Suggestions

Anyways,im gonna suggest an idea:Why not adding a save function for Objectplace on?It would save as a wad like "map01objedit.wad" or something like that.
 
Last edited:
People don't bitch when you remove things that suck. People bitch when you remove things YOU consider to suck, while THEY don't. See: Circuit mode. I don't recall any sort of controversy after the removal of Sonic Adventure mode, the old Castle Eggman with all the buttons, or the Homing ring.
Actually, the only one of those I don't remember bitching about was the old CEZ, and I think that's simply because the bitching about it just got overridden by the bitching about all the other changes we made in 2.0. There was most definitely quite a bit of whining about the removal of SA mode (especially the light speed dash part of it) and the homing ring. Remember that YOUR opinion of features that suck isn't necessary the same as the opinion of everyone else, so you can't just exclude things that you don't think should be in the game, either. There is always a vocal minority that likes any awful feature in the game, no matter how bad, and they will complain mightily about any attempt to remove their pet feature. Therefore, no matter WHAT it is, people will complain when we remove something, for any reason, regardless of justification. The only difference is the volume of whining, which depends on how many people have feelings for what we're trying to get rid of this time, and if you want some examples, this thread here has a few great ones: http://mb.srb2.org/showthread.php?t=30748

So again, either bother to fix it, or remove it. And Tag mode, too.
I'd like to note that I've wanted to kill tag mode since Final Demo 1.01. I don't because of this exact reason. There would be some giant n00b revolt if I did it because regardless of how bad and unbalanced it is, a lot of people apparently find it fun.

Yes, but this topic is proof that people do bitch at the prospect of COUNTDOWN being removed.
Right here. Even the worst of the worst feature has some people who don't want it removed. Because of this I pick and choose my battles in terms of what features actually need to be removed to the ones that actually are hurting our game as a whole by existing. Countdown is useless, but it's not hurting the game at large by sitting there unused, so I wouldn't start an argument by attempting to remove it.
 
You can justify absolutely ANYTHING with that train of thought.
I was trying to say if something doesn't work in "model" that is used by 99% of mappers, it could possibly work if someone else comes up with some other concept. It's matter of thinking out of the current and widely adopted standard or model of design.

Plus, I wasn't, even in slightest, supporting anything just for sake of having variety. On the contrary, I was subtly objecting the current and widely adopted [and somewhat officially supported] standard.

What kind of design standard would discourage exploration? Doesn't sound like a good standard to me.
Then time-based special stages wouldn't sound like a good standard to you since they kinda discourage exploration. (Obviously I'm exploiting your wording a bit.)

What if I wanted to create a map where the player needs to accomplish a goal by passing by a several parts of the map before the time runs out? Such kind of level wouldn't be designed to be "seen" or to have a dandy tour, but to push player's skills. Even if it hasn't worked well in the current material released, there's still the possibility of someone getting it to work properly. I hope I have gotten my point across.

Yes, but this topic is proof that people do bitch at the prospect of COUNTDOWN being removed.
Right here. Even the worst of the worst feature has some people who don't want it removed.

Since the COUNTDOWN subject took place in this topic (24 hs ago), only I, Neo and RedEnchilada have shown our opinions against probable removal: I asked "why is it bad"; Neo objected the "Mystic said so" argument, and Red was the 1st one to show a "lengthy" post. Then we three are bitching? If we object on some decision, we expect a good discussion with people showing why yes and why not, not being called "vocal minority", "people who bitch" after 3rd or 4th post against or "people who like bad features". Unless there's a secret list of subjects that we can disagree with. Otherwise, I see no point in having a topic where people must only agree. I never expect everyone always agree with everything I say.

As for me, I get along and move on. I'll be back to post on different subject.
 
Last edited:
I was trying to say if something doesn't work in "model" that is used by 99% of mappers, it could possibly work if someone else comes up with some other concept. It's matter of thinking out of the current and widely adopted standard or model of design.
I understand that you weren't meaning it in a manner intended to be evil or anything; the problem is that your exact reasoning (including your usage of examples that I omitted from the quote) is the same reasoning that's been used to try to argue against the removal of a lot of other features, such as the light speed dash in adventure mode that I mentioned earlier. Yes, you could theoretically make a stage that uses the countdown feature well, but nobody does and those stages that DO use the feature are worse off because they did. While it's possible that we'd be removing a possible niche of good design space by removing countdown, it's far more likely that we'd be saving a bunch of new level designers from entering a horrible pitfall that will make their level worse.

Since the COUNTDOWN subject took place in this topic (24 hs ago), only I, Neo and RedEnchilada have shown our opinions against probable removal: I asked "why is it bad"; Neo objected the "Mystic said so" argument, and Red was the 1st one to show a "lengthy" post. Then we three are bitching? If we object on some decision, we expect a good discussion with people showing why yes and why not, not being called "vocal minority", "people who bitch" after 3rd or 4th post against or "people who like bad features". Unless there's a secret list of subjects that we can disagree with. Otherwise, I see no point in having a topic where people must only agree. I never expect everyone always agree with everything I say.
I am not in any way saying you are not allowed to disagree with what I say, and in fact the whole POINT of having a public discussion forum for this is so that you can. I'm also not implying that you three are bitching because you're discussing this in a constructive and civil manner. Obviously there isn't some kind of secret list of subjects you can't disagree with, because if there was this topic wouldn't exist and all the jokes about me being a Nazi would be 100% truth as I censored the forum into oblivion.

Instead, I am saying that I tend to ignore the knee-jerk "you changed it now it sucks" and "how dare you remove a feature I loved" reaction that people tend to have and try to glean the useful feedback out of the comments, which often isn't what is directly being said. For instance, in the topic complaining about 2.0's release and all the things they didn't like, there WAS some useful stuff to glean out of all the bitching. A lot of the complaints about DSZ and CEZ said "I hate this why did you change it", but when you looked into the details they hated very specific parts of it and those specific things were ruining the experience for them. As a simple example, it is now possible to leave the puzzle route in DSZ1 if you fall down there and don't want to do it because the people complaining about the puzzle path were right in that there wasn't an alternative if you fall down there as Sonic. If you didn't like the puzzle route, this was a major flaw in the design and would give you a bad impression that would lead to generalized statements like "DSZ sucks". As a counterexample, though, the complaints about the new save system mostly boiled down to "argh the game crashed and now I have to do all this again". While this is a very valid complaint, the fix they suggest (reverting back to the old save system) doesn't actually address the real problem, and fixing the crashes makes the new save system work fine. The suggestion to revert back to the old save system is a simple, knee-jerk reaction to something going wrong and causing frustration. Even if we did what they said, the real problem of sigsegvs doesn't go away, and the frustration with the save system was simply a symptom of a deeper problem somewhere else.

I understand that deleting or changing anything is likely to make people mad, and I do actually care that it makes people mad, but more for the "why" than the actual numbers of people I anger. After all, if it was entirely up to me, I'd have deleted Tag and Circuit years ago. Please understand that just because I may not be willing to give in doesn't mean I don't give your words weight. The feedback on the save system was plenty valuable even if the proposed solution was completely wrong.
 
Last edited:
So, have you guys considered drastically increasing the tailspickup hitbox range.

I don't know WHY this hasn't been done yet.
 
Is it possible to include an obscure level from one of the classic Sonic games as an unlockable?
It's certainly possible. But it won't happen because they have lots of other, original, levels they could work on instead.

At this point, I get the feeling you're suggesting things just for the sake of making suggestions.
 
No I'm not. I really like the way this game feels and looks, and I really want to see a level from the genesis, CD,or 32x in srb2. It'd be really cool to see what a level like Newtronic High or Mystic Cave would look like on a 3d plane. I'd just thought it'd be a cool addition.
 
No I'm not. I really like the way this game feels and looks, and I really want to see a level from the genesis, CD,or 32x in srb2. It'd be really cool to see what a level like Newtronic High or Mystic Cave would look like on a 3d plane. I'd just thought it'd be a cool addition.

Yeah but something like that can be done by another user in the community at the same time, and not by the devs themselves. If a fellow user is interested, they'll do it. Heck I mean, about a year or two back, there WERE people who attempted at S3&K in an SRB2 format.
 
Hey here's a suggestion that would probably won't be picked up. I've notice that Thing 1002 "Dripping Water" actually goes through water and ends up falling through the water and splash underwater. I find it kinda weird because it doesn't make sense. What I am trying to suggest is that maybe you guys can edit the thing's coding to make it stop above the water like if the dripping water was hitting regular ground. I think this is possible because if Thing 110 "Turret" can only be destroyed by touching water, I think the dripping water can stop going down when it hits water instead of falling right through the water.
 
I had a neat suggestion from a while ago which might provide a pretty aesthetic effect when used properly:

Linedef special: Echo Sound

This linedef special will echo the sound in the tagged sector. The control sector floor height controls the number of echoes, while the linedef length controls the duration between echos, in tics.

When tagged to a regular sector: Echos sounds while in that sector.
When tagged to an intangible FOF's control sector: Echoes sounds while inside the FOF.

This could be very useful for things like caverns, caves, tunnels, ect. It'll add a neat little effect for mappers to help get the most out of their maps, via sound.
 
Just throwing in a few suggestions of mine here:

  • The Character Ability trigger linedefs (#305 - 307) could really use a special linedef flag to invert the ability choices, making the ability specified by the linedef instead being the one ability not to activate the trigger.
  • FOF-buddying: Think A_CapeChase + A_CheckBuddy, but applied to FOFs; The buddy FOFs will follow the main FOF's movement exactly and will (optionally) also disappear/be destroyed when the main FOF disappears or is destroyed, which will probably be of great use with FOFs that float in water in particular.
  • The Race Only - Once trigger linedef (#308) should be turned into a Gametype-specific trigger linedef.
 
On the subject of the character ability tag, it would be nice to make it not show up (Or make a tag to make it not show up) in multiplayer. It would really help with multi-route levels that have blockades from Sonic/Tails/Knuckles, and it would make it way easier to make a path specific level avaliable compatable with Co-op/Race.
 
  • FOF-buddying: Think A_CapeChase + A_CheckBuddy, but applied to FOFs; The buddy FOFs will follow the main FOF's movement exactly and will (optionally) also disappear/be destroyed when the main FOF disappears or is destroyed, which will probably be of great use with FOFs that float in water in particular.
Yes. I was thinking of it too. Some kind of linedef that groups FOFs of different sizes. If Bridge thinker will work in the next version, I don't think that grouping FOFs would be hard too. It would be useful for:
  • spin-powered elevators made of more than one FOF: if the player charges spindash on one of the FOFs, all grouped FOFs will follow.
  • boats: if the player steps on one of the FOFs the boat is made of, all FOF will bob on water.
  • a FOF that spans or lays on two sectors with different effects: a solid FOF floating on two water FOFs, each water FOF with a different current (direction or speed).

Bustable Block Sprite Setting, sound and debris, in texture fields

I'd like to be able to choose the sound and the debris, from 9 current slots, for bustable blocks just by entering information into the texture fields. For instance, I think of using glass, ice and wood in my levels, I can replace the sprites with my own ones, but I can't "customize" the sound; the same "rock" sound (sfx_crumbl) is played no matter the sprite I pick -- it doesn't fit well.

Since the Front Side Upper Texture field is already used to set the transparency of translucent bustable blocks, the Front Side Lower Texture field could be used to set the debris sprite (#ROIn). If the a linedef flag is set (perhaps, Block Enemies), SRB2 will play the counterpart sfx (#ROIA plays sfx_crumblA, #ROIB plays sfx_crumblB and so on)

Once we get rid of these Bustable Block Sector Types, these slots could be used for new kind of sector types.

(refer to: http://mb.srb2.org/showthread.php?p=707761#post707761)
 
Something I think could be interesting giving mappers the option to use Emerald Hunt as a linedef executor rather than ending the stage (by specifying something in the header, perhaps), so you could, say, have the Emeralds act as a key to a door, or change the value of a custom exit.

I also second Ezer Arch's suggestion on bustable block sounds, as it was always something I planned on using too.
 
Last edited:
* Reintroduce r_glide. C'mon, it's fun. I'd be happy to supply one piece of hardware (3dfx V2-1000) for debug and testing purposes. Alam ported old r_glide to v2.0.6 but it's not exactly working... If i knew 3d mechanics and C-programming a bit better, I'd have a go at this myself.

* Better network code. I know no other game that lags as hard as srb2 when somebody joins.

* Separate dedicated server executable. Would be pretty cool.

* Make dediacted server not randomly crash... Every 2 days or so, or sometimes even twice per day, the dedicated server completely hangs or crashes.

* Allow Dedicated server plugins: New commands, player stats, etc.

* Introduce floodkick as an anti-spam measure on servers.

My few cents ;)
 
Introduce floodkick as an anti-spam measure on servers.)

Absolutely this. If there's one thing I can't stand about SRB2 players, it's their obsession with spamming "LAG" every two seconds. I have to constantly kick them, which is annoying to do when it happens so often.
 

Who is viewing this thread (Total: 5, Members: 0, Guests: 5)

Back
Top