Proposal to end all modification of myth

[vinylrake]

...I I could go on, but in essence, as long as one works towards positive change, change is good.

This though I think was my point mb? That change isn't itself good or bad, it is the PERCEIVED value that makes it such. e.g. Change is good as long as the change is positive, but if someone were working toward positivechange but somehow broke Myth that wouldn't be a good change. It's the external evaluation of the result, not the intent that makes it one or the other.

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.

I was referring here to changes to the game itself - more specifically changes to things that effect (intentionally or not) the play of the game. I do believe there are a sizeable # of people who wish there had been - or would at least have been perfectly happy with - no changes to Myth other than making the code run on modern OSes/graphics cards/OpenGL. That is the no-change I was talking about. I was I realize imprecise in my description. Sorry for that.

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".

I don't want to go into details for fear of offending mapmakers whom I don't in any way wish to discourage in their endeavors to create new things for myth, (not implying my words have any huge import, just in such a small community praise and perceived brickbats can have a magnified effect), but I have heard people working on projects describing the kinds of changes they want to make to Myth which in my opinion do make the game considerably different than what it was.

OK, I'll mention one change which as far as I know is mapmaker neutral because it appears in many maps. I think the whole inventory feature changes Myth considerably. It somewhat removes the chesslike one-unit-one/two-attack underlying structure of myth strategy/battle into a structure that is much more like a FPS (switching weapons, multiple units picking up each other's weapons) or a FP-fantasy role-playing game where stronger characters have to pick different spells or different attacks. I think it's amazing that this much new functionality was able to be added to Myth and mapmakers were very creative to take advantage of the functionality, but by and large I don't like the feature - the levels that use it extensively don't feel very mythish to me. It feels like a different kind of game. It doesn't feel 'right'. Inventory is not a 'good' change to me. It's not a 'bad' change either, but it's different and it makes Myth play fundamentally different to me so I could definitely live without it.

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.

Seeing the amazingness of vTFL packed into SB, I imagine that in the best of all possible worlds, there would be a switch in the preferences screen you could use to turn off post 1.3 enhancements (other than OS/graphicscard compatibility) so that you could play Myth in it's 'original' incarnation. A so all new features would be controlled by selecting which version of myth you want to play. Keeping ALL versions would be overkill, but just a toggle switch for 'Play Myth SB v1.3' or 'Play Myth SB Latest Version(1.7)' would be awesome.

I realize the work involved would be tedious and all, and wouldn't want anyone spending their time on it, but if I could go back in time and influence the development path of Myth II that is what I would try to make happen - code all enhancements so that all post 1.3 enhancements be switchable when starting up Myth.

[Pyro]

Keeping ALL versions would be overkill, but just a toggle switch for 'Play Myth SB v1.3' or 'Play Myth SB Latest Version(1.7)' would be awesome.

How would it be overkill. All you need are the Myth2 executables. I have the following in the same Myth II folder.

Myth II 1.3.0.exe
Myth II 1.4.3.exe
Myth II 1.5.1.exe
Myth II.exe
and the 1.7 betas

The one without a version number being 1.6 as my default. So if I wish to run 1.3, I take out all the Patch plugins that come after Patch 1.3 and run the 1.3 exe. Though, if you do run 1.3, I suggest you take out as many plugins you won't be running out of your "plugins" folder. Since back in that build and before, Myth 2 would load all plugins as it loaded Myth2.

[vinylrake]

[quote="Pyro"]How would it be overkill. All you need are the Myth2 executables. I have the following in the same Myth II folder./quote]

It would be overkill in my opinion because I was envisioning how to implement the functionality IN the code itself (hundreds of if/thens interspersed in the code so everytime you hit one it's either 'use new features' or else use old features). But if all the code changes are in the plugs and you are talking about just a switchable thing to move plugins in/out of the plugin folder mb someone could just write a macro to do that - although of course Baak's plugin sync program could probably do it a lot more elegantly if a version were created just to run different myth versions.

[Myrd]

So you want us to add a "Buggy gameplay" checkbox to enable all the 1.3 bugs?

(The mapmaking features, when not used, don't do anything. So the only difference is the bug fixes for various game play issues (such as various flavours of OOS).)

[ChrisP]

That change isn't itself good or bad, it is the PERCEIVED value that makes it such... It's the external evaluation of the result, not the intent that makes it one or the other.

Not always, as I'll try to demonstrate later. Intent aside, external evaluation does not always coincide with "quality". By quality I mean as it might be measured by experts. For example, put a real fancy label on a terrible bottle of wine, or conversly put an unappealing label on a really good bottle of wine, and the masses will be fooled, though wine experts would not. Off topic, but for some fascinating insights along this nature on how our perceptions work, I recommend the book 'Blink' by Malcolm Gladwell.

It doesn't feel 'right'. Inventory is not a 'good' change to me. It's not a 'bad' change either, but it's different and it makes Myth play fundamentally different to me so I could definitely live without it.

I guess my definition of “fundamentally differentâ€

[ChrisP]

WTF? Someone made the forums so there's now a size limit? There's an example of a terrible change!

ahem...

...New patches are released every two or three months for years to come. Consider these patches to be of the same quality, with the same number and caliber of features and “improvementsâ€

[Pyro]

But if all the code changes are in the plugs and you are talking about just a switchable thing to move plugins in/out of the plugin folder ...

IF? Are you suggesting I may be wrong? The changes in any version of Myth II is within the executable itself and the added Patch plugins. Besides, why trust that this "v1.3 mode" feature idea works correctly. Why not run the original, so you know it is what it is.

[vinylrake]

But if all the code changes are in the plugs and you are talking about just a switchable thing to move plugins in/out of the plugin folder ...

IF? Are you suggesting I may be wrong? The changes in any version of Myth II is within the executable itself and the added Patch plugins.

It appears in your post that you are (mock?) indignant I would question your comment about all the changes between versions being just in the plugins then you refer to changes being in the plugins AND the executable which is what I had been thinking.

This is why I am confused. I said IF ALL the changes are in the PLUGINS then your suggestion is much much simpler than the way I was thinking about being able to switch between versions. . IF changes are in plugins AND the executable itself, then there would (potentially) need to be some conditional code switching addedto the executable itself (the way I was thinking of it).

[Renwood TWA]

You just have multiple different versions of the mythII.exe icon for each of the different version numbers in the same mythII root folder.

i think older ones dont have a title on the icon itself so you have to keep them in seperate folders and name each folder the name of what version is inside each one. since older myth builds would all have the same name and cant be in the root folder at the same time. but with the last many versions each one has a different name so you can keep many builds/versions of mythII.exe in the main folder.

its very simple to do as soon as you try it one time, and i think the point is if people want to do that they ALLREADY can. but i think your point is it needs to be part of the interface, so you can choose what version of myth to play from prefs or something.

both points are valid, and if it wasnt too hard to add, not a bad idea, but here we go again with adding "this little feature or that one"

~8^)

[Renwood TWA]

About the plugins.

I belive what they are saying is "Changes made to support new features and versions of mythII.exe have to be included in NEW plugins."

there are a lot of really cool things added for features in the engine and for spiffie features of the new builds, BUT you have to make a NEW plugin with the support structured INTO the plugin so take advantage of these new mapmaking features.

for instance there is a feature called "Proj into mon"

its projectiles into monsters. Its really cool, but it wont have ANY effect on older versions of myth plugins because they dont have SUPPORT for this new feature, the Engine can do it but the plugin cant.

So to take advantage of Proj into Mon you have to make a NEW plugin with support built in.

Then you can make something like a player controlled Spider Queen that can lay eggs that can hatch into baby spiders and attack whatever is closest, when they hatch they go to the team of whoever layed them. they dont go to the captain of the team, they get detached to the person that contolled or controls the spider queen.


i hope this helped ~8^)

[vinylrake]

It's the external evaluation of the result, not the intent that makes it one or the other.

Not always, as I'll try to demonstrate later. Intent aside, external evaluation does not always coincide with "quality".

I don't disagree with your statement about quality at all, but I wasn't talking about 'qood' being a measure of quality, I was referring more to change not being inherently good - that the 'good' we ascribe is a subjective perception. I think your example of masses vs. experts having different views of whether something is 'good' or how good something is reinforces my point - that change itself is not inherently good or bad, it is the subjective evaluation of the change which makes one think the change is one thing or another. In your example, different groups of people may have differing views on how 'good' a wine is, but that is a subjective evaluation based on at least different criteria between the groups as to what constitutes 'good' (or 'quality' in your wording).

The problem really is that we are talking about whether change is objectively good or bad, or whether it is a subjective interpretation of the change which makes it one or the other WITHOUT first defining what we mean by good or bad in the context of Myth. From your post I gather that you believe that for things to continue to live they must change, so therefore all change is good - because it is required for life. (I've oversimplified no doubt) So if I understand your point, with the ultimate GOOD being the game of myth continuing to "live", any change would be inherently 'good' because you believe that without change, the interest level of people playing the game will decrease sooner, which will hasten the death of Myth. I don't _radically_ disagree with that premise (and agree with much you have to say about Wow and focusing too much on core gamers when trying to expand player base), but the reason I don't think all change is good is because I can envision change that would hasten people's abandomment of myth. If 'good' is keeps Myth alive, then a change that kills Myth or speeds up it's demise is not a 'good' change.

I understand we have different opinions about what constitutes a 'fundamentally' different change in myth, but for me any change (like extensive use of inventory) which changes the game from a squad based tactical combat game to a game that is more geared around individual units with more attack/defense options which need much more micromanagement is a fundamental change. Again, I am not saying inventory is a 'bad' change, and when used with restraint it's an interesting addition to the game, but when overused imo it completely changes how Myth is played. Playing a level where you use one unit with many powers/artifacts/abilities/spells/weapons feels very unmythish *to me*. I really don't mean to pick on inventory, it's just the only recent change I can think of that alters Myth gameplay so drastically.

And love or hate the changes, it wouldn’t be depressing. You and many other old timers might bemoan new features and wax poetically for the thousands of newbies over the good ol’ days when your dwarf had to walk uphill barefoot in the snow both ways to get that 2% extra mortar ball range (or whatever), but deep inside, you’d be a happy inventory swapping pig in shit to see Myth alive again.

Change = Evolution = Survival.

I am happy that modifications have been made and continue to be made and am extremely grateful that anyone is left who has the time/energy and enthusiasm (and 1337 skillz) to keep Myth going, and have tried to be clear that I am not complaining about inventory. And I am sure I would wax nostalgic about the "good old days" which I do even now about TFL, until I go back and actually PLAY TFL. Don't get me wrong, I lurv TFL - great story line and levels, but dwarfs that throw bottles 90 degrees in the air then turn and try to walk out of range or wacky dorf bottles that seem to bounce back further than they were thrown to home in on the other dorf in your party hanging out in the back of y our units with your tightly clumped archers? A line of 3 archers who have such terrible aim they can't kill a sleepwalking fetch before it gets close enough to zap them? Or a jman who walks in circles looking no doubt for the perfect spot from which to cast a heal spell? Hilarious, and the stuff of many a drunken bar story - without a doubt, but frustrating as all hell. I am quite happy Myth 2 was made, and that Myth 2 is evolving.

fyi your equation is not accurate.

1) Not all Change = Evolution. Some change is death. Death is not Evolution, or survival.

2) Not all Evolution = Survival. Some evolution leads to the end of a species, aka Not Survival.

Here's another equation for you, that is not always, but as equally true as your equation..

Change = Death = Not Survival.

[Pyro]

This is why I am confused. I said IF ALL the changes are in the PLUGINS then your suggestion is much much simpler than the way I was thinking about being able to switch between versions. . IF changes are in plugins AND the executable itself, then there would (potentially) need to be some conditional code switching addedto the executable itself (the way I was thinking of it).

It just confused me why what I said wasn't taken into account. Look at what I've said.

All you need are the Myth2 executables. I have the following in the same Myth II folder.

Myth II 1.3.0.exe
Myth II 1.4.3.exe
Myth II 1.5.1.exe
Myth II.exe
and the 1.7 betas

The one without a version number being 1.6 as my default. So if I wish to run 1.3, I take out all the Patch plugins that come after Patch 1.3 and run the 1.3 exe.

While it is true I said all you needed are the executables, I meant it in the way that having the latest update gives you the needed patch plugins you need for post 1.3 versions. So if you want to run 1.4.3, take out Patch 1.5 and on and run it. All the changes to Myth are within the executable and added patch plugins. The code is in the executable while the content added like say interface images for new resolutions added to Myth would be in patch plugins. The older patch plugins are not touched, or else there would be no reason to add more patch plugins if they chose to modify the existing ones.

i think older ones dont have a title on the icon itself so you have to keep them in seperate folders and name each folder the name of what version is inside each one. since older myth builds would all have the same name and cant be in the root folder at the same time. but with the last many versions each one has a different name so you can keep many builds/versions of mythII.exe in the main folder.

This is not needed, you can rename them. The only Myth2 executables (not icons by the way) that don't have the default "Myth II.exe" file name are the 1.7 betas (to tell them apart from other betas). You can rename the executables, as I've stated before. Try it.

[Baak]

Dang, this thread pegged my Verbose-o-Meter. Tried to read it but just couldn't pull it off!

Maybe someone can post an Executive Summary when it's done.

[vinylrake]

baak, somethings are better left alone.

[vinylrake]

Pyro, that's a good explanation of how to run older versions of Myth.

Speaking as someone who has difficulty remembering which HD I saved a downlad file to, or finding any file more than 3 folders deep from the desktop - moving crucial files in and out of my myth2 plugins folder is a recipe for disaster.

Obviously your way is much cleaner than how I was thinking - shows you how when all you have is a hammer everyone looks like a watermelon. (you can quote me on that)