No unit wrecks... No collision instead? - Page 2

No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Requests for features in the spring code.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

what an asshole, wow. Dude, props for trying.
User avatar
Otherside
Posts: 2296
Joined: 21 Feb 2006, 14:09

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Otherside »

dont u know already that trademark is against downloading in general

His greatest achievment is making a compressed version of the worst map in spring (woop under a meg!!)

so the only thing acceptable is direct engine modifications so that BA can have these options without actually editing BA

Next he will be asking for a new Map format that generates a blank map and asks you what shape you want the map in and auto generates a version of speedballs in that shape.

I guess thats a good idea it will get rid of the clutter of crap map that are speedball variants

for someone who's against extra downloadign etc

hes made enough speedball variants to rival the file size of all the Delta Siege Variants combined GG hypocrit

/thread
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Pxtl »

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about small filesize, precisely _because_ I think crap like this should be as separate files. Downloading a meg or two of data to join a game wouldn't be any big burden on anyone - one meg for a map, and a few K for whatever mutator you want. That stuff should be _normal_ in spring.

The problem is that, because most mods/maps are huge and it's non-obvious that they are, and because lobbies don't let you in if you don't have the mod, there's a big barrier to trying new things. So if Trademark did make "BA 6.81 with Trademark Mutators" as his mod, players would probably be scared off of the 5 kilobyte download.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

I doubt it. when MAPS are huge. FFS people we are not on dialup.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Pxtl »

I was exaggerating of course, but my point is that fetching content has to be easy.
User avatar
Otherside
Posts: 2296
Joined: 21 Feb 2006, 14:09

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Otherside »

trademark seems to think we are on dial up

but he still seems to spew out variants of his maps
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

Dude, steam has bigger crap people DL it all the time. A mutator isn't big on modern systems we have AMPLE speed and a meg or two will not kill anything. Most of the shit he requests belong in a mutator. Strictly speaking what he wants is not desirable for all projects. Spring has enough shit it it for the *A projects.

If his lazy ass isn't in the mood to make the one line change to update a mutator when someone else's mod changes maybe he should offer the optional changes to the BA team and be done with it.

This isn't something that needs to be handled engine side so people can avoid downloading a mutator that is < 1 meg. Seriously. That is not even a relevant argument in a world where modern game DEMOS exceed 1 gig. It is just fucking retarded and an ugly left over from the days of dial up. Players download tons of files daily for maps. Hell over steam there are gigs and gigs of GAMES up for download. If he wants options make a BA options mutator and be done with it. It really is asinine that he wants to have all this shit implemented into the engine so people do not download a tiny file. go check the file planet files, I promise you the most popular download is over a meg.
User avatar
Otherside
Posts: 2296
Joined: 21 Feb 2006, 14:09

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Otherside »

tbh it wouldnt even be hassle to download the mutator if people used spring downloader

click join game

download the few kb's in under a second

Let it complete and refresh

game joined in 5 seconds no hassle
User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by TradeMark »

Again, its not about the fileSIZE its about the FILE... if you didnt need to click anything to download it when you join, then i wouldnt be here "whining". But atm nobody wants to join in other games than BA, Its very unlikely that i can get up 16 player game in short time if i released my own shitty mod for just 2 extra things which are missing from BA.

But eh, why derail this thread again lol.

This (corpses but no collision) would be useful feature in any mod, there already is "no corpses" mod setting, and this what im suggesting is just advanced version from that..
Otherside wrote:dont u know already that trademark is against downloading in general

His greatest achievment is making a compressed version of the worst map in spring (woop under a meg!!)
My post about compressed version was joke. i thought you would notice it lmao. All speedball maps are jokes. Why people dont get this... jesus... i see people play it so seriously these days, getting mad when they lose etc... sad... And arguing how bad map it is, lol i dont care, i play it when im on the mood of fast and short games with lots of lols...
Otherside wrote:Next he will be asking for a new Map format that generates a blank map and asks you what shape you want the map in and auto generates a version of speedballs in that shape.
Good idea, i have actually made program for making speedball maps faster... maybe include it in spring? <JOKE STARTS HERE, READ> And then you could have default mod option: "[x] REPLACE CURRENT MAP WITH SPEEDBALL MAP". :roll: </JOKE ENDED HERE, LAUGH>

BTW, they are planning of making random map generator, it could be used for speedball generator too :wink:

Otherside wrote:tbh it wouldnt even be hassle to download the mutator if people used spring downloader
There is just one problem... Spring Downloader SUCKS.

I hear people whining all the time "omg SD doenst download again" - "cant find map with SD" -etc *bla bla bla*

Pxtl wrote:Basically, TradeMark wants to make his own mod.
Nah, i dont want to make mod for such small changes, if i make big changes, i make it as a mod (actually as a mapmod which can be played with BA, like Speed Ball Isles 16 Way Hack V7 :lol: ) If that was real mod file, nobody would download it lol. BUT since i dont want to copy every map and put BA inside them, its easier to just add engine options, than me spamming jobjol.nl with hundreds of copies from other maps and finally getting banned :lol:
Last edited by TradeMark on 18 Feb 2009, 21:45, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

that is not a reason to demand changes in the engine.

Imagine if people wanted to play gundam rts without unit limits. It would be WRONG for the devs to make an engine change for that. That IS what mutators exist for.

NOT ENGINE FEATURES. OH WAIT there is a feature it is called blocking = false.

You are wanting to mod someone elses mod and not tell people they are playing an altered version? So you want the engine to do it. Dude, no, hardcoded features mess with all projects, you are not shiting in the BA box you are shitting in every box. Just because you want to trick players into playing a modded BA.
User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by TradeMark »

smoth wrote:You are wanting to mod someone elses mod and not tell people they are playing an altered version? So you want the engine to do it. Dude, no, hardcoded features mess with all projects, you are not shiting in the BA box you are shitting in every box. Just because you want to trick players into playing a modded BA.
Lol BA already has "no corpses" option, whats difference into "no corpses COLLISIONS"

--

Though, i should be whining in the BA thread now, since i found out its possible, but needs to be added in the mod itself... (or change engine and make smoth cry :P )

smoth wrote:Just because you want to trick players into playing a modded BA.
Do you want i will trick people play gundam too? It works. You could get more players... think about it.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

It is a matter of you didn't even check and I am sure the tag is in the wiki. as I said several times you should have taken this directly to the ba group.

trademark don't try and troll with the gundam popularity crap, it is old.
User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7052
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by zwzsg »

I'm not sure why all the shitstorm.

Current BA has a no wreck option, so it's fairly clear whoever does BA releases these days agree that wreck can be an issue.

And trademark point about making wreck passable instead of brutally removing them sounds fine.

Mutator as seperate sd7/sdz are not convenient, because then you have to release the mutator for every new release of the mod (since no one use the "replace" tag in modinfo tdf, and anyway the one time I did try using it I ended up with horrible synch issue since it made the content of mutator X varies depending on whether people had updated the source mod or not), and also because you can't freely mix and match them, and also because changing them requires rehosting.

So, considering how many years I've heard talk about passable wreck, considering the the BA maintener themselves added the nowreck option, it sounds a perfectly legitimate request to add a passable wreck option to BA (as a modoption, not a engine option, of course).

So now TradeMark you have to ask the BA maintener to include the Lua I posted earlier (featuredefs_post.lua and ModOptions.lua inside the sd7 inside the zip I attached), or a better one (because my code's ugly and hurried and now that I see what this thread has become I doubt it's worth pouring another hour or two in making a cleaner one), in next BA.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

the issue was that he wanted the engine to just add that. rather than use your lua or a mutator.
User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7052
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by zwzsg »

TradeMark wrote:This new (BA?) mod feature is interesting... I would probably use it when i dont want to get stuck on the corpses.

What about making mod option "No wreck collision" so you can walk through wrecks, but also could reclaim them. (This should be in the list by default, but possible to set off by mod if so wanted).

But would the dragonteeths be without collision too? :/
TradeMark wrote:This new (BA?) mod feature is interesting...


What about making mod option "No wreck collision"
TradeMark wrote:(BA?) mod feature

mod option
TradeMark wrote:mod option
I guess I did not read the same bits as you.
Last edited by zwzsg on 19 Feb 2009, 16:13, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

smoth wrote:You are requesting a mod option for ba in the ENGINE FEATURE REQUEST section that has a sticky saying DO NOT REQUEST MOD SHIT HERE you should know better.
User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by TradeMark »

smoth, dont you have better things to do than whine about nothing...

This is moved in BA thread now.

Lock this thread please.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by smoth »

you want to start this again do you?
User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4384
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: No unit wrecks... No collision instead?

Post by Peet »

I certainly don't.
Locked

Return to “Feature Requests”