TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 121

Thread: Testers Needed: Alternative Thief 2 Patcher/Installer

  1. #51
    Dóttirin klęšist oft móšur möttli
    Registered: Apr 2015
    Quote Originally Posted by voodoo47 View Post
    the way I see it, the question we are asking is, "should we deprive the vast majority of a fix/enhancement just because one person in a thousand might have an issue with it/not like it?"

    also there always is that one guy that did something so crazy in his mission that you have no chance of making your patcher ready for it - that's what (fan) mission dmls are for.
    gamesys.dml will override mission.dml, so that's hard to fix. Remember this ?
    So don't do it. You'll get in trouble

    You never know what an FM author is doing. For OMs, it's okay but not for FMs.

  2. #52
    DromEd Archmage
    Registered: Nov 2010
    Location: Returned to the eternal labor
    Quote Originally Posted by voodoo47 View Post
    "should we deprive the vast majority of a fix/enhancement just because one person in a thousand might have an issue with it/not like it?"
    ..because you obviously set up a serious poll to conclude that most of people wants to play with "HD" textures in TG/T2 despite the fact those new texture do not fit with the environment...?

    It's just your personnal opinion unless you have proves that'll show us that's what people wants/asked for.
    I even think that people don't care much about HD stuff since they have decided to play TG/T2 because THEY WANT to play TG/T2 with it original aspects and design.
    I personnaly saw more people complaining with issues or denaturisations made with those mods than applauding the new HD face it brings (If you want me to tell who told me this: my brother, two irl-friends and several authors and players I know well. Add obviously the other users who are posting their disagreements here).

    You tend to forget than when someone is launching a 90's-2001 game nowadays it's certainly not for graphics but pure nostalgia. Trying the improve/change the graphics should always be an option available only for those who are curious to know, since you've got a nostalgic public who just want to see their game with it original face working with the new patch on their new machine. If you change the visual, they'll lost the thing they're looking for, the one that missed them.

    In addition, I will say that most of HD packs don't work with TG/T2 since the levels architecture is simplistic. Whatever the HD texture you may use, even if it's a 1024x1024, if your world is made of sharp low polys angles, it will never looks like a HD AAA game but a sharp low polys world. Think more about it!

  3. #53
    Zombified
    Registered: Sep 2004
    "something easy that would smooth the game out" literally is what regular people are asking for. as for undesirable results, I would need to see examples - "the chandelier is hires, the fm is now unplayable" or something along those lines.

    as for the global fixes, again, if something works differently under NewDark, and the fix is meant to bring the functionality or visuals closer to oldDark, then the fix should be global. hard vs smooth edges on plants and mantleability are perfect examples - basically, the global fixes should make sure that under no circumstances are the visuals inferior to oldDark because the renderer works differently (hard edges on plants unless proper transparency settings are applied), and that the gameplay is not changed in an undesirable manner (mantling objects that weren't meant to be mantled). considering the straightforwardness of those two fixes, the chances of them causing issues are close to zero.

    I will need very, very strong evidence that would suggest otherwise to change my stance on this - "I don't like it" is not going to cut it.


    //no poll, but I do hang around steam and other forums where ordinary people ask for stuff, so I can kind of tell what they are going for. also, never seen anyone complain that "the skies are not a pixelated mess anymore, I can't use this" after patching up - it's "hey, this is exactly what I needed" almost always. you need to realize that you are a special needs minority group - meaning you should be unticking things you (know you) don't like in the loadout screen, not the other way around.
    Last edited by voodoo47; 11th Mar 2019 at 07:03.

  4. #54
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: ┴W 'ɐlnossᴉW
    Speaking of HD textures, let me show you an example of what one pack did to my entry for the Thief 20th anniversary contest.



    If the HD textures are not even close to the vanilla textures, it can greatly distort the FM author's artistic intent.

    My point here is that you should think whether or not you should before just doing it.
    Last edited by GORT; 11th Mar 2019 at 07:12.

  5. #55
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    I'm not trying to change your stance, voodoo. That has been proven time and again to be futile.

    The decision is for Jax64 to make, and I want to make sure that both sides of the argument are represented.

  6. #56
    Zombified
    Registered: Sep 2004
    that is fair - however it needs to pointed out that you (vanilla) guys are a minority (with a very strong presence here). as mentioned, most people just want to patch up, make the game look nicer, and get on with their gaming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unna Oertdottir View Post
    Remember this ?
    yes, that was a mistake on my part, basically implementing a very local mission fix on a global scale and not realizing this is not a good idea - not going to happen again (local fixes will always be done locally in the future). also not really applicable in this situation (as technically, that was a bug I've made happen). everyone makes mistakes, that's why I follow all the discussions so carefully, always looking for problems that might have been caused by something I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by marbleman View Post
    I'm not trying to change your stance, voodoo. That has been proven time and again to be futile.
    I'm always ready to learn new stuff and change it accordingly. but you need to have something on your hand (ex. here are the great many steam forum topics where people are complaining about TFix installing the enhanced skies by default).
    Last edited by voodoo47; 11th Mar 2019 at 07:16.

  7. #57
    DromEd Archmage
    Registered: Nov 2010
    Location: Returned to the eternal labor
    Well, since you want to be arrogant and ask for an exemple, let's talk.

    Did we told you that because of your mods, everytime I'm doing a fan mission or a campaign (TBP for example), everytime we go to the test, we've got issues because of THE HD MODS you forced people to install because of the options ticked per default?
    Did we told you that everytime during those alpha and beta tests we are always wasting an incredible time to fix the bugs or installation issues made from the same mods conflicting with our models, textures and meshes?

    Dmls are fine because it sticks to the concerned missions but Mods are always active whatever the mission you're playing.

    Because you should know an author who wants to do some good job should always work from a vanilla game (to increase the chances to make something compatible with most of players) and when your original flat dishes are now sinking in the table because a tester got the EP installed per default or you find out half of your mission is made of a weird mix of retro and HD textures in a screenshot, it's always a pain to got this fixed by writing a tutorial on how to get rid of these mods and explaining to your tester why is all your visual work messed up (like missing water frames that turn into jorge by example).

    To OMs, you could claim to bring something new and fresh (despite the denaturisation I've told you about but refuse to admit), but you are absolutely not thinking about the FMs and the consequences of forcing people to get the HD mods by keeping them Ticked per default since they obviously don't know how those mods looks like at the first time... and after this, authors got players asking why there's sinking dishes, weird visual and gameplay issues.

    YES gameplay issus as well. Because some object are larger than the original... then sometimes hide the nearby objects.. so imagine the consequence when you have hidden a key on the floor behind a hammer icon which is easy to see with the orignal model but now inside the new hd model that spread on it? Or should we talk about the fact HD AIs are faster than the LD ones since meshes speed can be alternated by their size? Trust me, when a TG guard is replaced by a T2 guard, the patrols that were balanced before can quickly become completely desynchronized changing the whole gameplay to pass a room, especially when an author (like me) is setting his patrol with accuracy so the player could catch the second he needed to pass a corridor.

    That's all about the mods.

    About mantling, I could eventualy agree with you (so take it as prove I'm not against you) but I will advice you not doing it either since I'm sure that among 1000+ FMs, there are chances to meet missions with mantleable lamps, grates or torches that should be kept mantleable : keep in mind that several authors don't create custom objects within the gamesyst and several times resize, reskin or change the shape of existing object to inherits their properties but use them in different purposes and grates are oftenly used as catwalk in many many fan missions... that you must be able to mantle... so it's a good idea on the paper but in practise, you'll accidentaly break several missions...

  8. #58
    Zombified
    Registered: Sep 2004
    it has been mentioned that the changed visuals are not appreciated at places. but showstoppers? I don't think so. gimme a mission, I'll test it.

    anyway, as now we are talking about TFix and nothing else, can a moderator move these last two posts to the TFix topic please? we can continue this there.

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMage View Post
    keep in mind that several authors don't create custom objects within the gamesyst and several times resize, reskin or change the shape of existing object to inherits their properties but use them in different purposes and grates are oftenly used as catwalk in many many fan missions... that you must be able to mantle... so it's a good idea on the paper but in practise, you'll accidentaly break several missions...
    nope - the object wouldn't be mantleable in oldDark, so making in not mantleable in NewDark to make sure new_mantle is not making it mantleable would still be fine.

    //ok, lets address two more things here - if you have issues with water frames, that means you are still not setting the frame count in your mtl. bad practice. another bad idea it to make the fm NOT compatible with the few most popular texture packs - some people will definitely want to use those, so a fm should ideally be texture pack friendly (I'm doing this with the OMs). so basically, you are telling all the people who want lets say, use EP2 with your fm that they can just buzz off, that combo is not supported, and this is ok. but when I do the same thing ("this TFix mod selection is not compatible with that fm, don't use it"), then suddenly it's bad?

    anyway, if you (or anyone else) want to delve into this more, post again in the TFix topic, would you kindly.
    Last edited by voodoo47; 11th Mar 2019 at 12:07.

  9. #59
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    This part
    About mantling, I could eventualy agree with you (so take it as prove I'm not against you) but I will advice you not doing it either since I'm sure that among 1000+ FMs, there are chances to meet missions with mantleable lamps, grates or torches that should be kept mantleable : keep in mind that several authors don't create custom objects within the gamesyst and several times resize, reskin or change the shape of existing object to inherits their properties but use them in different purposes and grates are oftenly used as catwalk in many many fan missions... that you must be able to mantle... so it's a good idea on the paper but in practise, you'll accidentaly break several missions...
    relates to the topic at hand and basically sums up my reservations with such a change. You don't know what went through the heads of every single FM author and how they intended their missions to be played.

  10. #60
    Zombified
    Registered: Sep 2004
    as mentioned, if the object was not mantleable in oldDark, then it should be made not mantleable in NewDark to make sure it's really not mantleable even when new_mantle is enabled. not seeing any flaw in that logic - the result will be just that it will not be mantleable no matter what engine version you run.

  11. #61
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: ┴W 'ɐlnossᴉW
    That may be so for the old FMs. But since the beginning of NewDark FMs, authors may have relied on having new_mantle working on some fences and/or railings. I know I wanted it in TROTB 2.

  12. #62
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    Then I don't understand why you want to specifically make iron fences and cemetery doors unmantleable. Mantling objects in OldDark was pretty bad overall. Where do you draw the line?

    Moreover, FMs made for NewDark often rely on new mantle. A case in point is my own mission, which has a ton of objects that have to be mantleable because the mission would be unwinnable otherwise. No, those objects are not the cemetery door and iron fence. But they would have been unmantleable on OldDark.

  13. #63
    Zombified
    Registered: Sep 2004
    ok, but those particular two should be very safe. also, if you really, positively want to make something important mantleable in your mission, nobody is stopping you from slapping the prop onto the concrete to make dead sure.

    anyway, points have been made as far as mods are concerned, so lets steer this away from the maybe questionable stuff found in TFix (T2Fix is much stricter with this if you haven't noticed) - @Jax64, how are the original executables handled? remember, cam.cfg cannot be shared between oldDark and NewDark, and saves should be separate as well, so some hexediting will be required if you want to mirror what TFix is doing. //installed the latest build with the original executables checked, and it seems like everything is set up and working. nice, but hoo-boy, oldDark sure is rough on the eyes and fingers.
    Last edited by voodoo47; 11th Mar 2019 at 13:26.

  14. #64
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2017
    I think trying to change a game to accommodate for something the community introduced that wasn't entirely necessary is a dangerous path to walk down. Also leaving such changes and any other subjective enhancements as auto-enabled is very, very poor design choice.

    On another note, I just noticed the mod has AM16's resource package, which also is problematic. It changes around the level triggers on some levels and also makes all metal doors unbashable/blow up-able, which was an intended mechanic and deprives the player of an option of strategy through the level, unless its been changes since then.

  15. #65
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2012
    Quote Originally Posted by voodoo47 View Post
    ok, but those particular two should be very safe. also, if you really, positively want to make something important mantleable in your mission, nobody is stopping you from slapping the prop onto the concrete to make dead sure.
    Newdark has existed for a couple of years now, and with it new mantle.

    And now you are placing responsibility of making objects that are mantleable by default with newdark upon the authors... retroactively? Just because these objects used to not be mantleable in vanilla? What if a new author who only worked with newdark and new mantle placed a torch sconce with the intention of making it mantleable, and you need to mantle it in order to beat the mission? The patch would break the mission and suddenly people would flood the FM thread with bug reports about something that isn't the author's fault.

    "Fixing" this is a bad idea.

  16. #66
    Zombified
    Registered: Sep 2004
    guys, seriously, if you don't like what the patchers do, you (and anyone else, for that matter) have the perfectly valid option to not use them (other packages are available). we've been there with TFix - "we won't be satisfied until you remove everything what makes TFix TFix from TFix". and I've actually done it - TFix lite. guess that's still not enough for some reason? is adding "use this fm with TFix lite for everything to work as intended" to your readme that difficult?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psych0sis View Post
    AM16's resource package, which also is problematic.
    you can fling crap my way all day long (sometimes I deserve it), but pissing on AM16's overhaul and the insane amount of work that went into it is rather pathetic, and I would very much like to see it stop. anyway, let me try to wrap my mind around this again - the patchers are just there, available for all those who want what they offer. they are fully optional, nobody is holding anyone at gunpoint. so essentially what you are saying here is that you don't approve of other people downloading and using them, because that offends your perception of how the game should be played? have you ever considered maybe letting people use what they want? or asking yourself why anyone should care how do you feel about things?

    that is, I believe, the fundamental difference between us - I'm not forcing anything on anyone. "here's some stuff I've put together, use it if you like it, or don't". and that's all there's to it.


    anyway, this is starting to derail for quite a bit - if we really want to pursue this vein, feel free to create a topic in Tech or CommChat. I'll (un)happily continue this there. also, I'm kind of disappointed that we had to show Jax64 this part of our characters.
    Last edited by voodoo47; 11th Mar 2019 at 15:39.

  17. #67
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2017
    Quote Originally Posted by voodoo47 View Post
    you can fling crap my way all day long (sometimes I deserve it), but pissing on AM16's overhaul and the insane amount of work that went into it is rather pathetic, and I would very much like to see it stop.
    Where did I piss all over it? I said the inclusion of it by default is probably not the best idea because, again, it fundamentally changes the way the game can play, which is a problem. Don't go full "All fms are good cause they exist " type mentality. I don't really care how much effort or work went into it, I'm sure its pretty cool what he was able to do and some might appreciate it, but including it by default is just wrong.

    So basically just improve your reading comprehension before you get offended next time .
    Last edited by Psych0sis; 11th Mar 2019 at 16:17. Reason: removed unnecessary bit

  18. #68
    Zombified
    Registered: Sep 2004
    it is the point of a patcher. you run exe, click next next next, you now play the game pretty. if you not want pretty, you no run patcher.

    very simple. also I'm in no way offended (am I even capable of being offended? not sure), but if the AM16 pack is referred to as "problematic", I do find that slightly annoying. like when a drooling kid sucking on a lollipop comes to you and pokes your trousers with the sticky thing for no good reason, and you are considering a friendly slap, but then you just end up feeling sorry for the parents - that kind of annoying.

  19. #69
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    We can also put it this way. So far, DMLs have been used to fix broken scripting and make unwinnable missions winnable. This seems more than reasonable.

    However, I'm not sure there has been a DML that makes objects unmantleable, but I may be wrong here.

    Now, imagine finding a FM where you can get out of bounds or blow up a door. Would you apply a DML for it without the author's consent? If that were my mission, I'd be pretty pissed. Now imagine doing this to every FM ever. The only person who decides how objects should function in their mission is the author. And "if you want to failproof your mission, do this and that" argument doesn't cut it for retired authors.

  20. #70
    Zombified
    Registered: Sep 2004
    that wasn't an argument, just a suggestion - I also do it here and there (SS2). and yes, TFix makes a lot of stuff unmantleable (that was not mantleable in oldDark), like, a LOT. no reports of broken stuff so far..

    ok, the way I see it, there are two routes that can be taken, both are very valid - you either accept the patcher as the backbone and start to construct your FMs with it in mind, or simply tell people who are interested in playing your fm that using the lite version of the patcher is a hard requirement. I don't mind either way.

  21. #71
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2015
    Quote Originally Posted by voodoo47 View Post
    how are the original executables handled? remember, cam.cfg cannot be shared between oldDark and NewDark, and saves should be separate as well, so some hexediting will be required if you want to mirror what TFix is doing. //installed the latest build with the original executables checked, and it seems like everything is set up and working. nice, but hoo-boy, oldDark sure is rough on the eyes and fingers.
    Yes, the legacy executables are handled almost exactly as TFix does. The only notable difference being the version of ddfix being used. TFix seems to an older version similar to the one Steam uses, and T2Fix currently uses ddfix 1.5.12, which was the newest version I was able to find.
    Ha, yes, OldDark is not particularly pretty these days. I would only recommend using them if your uses require it, or if all else fails. They are certainly not recommended for average users.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psych0sis View Post
    I think trying to change a game to accommodate for something the community introduced that wasn't entirely necessary is a dangerous path to walk down. Also leaving such changes and any other subjective enhancements as auto-enabled is very, very poor design choice.

    On another note, I just noticed the mod has AM16's resource package, which also is problematic. It changes around the level triggers on some levels and also makes all metal doors unbashable/blow up-able, which was an intended mechanic and deprives the player of an option of strategy through the level, unless its been changes since then.
    I do value feedback such as this, as it is important to consider all points of view on this matter. I agree with your first point. In order for any changes made to accommodate NewDark, I would need an outstanding reason to do so. It is completely possible (and rather likely at this point) that the changes relating to mantling on objects will not be implemented in the final version following what some here have said, many of which are valid points. While I may think this behavior would be for the benefit of the game, that may not actually be the case. As for the default component selection, I am trying to represent the majority of users. Perhaps the current configuration is not indicative of that, but this is the conclusion I have reached currently. I suppose I could disselect such enhancement packages by default, but that would only leave only NewDark and other essential fixes enabled. I understand that some want as close to a vanilla experience as possible, especially those who make fan missions or speedrunners. However, much in the same way, some want the game to look as pretty as possible. The enhanced skies and water especially seem to retain the style of the original resources. It is a matter of trying to balance these two philosophies. Do keep in mind that all components other than NewDark are fully optional, making the issue the default configuration rather than what is actually installed.

    Going on to your other point, I do believe this fixed missions still exhibit this behavior. It is likely that I will end up further editing the fixed missions, as I have already made some very minor changes such as properly aligning some textures. While I do not know if this new behavior is intentional, I would be reluctant to change this under normal circumstances. AM16's pack, I believe, would be beneficial for most players. Though again, the package is completely optional. Until this is decided, it is possible to simply not install the fixed missions if you see fit.

  22. #72
    Zombified
    Registered: Sep 2004
    the main point I would make with the loadout screen is that people who know that they don't want certain components know exactly what they don't want, and will have little problem deselecting things in seconds, while regular people just have the vague idea of "making the game pretty", so not having anything pre-selected means forcing them to go through all the descriptions and letting them figure out what's what on their own, and this will be annoying and time consuming. so leaving most stuff pre-selected for the general public is the right thing to do, I'd say.

  23. #73
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2012
    Quote Originally Posted by voodoo47 View Post
    that wasn't an argument, just a suggestion - I also do it here and there (SS2). and yes, TFix makes a lot of stuff unmantleable (that was not mantleable in oldDark), like, a LOT. no reports of broken stuff so far..

    ok, the way I see it, there are two routes that can be taken, both are very valid - you either accept the patcher as the backbone and start to construct your FMs with it in mind, or simply tell people who are interested in playing your fm that using the lite version of the patcher is a hard requirement. I don't mind either way.
    So what you're saying here is "I accept that my patcher might break some FMs made specifically for NewDark, and I don't care about it"?

  24. #74
    Southquarter.com/fms
    Registered: Apr 2000
    Location: The Akkala Highlands
    Quote Originally Posted by voodoo47 View Post
    the main point I would make with the loadout screen is that people who know that they don't want certain components know exactly what they don't want, and will have little problem deselecting things in seconds, while regular people just have the vague idea of "making the game pretty", so not having anything pre-selected means forcing them to go through all the descriptions and letting them figure out what's what on their own, and this will be annoying and time consuming. so leaving most stuff pre-selected for the general public is the right thing to do, I'd say.
    I always thought the point of the patch (and Tafferpatcher before it, and New Dark in general) is to "fix" Thief so it is playable on modern computers. It's not supposed to be a graphics update. The fact that you can do that is just a bonus.

  25. #75
    Zombified
    Registered: Sep 2004
    TFix has always been a collection of mods glued together first by DDFix, and later NewDark. as mentioned, an answer to the "I want the game to run ok and look smoother" question.

    Quote Originally Posted by JarlFrank View Post
    So what you're saying here is "I accept that my patcher might break some FMs made specifically for NewDark, and I don't care about it"?
    if you mean "I accept that my patcher might break some FMs that weren't designed to be compatible with it", then yes, there is little I can do.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •