Aug 18 2007, 1:44 pm
In response to Audeuro
|
|
Foomer
 |
Plus when people write programs, they like them to feel like programs and not like a web pages. Theoretically, since interface files can be modified at runtime, there's no reason why a developer who wants his program to have a customizable interface can't code that feature into it.
|
Audeuro wrote:
Some people just don't like others learning their secrets to a successful interface. (*cough* Foomer *cough*) if youre talking about his interface for the gauntlet it looks like its just a map and a textbox o.O what secrets exactly do you need to steal? | |
I was referring to that little time period from before he put out Gauntlet on the hub. Everyone was like, "wtff how did he do that inventory?!"
| |
lol i was just basing my opinion on the screen shots, and for those of you who are complaining, if your really dont want people stealing your interface then just make everything handled on the map through HUD, then u dont have to worry about it
| |
Android Data wrote:
Perhaps a method inbetween would also be neat to have. There are reasons that disallowing user overrides is not a good idea, and this only allays a few of them. Some developers might lock the map size for instance, thinking it's a good idea, only to discover some players want the map to be bigger. Forcing certain IDs to exist might not be so bad, but then if a player screws with any of that their skin will definitely be broken anyway, and it affects only them. Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
There are reasons that disallowing user overrides is not a good idea, and this only allays a few of them. Some developers might lock the map size for instance, thinking it's a good idea, only to discover some players want the map to be bigger. But then his game sucks because of that, if he doesn't change it. Why try to protect the <insert word here>er developers of themselves and screw up the wiser developers? | |
Kaioken wrote:
Lummox JR wrote: Because there is no actual benefit to developers for doing this. There are several benefits to players for allowing them to edit the skins. Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Because there is no actual benefit to developers for doing this. There are several benefits to players for allowing them to edit the skins. That's not true. Some developers may want to use it as an easy way to restrict verb access. Some may just want to ensure that the game is presented exactly as they want. The same argument could be made for icons, for instance-- why not let the end-user override all of those? The fact that many developers are passionate enough to complain about this means that it is something worth considering. And, frankly, it's not that big of a deal to provide an option. | |
Tom wrote:
Lummox JR wrote: I had considered the verb thing, but it seemed moot to me since users can enter commands through other means (perhaps not easily), and even client-side macros can be used to access verbs. Leaving verbs too easily exposed would make such games prey for local macros. If developers had the false impression they could stop those verbs from coming through, they could be in for a rude awakening. And actually, end-user overrides of icons would be wicked cool. Very hard to implement, but cool. The fact that many developers are passionate enough to complain about this means that it is something worth considering. And, frankly, it's not that big of a deal to provide an option. Yes indeed; we could easily put in such an option. I just wonder if the pleas for locking skins are all well-considered; after all, we've had requests a gazillion times asking us to take out screenshot features, and even take extraordinary measures to block screenshots. And I suspect a lot of games locking the skin will suffer down the road as displays and systems change, much like the way BYOND 3.0 never had the ability to resize the map for the sake of users with high screen resolutions. But ultimately this is a judgment call: putting control in the hands of the developer or the players. I don't find the arguments for the former especially persuasive, but that's just my own opinion on it. I definitely agree that the matter is worth further consideration. Lummox JR | |
I think it would be better in the hands of the developer to do this, if I don't want a certain control edited, I could winget() it and boot the user if they changed it. I don't think it should be built into the system. If a developer doesn't want people going out of their way to change things, make the developer go out of theirs.
| |
Developers should have the final say in this, so I say let them: if developers lock (parts of) their skin and it breaks because of this (players start to leave, new features make the skin suck, ...) then it's their own fault.
In fact, I'd like to propose a fourth option which I find more feasible than any of the others: a list of skins. Allowing players to edit the game skin has one fatal weakness: it won't last through updates. If I update my game and add another window to it -- perhaps one I reference through my code -- players with modified skins may not get the update, and will thus have a buggy interface. Once they receive errors, the less-than-bright players are probably going to report this as a bug, perhaps even a BYOND bug. To avoid this, why not give the developer full control, but provide them with a choice instead? Developers can create multiple .dmf files and label them. Players can use the O&M window to select the .dmf file they'd like from a list. As far as I can see, it'd be the best thing to do: developers retain control, players still have some leeway in modifying skins (they can herass the developer until s/he adds their modified skin), there won't be bugs with the skins such as windowids not existing (the developer can edit the skin to compensate for this) and you don't have to remove the current system where you can modify the skin. The list of skins could have a skin called "Custom Skin". When this is used, the skin that you can edit via the "Edit Skin" (which should be renamed to "Edit Custom Skin") is used. And when you press the "Edit Custom Skin" button, it will first popup a warning: "WARNING: Custom skins may not match the definitions the game gave. If you get errors, don't complain and just go back to one of the skins provided by the developer. You probably want to review the developers' skins: a copy of them (cannot be edited) is located in ...".
| |
A hidden verb isn't safe, on a default input box, you can just clear it and press space to see a list of usable verbs.
-- Personally, I wouldn't mind a #define FORCED_SKIN or something to that effect. That way, should the need arise, I can force the skin for my project, or let the user make their own. Look at it this way: This is my Net Dream. I spent all the time and effort, money and sex-less hours into it. I should have the final say in what power the players have. Just like I don't give every player a 'mute' command. | |
Just laying my stance down: I personally think that anything that goes on a client's computer should be user configurable as much as possible.
For the internet, we have GreaseMonkey to allow us to change the websites we look at without the website's consent or knowledge. If something so pervasive as the internet can function with people writing their own custom scripts against the website developer's inviolate wishes, I figure BYOND functions just fine with user-overridable skins too. What developers continually fail to realise is that it's not really their game... it's the players' game. You make the game so other people will play it. If you make your game restrictive or hard to play, people won't play it unless they don't know any better. | |
Jtgibson wrote:
Just laying my stance down: I personally think that anything that goes on a client's computer should be user configurable as much as possible. The games aren't players games. Yes, they are the one playing it but all the changes and updates are made by developers, and if player gets to much control , then Developer to be successful, will have to make work that suit the each player -_-, so in the end. Which is easy , Every game to change to each player persona or for player to have Few basic Guide lines in the layout. | |
Jtgibson wrote:
Just laying my stance down: I personally think that anything that goes on a client's computer should be user configurable as much as possible. Grease Monkey is a browser hack, that is only available on Firefox. I haven't seen such hacks for other browsers like IE or Netscape. Though granted, I haven't looked. And it can't actually alter any of the back-end scripts, you know, the PHP/Perl/CGI which actually makes the website work. SO it can't break anything. Idiots messing with skins who happen to have not come across my 'windowofdoom' might think it isn't important and delete it. When it does however get used further on in the game. Once again, it is NOT the players game. It NEVER was the players game. -I- spent all this time making. I spent my money making it. I sacrificed hours upon hours of my life to pursue a hobby that I enjoy doing. The fact they play it is just an after product of my hours of work. The final say in interface should be mine. Otherwise, we might as well just give out the source code when they download the game as well. If it is, after all, their game. If I want to force my skin, that's my prerogative, I should have the ability to do so. If you want yours customizable, that's your prerogative, you should have the right to do so. | |
Tiberath wrote:
Grease Monkey is a browser hack, that is only available on Firefox. I haven't seen such hacks for other browsers like IE or Netscape. Though granted, I haven't looked. And it can't actually alter any of the back-end scripts, you know, the PHP/Perl/CGI which actually makes the website work. SO it can't break anything. Idiots messing with skins who happen to have not come across my 'windowofdoom' might think it isn't important and delete it. When it does however get used further on in the game. Actually, it can seriously and significantly break things if you use GreaseMonkey indiscriminately. You might wind up suppressing an important pop-up window, or accidentally obscuring a necessary link, or otherwise. That's the risk the end-user takes. If someone hoists themselves on their own petard, then that's their fault for being petarded. Where do you come into it? =P Once again, it is NOT the players game. It NEVER was the players game. -I- spent all this time making. I spent my money making it. I sacrificed hours upon hours of my life to pursue a hobby that I enjoy doing. The fact they play it is just an after product of my hours of work. The final say in interface should be mine. I spend hours upon hours upon hours of work on my games, but I know that my games are worthless unless someone is playing them. Until those games are released, I've sacrificed those hours for nothing. Once those games are released, it'll all be worth it... if and only if someone actually plays the game. I think you're imagining that it's the work that makes you happy, but I can tell you it isn't. You don't have to believe me, but it's the recognition that makes you happy. As lorem ipsum says, no one engages in displeasure for the pure sake of it -- they engage in displeasure in the knowledge that it will produce an eventual pleasure of some sort. Accomplishment is an intangible and limited pleasure at best, whereas honest recognition of your hard work and a continued legacy is the lasting pleasure. Otherwise, we might as well just give out the source code when they download the game as well. If it is, after all, their game. Releasing your source code is a non-sequitur. Just as websites don't have to release their Perl scripts for their users, neither do you need to release your source code for yours. Whatever is on the client's computer should be considered in the realm of "here be dragons". People can and will find ways to play around with what they have. If I want to force my skin, that's my prerogative, I should have the ability to do so. If you want yours customizable, that's your prerogative, you should have the right to do so. Why take away something like that just because you arbitrarily decided you don't want them to have it? Intentionally not adding a feature is one thing -- intentionally removing a feature is another entirely. Secondly, how does it hurt you in any way if they edit your interface? If you design your interface properly in the first place, no one will be inclined to change it. If you don't design it properly, people might actually be willing to salvage your broken effort and enjoy your game anyway if they can manage to make the fixes they need themselves. | |
Jtgibson wrote:
Secondly, how does it hurt you in any way if they edit your interface? If you design your interface properly in the first place, no one will be inclined to change it. If you don't design it properly, people might actually be willing to salvage your broken effort and enjoy your game anyway if they can manage to make the fixes they need themselves. How does it hurt you in any way to let programmers decide? It sums up to this, it's my net dream, if I want to force my interface, I should be allowed to do so. I don't want to deal with people going "I brokeded teh enterfaces, ur gam is shiz!" I don't intend to have a crap interface. | |
Jtgibson wrote:
If someone hoists themselves on their own petard, then that's their fault for being petarded. Where do you come into it? =P ...It's your game. And your headache. I think you're imagining that it's the work that makes you happy, but I can tell you it isn't. You don't have to believe me, but it's the recognition that makes you happy. As lorem ipsum says, no one engages in displeasure for the pure sake of it [...] bla bla blabber repeatition blabber WTF are you on about? Speak whatever for yourself, but don't act like you know how everybody else thinks and feels. I enjoy coding for it's sake. I like doing it and that's that. Never released a game and don't feel bad about it neither that my work is wasted. If you're already giving examples for stuff, that's like saying that if you go and play an FPS game and get frags, if you didn't record it and make, edit and release a frag video from it, your work/time is wasted. <small>omfg... j00're imajinin to engoy,, i rly now what te truth rly iz</small> Otherwise, we might as well just give out the source code when they download the game as well. If it is, after all, their game. (Too lazy to look up 'sequitur?' :O) Whatever is on the client's computer should be considered in the realm of "here be dragons". People can and will find ways to play around with what they have. And does that mean there should just absolutely no <en>forcing if wanted? Sure, people could go reverse engineer DreamSeeker and find a way around it. They could fake packets so it'll appear that they're using the dev's skin. Good for them. People can and will find ways to play around with what they have. ...A lot of people won't, and most people won't be able to cut it. Why take away something like that just because you arbitrarily decided you don't want them to have it? Intentionally not adding a feature is one thing -- intentionally removing a feature is another entirely. On the basic sense - because it's YOUR game. And you want it to play that way. No argument, 'cause yours isn't a valid one to begin with anyway. Features being taken out can obviously be in good reason and an improvement. Secondly, how does it hurt you in any way if they edit your interface? If you design your interface properly in the first place, no one will be inclined to change it. Excuse me if I say, BS. You can't please everybody. People DO have different preferences and there'll be people that like your interface less than others. If you don't design it properly, people might actually be willing to salvage your broken effort and enjoy your game anyway if they can manage to make the fixes they need themselves. Then let them contact you and discuss their new contribution and perhaps promotion to a staff member instead of allowing custom interfaces for everyone which is something entirely different. | |
Kaioken wrote:
Jtgibson wrote: Why would it be the developer's headache? The person has screwed his or her own self over. It doesn't involve the developer. If the person knows enough to be messing around with the skin files, they also probably know that they can just delete their copy of the skin to get a completely untouched, fresh copy again as well. If they don't know enough about the skin files to be messing with them, they probably weren't worth keeping on as regular fans anyway. I think you're imagining that it's the work that makes you happy, but I can tell you it isn't. You don't have to believe me, but it's the recognition that makes you happy. As lorem ipsum says, no one engages in displeasure for the pure sake of it [...] bla bla blabber repeatition blabber I feel perfectly comfortable in saying that, because it's almost universally true. The goal of a FPS is to win, and when you win the game, it ends. The short-lived accomplishment done, you go and buy another game and stop playing the one you just beat. Online gameplay significantly increases the lifespan of a game, and in that case, the frags you get are witnessed -- meaning that you get the recognition from other people, as per my original argument. We're social creatures. Otherwise, we might as well just give out the source code when they download the game as well. If it is, after all, their game. Non-sequitur means "does not follow". What are you going on about, Kaioken? Sometimes people actually are as smart and/or smarter than you. Deal with it. Whatever is on the client's computer should be considered in the realm of "here be dragons". People can and will find ways to play around with what they have. The existence of a DMB decompiler speaks volumes about that. Granted, it's not pretty, but if anyone actually wants to do it, they can certainly do it. Heck, back in the old 3.0 version, someone made a program called BYOND Plus -- an injected DLL that affected the API of Dream Seeker, including several interface customisation features that are now in 4.0. Why take away something like that just because you arbitrarily decided you don't want them to have it? Intentionally not adding a feature is one thing -- intentionally removing a feature is another entirely. Name one good reason. Cheating is a non-issue, assuming you designed your interface correctly. Forcing people to stick to a single system for no explicable reason is a non-issue, since that's a bovine move to begin with. Alternately, describe how it's an improvement. My argument is that having more functionality is already an improvement, and taking away that functionality removes that improvement. You'll have to describe how that's a non-argument. Secondly, how does it hurt you in any way if they edit your interface? If you design your interface properly in the first place, no one will be inclined to change it. How many interfaces have you personally altered? I know I haven't altered any myself. On the other hand, I know people who use Chat -- simple, minimalist Chat -- who hated the grid panel on the left side, and who trimmed it out manually. If you don't design it properly, people might actually be willing to salvage your broken effort and enjoy your game anyway if they can manage to make the fixes they need themselves. If it's a casual tweak, there's no need to bother the developer, who would probably say no anyway (given that it's "their game"). If it's a fundamental tweak, the player would probably share their skin on the internet, giving people more control over the application and possibly even serving as an inadvertent form of advertising for the game. Personally speaking, I've now bought three games (one pen-and-paper, one board game, one computer game) after finding house rules and/or mods on the internet. It's a very powerful tool for getting incidental referrals to your game. | |