God, what's even the bug in question that is so god damn contentious anyway?
The fact that the modifier key for cheat features is mapped by default, and by doing so fixes some other buggy behavior?
This seems like a rather petty thing to fling contempt over. The original post in the thread is not a bug, it's a user error. It's arguably if it's worth doing something about in the first place, but if we want to do *anything* about it then solutions have already been posed in this very thread (aka, having the error list at least one binding overlap to clue the user in).
That there is a modifier key for cheats now and that it's bound by default? This seems like a good change to me, even outside of any supposed bug fixes. From the sound of things you can still get the old behavior by using the options to remove the key mapping. There really doesn't seem to be anything to complain about here on the feature itself: the desired behavior for old users who don't want to use mod keys still exists. How often do people change ZC version and need to re-configure the options anyway? And even then, the default key bindings are shit not for everyone anyway, so you're most likely going in there to change something else anyway.
I change like, all of the controls. And, my control scheme would have me constantly enabling superspeed or view solidity with cheats enabled, so that was a CONSTANT frustration through my first 3 quests.
Having the error list overlapping bindings, as I mentioned before, is a logical thing; though, as Saffith said when he suggested it, may take a decent chunk of work. Even something that seemingly simple, takes a sizable effort in the code. Hell, it'll take more effort than it took me to add double- and triple-jumps to the Roc's Feather in 2.55. (technically, any number of jumps you want). It'll take FAR more effort to add that to the cheat dialog than it took me to add perm secrets on NES Dungeon dmaps in 2.55. ...It probably WILL get done, once college is done for me, but, it is notably an amount of effort. (Given, once I do it, I'll probably go insane as I usually do and write a whole SUPER fancy thing for it listing all of the conflicts, because.... I get carried away easily, when I have time to do stuff)
Frankly there is only thing that I do see as a problem here: That the feature was implemented and people like me try to use the cheat hotkeys and they don't work because you didn't know it's now a feature.
But the solution to this problem is hardly to rollback the changes, that's absurd. The old behaviour still exists, after all, but the requirement of a mod key as default makes way more logical sense than not. (Otherwise it's *very* easy to trip up cheat features on accident when not intending too). If anything this suggests maybe a need for a better pipeline to inform users of changes that might be less obvious? Something to consider. I really do feel this is an information problem, not a feature issue; the feature people want still exists.
I mean, if you want to get technical here, there IS a changelog, that lists ALL of the changes. With a build-specific list of changes posted with each build download. There are probably a LOT of things you won't know without reading that, but, that is EVERYTHING there is to know, perfectly available to read. Probably a lot of them are 'less obvious'.
All things said though, I do think the name of the settings in the options menu are not clear enough: They are labeled Left and Right. Which frankly don't mean anything in this context? A more clear naming scheme should probably be used, such as, maybe: Modifier key set 1 & Modifier key set 2, respectively. If a set of two keys are needed to be held down, etc.
Yes, better naming on that WOULD be good. I personally have no clue what 'Left' and 'Right' are supposed to mean here. The basic idea is, "one key from each pair"; ala 'Left OR Right CTRL, Left OR Right SHIFT'. ...but that 'left/right' doesn't line up with the actual 'Left' and 'Right' pairs, so that's... confusing. Definitely needs to be fixed.
Last time I checked there is nothing stopping anyone from forking ZC as a whole (which no one is doing because no one wants to), nor is there anything stopping people from just ignoring newer releases and make their quests in older builds instead.
Indeed; if you want to make your own ZC, it is open source. Good luck wading through the shitfest that is the source, though; there's a reason we only have 2 active devs. No one else is willing to put up with how bad the source is. (We are trying to make it better, but, there's only so much that can be done without breaking old quests. If I could, I'd rewrite how water works entirely from scratch; but, I can't, without breaking every old quest in existence.)