Limited Dgun + .take

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 14 Jun 2007, 05:02

If you .take a dropped player in a game with limited dgun, you should probably get his dgun radius too.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 14 Jun 2007, 05:20

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 14 Jun 2007, 06:37

Just sayin'.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 14 Jun 2007, 14:43

Can we just remove the complete misfeature that is the location-limited dgun? It causes unnecessary confusion, and most mods have rebalanced their dguns so that they don't break balance even if used outside of the limiter range... and the existence of the option screws up other mods if used.

(actually, ideally I'd like all of the special options removed from the game-start screen and simply leave it up to mod-developers to provide a tree of mutators for any special options like starting-resources or game-ends that they'd like to use).

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 14 Jun 2007, 15:13

This sounds like a feature request.

jackalope · Post by **jackalope** » 14 Jun 2007, 15:16

Pxtl wrote:Can we just remove the complete misfeature that is the location-limited dgun? It causes unnecessary confusion, and most mods have rebalanced their dguns so that they don't break balance even if used outside of the limiter range... and the existence of the option screws up other mods if used.

(actually, ideally I'd like all of the special options removed from the game-start screen and simply leave it up to mod-developers to provide a tree of mutators for any special options like starting-resources or game-ends that they'd like to use).

that sounds completely horrible

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 14 Jun 2007, 18:56

Limited DGun should never have been implemented :\

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 14 Jun 2007, 18:57

Hell, half of the mods don't even use DGuns.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 14 Jun 2007, 19:54

Actually, the idea of letting game makers select their options is tempting, if difficult and probably time consuming. I'm not sure many game developers would be willing to do that extra work, however.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 15 Jun 2007, 11:38

We'd appreciate the option. Currently we need mutators for any variables we'd like to have, it'd be much better if mod-specific options were possible (also on the com ends rule, some mods may not be meant to include commanders and do it only because of that rule and the storage issue). Especially with Lua allowing us to change the rules so much that you have e.g. a match for points we'd need a lobby option to let users set variables.

Imagine the deathmatch mods implementing a respawn Lua rule and instead of "com ends" or something like that you get a "frag limit" selection.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 15 Jun 2007, 13:30

I think being able to simply display a tree of child-mutators (that aren't visible at the top level) would be a good start. While it would be much more limiting than providing complex options, it would allow modders to provide at least the common variants for players to choose without cluttering up the main mod-list. After all, most modders could probably come up with 20 different common variants of their mod, but they wouldn't want to clutter up the main menu.

For example, my "common variants" for BA:
Standard
Game Ends,
Resourceless,
Resourceless + HoverComms,
Max Resources
Max Resources + Hovercomms,

and so on ad nauseum.

After all, in Kernel Panic, the starting metal/energy and dgun attributes are meaningless. In some mods, the d-gun-limit and "game ends" are actively dangerous options... in others, "game ends" is the only reasonable option.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 15 Jun 2007, 15:20

Still, with lua in 75b1 I'd say we should have custom input fields too.

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 15 Jun 2007, 17:19

Pxtl wrote: in others, "game ends" is the only reasonable option.

like BA

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 15 Jun 2007, 18:25

NOiZE wrote:
Pxtl wrote: in others, "game ends" is the only reasonable option.
like BA

I disagree on that point. BA Game Ends is useful in one situation; a 1v1. Any other time, it is a rush measure which is neither inherently beneficial nor fundamentally damaging to gameplay.

Post by **jcnossen** » 15 Jun 2007, 18:51

what's so much fun about com ends? You spend 10 minutes putting nice stuff everywhere, getting an economy working. Then a single unforeseen event can kill your com and there is no chance of ever coming back. Whereas without com ends you can use your com to bomb and might just flip the situation around.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 15 Jun 2007, 21:58

Blame the mods for tagging only one unit as a commander.

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 15 Jun 2007, 22:40

Cloak the little bastard, and dump him in the most heavily defended spot you can. Alternatively, abuse bugs in the aircraft code and have an Atlas fly him off the map

Zpock · Post by **Zpock** » 16 Jun 2007, 03:40

jcnossen wrote:what's so much fun about com ends? You spend 10 minutes putting nice stuff everywhere, getting an economy working. Then a single unforeseen event can kill your com and there is no chance of ever coming back. Whereas without com ends you can use your com to bomb and might just flip the situation around.

You'r looking at it from the wrong way.

what's so much fun about com ends? Your enemy spend 10 minutes putting nice stuff everywhere, getting an economy working. Then a single unforeseen event can kill his com and there is no chance of ever coming back. Letting you take great joy and pride in his humiliating defeat. Whereas without com ends you will have to spend ages killing his last mex hidden in some corner.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 16 Jun 2007, 07:36

Before this gets too sidetracked, does anyone have any reason why you shouldn't get a disconnected player's dgun radius if you have to .take him?

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 16 Jun 2007, 08:01

Perhaps because the radius is tied to a player and the code is not meant to have more than one radius per player?

Spring RTS Engine

Limited Dgun + .take

Limited Dgun + .take