The internet is a lawless place with knowledge and sarcastic wit the pistols of this wild frontier.
Don't go out without being sufficiently armed.

~Blade

Other places

Ares (Current version: 0.B)

Ares's primary facilities have been moved elsewhere:

  • If you wish to report a bug in Ares, please proceed to its bugtracker.
  • If you'd like to request a feature, register a blueprint.
  • If you have questions or can provide answers regarding Ares's usage, visit the Q&A section.
  • Before you post a new question, you should check the FAQ, though.

Behavior

  • Mind the forum rules.
  • Due to its documentedly horrible quality, we do not offer NPatch support.


Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378
Author Message
Private mt. Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 116
Joined: 5 Oct 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #31
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378
It can only be twisted into being more luck than skill if you use extremes in variation, not say a 50% variation with say a small 4% critical.
Even with such usage cases, the usage of menu.ini isn't much more. There are evidently not many mods with not only campaigns, but campaigns they really want to be done in order, OR other options they want to force onto the user.
Just looking at the issue support, you can see random damage has 3 times the supporters of menu.ini

Quote:On a mass battle, things would average out more or less so as to make it irrelevant that you had random damage.
Exactly. Random damage is most noticeable in micromanagement or such, so you don't quite know how your use of the unit will turn out, and therefore anything is a "risk". Small-medium sized battles can still be spiced up, slightly unpredictable.
(This post was last modified: 14.08.2010 17:57:52 by mt..)
14.08.2010 17:55:51
Find all posts by this user
Corporal Blade Offline
Senior Member
****
Community Patrons

Posts: 453
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Reputation: 7
Post: #32
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378
Its now the only way likely to get implemented to have branching campaigns which is why I support it and random damage is such a trivial feature that won't make much of a difference at low levels or will be stupid if using extreme variation that I don't agree it should win out over it. Also, the masses aren't always right. At any rate I believe the cases have been made, lets just leave it at this unless anyone has any great insight or plans on posting the 50 great ways random damage will improve YR.
14.08.2010 19:03:50
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Private Lt Albrecht Offline
Member
***
Members

Posts: 144
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Reputation: 1
Post: #33
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378
Quote:Its now the only way likely to get implemented to have branching campaigns
Of which it was once fabled there was a modder-hermit in a cave in China who was making one...

Seriously, how many people would use it? This is the real issue. I serverely dout there will be a worthwhile number of campaigns using this system.
14.08.2010 22:01:30
Find all posts by this user
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #34
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378

Administrative Notice:

Since the last post in this discussion was two days ago, it is assumed to be over. We will proceed to judgement.

Forum Rules

(01.06.2011 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote:  Oh damn don't be disgraced again!

(25.06.2011 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote:  The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.
16.08.2010 22:27:59
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Ares Tester AlexB Offline
Grandmaster B
***

Posts: 221
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Reputation: 5
Post: #35
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378
Fight 1
I asked for feedback on the issue two months ago and didn't get any. DestroyAnims aren't overlay and already remap thanks to Ares. Walls are already remappable (image). So this issue must be about remappable rocks, trees and lamp posts. Is this really about colored rocks? Exciting.

On the other hand, disabling countries for game modes should be doable, even though there are still problems to overcome like switching to a game mode not allowing certain countries currently selected.

Fight 2
Here, too, seems to be some confusion. Multiple campaigns are already possible. Third Button is already working in its branch and if you want to have more than four campaigns, enable the campaign list. It is not possible to unlock missions in that list right now, but we haven't even arrived at 0.2 yet and it's quite likely there will be more extensions to the campaign menu in later versions.

Random Damage can be used or abused, as it has been pointed out extensively. I don't like random elements that much and I really hated TS's Hunter Seekers for destroying my Construction Yard while the ones I launched crashed into civilian structures.

Some say if Random Damage is noticable it's used too much but if it's not noticable there's no point in having it at all. Others give examples where it make sense to have such a system, most notably the Sniper that misses or wounds/kills infantry so it can't participate in the battle any more, as well as the M4 Sherman.

There are several arguments pointing out the negatives like the random element and it's fantasy style of the critical hit, as well as the disappearance of the random element in large battles if the number of fighters is big enough (law of large numbers). There are almost no arguments why the multiple campaign list issue is the better issue.

For now, I chose Random Damage. Nobody has to use it and it would default to the game's default behavior so nobody gets something he didn't want.
01.09.2010 16:31:47
Find all posts by this user
Commander-in-Chief Renegade Offline
Lazy Modder
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 906
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Reputation: 14
Post: #36
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378
Fight 1

The primary argument against remap for overlays is that it's supposedly pretty much limited to walls.
Let us look at this argumentation from two different angles:

Angle 1: Countries in game modes are more useful/make more sense
Do they really? I mean...why do you need this, really? What is the point of having an extra "No Britain" mode, for example? If you don't want Britain in the game, just set the AI to not use it, and tell any humans not to take Britain.
If you're making a "Classic RA2" mod, just fucking unlist Yuri.

Nighthawk's argumentation, in particular, really doesn't make much sense to me:
(11.08.2010 15:45:25)Nighthawk200 Wrote:  Many mods implement a "classic RA2" mode, and the presence of Yuri always gets in the way of this.
Independent from the question of how much sense it makes to have a "Classic RA2" mode inside a Not-Classic-RA2 mod in the first place...what is the argumentation here?
That we should implement an entire feature just because the player might see Yuri for three seconds before he chooses some other country?
If there really are dick players who try to select Yuri in Classic RA2 games, just totally cripple Yuri's army in the game mode so that the dick is punished for his behavior and removed from the game quickly.
Or, hell, just frickin mod Yuri into a generic Soviet country.

(11.08.2010 15:45:25)Nighthawk200 Wrote:  Additionally, it could make sense if you've done something like a Generals-esque country system where each country has certain special advantages instead of a simple extra unit, limiting the choice to certain countries so as not to harm your game mode.
It could, really? 'cause I'm not seeing how. What does the game mode have to do with it? I mean, the only possible application I could see for this would be situations in which a country doesn't have ships, for example, and the host selects Naval War or something. And even in such cases, the modder could still do his job and simply adjust the country to fit the game mode.
How many times does it happen, really, that a mod has to remove an entire country from a game mode?
If a country is so completely one-sided that it cannot cope with a particular game mode, how does it even survive in normal play?

(11.08.2010 15:45:25)Nighthawk200 Wrote:  It could also be used to implement a game mode involving certain countries that aren't even part of your normal gameplay. For example, a game mode in which you have every country addition (or none at all), limiting the country choices to simply "Allies", "Soviets" or "Yuri" rather than having pointless identical countries cluttering the menu.
This one is a valid suggestion in terms of outlining the game mode, but neglects to point out that the "pointless countries cluttering the menu" part would be the only issue with this mode. It would work 100% completely for all countries involved, the only difference would be that you could pick a specific flag to wear instead of being generic.

Sorry, but the fact that the player can redundantly choose a flag isn't grounds for me to add entirely new logic to the game.

Seriously: As much as you've been talking about the supposed usefulness of this feature, I just don't see it. The number of situations in which you'd truly need to limit the number of countries available in only one game mode is extremely small.
Yes, there may be any number of mods which want to reduce the countries in general. And they can do that just fine. This particular feature would only be useful for mods which need to modify the available countries in a specific game mode independent from the main country selection.
And that's just not often.

As such, the supposed usefulness of this feature is totally exaggerated: It would only rarely be used in the first case, and in the large majority of cases it would be used, either not having this feature doesn't make all that much of a difference (as in the Generic Countries case), or can be mitigated by having the modder actually do his job and balance the game (as in the Naval War without navy scenario).

Angle 2: Remapping walls is too small a usage case for the other issue
That sounds reasonable on first glance. Surely one particular structure type can't be grounds enough to implement an entire feature?
Yeah...and then you realize we're not just talking about any structure, but about pretty much the most common structure ever.

Seriously, how many mods are there which don't have walls?
I would be surprised if you could name even one, but even if you could, how many percent of the total number of mods would that be?
How many mods are there in which even a single country has no walls?
In other words, of the total number of all countries combined of all YR mods there are...how many countries don't have walls?

Walls are pretty much the most common structure in YR ever. Sure, all countries also have ConYards, Power Plants, etc., but on average, players build far more wall segments than production buildings.
Think about it: One wall around a ConYard is already 20 segments.

So yeah...it may be just one kind of structure, but that kind of structure is displayed more often in more mods than any other structure or unit. That's kind of a different situation.

As such, I disagree with that angle of argumentation as well.


Now, Alex says remappable walls are already possible. If that is true, the request should be rejected. So far, despite the fact that the request is over half a year old, despite the fact that I already linked remappable wall SHPs last time, and despite the fact that people in here seemed eager to get rid of the issue, no one has independently confirmed that walls alone, or even all overlays, already remap.

Not that I don't trust Alex, but the fact is, right now, it's one person's word against another's. Submitter says it doesn't work, Alex says it does.

Until this is settled, #925 is an open request, and as long as #925 is an open request, there is no doubt it would be used countless times more often than game mode specific countries.

Kill: #237
Support: #925

(Even if #925 gets killed, though, #237 stays rather useless with no good usage case.)

Fight 2

What Albrecht said at the end pretty much sums up my opinion of #1003 - how many people are going to use this, really?
We don't even have have a significant number of normal single player campaigns, let alone enough of them to fill multiple campaign lists on a significant number of mods.
As I said in another DFD today: Single player campaigns are a niche. It's sad, but that's the way it is. Before we start going all fancy about having numerous campaigns with all sorts of nifty branching and switching and cause and effect and whatnot, we should have certainty that people are actually going to use those features.

YR has been out for almost nine years. How many YR mods with fully developed single player campaigns have there been, really?

As much as I think random damage is superfluous and not going to make much of a difference, the fact of the matter is, it's probably going to be used a hundred times more often than menu.ini, no matter how useless.

Kill: #1003
Support: #378

Forum Rules

(01.06.2011 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote:  Oh damn don't be disgraced again!

(25.06.2011 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote:  The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.
03.10.2010 01:25:45
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Commander-in-Chief DCoder Offline
Not Ares Anymore
*****
Admins

Posts: 1 756
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Reputation: 18
Post: #37
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378
Support #925, if it's not an actual limitation, even better - less work for us.

03.10.2010 20:37:15
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)