Discuss: Urban Combat Damage Model Overhaul

[Renegade]

@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 It's not my fault that you are judging Ares based on a view of it that has been outdated for four months.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.
  

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

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?

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.

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?

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

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?