I run with NPCs all the time and I usually find their jackassery just gets themselves killed more than anything else. I ‘maybe’ had one try and crash the game two or three versions ago through inappropriate item use, but I think they just died or the debug caught em.
At best they’ve managed to go on a suicidal rampage through a town while I stalk behind, finishing off what they down and waiting for the mobs to inevitable pull them apart because they cannot into basic tactical assessment. At worst they walk up and tell me to my your weapon but cannot comprehend that I’m carrying EVEN MORE lethal equipment in my jacket pockets.
That headcrab must be doing funny things to your mind.
Think about the posibilities:
-Escape from zombies with sweet Parkour.
-Clear hospital buildings level by level, only to find that the evac zone on the top was never operational.
-Escape a horde by jump from a bridge into the water several Z levels bellow
-Explore underwater.
-Raise the Us flag up in every flagpole you find, because hey as long as the flag still waves, there’s still hope. Or burn it you unpatriotic scum.
-Ohh no Giant Eagles from above
-Climb a Radio tower to Synchronize your GPS and then jump into a bunch of conveniently placed hay (break every single bone in your body)
Z-levels would add tactical depth to movement and combat, NPCs and factions would add longevity and breadth to the scope of the game. It’s not really a binary situation, they aren’t mutually exclusive goals, and chances are, since people work on whatever they like, someone working on one would probably not be working on the other if his development scope was restricted.
[quote=“i2amroy, post:6, topic:5349”][ol][li] Most developers do this because we want to, not because we are getting paid to do so or we have to do so.[/li]
[li] Not all developers are that great at coding the actual game. (I personally would rank most early stages of Z-level creation over the top of my head, and I know there are others out there who would feel the same).[/li]
[li] People like to do things that are fun. Going through the code and changing every single time the map is referenced to a 3D map type is not exactly something I would qualify as ‘fun’, though there are definitely others who might. Now that’s not to say that I won’t do things that aren’t fun, but I’m not going to embark on a months-long project of just doing stuff like that; I’ll burn out and then just stop helping C:DDA altogether first.[/li]
[li] Due to the fast pace of C:DDA’s development PR’s will start conflicting pretty quickly, triply so with something of this magnitude. Every time a PR conflicts, it increases the work you need to do; so a PR that works on z-levels or NPC’s will need to be finished as fast as possible to minimize conflicts.[/li]
[li]Most of the main "dev"s do very little actually coding on the game themselves. Kevin, for example, pretty much only merges things, and KA101 is in a very similar position IIRC. It’s gotten better as more devs have been given merge power (thus freeing up more time) but it’s still enough that much less PR’ing goes on from the main devs then you would think.[/li]
[li] Glyphgryph is currently working on a bounty system for z-level stuff right now, which will provide monetary rewards for finishing specific tasks (we already have a thread discussing the specific tasks over in the developers board). Once that is finished it should provide more focus for those tasks.[/li][/ol]
In short we can’t control people. People will do what they want, and most don’t find the idea of working on extremely big rewrites entertaining enough to prevent themselves from burning out. We are working on setting up a system which should provide money rewards and incentivize progress towards things like that, but for now we are doing all we can. We’ve already laid the base of most NPC fixes in the creature class, for example, so progress is there, but it’s not going to happen overnight and it’s largely at the whims of many devs, most of them not core ones.[/quote]
I understand this position a lot, but on the other hand, it’s not going to get any easier. Only harder.
I think a lot of the frustration and reason for posts like this is that it looks like the developers are just going after the ‘low hanging fruit’. I know that isn’t really the case, and it’s two separate sets of people (content creators and devs), but I think a lot of people seem to have had that view due to all of the changes being mostly cosmetic/content based.
That’s why I feel a content lock would help, and also why I feel there should be a ‘core’ set of devs instead of leaving it wide open (obviously mods are a separate thing). We’ve got tons of content, with pretty much all the obvious/not so obvious items you can imagine added. If this isn’t possible, then a spreadsheet full of ‘things we need’ could be made and that’d encourage people to put time into what we need (with enough variation to suit everyone) instead of people just making endless guns.
I think that allowing new people to make content is good. Some of them may try easy stuff at first and learn their way to harder things… and even if not, some of the content could be great addition to the game. If you lock it down, they will never do.
A lot of lack of forward developing appearance is because there is a ton of behind-the-scenes cleanup and various things that need to be done for many features long before any real change is seen by the players. Take the vending machine PR stuff for example. The only apparent difference for actual players was a small feature addition, vending machines, but what many don’t know is that it involved some fairly heavy rewrites on all of the money handling code in the game. Or take the creature class change; that was one of the biggest steps that needed to be taken in order to implement NPC’s, but from the players point of view there was literally no change at all (other then a few new bugs that popped up). One of the things that people might need to start realizing is that the majority of real “dev” things isn’t adding cool brand new feats (Such as Z-levels or NPC’s), it’s rewriting all of the current game systems so that you can add those features.
As for the idea of a “core” dev team, we’d love to have one. There’s just one major problem there; a “core” dev team requires a team of people who are willing to consistently put in time to help develop the game for long periods of time, and that’s just something that we don’t have. Many people don’t realize this, but since the point where I started helping C:DDA (late April last year) there is only 1 “main” dev that was active then and has remained active since, Kevin (2 if you count me). Other then that every single main developer has eventually left the project or shifted to other related topics (such as GlyphGryph, who has been working on kickstarter/forum stuff instead). We’d love to have a “core” set of devs, but as long as people aren’t willing to put in the time and effort for long periods of time it isn’t going to happen. This is also one of the reasons why we focus so much on drawing in new developers with easier features, because we need them to replace the main devs that are leaving.
Speaking, of NPC’s and z-levels, was there ever a process outline made? Like of steps of what needed to happen? I’m sure there probably was, and it would be great to know where to start If someone (say me) was interested in helping move things along. Every successful code project I’ve been on, open source or no, started with a clear description of what needed to happen.
[quote=“i2amroy, post:32, topic:5349”]A lot of lack of forward developing appearance is because there is a ton of behind-the-scenes cleanup and various things that need to be done for many features long before any real change is seen by the players. Take the vending machine PR stuff for example. The only apparent difference for actual players was a small feature addition, vending machines, but what many don’t know is that it involved some fairly heavy rewrites on all of the money handling code in the game. Or take the creature class change; that was one of the biggest steps that needed to be taken in order to implement NPC’s, but from the players point of view there was literally no change at all (other then a few new bugs that popped up). One of the things that people might need to start realizing is that the majority of real “dev” things isn’t adding cool brand new feats (Such as Z-levels or NPC’s), it’s rewriting all of the current game systems so that you can add those features.
As for the idea of a “core” dev team, we’d love to have one. There’s just one major problem there; a “core” dev team requires a team of people who are willing to consistently put in time to help develop the game for long periods of time, and that’s just something that we don’t have. Many people don’t realize this, but since the point where I started helping C:DDA (late April last year) there is only 1 “main” dev that was active then and has remained active since, Kevin (2 if you count me). Other then that every single main developer has eventually left the project or shifted to other related topics (such as GlyphGryph, who has been working on kickstarter/forum stuff instead). We’d love to have a “core” set of devs, but as long as people aren’t willing to put in the time and effort for long periods of time it isn’t going to happen. This is also one of the reasons why we focus so much on drawing in new developers with easier features, because we need them to replace the main devs that are leaving.[/quote]
I completely agree that loads of stuff has definitely been done - it’s just that it doesn’t look like it has to the outside observer as the kickstarter goals were so huge and what we’ve had instead is things that outwardly look small (even though I and other people with coding knowledge know they’re not). Possibly adding a few more main page/forum updates on progress would help show people what’s being worked on and what’s required.
Although allowing the addition of more easier content is good in a lot of respects for a growing game, I’d just think it might be a good idea to direct some of that input into areas we need it, rather than people just adding vanity items/random stuff. Like if you were to put out a notice saying that you wanted people to improve robots (something which apparently needs improving) I’m sure you’d get a lot of input and could set some small challenges for people with karma based rewards (or a forum tag for people who have contributed something).
It just seems to me that we could make things more open and get more community involvement rather than just waiting for some really talented programmers to appear from somewhere.
You keep dismissing my point. If I told people they could only contribute if they did what I told them to, I’m fairly certain I’d be the only one working on the project (if that).
As a general rule, open source project leaders DON’T GIVE ORDERS.
Also, you might want to consider what else the feature list would be missing if I rejected things based on not being a priority for me:
windows support, tiles, mutations, bionics, NPCs, advanced inventory, view nearby items/monsters, drugs.
If I developed the game like you suggest, something like 3/4 of the features that have been added in the past year would never have happened.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I just meant that a soft content lock could be put on to curb the amount of stuff added which isn’t a goal in the coming release. I personally think projects work better with a core team if possible (see DCSS) with solid contributions from others although I know other models can work. At the moment though, with the github in which anyone can push stuff, you’re inundated with loads of little things that people add or tweak which takes up loads of time (as i2amroy said).
[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:35, topic:5349”]You keep dismissing my point. If I told people they could only contribute if they did what I told them to, I’m fairly certain I’d be the only one working on the project (if that).
As a general rule, open source project leaders DON’T GIVE ORDERS.
Also, you might want to consider what else the feature list would be missing if I rejected things based on not being a priority for me:
windows support, tiles, mutations, bionics, NPCs, advanced inventory, view nearby items/monsters, drugs.
If I developed the game like you suggest, something like 3/4 of the features that have been added in the past year would never have happened.[/quote]
You’re getting the wrong end of the stick, I’m not saying give orders I’m saying GIVE DIRECTION. If we’re feeling so democratic we can’t make a decision then throw it open to some forum polls to decide what goes in. If someone comes along and says ‘I created working helicopters’ then you’re not going to ignore that, but to say ‘this is what we want the community to work on’ would help drive the game in a good direction. Yeah, if people make other stuff it’ll have to wait till the next version/can be put aside for later. People have a modding system now and there’s no need for it to be a small list of things to contribute too.
At this stage I think you do a disservice to the game and the awesome work you and everyone has put in by saying that people would instantly lose all interest if they couldn’t add exactly what they want and I think that’s part and parcel of what’s become problematic. Quality trumps quantity any day of the week.
I don’t think it’s possible to say this without treading on toes, which I hate doing, because I honestly feel DDA’s developers are decent people and generally have their heart in the right place. But the game is suffering from the staggering amount of new content which adds little or nothing. I believe there’s still work of substance taking place, but it’s overwhelmed by trivial additions that only make the project seem self-indulgent and stagnant. I would love nothing more than a functional NPC and faction system, but instead most new builds just seem to add another array of outlandish home made weapons, or another five types of peanut butter sandwich, or another dozen sorts of beer, etc.
You know self-indulgence doesn’t manifest entirely in physical objects, right? If there was a lock on adding in new items, most people would push for inclusion of their pet mechanic or argue about stuff already in the game before working on stuff like factions or z-levels. No matter how much you tried to lock stuff, you’d always have people trying to cripple the game experience in the name of ‘balance’ and ‘realism’, and that’d just lead to the game dying faster than it already is.
Everything on that list either triggered or was part of a “build”; multiple commits go to one build. If you’re talking stable releases, then see the discussion of infrastructure.
Please tell us how many and which items on that list are trivial, overindulgent, or otherwise shouldn’t have happened; go back as far as you like.
Thanks for helping us get a shared perspective on what the community considers unimportant.