Renegade Projects Network Forums

Ever since UC.PassThrough was implemented, long before there is even any wide-spread usage of it, there have been cries to make it more complex, to add more flags, change this, do that.

Let me make one thing very clear right here at the top: I will not change the system as it is before Ares 0.1, and I will not change it until I get some feedback from those who actually ultimately use the system in their mods.
There is simply not enough feedback to accurately gauge what changes are actually wanted by a broad userbase, and it would be lunatic to rewrite an entire system this close to a public release based on a few singular opinions with diverse ideas of what to change, despite the fact that it works perfectly fine for what it was invented for.
Even if it all worked out, everybody loved the change, and the broad modding public adopted it like a drug, it'd delay the public release by weeks, if not months - which is probably not in anyone's interest.

That all being said, here's how it is:

• Currently, PassThrough allows projectiles to, instead of hitting the building, hit the occupants inside, and, depending on UC.FatalRate, either kill one of them instantly, or damage one of them (if the trooper/weapon combination allows that).
  
• There is also a scheduled addition to the UC.DaMo, Garrison Clearing Projectiles.
  

The following changes have been proposed over the course of development so far:

• Make the PassThrough-related flags weapon-specific.
  
• Allow weapons to damage both the occupants and the building, in the same impact.
  
• Take effects like CellSpread into account.
  

What I can offer is the following:

• UC.PassThrough on buildings would calculate the chance of PassThrough as before, taking SubjectToTrenches into account.
  
• We would have a flag UC.DamageDistributionRatio=##%¹ on weapons which would determine the percentage of damage the primary damage venue receives, e.g. if you had UC.DamageDistributionRatio=70%, and the PassThrough case applied, then 70% of the damage would go to one of the occupants, while the remaining 30% went to the building. If PassThrough did not apply, 70% of the damage would go to the building, while the occupants would get 30% of it. Set to 100% (the default), this would result in the distribution as it is now - either damage the building, or an occupant.
  Edit: Since, logically, 0% would actually mean "damage the exact opposite in full", which is kind of silly, I could make 0% a special case that never damages occupants, and always sends the full damage to the building.
  
• UC.DamageMultiplier and UC.FatalRate would remain, so even if only a fraction of the damage makes it through, the bullet could still land a lucky hit, or the shelter's make could still reduce the damage to the occupant further.
  
• If there is a CellSpread greater than 1, apply Damage/(CellSpread * OccupyHeight * SmallSideOfFoundation) damage to the highest possible number of occupants below (CellSpread * OccupyHeight * SmallSideOfFoundation). iow: Distribute the damage over a simplification of the area it covers, and see how many occupants could fit in it.
  
• Assaulter and its new brother UC.ClearBuilding would kill all occupants regardless of damage distribution.
  

Now, we cannot apply all special weapons effects. Stuff like radiation, chaos gas etc. simply won't work - no matter how it looks ingame, the occupants don't actually occupy any space on the map, so there's no straight way to apply cell-based effects - and I can hardly make two non-enties fight each other.

There's another thing to consider: This takes time and effort. Even with just my suggestion, I'd be overhauling the complete system. Additional suggestions would increase the complexity, time and effort needed.
Point being: You have to decide when you want this, and what I'm supposed to delay in favor of it:
In 0.2, bigger candidates would be the recreated Radar Jammer effect or the Extended Slave System.
In 0.3, we have Active Protection Systems/Shields or the Morale / Bravery / Panic System.
0.4 is reserved for SuperWeapon issues and bugfixes.
0.5 is free to take it.

So, it's your decision when you want it - but if you don't want to wait, one of the features above will be bumped to 0.5. UC.ClearBuilding is currently scheduled for 0.3, but it would become part of the package.

Discuss away, request additions, just remember nothing is final or promised, especially not before 0.1 is out and we hear actual usage-reports.

Update: Added poll for clearer decision.

---

¹ All flag names for discussion purposes only. Nothing is set in stone.

I agree with Original Post, what it outlined as what you can offer is already enough, and other bugs seem more important than adding 101 different things to this.

Well if you added SubjectToTrenches it would solve the issue I am having (tank shells and explosives etc hitting occupants and not building) as long as SubjectToTrenches means that the weapon will still hit the building for full damage.

If SubjectToTrenches made its way into an upcomming release that would satisfy most of my urban combat scenarios without complaint.

Quote:•We would have a flag UC.DamageDistributionRatio=##%¹ on weapons which would determine the percentage of damage the primary damage venue receives, e.g. if you had UC.DamageDistributionRatio=70%, and the PassThrough case applied, then 70% of the damage would go to one of the occupants, while the remaining 30% went to the building. If PassThrough did not apply, 70% of the damage would go to the building, while the occupants would get 30% of it. Set to 100% (the default), this would result in the distribution as it is now - either damage the building, or an occupant.

While this looks kind of nice, it doesn't really seem necessary for what I am doing (me being the one who requested the "bullets damage both building and infantry" feature), and looks a bit too complex for you to bother with and for the modder to use.

The other stuff won't really affect me much, but anyways I don't think cellspread needs to be taken into account unless we are talking about damaging the building (in a "building and infantry take damage" scenario, should you decide to add that)...

Oh, quick question: will UC.ClearBuilding use UC.PassThrough, be a constant 100% chance, or use its own UC.ClearBuildingChance-esque flag?

My vote is on the separate ClearBuildingChance or even perhaps a set number of hits required for the building to be cleared by a garrison clearer.

Anyways, I am not by any means demanding this be done immediately; some of my musings are just simply speculations for the future. Of course the sooner the better, but I could wait until 0.5 for SubjectToTrenches and UC.ClearBuilding etc...

BTW, you said somewhere that you were looking for feedback from people that were testing and using this set of features in their actual usage-case mods? Well I am certainly one of them...

SubjectToTrenches has been implemented for weeks. Do you even keep up to date?
And no, it doesn't damage the building. Quite the opposite. Sounds like you didn't read the issue for that, either.

Also, how is one additional flag too complicated?

And the same as above for ClearBuilding...the issue is even linked! Read the requests before you ask what they do! It would be like Assaulter=, only on a Warhead.

I can say that I use the UC damage system extensively in Incursion (on all civilian structures as well as a game mode that is completely dependent upon the entire new UC logic), and the only actual implementation worth adding in is the addition of weapon overrides. I can't see any need for additional effects due to the engine limits, anything else would just be clutter in my opinion.

And I'd have to say that Worminator is quite out of date. RTFM?

* Renegade can't help but notice that, for something that is supposedly oh-so-important for uncountable numbers of modders, this discussion is rather short and lifeless...

Anyway, I added a small edit to the OP - since UC.DamageDistributionRatio=0% would logically be the same thing as UC.DamageDistributionRatio=100%, only in reverse (i.e. "send 100% of the damage to the target not chosen", instead of "send 100% of the damage to the target chosen"), I could make that one a special case to never deal occupant damage.
So you'd have

• UC.DamageDistributionRatio=0% - never deal damage to occupants, always damage the building
  
• UC.DamageDistributionRatio=1-99% - damage both the occupants and the building, applying this many percent of the damage to the target chosen by PassThrough. (UC.DamageDistributionRatio=50% would, logically, always damage both equally, safe for the occasional fatal hit on an occupant)
  
• UC.DamageDistributionRatio=100% - always deal full damage to the target chosen by PassThrough
  

UC.DamageDistributionRatio=100% could be used for snipers picking off occupants of buildings, although trying to attack a non-occupied building should yield a "how about no" cursor.

(15.03.2010, 08:39:47)Renegade Wrote: [ -> ]SubjectToTrenches has been implemented for weeks. Do you even keep up to date?

Last time I tried it was in revision 284 and it didn't work. I haven't tried since then because I didn't see anything in the revision notes mentioning anything about SubjectToTrenches=.

Can you seriously stop jumping the gun on assuming on every freaking occasion that I'm a dumbass, and maybe think for a second that you're not the only intelligent lifeform on this planet? I hate to be a bit rude here, but honestly... Ever since you first replied to any simple question I have made in these forums I have been met only with an extremely condescending attitude and pretty much total ignorance to the actual question itself. I have never been confronted with such rudeness in any other place I have ever gone forum-wise; administrators are naturally expected to welcome new members and help them get oriented and situated and comfortable with the proceedings in the forum, you don't expect to be chased away by condescending and rude admins when you enter new forums.

Can you just cut the crap and give me a straight answer when I ask something? I really hate it when I have to weed through miles of bull**** snarky remarks just to find that the real answer to the question isn't even there in complete form.

And don't even try to say I'm a minority; I've read several threads on these forums, new and old, where you drive away myriad new users simply because of your hostility towards those who are less familiar with exactly what you guys are doing here. You honestly can't expect every new incomming user to spend hours perusing every inklet of information posted on the renegadeprojects forums. You can't expect every new user to have expert knowledge in how to program things like Ares; that's what you do and what we're all here for.

So that being said, can you please just have a little bit of common decency and respect for the people who populate your community?

Quote:And no, it doesn't damage the building. Quite the opposite. Sounds like you didn't read the issue for that, either.

If I didn't read the issue, then how would I know about the tag itself? And yes, I DID read the footnotes.

How about this then; could we possibly have the flag damage building instead of occupants, instead of the bullet simply bouncing off and doing no damage (which if you think about it, is ridiculous, considering all the scenarios, and I mean from a gameplay perspective)?

Quote:Also, how is one additional flag too complicated?

Not the one flag, just the way it's implemented... I understand that's the way that came to you just then, but I think that at least there may be a more... controllable way to implement sharing of damage between occupants. I can't give you a specific idea right now as it hasn't really reached fruition, but I'll think more on the issue...

Quote:And the same as above for ClearBuilding...the issue is even linked! Read the requests before you ask what they do! It would be like Assaulter=, only on a Warhead.

I read the entire issue, yes all 3 footnotes where basically what you did was say what bull**** the issue was and you completely ignored the actual idea he presented, while imposing upon HIM, the person with the idea and the request in the first place, your idea of how it should be done. There wasn't a whole lot of real substance discussed on your part and what the hay, the issue wasn't even discussed to finality. Who knows if the OPer wanted something extra besides a ranged assaulter= logic?

He did say he wanted it linked to the PassThrough system, which is something I mentioned.

@WoRmINaToR:
Bugtracker, SubjectToTrenches issue, 17.12.09 09:58: "- PassThrough logic should work now (issue #663, issue #667)"
Bugtracker, SubjectToTrenches issue, 21.12.09 21:45: "Waiting for test reports."
Forums, Revision builds thread, 02.01.2010 10:37:41: "Could you guys please test the PassThrough-logic and SubjectToTrenches extensively, so we know whether that's done or not?"
Bugtracker, SubjectToTrenches issue, 03.01.10 03:02: Confirmed working by ProfessorTesla, marked as resolved/fixed
Forums, Revision builds thread, 23.01.2010 10:33:46: "Build 284 out."
Bugtracker, SubjectToTrenches issue, 28.01.10 23:49: "I've tested this, and it definitely works."/closed
Forums, Revision builds thread, 07.02.2010 20:38:08: "Build 290 out."

I don't even know where to start here...
...the fact that the issue has been marked fixed since the beginning of January, in the only place that contains dedicated SubjectToTrenches information?
...the fact that testing of SubjectToTrenches was directly requested in the place where new revisions are announced?
...the fact that SubjectToTrenches was reported as working 20 days before r284 was released?
...the fact that SubjectToTrenches was confirmed as working again on r284?
...the fact that, with all of the above, you neglected to report that SubjectToTrenches wasn't working for you?

There are really only two options here - either you failed to use SubjectToTrenches correctly in your mod and blamed it on Ares, or SubjectToTrenches has been broken for months, and you failed to report it.

Either way, you can cut the crap of trying to blame this on me being rude to you. It's not my fault that you are judging Ares based on a view of it that has been outdated for four months. It's not my fault that you are too blind to see updates on an issue in the only two places where they'd logically make sense.
The fact of the matter is, this thread wouldn't even exist without your bitching on the bugtracker - and now we learn that your bitching was based on months-old information. Had you properly kept up to date, this thread might not even exist - so if you dislike anything in it, you've only yourself to blame.
Stop trying to distract from your negligence by starting completely unrelated discussions about your personal opinions of how specific usergroups should behave.

You fucked up. Either you fucked up because you haven't updated your knowledge for 61 revisions, or you fucked up because you didn't report a grave bug in the PassThrough system, weeks before a public release. Don't try to distract from that by bitching about my tone.

As for the next two fallacies you produce:

• I am not expecting anyone to have knowledge on how to program things like Ares, especially considering that I myself don't possess such knowledge. What I expect is that people who make statements about a particular bug/feature actually go to the dedicated bugtracker issue for that bug/feature, and check if their claims are correct before they make them.
  And yes, I can expect you to ensure your basis of argumentation is not 4 months old before you start, especially if the place to check is out in the open, visible, and easily reachable.
  
• I have respect for those who deserve respect. People who create a whole lot of noise and trouble while having no clue what they're talking about and don't bother to actually fact-check what they're claiming are rarely such people.
  Stop bitching, stop making assumptions, and I might be motivated to find a nicer tone towards you. As long as your argumentation path is Negligence → Bitching → Red Herring, that's not the case.
  

WoRmINaToR Wrote:If I didn't read the issue, then how would I know about the tag itself?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the dozen other places it shows up in?
Maybe the documentation?
It's not like the words "SubjectToTrenches" have never been uttered outside of issue #667.
Besides, the fact that you opened the issue and skimmed over it doesn't mean you actually read it. (Evidently.)

Plus, what exactly is your argumentation here? The issue clearly states

667 Wrote:This flag can be used to override UC.PassThrough and make the weapon's damage apply to the occupants regardless of the PassThrough chances in general.

So if you insist you actually read the issue, all that means is that you're too stupid to grasp simple sentences.
Is that what you want to tell me?

WoRmINaToR Wrote:How about this then; could we possibly have the flag damage building instead of occupants, instead of the bullet simply bouncing off and doing no damage (which if you think about it, is ridiculous, considering all the scenarios, and I mean from a gameplay perspective)?

SubjectToCliffs=no → this bullet goes through cliff walls
SubjectToWalls=no → this bullet goes through walls
SubjectToTrenches=no → this bullet goes through trench walls
...yeah, let's completely turn that around and make it counterintuitive!
Come to think of it, I should make UC.PassThrough the probability that something does not pass through, just for the heck of it.

WoRmINaToR Wrote:Not the one flag, just the way it's implemented... I understand that's the way that came to you just then, but I think that at least there may be a more... controllable way to implement sharing of damage between occupants. I can't give you a specific idea right now as it hasn't really reached fruition, but I'll think more on the issue...

Again, how is that too complicated?
You have two paths the damage could take. You define how much damage the chosen path gets, the rest goes down the other path. If you shoot through a window, 70% of the damage ends up with the occupants, 30% goes to the building. If you hit the wall, the building takes the brunt of the damage, while the occupants only get a little shockwave.
Where's the complication? Is 100-x too much math?

WoRmINaToR Wrote:I read the entire issue, yes all 3 footnotes where basically what you did was say what bull**** the issue was and you completely ignored the actual idea he presented, while imposing upon HIM, the person with the idea and the request in the first place, your idea of how it should be done. There wasn't a whole lot of real substance discussed on your part and what the hay, the issue wasn't even discussed to finality. Who knows if the OPer wanted something extra besides a ranged assaulter= logic?

He did say he wanted it linked to the PassThrough system, which is something I mentioned.

Maybe you should read the comments on the bugs, too, particularly those by the implementers?
I have clearly and directly stated why it makes no sense to tie a warhead flag to PassThrough, and clearly pointed out that the reason lies within a decision the community made.

I am sorry I actually provided insight into how the system works, why the proposed implementation would be unwise, and where the reasons for that lie.
Next time, I'll just say "no" and reject the request instead of modeling it into something feasible, I'm sure that's much better and friendlier!

As for your next attempt to misrepresent reality in order to conjure up supposed misbehavior on my part: The request clearly and unambiguously states

672 Wrote:The last two are optional, with the last one being just a fun little add-on of little importance.

So go fuck yourself pretending I did anything wrong by focusing on the primary part of the request first.

At this point, since you continuously misrepresent any given textual information, I'm beginning to wonder if the issue is simply that you can't read. That you simply don't understand what text says. If that's the case, if you're just illiterate or your English isn't that good, fine, come out and say so. But don't blame other people for your failure to understand what's being said.

So yeah. If you want nicer treatment, cut the fallacies, increase your reading comprehension, and stop making assumptions, and we'll get there.

---

@Rest:
Is anyone actually missing anything in the proposed system, or do the simple additions of damaging both paths and being able to turn PassThrough off individually for each weapon satisfy everyone else?

And since Mr. Uninformed casts doubt over it, could somebody please re-test SubjectToTrenches?
m666, would you happen to use it in your mod and have any insight on whether it works or not?

Alright alright, sorry for the SubjectToTrenches misunderstanding... i had a re-glance over the thread discussing the matter and I was able to find a sentence in a wall of text that i didn't see earlier discussing the effects that the system had if you put SubjectToTrenches=yes enabled.

So yes, I'm sorry. yes I did fuck up, I'm ready and willing to admit that. I understand perfectly exactly everything that is going on here and I am actually not that far out of date; i was just testing for the wrong outcome; the reason why i didn't get the results I expected (which were only slightly different from what was supposed to happen).

Anyways I got that all cleared up... still though, I have to say only one thing in my defense about what you said about my past requests...

I will say that (at least in the most recent explosion) I did make a judgement error when I made a feature side-request in a recent thread regarding this, but it simply was not a major enough issue to warrant you absolutely going berserk and exploding on me, completely going off on god knows what and alienating the subject, practically. I understand that it SEEMED to you that i was demanding something that seemed unnecessary, but that was only because I didn't see exactly how far you would have had to go to do what I was requesting. Either way, you could have been much much more civil. I already made my apologies to that issue in the pertaining notes, but still, your reaction was very unnecessary.

Quote:Again, how is that too complicated?
You have two paths the damage could take. You define how much damage the chosen path gets, the rest goes down the other path. If you shoot through a window, 70% of the damage ends up with the occupants, 30% goes to the building. If you hit the wall, the building takes the brunt of the damage, while the occupants only get a little shockwave.
Where's the complication? Is 100-x too much math?

No it's not too much math, what I really wanted to say from the beginning here is that your medium might not be flexible enough. What if the modder wants full damage to BOTH the building AND the infantryman inside? I am brainstorming modder workarounds for this flag, but I'm having issues getting the math to line up on some things at least.

Quote:Maybe you should read the comments on the bugs, too, particularly those by the implementers?

Didn't I specifically say I read them?

Quote:I have clearly and directly stated why it makes no sense to tie a warhead flag to PassThrough, and clearly pointed out that the reason lies within a decision the community made.

I am sorry I actually provided insight into how the system works, why the proposed implementation would be unwise, and where the reasons for that lie.

I looked into the discussion a bit further, and upon further reading I believe it was you here who made a misinterpretation. What the poster was requesting was not a mimic of the Assaulter= logic, nor was he requesting something that was necessarily global on every building. Let me add something though; both m666 AND myself implemented a UC combat system where almost every common UC building has passthrough implemented into it, meaning most buildings are up for grabs as far as garrison clearing.

That being said I invite you to take one last look into the exact wording of his request, where he very clearly defines exactly how he wanted this parsed in a very clear and sensible way:

Anon, Issue 672 Wrote:this will be integrated into the UC.PassThrough logic, as well as considering the UC.FatalRate. The name of the tag I am proposing is UC.DamageAll=<bool>, and will be connected to the weapon being fired. The order of parsing would be this:

If weapon Passes UC.PassThrough (when attacking a garrisoned building), then evaulate if weapon has UC.DamageAll=yes. if yes, then damage all occupants according to RecieveDamage() (calculated for each indidual unit for that warhead). if no, then damage only the occupant that is chosen to be damaged. If weapon passes the UC.PassThrough AND has UC.DamageAll=yes, AND passes the UC.FatalRate test, then all occupants of the building are killed. If UC.FatalRate fails, then do normal damage according to RecieveDamage() for all occupants.

Now your response to it, with my comments added:

Renegade, Issue 672 Wrote:This will not be implemented into PassThrough because the community vote in thread #1392 made pretty clear that the community prefers PassThrough-related flags only to be parsed if PassThrough actually applies.

Read the OPer's post. He clearly states that he wants this parsed when PassThrough applies, and as noted above, there ARE usage cases where all of our UC buildings are put with PassThrough logics anyways.

Also, since this IS his request, the community can't tell him that his vision of garrison clearing projectiles as he presented it does or doesn't apply when PassThrough doesn't check on the building in question. This is especially true when the community was not prompted with the specific issue in question, as the thread was mostly exhausted before this issue was ever created.

Quote:Since PassThrough only applies when explicitly set, tying the garrison clearing logic to PassThrough would render it useless on 99.99% of all occupiable buildings, unless the modder goes through and updates every single one of them.

This argument is simply not valid. As I and m666 have said, we both have PassThrough on well over 90% of our UC buildings. It wouldn't a far shot off to say that somebody else would do something similar with their mods, and having a PassThrough-related flag that damaged all units would just mean all the more power to them.

Quote:As for your next attempt to misrepresent reality in order to conjure up supposed misbehavior on my part: The request clearly and unambiguously states

672 Wrote:The last two are optional, with the last one being just a fun little add-on of little importance.

So go fuck yourself pretending I did anything wrong by focusing on the primary part of the request first.

Didn't make any statement to your PRIOTITIES, it's the fact that you ultimately ignored the last two requests (the most important one being ClearingChance), which bring about a flexible system that acts like PassThrough without actually having to tie it into the PassThrough system, meaning no (extreme? Maybe something that would be needed as a checker) rewrites to the PassThrough system, meaning that ultimately the request, with all dots put together, is independent of the current UC.DaM or at least independent of the PassThrough logic. Exactly how it will be wired up I'm not 100% sure as i don't do the coding, but I think it can be put in without having to rewrite too much.

It is also worth noting that this is talking about the text made in the FIRST post of the issue; he then came back and made an addendum that completely changed the view on how he wanted it hooked up. I actually think the simpler and more sensible change lies with his second post.

Since I have made the mistake of overestimating the simplicity of implementing something here I am being careful. Feel free to point out if I have it all wrong but please be more civil about it this time. I am willing to recognize when I fuck up and learn from mistakes. If anything, that will eventually catch up to me and I will be a bit more respectable in your eyes...

Quote:At this point, since you continuously misrepresent any given textual information, I'm beginning to wonder if the issue is simply that you can't read. That you simply don't understand what text says. If that's the case, if you're just illiterate or your English isn't that good, fine, come out and say so. But don't blame other people for your failure to understand what's being said.

The SubjectToTrenches issue was a few lines I missed that skewed my interpretation of the system. Knowing English, you should know that even a single word can change the meaning of an entire context, let alone a single sentence. In any case, some things are still up for debate...

Quote:Is anyone actually missing anything in the proposed system, or do the simple additions of damaging both paths and being able to turn PassThrough off individually for each weapon satisfy everyone else?

If we can do 100% damage to both building and infantry inside, then that satisfies all my usage cases...

Quote:And since Mr. Uninformed casts doubt over it, could somebody please re-test SubjectToTrenches?
m666, would you happen to use it in your mod and have any insight on whether it works or not?

No need. With the misunderstanding cleared i can test it and see if it works as intended.

I may be a bit late giving my opinion, but I think that this should be delayed until Ares 0.5. While I can see how this would definitely be useful for some modders, I believe the system we have right now, while simplified (as is most of the game logic compared to real life), is good enough for the present.

There are so many things more interesting than Urban Combat in the lineup of shiny Ares features, and seeing as it is somewhat implemented already I feel that an overhaul should be left for a quiet day after Morale, Panic, Radar Jammers, and all the other nifty things are accounted for.

As for the actual proposed changes (mind, I'm commenting on the proposals in the first post), they look to be the right sort of thing. Just as long as garrison clearing weapons can be set to damage the units which are ungarrisoning, I can't find anything unwelcome in those changes.

But on the other hand, UC exists at all now.

WoRmINaToR Wrote:What if the modder wants full damage to BOTH the building AND the infantryman inside?

UC.PassThrough=100%, UC.DamageDistributionRatio=50%, (Damage|Verses) * 2?

WoRmINaToR Wrote:Didn't I specifically say I read them?

WoRmINaToR Wrote:And yes, I DID read the footnotes.

WoRmINaToR Wrote:I looked into the discussion a bit further, and upon further reading I believe it was you here who made a misinterpretation. What the poster was requesting was not a mimic of the Assaulter= logic, nor was he requesting something that was necessarily global on every building. [...]

That being said I invite you to take one last look into the exact wording of his request, where he very clearly defines exactly how he wanted this parsed in a very clear and sensible way:

Yeah, let's do that!

672 Wrote:[...] Basically, have some special weapon, a grenade or such, able to do what the Assaulter= logic did [...]

OMG HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO WRONG???

WoRmINaToR Wrote:Read the OPer's post. He clearly states that he wants this parsed when PassThrough applies, and as noted above, there ARE usage cases where all of our UC buildings are put with PassThrough logics anyways.

Also, since this IS his request, the community can't tell him that his vision of garrison clearing projectiles as he presented it does or doesn't apply when PassThrough doesn't check on the building in question. This is especially true when the community was not prompted with the specific issue in question, as the thread was mostly exhausted before this issue was ever created.

Okay, now you're just being ridiculous. My reply about the technical future of the request is completely independent from any "visions". By that logic, if somebody came in with the "vision" of adding support for YR to calculate the missing 3-dimensional pixels of an SHP on demand, I wouldn't have the right to tell him that's completely impossible - because my reality would interfere with his vision.

Seriously man...that's the best you have? I'm not allowed to use reality and previous decisions to make a reasonable implementation, because it hurts a requester's vision?

WoRmINaToR Wrote:This argument is simply not valid. As I and m666 have said, we both have PassThrough on well over 90% of our UC buildings. It wouldn't a far shot off to say that somebody else would do something similar with their mods, and having a PassThrough-related flag that damaged all units would just mean all the more power to them.

So basically, your argument for my argument being invalid is that my argument is valid?
...I'm not sure I'm getting your logic here.
If the garrison clearing logic is tied to PassThrough, it will only work on buildings with PassThrough, because the community decided that would be the handling of PassThrough-related flags.
Since, by default, no building has PassThrough, that would mean, in order to use a garrison clearing warhead, a modder would have to set PassThrough on all occupiable buildings, even if he really doesn't want to use PassThrough, only the garrison clearing.
That is a fundamental fact that is completely and entirely independent from whether or not you, personally have PassThrough on all buildings, and that thus, for you, personally, this wouldn't make a difference.

As for the next few paragraphs: Optional is optional, reality is reality, and the feature is scheduled for 0.3. It hasn't been touched since December. Quit whining that I'm not working out all the implementational details months in advance. I mean, seriously, let's look at this - he proposed:

• GarrisonClearer=
  
• ClearingChance=
  
• HitsToClear=
  
• UC.DamageAll= and related PassThrough stuff
  

Out of that, I only told him it would not be PassThrough. I didn't even make a statement on the others. And yet, here you are, crying like I outright rejected his entire proposal with no reason given.

And hell, this is the damn request thread for UC.DaMO. What I made was a proposal. If you want additional stuff from that issue, just fucking say so. That's the entire purpose of this thread - to figure out what people want in Urban Combat!

WoRmINaToR Wrote:If we can do 100% damage to both building and infantry inside, then that satisfies all my usage cases...

As said above:
UC.PassThrough=100%, UC.DamageDistributionRatio=50%, and then either Damage times 2, or the specific building verses to 200% should do the trick.

Okay, while the poll is running another day, I think the fact that this thread has been dead for four days and that there's a 60%+ majority for scheduling it for Ares 0.5 are making it very clear where this is headed.
I'll update the tracker to reflect the plan to implement the outlined changes, including the Garrison Clearing Projectiles, in 0.5.
Doesn't necessarily mean the thread is over, but, frankly, it doesn't look like anyone has anything else to say.

Which is, by the way, a point that is worth driving home: This thread is a textbook example for why I don't jump and run to make changes to existing systems, just because there was a single request. After all the bitching, thousands of lines of posting and the insistence that making the PassThrough system more complex and more variable was oh-so-important...what was the community's reaction?

Quote:I agree with Original Post, what it outlined as what you can offer is already enough, and other bugs seem more important than adding 101 different things to this.

Quote:[...] the only actual implementation worth adding in is the addition of weapon overrides. I can't see any need for additional effects due to the engine limits, anything else would just be clutter in my opinion.

Quote:[...] I think that this should be delayed until Ares 0.5. While I can see how this would definitely be useful for some modders, I believe the system we have right now, while simplified (as is most of the game logic compared to real life), is good enough for the present.

Quote:[...] seeing as it is somewhat implemented already I feel that an overhaul should be left for a quiet day after Morale, Panic, Radar Jammers, and all the other nifty things are accounted for.

...the 60%+ voting for not postponing any other features for this only drives the point home: Nobody cares.

After thousands of lines of post, all the bitching, all the insistence that changing this is oh-so-important and whatnot, we got a glorious six people who could even be bothered to post, out of which five are fine with the original suggestion.

This is the reason singular commenters with theoretical usage cases are not reason enough to dive head-first into the code and immediately change everything. Because despite the overbearing nature, despite the claims of droves of modders who desperately need some random change or the given system will be worthless to them, more often than not, if only one person insists on a change, it's because only one person cares.

Thanks to all who did comment, and remember to periodically visit the tracker and give your opinion on unassessed feature requests so we can gauge where the community's interests lie and give priority to things people actually care about.

Edit: For reference, the tracking issue for UC.DaMO is 778.

I like where things are headed, but for right now, as Tesla pointed out, the system functions fairly well and seems to work really well. I played around with flashbang-esque weapons and I got them working flawlessly.

If any improvements go in, save them for 0.5 so more feedback can be had, but I don't think much will come out in that time. I rather like Ren's proposed ideas; they seem solid to me and I would easily use them in a variety of places.