+- Renegade Projects Network Forums (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com)
+-- Forum: Inject the Battlefield (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+--- Forum: Ares General Discussion (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: Discuss: Urban Combat Damage Model Overhaul (/showthread.php?tid=1469)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Discuss: Urban Combat Damage Model Overhaul - Darkstorm - 23.03.2010
Out of curiousity, what is the Extended Slave System?
RE: Discuss: Urban Combat Damage Model Overhaul - Renegade - 23.03.2010
Issue #357.
RE: Discuss: Urban Combat Damage Model Overhaul - Darkstorm - 24.03.2010
Ah, danke.
RE: Discuss: Urban Combat Damage Model Overhaul - WoRmINaToR - 27.03.2010
yeh, whatever... screw the argument, i'm not even going to bother another ring around the carousel.. I could argue several things but it's pointless and obviously not going to get anywhere.
Anyhow, I think it best we lay that aside, and look at what we've got on our plate...
I like the idea of the UC.DamageRatio= tag. Now that i got everything figured out with how I would use it, this would work quite nicely with everything i have planned.
Now, about the garrison clearing logics:
While I will let you have it that the OPer of that issue DID specifically mention the assaulter logic to give an idea of what he wanted, he ALSO stated that he wanted something that would be related to the PassThrough logic. I say this:
You go trucking right on along with implementing this garrison clearing logic AS PLANNED for 0.3, THEN, later on when this damage model overhaul comes (which i agree is fine for 0.5 and shouldn't push anything), add one extra weapon-based flag, as requested in the anon's second post. That way modders can get simple garrison clearing without having to implement PassThrough on all their buildings, but those that DO have it on all of their buildings have more flexibility and more power with what they are doing.
Also, I wanted to clear one major thing up, that you seem to be really angry about:
I never, ever, ever, not once, stated anywhere that anything had to be done immediately about any of this. Not anywhere. I can wait for anything to come of this discussion. I don't know from where you got the understanding that i was putting so much pressure on you to make immediate changes, but I wasn't. Not at all. In fact, I am mostly in agreement with the rest of the posters here. The current system as it is fills the case that necessitated its inclusion, and it works fine as is. My proposals were purely future thinking.
I guess I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that this system had to be changed immediately, but really, I can wait. All I really want is a few extra goodies added to this system that would boost my level of control over the UC damage model, mainly for balance reasons, and for adding cool new weapons and effects.
About the usage cases, other people posting, etc... of course there isn't going to be a usage case. Of course there aren't going to be tons of people saying " OMGOMGOMGOMG WE NEED THIS NAO." It's all speculation for the future.
I understand where you're coming from; you feel unnecessarily pressured, bugged, annoyed, whatever I don't care, that's not really the point... really I just want to say that there isn't any pressure to get this done.
I just wanted it discussed now so that we had the floorplan down so that you guys could more accurately allot your time while working with this. I think it quite ridiculous myself if an amazing thought comes to my head about a feature to be included into the UC. DaM that I would have to wait until 0.5 is around the corner to even discuss it. I don't see what the issue is with getting the drawing board aspect of it out of the way now and then dealing with implementation later; I'm moreover a kind of guy who has the work ethic that says "plan it all out while it's fresh, then come back to do it when you can". That is probably what is conflicting with your style of thinking.
RE: Discuss: Urban Combat Damage Model Overhaul - Renegade - 27.03.2010
It takes the only guy who's not entirely happy 5 days after the conclusion to post something.
Perfect example of what I meant.
And yeah...not getting your proposal...if you're against deviating from the requester's supposed request by making it available for all weapons, not just PassThrough-tagged buildings, how exactly can people without PassThrough get garrison clearing? That's contradictionary.
Either I stick to what you consider the request, then it has to go into PassThrough, and will not be available to those without PassThrough, or I stick to what I said, don't put it on PassThrough, and thereby deviate from what you consider the request.
As for the reason why planning would be left until shortly before the implementation - take this exact discussion.
Let's say we had discussed how to implement Garrison Clearing Projectiles right away when it was requested, up until the finest detail.
And then something like this comes along, the community votes to have it in 0.2, and by the time I touch GCP, the system is completely changed and none of the plans make any sense at all.
Waste of time.
Or, if we had planned back then, and then discussed this as we do now...what would have been the point of planning GCP back then, if we re-plan them now anyway?
I'm all for asking questions, fleshing ideas out, etc., but the fact of the matter is, there's no point in making detailed implementation plans until you can foresee the circumstances in which a feature will be implemented.
RE: Discuss: Urban Combat Damage Model Overhaul - WoRmINaToR - 28.03.2010
(27.03.2010, 19:48:43)Renegade Wrote: It takes the only guy who's not entirely happy 5 days after the conclusion to post something.I was busy with tons of stuff, and really couldn't find a lot of time to allot to spending on discussion forums... of the time i DID have, I spent it at other boards. Just because I have a life doesn't mean I don't care about the issue.
Perfect example of what I meant.
Quote:And yeah...not getting your proposal...if you're against deviating from the requester's supposed request by making it available for all weapons, not just PassThrough-tagged buildings, how exactly can people without PassThrough get garrison clearing? That's contradictionary.
Either I stick to what you consider the request, then it has to go into PassThrough, and will not be available to those without PassThrough, or I stick to what I said, don't put it on PassThrough, and thereby deviate from what you consider the request.
Nonono, i think you're misunderstanding or misreading my post. I fully acknowledge that BOTH requests were made, and I now understand that BOTH are viable options. So, that being said, why not add BOTH of them in due time?
I'm saying add the GCP as planned in 0.3, then when the UC.DaMO comes around, add the one tag (UC.DamageAll) to the UC.PassThrough model (NOT the GCP damage model; these two systems would be completely separate, from what I gather anyways).
Quote:As for the reason why planning would be left until shortly before the implementation - take this exact discussion.Yeh, i see what you mean here. I guess it is really just too early to hash out details like that. Concepts are still free game of course.
Let's say we had discussed how to implement Garrison Clearing Projectiles right away when it was requested, up until the finest detail.
And then something like this comes along, the community votes to have it in 0.2, and by the time I touch GCP, the system is completely changed and none of the plans make any sense at all.
Waste of time.
Or, if we had planned back then, and then discussed this as we do now...what would have been the point of planning GCP back then, if we re-plan them now anyway?
I'm all for asking questions, fleshing ideas out, etc., but the fact of the matter is, there's no point in making detailed implementation plans until you can foresee the circumstances in which a feature will be implemented.
In any case, I'm satisfied with the terms reached here... if we get the damage ratio flag and the two separate GCP and UC.DamageAll flags I'll be perfectly fine with it.