On 4/4/10, Guangcong Luo <za...@wz2100.net> wrote: > Looks like the ML is back up.
Better late then never... > Man, we had a long IRC debate over this. Yeah, this mail was before that conversation. > When Buginator removed the autoload feature in the 2.2 betas, I was > under the impression that he would fix it and restore it. Now, a year > later, I've seen nothing from him to that end. Though I haven't > completely fixed the mod system, I've improved it a bit, and I was > under the impression that when I committed the autoload feature, > everyone agreed it was solidly into the "net benefit" side of the > benefit/harm spectrum. Other things got in the way...time is still the biggest enemy. > > Now. I propose a simple solution: > > 1. Fix the mod loading system. > > Now, you can sit back and let me once again change the mod system to > suit the wills of its detractors, or you can actively work towards > making Warzone a worse game in the meantime. Is this really such a > difficult decision? The problem isn't fixing it per se, it is getting the time to fix it correctly. As it is now, it is broken, just like it was broken for 1.1.0, (but they did have a way for mods to detect other mods that the mods relied on), and like it was broken for the past releases we did. Is it better than it was? Yes. Does it fix the issues it had before? No, not all of them. The main issues left are, savegames made with mods fail if mods aren't loaded, when hosting mods, we don't transfer them, and when mods conflict (as in, they throw everything in autoload) then we get undefined results. To sum things up, I think 2.3.0 should have it disabled, and then have a working version in 2.3.1 or 2.4. The working version would need a new savegame format, and a way to transfer mods to other players. This is by no means trivial, and will require lots of time for someone to implement. I don't think holding up a release is in our best interest. We are *not* going to wait another 6-7 months before another release, that is just insane, and we should never do that again. > I think the bMultiMessages change I committed may have made the sync > worse, so I guess it should be reverted once again. This is really > frustrating, because it really does fix seven different bugs relating > to bMultiPlayer having an unexpected value. > > (Background: Much of the code assumes bMultiPlayer is TRUE if in a > multiplayer/skirmish game, and FALSE in campaign. However, > bMultiPlayer can be FALSE in a multiplayer game because > turnOffMultiMsg messes with it. I thought my code was the most > reliable way to fix the problem, but apparently it was unsuccessful.) Yes, last time I looked at (another one) of Pumpkin's hacks, it wasn't pretty... For what it is worth, this was also on my TODO list, but that list just got too big to manage. Time is the enemy. :( _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
