at all. If not, if they’re in mainline-- your problem is solved utterly. Then it just comes to Coolthulhu’s argument, which is completely subjective. But here’s my reasoning:

In a game where you can grow your character to immense power through vastly-accelerated skills, feats, and stat upgrades, alien mutation categories offering an extremely varied range of both helpful and unhelpful traits, and things in-between, imaginative and futuristic devices, weapons, locations, monsters and armor, artifacts with no known origin and huge variety, dozens of bionics with a soon-to-be encumbrance trade-off system, and alien netherworldly demons inspired by tons of other canons or straight-up ripped off, many of which with bended laws of physics or tones, how are awesome flaming weapons not the quintessential C:DDA experience?

How do they not fit the tone to a tee? They’re flaming weapons with barely any practical advantage-- isn’t that well-designed by most metrics? Isn’t that realistic, as opposed to most mods which bend the tone some (PK, blazemod, arcana)?

A blacklist and a mod have the same problems, as stated by Izicata. If arcana mod suddenly relied on flaming weapons, arcana mod would break without them. If there were a new vehicle part involving flaming weapons, that part could never exist in mainline, only in the flaming weapons mod.

It’s almost a personal fight at this point for you Mugling at thsi point… Come on, people just don’t want this to happen, and your arguments are starting to fall. Just ignore the items in the game, they don’t even appear if you don’t craft them. Let the other people have the game they want.

First of all, they shouldn’t be in a blacklist at all. If not, if they’re in mainline-- your problem is solved utterly.[/quote]

Do you think that it’s likely we could get broad consensus on what blacklist mods can be removed versus packing content as mods?

That’s how dependencies work. They are already supported in code. Direct question (as in yes/no), have you read and understand the JSON loading code in it’s entirety?

Not at all, so I’m sorry. You have, but it’s not the sole argument at work here.

It’s pathetically easy to add “flaming sword turret” to the “improbable weapons mod”. Would it be hard to add a “are you sure you want to blacklist this item? it may break ” message, as a catch-all? Don’t mean that as an attacking question, I’m genuinely curious.

Meh in all honesty they are pretty useless, they normally get no attention from anyone in the forum. But when you attempt to remove then suddenly everyone loves them.

I guess a semi solution would be to remove most of them (the shishkebab in particular is absolutely useless, the fire zweihander is not much better), remove their humorous? activation messages, remove the option to craft them, make them actually useful, and then add them as bandit loot.

But that’s a lot of work compared to just getting rid of a bunch of useless weapons.

You’re ignoring the issue with that, the one I’ve already raised. Those dependancy mods can contain things the player doesn’t want but needs to include anyway to use the first mod. For example, if someone makes a blazemod vehicle “turret” that’s basically a flaming spear on a mount that automatically attacks zombies, now Blazemod is dependent on the Improbable Weapons Mod, and if someone wants to use blazemod without having chainsaw lajatangs in their game they’re out of luck. Avoiding those kind of situations does require effort, just like avoiding blacklist mod conflicts requires effort.

[quote=“mugling, post:46, topic:12545”]Current policy is to support mods. We confirmed that policy with the recent cleanup of blazemod. Note that myself and Coolthulhu wrote an extensive set of automated tools to salvage that mod.[/quote]Writing said extensive set of automated tools must have been hard to code, and it also is going to need maintenance. You’re willing to spend significant time and effort maintaining mods that add content but not mods that remove content? Why? Especially as I’ve worked with blacklists, and they’re not particularly hard to maintain.

And I made mention of it and explained why. If I didn’t do that, nobody would have known I voted in the exact opposite way I did on github, and you wouldn’t be accusing me of opportunism. I’m trying to be transparent about my actions, and you’re saying that’s a reason to suppose I’m being deceptive.

kilozombie there isn’t a need to be sorry for not having read the code (although suggestions that I’m an illiterate robot are a bit questionable). The point I’m making is that I’m forced to maintain that code whenever I do other updates for the game. I could stop maintaining but given that I’ve recently been trying to fix the build issues with your PR that would be an unusual stance.

We couldn’t implement the check you propose due to the uncertain loading order - given there are 53 mods a naive implementation would need to check 4.3e+69 combinations, note there are 69 zeros after that number. A less naive implementation (with a determine load order) still needs to check all possible 18014398509481984 combinations.

Opt-in content packs aren’t a panacea but they are much more maintainable. There isn’t answer to that and given that moving it to a mod doesn’t stop anyone using it I really can’t see the problem.

[quote=“John Candlebury, post:58, topic:12545”]Meh in all honesty they are pretty useless, they normally get no attention from anyone in the forum. But when you attempt to remove then suddenly everyone loves them.

I guess a semi solution would be to remove most of them (the shishkebab in particular is absolutely useless, the fire zweihander is not much better), remove their humorous? activation messages, remove the option to craft them, make them actually useful, and then add them as bandit loot.

But that’s a lot of work compared to just getting rid of a bunch of useless weapons.[/quote]

The problem here is that it costs precisely nothing to argue ad infinitum whereas an implementation actually requires effort.

It was requested that I made an appearance on the forums but I’m not sure how productive it has been and I perhaps have an understanding of why other developers stay away. I’m not sure why StopSignal considers it both a personal argument with him (and apparently by extension the past, present and future userbase). I’ll reply if there are new arguments and I have relevant answers but otherwise I think thats all for now.