Proposal to end all modification of myth

[igmo]

...hence my reasoning that even if you set a lock AND an archer to have maximum ranges of '20' and put them on that hill on Venice...the archer will *still* shoot further whether you like it or not...

yeah, as i said, it makes perfect sence that an arch or mort will have a boost from a height that a lock will not due to the path of their projectile. i am totally in agreement and totally understand.

however, that was not the point of my range test.

the point was to confirm the projectmagma assertion that 1.5 gamplay is the same as 1.3 gameplay, just with bugfixes. on the first simple test i tried, i found that assertion to be incorrect.

i am curious as to why it is incorrect and would love a discussion on the topic.

[iron]

hey igmo, I replied on the other thread, rather than duplicating here

[iron]

Ok, the range of units was complained about in 1.4 yes, but never proved, same as bottle duds.

Thanks for the film igmo - hopefully this will show me more than the archer test which left me uncertain as to whether things were indeed different or not.

[Savanarola]

For example, previously (all version of Myth II pre-1.5) when units where fading out (either assassin elimination, player drop, world knot enter, etc) there was a chance that they would remain on the mesh in "flinch" mode. This has been reported many times during 1.4, with tons of films being sent to us. In 1.5, this can no longer happen

FYI, this still exists in 1.5

[GHOST®]

[color=DFC99B]

FYI, this still exists in 1.5

Heya Sav :o)

Got a Film ?? Swing by HL sometime mb. ;o)[/color]

[Savanarola]

FYI, this still exists in 1.5

OK after talking with myrd and ghost, it sounds like the problem they fixed is something different than I thought.

Carry on.

[William Wallet]

1.3 was a kick in the balls compared to TFL. In 1.3 no one ever heard of a thing called 'personal space'. It just isn't funny seeing 100 people in one little box about the size of my chin.
Blah.

[GodzFire]

Sorry to necro a 5 year old post, but this was the first time I ever read this.

I never realized that (at the time), so many people were against updates of the game. I just don't understand why it's such a big deal.

Back in 2004, if I remember correctly, Myth still had a pretty healthy community. If people are able to extend the life of the game, why would you be so critical of it?

[Pyro]

There are many factors to it. While making the first updates, bugs could have been introduced that made people assume they were permanent changes rather than an on going development. So for those types, they lost what little faith they had in Magma.

Others would hear about these "bugs" or changes from people they might trust or play a lot with. So they think... if so and so things this is bad, they are probably right. So they follow the crowd. Maybe even thinking they noticed a bug when it was just a mistake on their perception.

Some might not have little to no respect for the people that they see working on this as players who lack skill or who haven't played in a long time. So they think to themselves, what do these guys know about Myth. Or they have it in their mind that Myth II 1.3 didn't need fixing. That the old "bugs" are just part of the game and therefore not bugs.

Of course it works both ways, so you have people like those on the other side of things. Wanting these new features and telling the players upset to get used to it. So it makes the upset people think these bugs they may or may not see think they are permanent.

In conclusion, many (but not all) people are idiots. The end.

[ChrisP]

Yeah, funny to re-read this thread years later. Those were the days.

Playing WoW puts an interesting perspective on it. As some may know, that game is patched regularly, and not just with bug fixes or new content, but with major gameplay changes. And by major gameplay changes, I don't mean (if WoW were Myth) a dwarf's bottle, when thrown down hill at a certain precise angle and with your camera angle set a certain way seems to go +/- 1% the range you think you remember it used to go back when you were still a noob, but intentional gameplay changes more like... oh, now your dwarf doesn't throw bottles at all and instead attacks with a broad sword.

Imagine Project Magma trying that one five years ago and you have a typical day on the WoW forums. People, resistant to change as they are, gnash their teeth and threaten mass subscription cancellations. Yet somehow, the WoW community continues to grow by the thousands - every week. How?

Personally, I also find myself really hating a lot of the changes at first, but once I start settling into a new patch, I find I have to admit most of the new stuff is pretty cool. Never changing anything would surely make the vocal "purists" happy - at least till they got bored and moved on along with everyone else who also got bored because the game got stagnant. Change, however, promotes growth.

Project Magma understood this, but instead of making it their mantra, they spent way, way too much of their limited time and resources also trying to keep everyone happy. This was so impossible that even when Project Magma succeeded, people made up shit to be unhappy about.

If Project Magma somehow had the manpower to make quality patches like 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, etc... every couple of months instead of every couple of years - while also having the resolve to not worry about minor gameplay changes, I'm sure the Myth community would have eventually grown instead of declined. Sure, most of the same old people would still be bitching, but they'd be bitching on these forums instead of the WoW ones, where many of them have gone.

[Renwood TWA]

that post above looks like an exscuse JUST for you to talk about wow.

[ChrisP]

that post above looks like an exscuse JUST for you to talk about wow.

Well, most posts are an excuse to talk about something or another, no? I thought my post stayed on topic, i.e. reactions to changes to Myth, even if I used more recent experiences as a perspective on the events I was involved in when this thread was new. But, OMG, your post looks like an excuse just for you to talk about me bringing up WoW!

[Baak]

Seemed relevant to me.

Perhaps you should have read the entire post, Ren, instead of just looking at it.

[vinylrake]

Change in and of itself is neither good nor bad, it is the perceived value of the changes by which change itself is judged.

Arguing that nothing should ever be changed because something is perfect is no more silly (or reasonable) than arguing that the game has to keep changing to stay alive and keep people interested. The process of life involves change, but so does the process of death.

So:

If you don't like change of ANY kind, continue to play version 1.3 of SoulBlighter or the last bungie release of TFL. (Although 1.5 seems to work splediforously as far as I can tell - went through about half the solo campain in TFL (not vTFL) on Saturday and it was as I remembered it - suicidal drunken-aimed dorfs and all)).

If you DO want numerous drastic changes that will seriously change how the game plays, turning it into something it is not or was not designed to be , there are LOTS of games available - perhaps one of them might be more to your liking. It is unlikely you will ever get enough changes of large scope implemented into Myth II to make you happy - you'll always be unsatisfied.

[ChrisP]

Not to get too wrapped up in semantics but I would argue each of your points, Vinylrake. By "change" we are obviously referring to the effort of improving upon and adding to the game - meaning positive, not random, change, even if "positive" is viewed subjectively by some. And I do think change is inherently good. I doubt you'd want to exclusively only eat your favorite food or watch your favorite movie. Without change, one gets bored, or stagnates, or fails to grow. I could go on, but in essence, as long as one works towards positive change, change is good.

So:

If you don't like change of ANY kind, continue to play version 1.3 of SoulBlighter or the last bungie release of TFL. (Although 1.5 seems to work splediforously as far as I can tell - went through about half the solo campain in TFL (not vTFL) on Saturday and it was as I remembered it - suicidal drunken-aimed dorfs and all)).

If you DO want numerous drastic changes that will seriously change how the game plays, turning it into something it is not or was not designed to be , there are LOTS of games available - perhaps one of them might be more to your liking. It is unlikely you will ever get enough changes of large scope implemented into Myth II to make you happy - you'll always be unsatisfied.

I would also argue that neither of your examples exist, except maybe as anomalies. Even the most change-resistant Myth player likes a new plugin now and then, or at least new players or challenges to compete against. Even if there are people who only want to play the same exact solo campaign over and over for years or decades, they do nothing for the future or continuation of the Myth community. They are the anomalies and should be insignificant to the decision on when and how to change.

Nor does any member of the Myth community want the game to suddenly become, say, a first person shooter. The drastic and ridiculous aside, we've all wished for changes, be it better graphics, less bugs or latency, new map making features, more UI features, a larger community, or many other things that wouldn't really "turn it into something it is not or was not designed to be".

It is in this sense that I feel Project Magma should have more embraced change. Not that it didn't, but it was also hampered, slowed and demoralized to an extent by the fear of angering the Myth Luddites - as is demonstrated by the history present in this thread.