Discuss: Urban Combat Damage Model Overhaul

[WoRmINaToR]

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 I understand perfectly exactly everything that is going on here and I am actually not that far out of date; i was just testing for the wrong outcome; the reason why i didn't get the results I expected (which were only slightly different from what was supposed to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.

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.

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

Didn't I specifically say I read them?

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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...

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.