tain.totalcodex.net

*grabs popcorn and waits for dev's excuse why they aren't going to remove the limits*

We aren't going to remove the limits because Godzfire won't stop trolling. Jerk.

ChrisP:

I guess what you see as stagnation, I see as the game slowly approaching the perfect version of what it was supposed to be. Besides having fun, that's my goal when I do dev work on myth. I have no desire to constantly change stuff in some kind of never-ending quest to keep the game from "dying".

You say our patches are incremental ("a typewriter"), but what exactly are you expecting? To launch 1.8 and see something that looks like a modern big budget game? What is this quantum change that you are looking for?

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you think myth needs such huge changes, are you sure you really liked it that much in the first place? If the current version of Myth isn't your cup of tea, why would you expect a game patch to change that? Patches don't typically turn a game into a whole different game.

Anyways, I believe the whole "new content" issue is a red herring. The real reason the community is shrinking is because more players are leaving the "population" than are entering it. People leave the game naturally over time due to getting bored, busy, whatever. This currently isn't balanced by new people entering because myth is no longer being marketed or distributed. If/when myth gets onto a digital distribution channel like GoG or steam, I think there's a good chance the population would become sustainable. I do believe the game is high quality enough to sustain a population practically indefinitely if there is some distribution.

Melekor wrote:We aren't going to remove the limits because Godzfire won't stop trolling. Jerk.

Nope try again. This time with an actual excuse.

Myth never had the player base other games started off with. It is easier to keep players around if there are enough of them to get good games. Some factors will always come into play for the decline of the player base such as time, boredom, etc.

One of the factors that I have seen speed up the decline has been the situation with metaservers. Each time the player base had to transfer to a new place, some get lost or no longer see it worth the trouble. That was never something the devs controlled. Maybe if connecting online had always been to a server that was around, there could have been more players today. No one knew things would play out the way they did.

While the updates have opened a lot of doors in the potential for mapmaking, mapmakers have always lagged behind in actually using them. Having the limit of units altered would not have changed things as much as you may think. Just look at maps with lots of units. For example, I still see a few players try to get others to play UTB and UTBx which contain large armies of units per team. Those maps are within the limits of the game and yet they are rarely played. Most Myth players like Myth for the small unit squads and don't want huge supplies of units. Players that want that wouldn't be playing Myth anyways.

Good maps can still be made with the limits we have today. If someone can't make a good map, it isn't because of the game's limits. Sure, there will always be ideas we have that won't work within the limits but that does not mean the limits are holding our creativity behind.

If limits were as easily removed, don't you think Magma would have done away with them years ago? The idea has always been to keep the default game backwards compatible, not any of the new stuff mapmakers create.

Melekor wrote: I guess what you see as stagnation, I see as the game slowly approaching the perfect version of what it was supposed to be. Besides having fun, that's my goal when I do dev work on myth. I have no desire to constantly change stuff in some kind of never-ending quest to keep the game from "dying".

That's totally cool, because: A. I am in awe of what Project Magma has done to make Myth approach that "perfect version" of itself. Even if I don't play anymore, it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the scope of work and how good it is. B. I totally respect that this is all about you having fun. Since you're not being paid, there's absolutely no other reason for you to work on Myth. Screw anyone who doesn't get it. End of story. So anything I say beyond this is purely academic, purely subjective, and no real criticism is meant. I just want to be very clear: I'm not here to stir trouble or to upset anyone; I hope everyone at Project Magma will always consider me a friend and supporter, even if I'm a little annoying and contradictory.

So, I love you guys, but I do think the approach to development has stagnated. Myth isn't evolving. It's like the shark, close to perfect at being what it is, except in this case, there's not enough little fish left.

Melekor wrote:You say our patches are incremental ("a typewriter"), but what exactly are you expecting? To launch 1.8 and see something that looks like a modern big budget game? What is this quantum change that you are looking for?

Not that I think I have all the answers, but I think Myth development can stay realistic, incremental and still make quantum changes. If you're really interested, then one day I can tell you tons of ideas I have. One nice thing about playing other games for so long is gaining a broader perspective, and believe me, I compare every game to Myth. But hey, for quantum starters: allow the demo to access all third party maps.

Melekor wrote:Don't take this the wrong way, but if you think myth needs such huge changes, are you sure you really liked it that much in the first place? If the current version of Myth isn't your cup of tea, why would you expect a game patch to change that? Patches don't typically turn a game into a whole different game.

I won't take that the wrong way. For eight years between 1998 and and 2006, I played an average of 4 to 5 hours a night, 350 nights a year. No exaggeration. It's not that Myth wasn't my cup of tea, it's that I exhausted it. I drank every drop of tea and sucked the enamel off the cup. And I don't want it to be a "different" game. I played Starcraft I back in 1998. I play Starcraft II now in 2014 (along with millions of other people). Essentially, it's the same game, but it's also evolved. The coolest things about Starcraft's evolution have nothing to do with big budgets - Project Magma has the talent to do the same cool things with Myth.

Melekor wrote:Anyways, I believe the whole "new content" issue is a red herring. The real reason the community is shrinking is because more players are leaving the "population" than are entering it. People leave the game naturally over time due to getting bored, busy, whatever.

You're right. Boredom is why I, and most others, left. Despite the quality of the patches! There is little point continuing a debate if you've accepted this as just the way things are and nothing can ever be done to change it. I would hope, however, that someone as smart as you, Melekor, could question that and see it as a challenge instead of a sad fact. Keep in mind, Project Magma has already extended the life of Myth by years and years. To keep that going - to keep any good thing going - you eventually have to start thinking outside the box. It's not that I don't think what you've done is great, it's that I think you're limiting your own greatness!

Pyro wrote:Most Myth players like Myth for the small unit squads and don't want huge supplies of units.

True, but while the units on a map limit is what started this thread, that is hardly the only or most consequential limit Myth has. What's the current limit on Mons tags, still 128 or so? Christ, what could be done without that limit! And I'm not talking about hundreds of different units running around, but what can be done to just one unit. Does scripting still break at around 1000 lines? Yeah, obviously you can make a perfectly fine map with 1000 lines of script, or even 500, probably even 250. But really? C'mon, would you want to limit it to 250 lines of script because that's technically enough to make a "good" map?

Pyro wrote:Good maps can still be made with the limits we have today. If someone can't make a good map, it isn't because of the game's limits. Sure, there will always be ideas we have that won't work within the limits but that does not mean the limits are holding our creativity behind.

Some people might be able to make great Myth maps with the current limits. I never made another map, because I could not. I was not one of the mapmakers who lagged behind using new features, but I did feel the tools reached the limits of my creativity. I know Mazzarin's Demise could have been done much more efficiently, and hence, part of the limit on my creativity is my own fault. But I'm not that adept. I was never that interested in becoming a technical expert and learning how to optimize everything so as to squeeze a little more out of it - I just wanted to do creative stuff.

Know what? I spent a year making a Starcraft co-op. Took me almost 3000 lines of script. The whole time working on it, I was like, "Wheeeeee! I can do whatever I want!" And yet, I'm here now because every day I kept thinking, "Man, I wish I could do this kind of stuff in Myth".

Pyro wrote:If limits were as easily removed, don't you think Magma would have done away with them years ago?

Actually, I remember when, years ago, a lot of limits were increased dramatically. Of all new features being added to Myth at the time, this seemed to be the most trouble and bug free.

ChrisP wrote:I think Myth development can stay realistic, incremental and still make quantum changes.

That reminds me, have you seen the 1.8.0 promo video showcasing some of the bigger changes in 1.8.0?

ChrisP wrote:What's the current limit on Mons tags, still 128 or so? ... Does scripting still break at around 1000 lines? ... C'mon, would you want to limit it to 250 lines of script because that's technically enough to make a "good" map?

The current limit on a map for monster definitions is 256. Unit definitions at 512. Artifact definitions at 256. Map actions at 1024. MA params size at 70,000. The good thing about coop maps is that if you make it too long, you could simply break it into separate parts to form a campaign. It could at least work in some of those cases where the limit was well too limiting. Yes, having more breathing room for a better script is always nice, but a lot of times I find there are other ways to script something to get the same effect.

ChrisP wrote:I did feel the tools reached the limits of my creativity. I know Mazzarin's Demise could have been done much more efficiently, and hence, part of the limit on my creativity is my own fault. But I'm not that adept. I was never that interested in becoming a technical expert and learning how to optimize everything so as to squeeze a little more out of it - I just wanted to do creative stuff.

I don't think any mapmaker is interested in becoming a technical expert, they just end up learning a lot in their path to know enough to create what they want. I can't recall the last time I heard of a project that could not be completed due to some limit they reached. I'm sure there are many ideas that flat out won't work when you take into consideration the limits, but how many mapmakers actually tried to work on something and were forced to stop? Lots of vaporware projects that never got that far. I've had ideas myself that I knew wouldn't work due to some missing feature, but there are always other ideas I know would easily work. Making stuff just takes too much time.

ChrisP wrote:I do think the approach to development has stagnated. Myth isn't evolving. It's like the shark, close to perfect at being what it is, except in this case, there's not enough little fish left.

While I don't like the word stgnated, I guess I basically agree with you here. However I believe the solution lies in marketing and distribution, not more content and fancy mapmaking features.

Not that I think I have all the answers, but I think Myth development can stay realistic, incremental and still make quantum changes. If you're really interested, then one day I can tell you tons of ideas I have. One nice thing about playing other games for so long is gaining a broader perspective, and believe me, I compare every game to Myth. But hey, for quantum starters: allow the demo to access all third party maps.

I am interested, besides, might as well get your thoughts on record right?

We could allow the demo to play 3rd party maps, however the majority of them wouldn't be usable as-is since most existing plugins depend on tags from the full game. I agree it should probably be done at this point, just realize it's not quite as awesome as it first sounds.

For eight years between 1998 and and 2006, I played an average of 4 to 5 hours a night, 350 nights a year. No exaggeration. It's not that Myth wasn't my cup of tea, it's that I exhausted it. I drank every drop of tea and sucked the enamel off the cup. And I don't want it to be a "different" game. I played Starcraft I back in 1998. I play Starcraft II now in 2014 (along with millions of other people). Essentially, it's the same game, but it's also evolved. The coolest things about Starcraft's evolution have nothing to do with big budgets - Project Magma has the talent to do the same cool things with Myth.

Sorry, I had no idea you put so much time into the game. What can I say. If I'd played it even a tenth of that I'd probably be bored with it too.

Unlike a lot of Mythers, I'm a Starcraft fan as well so I do know a bit about this. Gameplay wise, Starcraft II may be essentially the same game as Starcraft, but engine wise it is a completely new game, and _massively_ more complex than the original. You'll have to be more specific about which aspects of this evolution didn't require a big budget.

You're right. Boredom is why I, and most others, left. Despite the quality of the patches!

Even if we were able to retain 100% of the existing players, it is not enough. The game needs new blood and I believe distribution is the only way this is going to happen. How many potential players are deciding to pass on Myth because it doesn't have enough plugins, or doesn't have enough whiz-bang mapmaking features? Pretty close to zero I'm guessing.

There is little point continuing a debate if you've accepted this as just the way things are and nothing can ever be done to change it. I would hope, however, that someone as smart as you, Melekor, could question that and see it as a challenge instead of a sad fact. Keep in mind, Project Magma has already extended the life of Myth by years and years. To keep that going - to keep any good thing going - you eventually have to start thinking outside the box. It's not that I don't think what you've done is great, it's that I think you're limiting your own greatness!

We have some stuff in the works which could make a small difference. I think the reality is that we are much more limited by practical constraints (lack of time and resources) rather than any lack of imagination.

Thank you for the replies, Pyro and Melekor. I want to respond at length but right now I'm on my iPhone, so maybe later. For now:

Yes, what Myth needs most of all is new players, and for that, it needs marketing and distribution.

What is the difficulty in adding the art and sound data to the demo?

In Starcraft II, I can manipulate data and write a script that essentially allows me to create whatever kind of game I want. For example, I can create hero units with an inventory and leveling system as complex as any RPG. I can have continuity across multiple games and even maps via "bank" files which are nothing more than text documents stored on the player's hard drive. These things were not possible in SC I, and I don't think they required a huge budget.

To play Devil's Advocate (since I make such a good one), hypothetically, say all the mapmaking limits were removed. What would be the drawbacks? (And not something like 'well, some maps might not work', actual hard evidence)

ChrisP wrote:What is the difficulty in adding the art and sound data to the demo?

Obviously we can't ship the game tags with the demo since that would essentially amount to releasing the game for free..

In Starcraft II, I can manipulate data and write a script that essentially allows me to create whatever kind of game I want. For example, I can create hero units with an inventory and leveling system as complex as any RPG. I can have continuity across multiple games and even maps via "bank" files which are nothing more than text documents stored on the player's hard drive. These things were not possible in SC I, and I don't think they required a huge budget.

Adding a new scripting system with those kinds of powers is certainly something we've discussed. It may not require a "huge" budget, but it's certainly not a small task, in fact I'm pretty sure it would be more work than any single change magma has ever done before. We're talking weeks to months worth of full time work here. We'd need a developer who was really motivated to make that happen. It's not something we can throw together with a few evenings worth of coding, which is how most of our changes are currently done.

GodzFire wrote:To play Devil's Advocate (since I make such a good one), hypothetically, say all the mapmaking limits were removed. What would be the drawbacks? (And not something like 'well, some maps might not work', actual hard evidence)

I think you make a better devil than an advocate, but anyways.. Even if there were no drawbacks at all, that doesn't necessarily imply it must be done. Any work on one thing means less work on other things. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that raising limits needs to be a big priority right now, compared to other issues. The main thing being worked on atm is the feature to allow anyone to host, even behind a firewall. I'm also doing some research on how to fix the formation matching bug (where units can make really dumb pathfinding choices when asked to go into formation), which people have consistently complained about.

Pyro wrote: That reminds me, have you seen the 1.8.0 promo video showcasing some of the bigger changes in 1.8.0?

I have now that you linked it for me, thank you. Very cool stuff. Though subtle, I especially like the smoother projectile movements. Too bad, though, that there wasn't time, or maybe the desire, to make the extended zoom a scriptable feature. I could see a co-op where it went from an intimate camera view and then zoomed out at a dramatic moment to a huge battle or whatever.

Pyro wrote: The current limit on a map for monster definitions is 256. Unit definitions at 512. Artifact definitions at 256. Map actions at 1024. MA params size at 70,000.

Ok, now that's really cool. Especially that the increase in Monster definitions is matched by Artifact definitions. But if you don't mind, remind me, what's the advantage of 70,000 map action parameters vs. a lesser limit?

The MA params size is used up by anything scripting related. The parameters and even the names of the map actions take up part of that limit. Sometimes you can reach that limit and still have less than 1024 map actions. One parameter takes more than 1 from that limit. I don't know the exact values but some parameters easily take up 8 before you even fill it up with elements.

Melekor wrote:

GodzFire wrote:To play Devil's Advocate (since I make such a good one), hypothetically, say all the mapmaking limits were removed. What would be the drawbacks? (And not something like 'well, some maps might not work', actual hard evidence)

I think you make a better devil than an advocate, but anyways.. Even if there were no drawbacks at all, that doesn't necessarily imply it must be done. Any work on one thing means less work on other things. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that raising limits needs to be a big priority right now, compared to other issues. The main thing being worked on atm is the feature to allow anyone to host, even behind a firewall. I'm also doing some research on how to fix the formation matching bug (where units can make really dumb pathfinding choices when asked to go into formation), which people have consistently complained about.

It doesn't HAVE to be done, but if there are no drawbacks I don't see why it SHOULDN'T. Then it literally is the sky's the limit for mapmakers.

Sure it might take a small amount of time to implement, but if it's just a 30 minute alteration, that wouldn't be bad.