Feature Bounty - pot $50 - Completed

[AF]

err, I just essentially posted the documentation in the post above.

[Caydr]

Cool, thanks. I heard from someone that a certain developer was a bit troubled by the quality of your initial patch... I take it, it's been improved and cleaned up?
...

Just read the mailing list that way you're up to date on all the discussions.

I'm sorry. You may not have heard, but I'm an imbecile. What's a mailing list?

these 3 default to the value of the builder tag so it doesnt break existing gameplay. Because of this I added canBuild which disables the unit from building or starting new builds.

canBuild
canRepair
canRestore
canPatrol=1;
canGuard=1;
canAttack=1;
Reclaimable=1;
NoAutoFire=0;

This is a start, but what about the three-state things like the default move state, default fire state, noautofire states... what does each 0/1/2 do? It'd only take a few minutes to do a quick list of what 0 or 1 on each function does... even if it's not a very good one, we can expand on it in the future. Thanks again, you have no idea what this means to me if nobody else!

~~~~

Eh, just put reclaimable=0; on my commanders, they still reclaimed. I was using the build you just posted.

~~~~

Hey, found the problem. The idea was, make friendly units non-reclaimable, not just enemy ones. Maybe you could add a second state, "reclaimable=2;" or something, I don't know. But there needs to be a way to make stuff non-reclaimable even by friendlies.

~~~~

Also, did you make the canreclamate tag work properly? It's one of those "can..." ones, but it's not in your list.

[Tim Blokdijk]

I'm sorry. You may not have heard, but I'm an imbecile. What's a mailing list?

You can look at the archives http://lolut.utbm.info/pipermail/taspring-linux/
Or put yourself on the list http://lolut.utbm.info/cgi-bin/mailman/ ... ring-linux and you will receive the mail in your mailbox (I recommend using a filter to move it to its own folder).
Once your on the list you can participate in the discussions by mailing to taspring-linux@lolut.utbm.info

[Tobi]

err, I just essentially posted the documentation in the post above.

It's not a patch.

I'd prefer a patch to Documentation/changelog.txt, even if I have to apply it manually because of conflicts, it will still save us time.

Reverse engineering the changelog entries for features that are written by other people from forum posts, e-mails and code itself is not the most interesting job, you know.

(You can probably read this post as: I may very well stop applying patches that don't patch Documentation/changelog.txt too)

[Tim Blokdijk]

I agree with Tobi here, if you like to take the bounty you have to work for it. You can't expect others to do the work.

Just writing the code and expecting that the rest (testing, documentation, feedback and approval) will be done for you is going to lead to friction.
So step up to the plate.

[AF]

oh I forgot

reclamable=1; and canReclaim=1;. Reclaimable=0; will make a unit unreclaimable, canReclaim=0; takes away a units ability to reclaim.

[AF]

hmm, the amount of time the core devs have spent sliming me for this they could have written this patch themselves.

And essentially your asking em to document a set of features that you havent even accepted, and have seen the tags listed in this thread multiple times by several people. I'm still waiting for people to see if they had issues with the tags.

I've ran tests of my own with checking it doesnt break existing gameplay since my initial nanoblobz test and everything seems to check out fine with regards to that, I'm just providing a binary so other people can verify this or check the tags for themselves.

And tim, if caydr and w/e think I havent worked enough towards it then fine, they can decide to not give me the entire bounty for those reasons, it is there money not yours, and right now I'm tired of people talking down on me about it.

[Argh]

Um... is CanAssist=0 done? That's the biggie, so far as I am concerned. Making it so that CanBuild=1 and CanAssist=0 means that the unit can start and finish new projects, but cannot help others, would be a very big step away from OTA's gameplay.

And yes, as soon as I wake up and take care of some RL stuff, I'll take a good look to verify the current code works.

[AF]

I am not sure about CanAssist=1;

You see the general method you mean works, tellign a unit to help a unit under construction with CanAssist=0; will nto work.

However I have noticed something in the engine which may act to wrok around this. Tell 2 cosntruction units to build the same thing at the same palce and they both help eachother rather than blocking each other. You'll have to test if that works.

Aside from that exception which I'm not sure about, canAssist=0; should work.

I've modified changelog.txt and I'll have v3 of my patch on the mailing list shortly.

[Caydr]

I'm still waiting for people to see if they had issues with the tags

I haven't had the opportunity to test it extensively yet, but in a quick test last night, "reclaimable=0;" does not have the full effect I was hoping for. It makes a unit not be able to be reclaimed by an enemy unit, but it can still be reclaimed by a friendly unit. The main reason I wanted this tag was so I could make commanders non-reclaimable.

Please be patient AF. Your work is appreciated, but this is a very, very unusual thing for the developers to allow. Please don't feel you're being slimed, they're just very wary and cautious of something going badly.

And developers, please be patient too. There's no time limit here, if he takes a while to get it to your liking, please don't begrudge him that.

[AF]

What was the unit you tried to reclaim with? A commander?

[Tobi]

Note that I'm not discriminating either AF (between other patchers) or bounty hunters (between "normal" patchers).

Without this bounty issue, I would have pushed to raise the quality level of patches too (because if patches are good enough quality from the beginning it saves us time giving constructive comments ).

[AF]

You can give constructive critiscism while being polite, theres no need for sliming

[Tobi]

When did I slime instead of giving constructive critisism?

[SwiftSpear]

"It isn't good enough, this is the reason it isn't good enough" is constructive criticism.

[AF]

well i was going to make a quote but it seems you edited your post to remove the sentence about sliming 3 mins before replying.,

I didnt say you where sliming I just stated generally theres no need to slime.

[Caydr]

He must've regretted his words, so you might feel better.

[Tobi]

I realized (by his reaction) AF probably didn't get the "playing with words" (or whatever they call that in English, if you don't understand, just assume "joke"), or rather, it didn't have the desired effect, so I changed it to what I actually ment, which basically makes this post and the 5 before it a bit useless...

Either way, sorry for the confusion.

If you, AF, felt in any way offended by the first edition of my post (which wasn't intended), I apologize for that.

[AF]

http://www.unknown-files.net/index.php? ... &dlid=1628

A more upto date version of spring with a changed version of my patch applied.

ps: rez bots with canrepair=0; wont repair units they've rezzed and instead carry on to the next target in this version of my patch

[Tim Blokdijk]

...
And tim, if caydr and w/e think I havent worked enough towards it then fine, they can decide to not give me the entire bounty for those reasons, it is there money not yours, and right now I'm tired of people talking down on me about it.

I have been away for the weekend so sorry for responding later.
If I talked down to you, Sorry.
It's just that you took a lead role in this delicate topic, this is the first time money used to influence the project so your actions will probably decide how we will deal with this in the future.
If you f*ck this up (by just writing the code and failing to deal with possible 'fallout' in the overall discussion) and this leads to a big argument.. end of experiment, no more bounty's. If you use your "lead role" position to show us how to deal with bounty's in a correct way we all gain.
So you have quite a responsibility. (We all have responsibility to make this work in an acceptable way)
A "it's their money - not your business" attitude is incorrect, once that money is used to influence Spring we're all involved with it.

No pressure or anything, just know you're under a lot of scrutiny because of this.