More source port subforums?

[Graf Zahl]

It is relevant because GZDoom contains code under the LGPL v3 which is incompatible with the GPL v2.

[printz]

5 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

Porting a bot would still be a major challenge and I'm still not convinced it's something worthwile.

Mainstream apps (e.g. messengers) tend to have lots of bots themselves. It feels natural to do the same for Doom.

 

Notice how I'm much more chill when talking about AutoDoom than about EE :P

 

 

[printz]

2 hours ago, Jon said:

 

Yeah, I was aware of that stuff, but I don't see that as particularly relevant to doom engines (but perhaps I'm missing an angle).

Quasar's reason is that he is against platforms which limit users from developing and distributing their own apps. The poster child for this is iOS. He doesn't want Eternity ported to platforms where he can't easily control how his software is distributed (i.e. it requires a yearly fee and reviewers' blessing).

[Jon]

40 minutes ago, printz said:

Quasar's reason is that he is against platforms which limit users from developing and distributing their own apps. The poster child for this is iOS. He doesn't want Eternity ported to platforms where he can't easily control how his software is distributed (i.e. it requires a yearly fee and reviewers' blessing).

 

Ah ok, and GPL3 rules out iOS. That makes sense. Thank you.

[kb1]

19 hours ago, Decay said:

Easy game, easy life. I'm sorry, I couldn't tell if you were describing yourself or attempting to insult Graf.

 

I don't have a source port but then again I never pretended to have one either. It's pretty easy to sit back and take the high moral ground though isn't it? Especially when you don't have to prove anything :O)

 

For the record, I am in agreement with Graf with pretty much everything he has said here. Vanilla compatibility is catering to a fringe minority IMO and only holds back potential. Doom's modding history itself literally points to the advantages of progress even with vanilla vs boom. But hey on the other hand I'm not going to tell people how to make their port *shrugs* It's not my business and if I don't like it, then I don't have to play it. No skin off anybody's back. But that doesn't mean opinions can't be had.

I don't want to insult anyone, and I'm pretty sure I haven't. You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to troll your way into making some kind of point, but it's lost on me. Or, maybe you're just making another one of your "jokes"?

 

The kicker is that you're falling into the same faulty logic that so many others exhibit: That being able to emulate vanilla has anything to do with new modding features. They're completely separate things, which I guess, is not so obvious

19 hours ago, Arctangent said:

I can't help but notice you completely avoided bringing up Eternity - y'know, the specific port being discussed - and went on to point out two fairly niche ( admittedly, the type of niche that fits a lot of Doomworld users, but they stuff they bring in is completely irrelevant to most people brought in by Youtubers and Doom '16 ) ports that have very clear goals. Which you seem perfectly aware of, since you flat-out said one of them was basically finished, something not especially possible if there wasn't some sort of end goal.

 

And that's a pretty important detail, since the basis of what Graf is saying is that Eternity doesn't really have one.

 

I mean, sure, it has the very vague one of "advanced port that's highly vanilla compatible," but that's pretty damn contradictory. No, that doesn't mean it won't appeal to someone, or even that it won't appeal to its own niche, but it really doesn't have any mainstream appeal and said niche is in direct competition with both other advanced ports and vanilla compatible ports ... and effort is split between the two of those targets, meaning that it can't give 100% in either of them.

 

Still, the AutoDoom stuff could be what is very well needed to change that, expanding the niche into something that no other ports have - highly intelligent bot AI that can navigate a map on its own, and hopefully will be able to make use of it in PvP if printz ever gets around to adding DM support to it. That's something that not even multiplayer source ports like Zandronum have - the bots it has are extremely primitive in comparison.

 

But of course, that's only if that gets sucked up into mainline Eternity.

 

As-is, there's not really much that Eternity can do that ZDoom or 3DGE can't also do, and those two also just plain feel a lot more modern. Which, sure, is the reason why a few people, like essel, prefer Eternity as it keeps a more old-school feel, but for most people, if they're going for an old-school feel then there's no much reason to play stuff with new-school modding features plopped on top.

 

As for why any of this is relevant, well, this is basically a topic that asks if, say, I made a new source port which got played by like five people at most, would it deserve its own sub-forum on these boards?

 

I'm pretty sure the answer would a big no, considering those five people could just use a single thread dedicated to it instead.

The bulk of your post is based on unsubstantiated assumptions, personal bias and conjecture. Anyway, here goes:
I didn't purposefully omit Eternity - Eternity is what the common theme of the discussion. But discussing those ports that are basically finished better illustrates my point - that popularity (or, better: worth) cannot not measured by post or download count. Certainly, when deciding how to modify the forum, post/download count could be helpful, especially when deciding what sub structure to use (non-sticky vs. sticky vs. sub-forum). Ultimately, a discussion board serves the public best when it suitably organizes the amount of discussion. To that end, maybe a sticky post works well to a point, at which time the idea of creating a sub-forum becomes more relevant.

16 hours ago, Da Werecat said:

I thought it wasn't a popularity contest for you. Whether it's 10 people or 20 that like Eternity shouldn't matter all that much.

For me? I said that port creation is not a popularity contest period. Using your logic, your point doesn't matter all that much.

16 hours ago, printz said:

I can try that. It can work as a nice evolution of the "number of single player helper dogs" MBF gameplay setting.

Yes, please make AutoDoom bots a standard Eternity feature - that would be awesome! Some other nice-to-have supporting features would be:

• up to 4 AutoBots
• Spectator players (noclippers that cannot affect the environment)
• 1 to 4 3rd person view auto-spectators (or "follow" 3rd person view for the AutoBots).

14 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

Nothing wrong with that. But can we also please stop using statements like "engine with advanced features that happens to play Doom." then? This is something I really take exception to because it's plain and simply wrong and spreading such stuff gives people wrong impressions.

That feeling you're describing is the same feeling I get when you make statements about the uselessness of vanilla compatibility, old demos, original physics, etc. Can't you see that it's the same argument with the signs flipped? I've asked you personally to consider that there are multiple philosophies in Doom port creation, each with their own merit, and each are deserving of respect. You're right those statements are shitty, coming from both camps. They're flat out unnecessary. You're guilty of making such statements, as I am. Let's consider dispensing with it, shall we?

 

A final thought about sub-forums: Does it make sense for DoomWorld to host multiple port's forums as the next evolutionary step above a sticky? That seems like a big commitment to me. Is there an "in-between" step, like maybe splitting up the Source Port Forums into just 2 forums: General Discussion, and Port-specific stickies? I can't wrap my head around the pros and cons of each approach. I will say that it's not bad the way it is. Making any sort of improvement seems like it would be a lot of work.

[Da Werecat]

25 minutes ago, kb1 said:

I don't want to insult anyone, and I'm pretty sure I haven't.

I think you did, and I think you know it. Otherwise there wouldn't be much need for your "Let's hold our hands already, you dipshits" dance.

 

6 minutes ago, kb1 said:

For me? I said that port creation is not a popularity contest period.

So it is a popularity contest for you?

 

7 minutes ago, kb1 said:

Using your logic, your point doesn't matter all that much.

Congratulations. Are you one of the 6 fans of Heretic, by any chance? I have a new battle for you to pick.

[kb1]

37 minutes ago, Da Werecat said:

I think you did, and I think you know it. Otherwise there wouldn't be much need for your "Let's hold our hands already, you dipshits" dance.

 

So it is a popularity contest for you?

 

Congratulations. Are you one of the 6 fans of Heretic, by any chance? I have a new battle for you to pick.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. You're going to have to point out the first one. Also, wth is the lhohayd dance?

Now, I do love me some Heretic, and you linked to NewStuff Chronicles, to the Heretic offering I suppose. But, exactly why would I want to battle anyone or anything, unless they/it was being unreasonable? I honestly do not know what sparked all of this hostility out of you. You're like all interested, or something - all up in my business and whatnot. Chill dude.

[Da Werecat]

Now I have to wonder if he's doing it on purpose.

[Linguica]

I am sick and tired of these source port thread derails. The next time I see one I am going to start handing out probations.