TJW patches

[Rawr]

Where do i get them?
like the denybuild/allowbuild one or
designate/undesignate
can you run them both at the same time?

[vcxzet]

are they all tjw's ?
search for alien wrath patches in forum

[next_ghost]

Where do i get them?
like the denybuild/allowbuild one or
designate/undesignate
can you run them both at the same time?

TJW's patches are here.
You can get my designated builder patch for vanilla SVN829 here.
You can get peoro's Denybuild patches here.

You should be able to get them working together, however, it'll take some effort to insert a few failed patch chunks into the modified codebase. Right now, KOCOUR-CZ runs SVN829 codebase manually patched with SVN823 TJW, designated builder and experimental credit transfer system, so it's possible to put old TJW together with designated builder on new codebase. I'm not sure about denybuild though, I've never tried to apply that patch and most likely never will because I oppose the idea.

[vcxzet]

experimental credit transfer system

steals

[next_ghost]

experimental credit transfer system

steals

Huh?

[vcxzet]

experimental credit transfer system

steals

Huh?

I mean I steal your code and add it to tremx along with 2 new entities:
evo egg for aliens
credit card for humans
so if someone writes /share 1000 it will drop a credit card entity
or evo egg respectively

[Door Slammer]

experimental credit transfer system

steals

Huh?

I mean I steal your code and add it to tremx along with 2 new entities:
evo egg for aliens
credit card for humans
so if someone writes /share 1000 it will drop a credit card entity
or evo egg respectively

Now that would be interesting.  It would really add to the team based strategy.

[WolfWings ShadowFlight]

I mean I steal your code and add it to tremx along with 2 new entities:
evo egg for aliens
credit card for humans
so if someone writes /share 1000 it will drop a credit card entity
or evo egg respectively

As long as it reduces the maximum credits a person can earn by whatever they 'share' then I'm all for the idea. Otherwise it only lets you bypass the 'maximum credits' limit.

I'm not sure about denybuild though, I've never tried to apply that patch and most likely never will because I oppose the idea.

But it's only a more flexible version of your 'designated builder' system as I understand it? So why oppose it?

[kevlarman]

I'm not sure about denybuild though, I've never tried to apply that patch and most likely never will because I oppose the idea.

But it's only a more flexible version of your 'designated builder' system as I understand it? So why oppose it?

because it has a lot of potential for abuse if you don't trust your admins.

[WolfWings ShadowFlight]

I'm not sure about denybuild though, I've never tried to apply that patch and most likely never will because I oppose the idea.

But it's only a more flexible version of your 'designated builder' system as I understand it? So why oppose it?

because it has a lot of potential for abuse if you don't trust your admins.

So set up a seperate 'Builder Monitor' variant of some admin levels for those you want to have the power and those you don't? Seems easy enough. It's not like you have to give Denybuild to all your admins.

[next_ghost]

As long as it reduces the maximum credits a person can earn by whatever they 'share' then I'm all for the idea. Otherwise it only lets you bypass the 'maximum credits' limit.

/share command does a one-time transfer of your creds/evo to another person. But you can't go below zero or the other guy over cred/evo limit after the transfer is completed.

But it's only a more flexible version of your 'designated builder' system as I understand it? So why oppose it?

If I understand it right, denybuild prevents you from constructing anything until you're allowed to build again. That might make your team lose when aliens kill all telenodes and armouries and you're the only player left but you are denied to build anything. Designated builder prevents players from screwing the base up after it's been finished but it doesn't prevent them from setting up temporary telenodes and armories when the base falls. And when /reservebp gets implemented, it'll be complete substitute for denybuild without its problems.

So could anyone finally think a bit about how /reservebp should work?

[Stof]

Already said it :

Code: [Select]

bool can_build(builder, building)
{
    if (builder->is_designated_builder)
        return bp_left >= building->bp_cost;
    else
        return bp_left - reserved_bp >= building->bp_cost;
}

[next_ghost]

Stof, I'm not talking about the obvious behaviour. I'm talking about what should happen when a building is destroyed or deconned while there's an active reservation and what should the game do when there is no designated builder with ckit available while there's an active reservation. If these things are not taken into account, the reservation could easily become useless or even as dangerous to use as denybuild. And I'm not going to risk that.

[Stof]

When a building is destroyed or deconned? Nothing at all.

When there isn't a ckit anymore? Not sure but probably the same than for the rest of the designated builder stuff.

I suppose that if there isn't a designated builder anymore, it should undo everything that the designated builder did.

[next_ghost]

When a building is destroyed or deconned? Nothing at all.

OK, so somebody reserves all buildpoints. Then the other team destroys 2 turrets/acid tubes and those 16 buildpoints become available to anyone? Is that really a good idea?

When there isn't a ckit anymore? Not sure but probably the same than for the rest of the designated builder stuff.

The problem is when all designated builders are either dead and can't spawn or have guns and can't switch to ckits. Should the reservation be cancelled then? If not all, how many build points should be made available? And what kind of "the rest of the DB stuff" are you refering to?

I suppose that if there isn't a designated builder anymore, it should undo everything that the designated builder did.

That's another example of obvious behaviour.

[Stof]

OK, so somebody reserves all buildpoints. Then the other team destroys 2 turrets/acid tubes and those 16 buildpoints become available to anyone? Is that really a good idea?

No, they won't become available to anyone with what I said

Let's see, when someone reserves 20BP, it means that until the reservation is lifted, non designated builders cannot build anything, unless there is at least 28BP available ( for turrets, medi, DC ) or 30BP available ( for the rest ). This lasts throughout the whole game, no matter what happens until the number of BP reserved is changed. Ie, until you detect a problem ( no designated builder left in the game ) or until a designated builder selects a new value for the "reserved BP" variable.

The problem is when all designated builders are either dead and can't spawn or have guns and can't switch to ckits. Should the reservation be cancelled then? If not all, how many build points should be made available? And what kind of "the rest of the DB stuff" are you refering to?

The rest of the DB stuff refers to the buildings locked by a designated builder. I suppose that when you decide it is time to unlock all buildings, then you should also reset the "reserved BP" variable to 0, nothing more, nothing less.

[Diggs]

I (and many others I know) tend to avoid servers with designated builders and protected buildings.  Although it takes care of some problems, it creates way too many other issues.

Too often the builder, after base building is complete, takes off to fight, doesn't maintain the base and no one can do anything about it.  I've also been on servers where the builder gets a phone call and parks himself in a corner for the rest of the game and no one can do anything about what was already built.  This is especially a problem when it comes time to convert some turrets to Teslas or if a move is made at S2.

It's not a big problem now as we just don't go to those servers, but if too many servers adopt this SSM, then I see it becoming more of an issue.

Diggs

[next_ghost]

Reply moved where it belongs.