51 replies to this topic

[SUCCESSOR]

Well, we're talking about a potential complete re-write here. Don't you think we could make a system that not only has two different methods for editing and running but is also optimized for each?

I think a great deal of other things take priority. For instance: code clean-up, porting away from Allegro, fixing development and usability hindrances, etc. There are more pressing matters than bumping up quest security.

Edited by SUCCESSOR, 23 October 2012 - 06:12 PM.

[kurt91]

So, we'd still have an "official" branch of ZC, and then the different side branches from each of the different mods that people would come up with, right?

We could have something like an "official" branch project where we come up with a preset list of goals like what you said, SUCCESSOR, (code clean-up, getting rid of Allegro in favor of something else, etc.), then use that as the "official" version of ZC, right? I mean, if there's still going to be an official version of ZC, how is the process of working on it going to work? Will it be the same as it is now? (just wanting to make sure I understand how this is going to go.)

Also, I asked this earlier and nobody seemed to have noticed, but now that the conversation has drifted back towards working on the program itself, I'll ask it again. What kind of artwork was meant on the first post? I'm working on improving as an artist, and would like to try and contribute to this.

[ctrl-alt-delete]

Also, I asked this earlier and nobody seemed to have noticed, but now that the conversation has drifted back towards working on the program itself, I'll ask it again. What kind of artwork was meant on the first post? I'm working on improving as an artist, and would like to try and contribute to this.

Go post in the thread in AGN. Anything really--graphics, userbars, backgrounds, themes, etc.

[bobby_light]

Hey, that's a pretty cool idea! Somewhat inconvenient for the designer, but it sounds promising.

So basically, I take it, it's a compiler for ZC quests.

Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that if ZQuest can load the data for a quest, anybody can write another program to do the same thing. Especially with ZQuest being open source. Anybody could use ZQuest as a guide and write a program to simply rip graphics, decompile scripts, whatever. There's just no way around it.

Compilation is merely obfuscation, and with an open source framework, it's not even that.

[Hergiswi]

Quests aren't like anuses; if someone decides to probe yours, you won't feel a thing.

I can't tell you how happy I am that there is an anus reference in this thread.

I think the Linux community is very good proof that if a group of people can get together to support a project, it can have very good outcomes. I agree with open-source programming and I think this is a very bold move on the part of the ZC developers. Hopefully it works out as well as it does in my head.

[sigtau]

I'm not calling anyone out on this (because AFAIK, no one has used it yet--but I honestly haven't read the whole thread ), but if someone seeing the inner workings of your password-protected quest bothers you... well, I just don't see why it would. How does it ruin your hard work? Why are you considering something that could easily be decoded by someone one day to be a trade secret? Professional game companies allow people to mod their games (oftentimes, many allow the source code to be seen!), and the integrity of the game is still there, totally intact.

I could understand wanting to obscure cheat codes, but again, to compare it to modern-day games, anyone familiar with a game's engine can learn its "cheats," and most players recognize that cheating to get through it without difficulty ruins the challenge and kills the fun.

Getting back on topic, I'd love to get my hands on the ZC source code, just to see what kind of patches I could write. I see this as nothing but beneficial, and a great move on the devs' part.

That said, it seems that the devs are in a position where they longer have to take feature requests, and they can simply say "code it yourself" if they so please, especially to anyone who constantly demands new features.

EDIT: I just went back and re-read the thread, and I see that that argument was used. Sorry D:

[DarkDragon]

I don't think there's much risk of the developers stopping the addition of new features -- adding new stuff is always a lot more fun than debugging