Open Source

Grammatically, the only question you ask is a rhetorical one. If you would like to pose a question directly to me, feel free.

Personally, I'd like to see ZC's source stay closed. It enables them to work out the kinks/bugs, and work with it without any outside trouble. If it went open source, I could forsee a disaster happening to ZC. I'm not saying that it would definitely happen, but there's always the possibility.
And I agree with Freedom that the devs are and will be making the right choices for ZC.

The question being; if you're interested in the project, why haven't you made it a point to join in on the fun earlier and become a part of it, itstead of asking for it to just be handed over at this stage.

It's Kind of like what happens in the suggestions forum, someone will come along and before they even know what the program can do they're suggesting things be added that have been being done in quests, sometimes years before.

It's none of my business anyway, one way or the other, like I said before, I just like building quests, what direction ZC takes, it will take regardless of me.

I've actually been following Zelda Classic for a few months, if you don't believe me, check out my blog (notice the October date):

http://rumorsofmydemise.blogspot.com/2005/10/fan-freedom-creative-expression.html

Last paragraph if you don't feel like reading it all.

I'm not saying I'm a master at using, far from it. I still have quite a bit to learn before I'm comfortable releasing a quest. Anyways, if you read back over the thread, my primary focus for open sourcing is multiplayer. Apparently, according to the website, a multiplayer feature is part of the plan anyways, my suggestion for open sourcing would merely speed that up.

Look under future plans:

Make it easier to create group quests (quests with multiple authors)
Multiplayer/deathmatch feature
Fix swimming in BS-Style animation

I do not mean to be cynical, but how exactly would that speed it up?

More people working on a project generally means it will progress faster.

While I'm not a master programmer, I have experience with RunUO, which was originally designed to allow fan run Ultima Online servers, which I did for 6 months, working on other servers intermittently before and after. When RunUO was first released, (http://www.runuo.com), the core wasn't open source, but all the files that corresponded to skill gain, monsters, etc etc were. With somewhat limited control over the game, fans made huge changes to UO, some so drastic that it hardly resembled the original Ultima. When RunUO released the core, a little over 2 years ago, fans of the system finally had the ability to modify the guts if they so desired. For the most part, tweaks have been minor and most of them kept private. Then I saw this:

https://www.hostilespace.com/ (IE only which sucks).

If you're unfamiliar with what Ultima Online looks like, look at this:

http://www.uo.com/ageofshadows/images/guildbattle.jpg

Hostile Space is built on a heavily modified RunUO core, what was originally Ultima Online, a game focused on killing monsters and collecting loot, was morphed into a game about commanding star ships and exploring a galaxy. As soon as I saw Hostile Space, I instantly thought of Zelda Classic.

So, I ran here, well, I guess it would be an E-run, which is characterized by frantic clicking and typing, to start sharing the idea. Using my experience with open source software (mainly RunUO), I gathered that open sourcing, which allows many programmers to work at once, would probably be the fastest way for a vision like this to be realized. If the developers of ZC want to create a Zelda (or "esque" if copyright infringement is feared) MMO solo, that's fine, I will gladly wait for it and offer my written support.

Or if they choose not to release the source and not persue a multiplayer or MMO angle, that's fine too. It's their property and they're allowed to do what they want with it. But, I can still beg and make suggestions.

Zenphobia wrote:More people working on a project generally means it will progress faster.

While I'm not master programmer, I have experience with RunUO, which was originally designed to allow fan run Ultima Online servers, which I did for 6 months, working on other servers intermittently before and after. When RunUO was first released, (http://ww.runuo.com), the core wasn't open source, but all the files that corresponded to skill gain, monsters, etc etc were. With somewhat limited control over the game, fans made huge changes to UO, some so drastic that it hardly resembled the original Ultima. When RunUO released the core, a little over 2 years ago, fans finally of the system finally had the ability to modify the guts if they so desired. For the most part, tweaks have been minor and most of them kept private. Then I saw this:

https://www.hostilespace.com/ (IE only which sucks).

If you're unfamiliar with what Ultima Online looks like, look at this:

http://www.uo.com/ageofshadows/images/guildbattle.jpg

Hostile Space is built on a heavily modified RunUO core, what was originally Ultima Online, a game focused on killing monsters and collecting loot, was morphed into a game about commanding star ships and exploring a galaxy. As soon as I saw Hostile Space, I instantly thought of Zelda Classic.

So, I ran here, well, I guess it would be an E-run, which is characterized by frantic clicking and typing, to start sharing the idea. Using my experience with open source software (mainly RunUO), I gathered that open sourcing, which allows many programmers to work at once, would probably be the fastest way for a vision like this to be realized. If the developers of ZC want to create a Zelda (or "esque" if copyright infringement is feared) MMO solo, that's fine, I will gladly wait for it and offer my written support.

Or if they choose not to release the source and not persue a multiplayer or MMO angle, that's fine too. It's their property and they're allowed to do what they want with it. But, I can still beg and make suggestions.

I'll just say preemptively to lay off Zenphobia. He speaks good things, even if they neccesarily won't be applied.

Thank you Jman, I am honored by your defence.

Open Source debate aside, since I think we've exhausted that angle, would anyone be interested in a Zelda style MMO?

Zenphobia wrote:Open Source debate aside, since I think we've exhausted that angle, would anyone be interested in a Zelda style MMO?

[quote]Open Source debate aside, since I think we've exhausted that angle, would anyone be interested in a Zelda style MMO?

Let's rephrase the question: who wants to see a good Zelda MMO that isn't run by the kind of idiots I just described in my earlier post?

Dart Zaidyer wrote:Let's rephrase the question: who wants to see a good Zelda MMO that isn't run by the kind of idiots I just described in my earlier post?

Graal looks pretty crappy...

I think the first change that would have to be made, if ALTTP was made into an MMO, is the camera system. Instead of following link on a panel to panel basis it would have to to be attached to his head (I forget the term for this) and move everytime he moves.

That would make the world a lot more fluid and also prevent screen jumping in PvP.

I'm for a good online Zelda game. I'd like to see that kind of project realized.

Zenphobia wrote:Graal looks pretty crappy...

I think the first change that would have to be made, if ALTTP was made into an MMO, is the camera system. Instead of following link on a panel to panel basis it would have to to be attached to his head (I forget the term for this) and move everytime he moves.

That would make the world a lot more fluid and also prevent screen jumping in PvP.

I know what first person is, and it's not what I meant. 😊

The view would still be top down. Let me think how I explain this...

Okay, ZC maps are composed of panels. The top down camera only moves when Link moves from one panel to another. As long as link stays on that panel, he could be all the way at the edge of the screen and the camera wouldn't move.

The camera system I'm talking about would eliminate the panel shifting. Instead, Link would always be in the center of the screen. No matter where he moved on the map, he would always be in the center of the screen because the camera moves with him each and every step he takes.

Maybe this video of UO will help, you don't need to watch all of it, just watch how the camera follows the character:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6166470585612374674&q=ultima+online

Zenphobia wrote:I know what first person is, and it's not what I meant. 😊

The view would still be top down. Let me think how I explain this...

Okay, ZC maps are composed of panels. The top down camera only moves when Link moves from one panel to another. As long as link stays on that panel, he could be all the way at the edge of the screen and the camera wouldn't move.

The camera system I'm talking about would eliminate the panel shifting. Instead, Link would always be in the center of the screen. No matter where he moved on the map, he would always be in the center of the screen because the camera moves with him each and every step he takes.

Maybe this video of UO will help, you don't need to watch all of it, just watch how the camera follows the character:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6166470585612374674&q=ultima+online

Yeah, for it to be a nice fluid MMO screen changes would need to be eliminated almost completely (minus entering dungeons and similar areas that is).

Zenphobia wrote:Yeah, for it to be a nice fluid MMO screen changes would need to be eliminated almost completely (minus entering dungeons and similar areas that is).

Massively Multi-player online. The acronym standard used to be MMORPG (massive multi-player online role playing game), but the point of using an acronym is because it's short. 😉

So if Zelda was turned into an MMO, it would be like a self-contained world. What makes MMOs cool is that the world is always there. When a player logs off, the world is still going and still being impacted by other players that are also logging in and out. Some MMOs have thousands of players logged in at any given time. The largest number I've seen on a free, fan made MMO server was in the 700s (a rare occurence indeed).

Some of the more famous MMOs are: Everquest, Ultima Online, World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy Online, and Star Wars Galaxies.

Ok, I'm just gonna make a quick note for you guys. Let's say that ZC/ZQ was made open source. And 100 people do what they want with the program to add what they want. Person 25 makes some major changes, and makes it more like a GB style Zelda, and person 73 makes a ton of minor changes and everything. A person would make a quest with person 25's, and then someone else would try to play it on person 73's, and it wouldn't work. I personally wouldn't like to have 100+ ZC/ZQ's on my computer, so I think Open Source shouldn't happen.

From a discussion we had last summer on the same subject: (I'm copying my own posts because I think fewer people would read them if I just linked them)

[quote]Originally Posted by Dark Nation
I'm *SERIOUSLY* considering going open source. Definitely have to talk to PM and WL first. It would cause development speed to skyrocket, but there would be no more security on quests.

Thoughts?

Making ZC open source could help in many ways, but I wouldn't want it to branch out into other versions. Plus, if ZC became open source, it could be included in Linux distros and other products, possibly drawing more attention to ZC.[/quote]

Another thought I had: open-sourcing ZC MAY speed up the development, but there are obstacles too. One of them is handling the influx of people we would probably get. Would the staff already in place be able to handle it? And are they dedicated enough to handle it? I say this because many of the bug report/forum sections of projects I've read on sourceforge have an enormous amount of activity that requires a lot of community effort.

While I agree that Graal sucks anymore (believe it or not, there WAS a time that it was good), I don't think the shifting screens system that it uses should be eliminated. After all, another MMO, Ragnarok Online, uses screens, and it works out fine. That's not to say that I think the LoZ screen size should be used for each screen, as we'd be waiting for screens to load every few seconds, but I don't see the NEED for a fluid overworld like that. At least, not if it's going to be 2-D. I could see a 3-D Zelda MMO using that kind of overworld, simply because that is the kind of world used in the 3-D Zeldas.

If there's any pvp at all in the game, the shifting screens would need to be eliminated.

Why? It'd be pretty easy to keep jumping over that line that divides screens to avoid an attack. That sort of defence would not make sense if the goal of the project is to recreate the Zelda world.

Zenphobia wrote:If there's any pvp at all in the game, the shifting screens would need to be eliminated.

Why? It'd be pretty easy to keep jumping over that line that divides screens to avoid an attack. That sort of defence would not make sense if the goal of the project is to recreate the Zelda world.

Speaking of PVP, though, I'd like to see areas set aside especially for that. Why? Because when PVP is enabled everywhere, jerk losers who can't take on people as powerful as them go slaying newbies left and right. At least, that's what always happened on Graal. I know this doesn't have the same following as that, but I wouldn't be surprised if the result was the same if PVP was enabled everywhere.

Anywho, I think we're kind of going off topic talking about multiplayer here (even though it was part of the reason for open sourcing ZC). I really don't have more to say on open sourcing the code, so I don't think I'll post here again.

Heh, you'd think that provides a defence, but it doesn't. If a player is really determined to kill another player, they WILL do it, reguardless of what defence their prey has. Although, I don't get what you mean when you say that that sort of defence wouldn't make sense if the goal was to recreate the Zelda world. How do divided screens not make sense in a Zelda game? Specifically, in a 2-D Zelda?

MMOs are designed to be worlds, not 900 panels that represent a world. I think as long as the graphics and basic mechanics are Zelda style, it would be a good MMO. Just out of curiousity, have you pvped in an MMO where a player could jump in and out of like a dungeon entrance or across a server line? Such a tactic is hardly natural, or fun for that matter.

Speaking of PVP, though, I'd like to see areas set aside especially for that. Why? Because when PVP is enabled everywhere, jerk losers who can't take on people as powerful as them go slaying newbies left and right. At least, that's what always happened on Graal. I know this doesn't have the same following as that, but I wouldn't be surprised if the result was the same if PVP was enabled everywhere.

I was thinking something like the LTTP light and dark worlds. The light world is no pvp, the dark world is pvp enabled. Ultima Online adopted a similar system around the year 2000.

I apologize for gravedigging this thread, but I believe this discussion is still relevant, and would like to rekindle the topic.

I'm all for ZC going open source, for two major reasons:

1. Speed up development. Yes, as Vegeta has pointed out, I understand that not all projects experience skyrocketing development after opening their source, but as I see it, ZC development would certainly be no slower with open source than closed source: DN could, if he so desired, continue developing the main branch of ZC by himself and ignore all input from the community, and the current development status quo would be maintained. The potential benefits, on the other hand, are huge: suppose, for instance, that ZC's source were opened, with DN maintaining the main branch and accepting patches from the public only in the following limited way, as is currently being done for Mozilla:
Whenever a beta tester finds a bug, the bug is posted in the beta bug report forum. Instead of having to wait for one of the developers to have enough free time out of their very busy lives to fix the bug (which is and has been the development bottleneck of ZC for years now), any interested party could read the bug report, write a patch addressing the bug, and submit the patch for approval, perhaps in the very same thread. Beta testers could verify that the patch did indeed fix the bug, without introducing any new ones, and the patch would then be submitted to the developers for approval and merger.
Even allowing only giving the public this very limited influence over the project code would monumentally decrease the average development time of the betas.

2. Allow forks of the project. Several people in this thread have discussed hopes of making ZC multiplayer; why not let them try? Sure, compatibility is a true complication, but let's consider the possibilities -
- someone forks a version of ZC which few people use. There is hence no compatibility problem.
- someone forks a version of ZC which many people use. With no offense to the current developers, if someone can modify ZC in a way preferred by the majority of the community, I don't see how direct competition with the main branch is a Bad Thing.

Lastly, I would like to say some words about one of the concerns that has been voiced with making ZC open source: that of quest security. Communications I've had with FCF a while back lead me to believe that the recent versions of ZC store quest passwords only as MD5 hashes, so opening the source would not pose any risk of exposing any modern quest's password. Since ZC must obviously decrypt a quest to play it, yes, opening the source would remove security from the quest itself - but, while I admire the many hours quest-makers have devoted to crafting their quests, I feel paranoia over quest plagiarism is not a reasonable argument against opening the source. Once a quest is released there can be little doubt about its authorship, and even if a beta-tester goes rogue and steals a quest, other beta-testers could and probably would vouch for the original author. Very few other creative mediums have the luxury of the protection ZC currently offers, and blatant thievery is rarely a problem. It is also worth noting that security through obscurity is never sound policy, and that even today no quest is truly secure - any decent programmer with a kernel-level debugger such a softice can already reverse-engineer ZC's quest file decryption and steal a quest.

War Lord and Phantom Menace have the final word on Open Source Zelda Classic, regardless of what the developers may or may not wish to do. That was part of the agreement when we signed on. Do I want ZC to go Open Source? I haven't given it much thought as both of the aforementioned people have said 'no' in the past, which has been good enough for me.

i would save such drastic actions for when this program has like no limitations at all.... (keep it closed)

What do you mean by limitations?

DN: Of course. I didn't know they'd already been consulted.