Author Topic: Marking for deconning (Read 8021 times)

aLittleFuzzyBunny · « **on:** March 04, 2007, 11:59:18 am »

Marking for decon is apparently a part of the coming 1.20 release.
This means instead of deconing the reactor you mark it for deconing, at it wont be actually deconned until someone builds it in another spot.

This is very bad indeed. Much worse than the current system. In fact its bad enough for me to create this account to warn about it.

Imagine this:

Griefer marks reactor for deconning, but no-one notice since everything is still working, the reactor is still there.(I imagine a decon mark can only be seen with an equipped construction kit.) Then griefer runs in his BS to some remote part of the map and builds the reactor. PUF the reactor is gone from base, nobody have seen who did it, and nobody knows where the reactor is located. If he build it in front of an alien, the whole alien team will know its gone from base.

On the other hand, if the "marked for decon"-state can be seen by all team members, it might work as intended, IF they can unmark it.

tv · « **Reply #1 on:** March 04, 2007, 12:06:34 pm »

How is this problem different from the current system ? Decon the reactor and *run* !

Griefers will always have and find ways of screwing up games. The marking makes building easier, that's the point. Griefiers will get banned.

aLittleFuzzyBunny · « **Reply #2 on:** March 04, 2007, 12:12:19 pm »

Quote from: "tv"

How is this problem different from the current system ? Decon the reactor and *run* !

Griefers will always have and find ways of screwing up games. The marking makes building easier, that's the point. Griefiers will get banned.

In the current system the team will be able to rebuild reactor, and might survive. Also they might see who did it.

Raytray · « **Reply #3 on:** March 04, 2007, 01:55:09 pm »

I prefer mark deconning because it works. Besides, if they mark the reactor and move it, they have no time to decon the nodes as well. If they decon the nodes, they have to rebuild them somewhere.

Plague Bringer · « **Reply #4 on:** March 04, 2007, 02:41:11 pm »

A point about a previous post (too lazy to quot >.<); this is very different then deconning and running, then rebuilding. By the time you get to alien base to build the reactor on ATCS you're kicked, or someone rebuilt the reactor. With this, you dont even have to worry about deconning cuz it will just dissapear. It'd be pretty funny if everyone was jettarding aboe a horde of tyrants

Caveman · « **Reply #5 on:** March 04, 2007, 03:09:40 pm »

In this scenario you simply build repeater until the reactor is destroyed then you build the rea again in the base...

Plague Bringer · « **Reply #6 on:** March 04, 2007, 03:52:25 pm »

aliens could be thinking strategical, keep the reactor, and assault your base whenever they choose simpily by destroying the reactor and depriving you of any power; also, what if it's S1?

Raytray · « **Reply #7 on:** March 04, 2007, 04:38:07 pm »

Kick and ban, restart map if it's s1. I mean you can't have played very long for it to still be s1.

Stof · « **Reply #8 on:** March 04, 2007, 05:30:46 pm »

What will probably happen in that situation is that the regular team builder will notice the reactor is marked for decon and will unmark it. Then, the grifer with his ckit will be killed by a passing dretch cursing loudly in the open channel because his stupid plan failed.

Raytray · « **Reply #9 on:** March 04, 2007, 07:53:39 pm »

FACT: Nothing is without flaws.

This system has more good things to come from it, then bad things.

Paradox · « **Reply #10 on:** March 04, 2007, 08:29:00 pm »

also, markdeconstruct will not allow the last node to be deconned.

Undeference · « **Reply #11 on:** March 04, 2007, 10:02:20 pm »

...
if you have a problem with it,
set g_markDeconstruct 0
problem solved

daenyth · « **Reply #12 on:** March 06, 2007, 05:52:09 pm »

I couldn't find a central thread for the feature design, even though I seemed to recall seeing one. Perhaps I just fail at /search.

But anyway, I think a good addition to the markDeconstruct would be something like

Code: [Select]


Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer
Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by MrBuilder

rather than the current

Code: [Select]


...
Reactor built by UnnamedPlayer
Humans: Oh shit

Paradox · « **Reply #13 on:** March 06, 2007, 07:11:26 pm »

Yea, the ability to get rid of a mark once it is put on, say designated builders can unmark decons, would be great. Go up to a marked structure, and press decon again, to get rid of the mark

kevlarman · « **Reply #14 on:** March 06, 2007, 07:39:43 pm »

Quote from: "Paradox"

Yea, the ability to get rid of a mark once it is put on, say designated builders can unmark decons, would be great. Go up to a marked structure, and press decon again, to get rid of the mark

please learn what g_markdeconstruct does before commenting on what it should and shouldn't do.

Quote from: "daenyth"

Code: [Select]
Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer MrBuilder server command overflow. Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer daenyth server command overflow Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer Reactor marked for deconstruction by UnnamedPlayer Reactor's deconstruction mark removed by UnnamedPlayer ...

fixed.

Paradox · « **Reply #15 on:** March 06, 2007, 08:03:52 pm »

Well, considering there is no qvm that has a comparable featureset with risujins, and his doesnt have mark, what do you expect.

kevlarman · « **Reply #16 on:** March 06, 2007, 08:39:20 pm »

Quote from: "Paradox"

Well, considering there is no qvm that has a comparable featureset with risujins, and his doesnt have mark, what do you expect.

that you don't ask for features that exist, there are several servers you could have gone to to find out how g_markdeconstruct works.

aLittleFuzzyBunny · « **Reply #17 on:** March 07, 2007, 11:03:38 am »

Quote from: "kevlarman"

that you don't ask for features that exist, there are several servers you could have gone to to find out how g_markdeconstruct works.

Well, I hadn't heard of the feature, untill TremRadio brought it up. So mayby instead of being arrogant you could just tell us how it works if you know it.

Henners · « **Reply #18 on:** March 07, 2007, 11:11:01 am »

Has it occured that the change isnt just to stop griefers?

It adds a very important tactical issue to building. That far outweighs the potential for griefing. And frankly griefing will always happen no matter what you do - the only way to control it is heavy adminning...

Undeference · « **Reply #19 on:** March 07, 2007, 08:50:22 pm »

Quote from: "aLittleFuzzyBunny"

Well, I hadn't heard of the feature, untill TremRadio brought it up. So mayby instead of being arrogant you could just tell us how it works if you know it.

Is it arrogance to expect people not to make assumptions about things they do not know about but readily could? No. If anything, it is arrogance to assume people will explain it to you because you didn't bother to find out on your own.
If you asked nicely, I'm sure someone would have described it better. Would have but probably will not.

daenyth · « **Reply #20 on:** March 08, 2007, 03:47:27 pm »

Quote from: "kevlarman"

stuff

Yeah, that's what flood control is for.

Nux · « **Reply #21 on:** March 09, 2007, 05:14:45 am »

Isn't this a little awkward?

Now Mr. Builder has to sprint between old base and new to make his "speedy" solo move?

I'm not suggesting that a one man operation is the smartest idea, but you do get situations where you don't have a choice.

Undeference · « **Reply #22 on:** March 09, 2007, 05:47:09 am »

Now Mr Builder marks all buildables in his or her (I won't ask her about that "Mr" -- she insisted on it) base for deconstruction, moves to the new base location and starts building. Only 1 trip is needed.

Mantra · « **Reply #23 on:** March 09, 2007, 05:54:08 am »

Marking sure helps when moving base, but its a real mess for precise builders. Sometimes, when I make a line of turrets in which I want a hole where humans can pass through, I make a slight distance mistake, and need to remove my turret, in which case I have to rebuilt it somewhere else BEFORE moving it back into place, which drains a lot of time, especially when under assault.

Yes marking as its bonus, but it also as its problems.

Undeference · « **Reply #24 on:** March 09, 2007, 05:57:32 am »

Quote

I make a slight distance mistake, and need to remove my turret, in which case I have to rebuilt it somewhere else BEFORE moving it back into place

kevlarman fixed that like forever ago :roll:

Mantra · « **Reply #25 on:** March 09, 2007, 05:59:45 am »

Last I played on tjw, a few days ago, still had that problem >.>

tuple · « **Reply #26 on:** March 09, 2007, 06:06:32 am »

Recent version of g_markdeconstruct allows you to mark something for deconning, and build over top of it. Moving a turret slightly in one direction or the other is not a problem.

Might I suggest that you folks play a couple matches on TJW's server, which has g_markdeconstruct in play, to check it out. I say a few matches. You may not like the change at first, until building in match 2 or 3. Then you will most likely love it.

I've played a few matches with it. Didn't like it at first. Can't wait for it now.

Nux · « **Reply #27 on:** March 09, 2007, 07:07:31 am »

Quote from: "Undeference"

Now Mr Builder marks all buildables in his or her (I won't ask her about that "Mr" -- she insisted on it) base for deconstruction, moves to the new base location and starts building. Only 1 trip is needed.

So you can mark multiple buildings? That's good

News:

Author Topic: Marking for deconning (Read 8021 times)

Caveman

Mantra

Mantra