Messages

176

Feature requests / Re: archers shooting own units

« on: 28 September 2013, 01:04:35 »

1. Redirecting Attacks is a big no no.
Imagine a arrow flying around like a heat seeking missile?. no.

Redirection would obviously have to be an option in the projectile XML. It wouldn't make sense for an arrow, but might for magic. GAE had a tracking option that allowed projectiles to change course for moving targets. Tracking projectiles could still be avoided by very fast units (limited amount of tracking).

I agree, This sounds like a good idea.

But how is it going to fit in the XML.
This requires some thinking.

What about making a system for tracking what can be targeted and not?. Basically im thinking filters based on a skill, so that you can set filter for what the skill/and/or Command can target.

<skill name="dull">
datatatata
"targets" ="allied","Enemy"
</>

And then you can define how the projetile flys in the Projectile XML.

(Im sorry if this is a little rough, it's late for me atm).

177

Feature requests / Re: archers shooting own units

« on: 27 September 2013, 20:36:28 »

1. Redirecting Attacks is a big no no.
Imagine a arrow flying around like a heat seeking missile?. no.

2. Friendly fire is fine, And a nice mechanic for killinge huge armies and/or defending a base when you are behind.
(please notice that when you are confined to your base your economy is already being punished in that you are inside and he is outside free to take the entire map.

3.Perhaps it's time to fix this bug.

4.I Doubt getting the bug fixed will remove arrows from your sight, you will still be able to see them travel, but it will be nice for faster missile type attacks, lasers and such.

Actually i kinda see this as a feature request.

What is REALLY being discussed here is two different types of attack.

Slow friendly fire attack.(and even then you should give the modder the choice to let it not give damage unpon missing it's original target).
Vs The
Fast Guranteed to hit missile(wich can be given spalsh damage in the particle xml if desired.)

178

MegaGlest / Re: Is sourceforge still a reliable partner for OpenSource projects ?

« on: 3 September 2013, 19:45:22 »

I think ishmaru and willare are spot on on this one.

I was very suprised when i downloaded "filezilla" and got something i identified as adware. And in my world theres not long from adware to malware.

Seriously, Bundling is nasty. If users are unaware of bundling it's even worse. If you know something is bundled you can at least chose not to download or run it in a virtual box.

179

Maps, tilesets and scenarios / Re: JungleHD Alpha Release

« on: 26 August 2013, 16:53:23 »

I'm on Windows...Windows 7. Is there any issue with the tileset?

i see what you did there ;P

180

Feature requests / Re: Remove the stupid linux hint

« on: 23 August 2013, 00:50:39 »

Did i mention i also have mentioned this a long time ago too?.

However, i can't decide if i don't care about it. it's like Meh... It's a game folks have a laugh.

On the other hand,Some people give linux way more credit than what it deserves.

181

Feature requests / Re: Auto RETURN

« on: 23 August 2013, 00:44:45 »

Ishmaru, Then it doesn’t alter AI logic, Merely performance.

You mean to say this is how the current AI knows when to attack?, then you could just hide forever untill you have some suck superweapon(im aware there is no such thing.)

Obviusly this does not alter AI behavior.

Honestly, Units should not follow other units unless specifically told to.

182

MegaGlest / Re: Adding Gameranger support?

« on: 23 August 2013, 00:01:37 »

GameRanger Support. I vote 

No.

183

Feature requests / Re: Auto RETURN

« on: 22 August 2013, 23:35:17 »

Unit's should not follow enemy units unless specifically told to.

the current unit follow behavior is very annoying.

184

Closed bug reports / Re: [testing] MegaGlest is a long time about closing 8-10 seconds.

« on: 18 May 2013, 19:34:03 »

Last i checked i couldn't compile the game, and i haven't had time to get it to work yet sorry.

185

Closed bug reports / Re: Megaglest is a long time about closing 8-10 seconds.

« on: 4 May 2013, 08:09:52 »

Exelent!, I will check it out!. (Might take some some time, need to get my game to compile again).

186

Feature requests / Re: zip compressed savegames

« on: 3 May 2013, 16:00:03 »

Awesome!, You guys are awesome!

187

Closed bug reports / Re: Megaglest is a long time about closing 8-10 seconds.

« on: 3 May 2013, 14:58:55 »

Other games are able to close so, it's possible somehow, what about having a "close button" function call, alt-f4, ect, When activated just hard killing all processes or just hard killing network processes or stuff like that.

188

Feature requests / Re: Suggestion: conquer enemy's building instead of burning them down

« on: 12 April 2013, 13:27:28 »

i have to agree with Molaos, In Command & Conquer Zero Hour you can capture ANY building, Except for defence buildings, this is really not such a big deal, It can however lead to fun and interesting unit composistions.

189

Feature requests / Re: Suggestion: conquer enemy's building instead of burning them down

« on: 10 April 2013, 17:00:26 »

A simple capture function would be fine imo.

fx.

Capture upon unit enter building.
Caption upon Ability/command finishes. (a ability that can overturn buildings.).

190

Feature requests / Re: Suggestion: conquer enemy's building instead of burning them down

« on: 10 April 2013, 15:32:07 »

There are certain "classes" that units are placed in, for example a slave is a worker unit, a swordman is a melee fighter, a barracks is a fighter producer/upgrading building, ect.

So when I destroy a barracker and I'm Norsemen it can try to put a building that produces army and has upgrades, if there's not one it looks for just army (if there's more army commands) then it looks for upgrades. If all else fails it give army men, workers, or resources.

Im not sure i know what you mean...

What do you mean exactly?

191

Feature requests / Re: Suggestion: conquer enemy's building instead of burning them down

« on: 9 April 2013, 17:25:47 »

So what?. That's the interesting thing about it, You can create new crazy unit compositions, No need for a corospondence table, in rare cases there can be proble, but let it be on a tryout mode. We should try these things in SVN.

192

Feature requests / Re: Name Creation on first game.

« on: 3 April 2013, 14:43:41 »

Oh Yeah lol, I misread your post . Sorry . IL wait paitently

193

Feature requests / Re: Name Creation on first game.

« on: 3 April 2013, 14:08:04 »

Awesome!, COmpiling right now!

194

Feature requests / Re: Name Creation on first game.

« on: 2 April 2013, 15:11:46 »

You know, besides noticing a entirely new name. I agree this would be nice, A simple popup when the game starts.

All those Newbie names are confusing and annoying.

195

Feature requests / Re: Attack while moving

« on: 21 March 2013, 16:44:13 »

But is this skill type / command type not mostly useless without turret support? (points on a model where a turret can rotate acordingly to enemy target location?.

Im saying this because there is stil talk about a new model format.

Or can it perhaps better payoff to improve the current 3d model format?

196

MegaGlest / Re: thoughts about how to reduce lag

« on: 2 March 2013, 11:57:25 »

A thread devoted to fixing/reducing lag?, i love you guys! 

197

Closed feature requests / Re: [done] Please support rejoining games after getting disconnected

« on: 20 February 2013, 02:08:18 »

Wauw, This is so amazing, can't wait to try it out!

198

Feature requests / Re: Next/new hint button on loading screen

« on: 11 February 2013, 20:49:51 »

Button's on loading screens are a great idea, hust two descrete buttons in 30% apart from a corner, it makes the loadscreen feel less of a pain, and it makes it feel like your PC are actually doing something.

199

Feature requests / Re: Next/new hint button on loading screen

« on: 11 February 2013, 00:49:50 »

What the .... does the network have to do with loading content from the harddisk

Nothing. But it's part of the game initialization which (besides loading data into memory) takes place while the loading screen displays. Maybe the term "initialization screen" would be less ambigious. The network initialization overhead is, however, minimal, and single player games also take a while to start on Windows, so network initialization is most likely not a major cause for game initialization taking notably longer on Windows than on other platforms.

Anyway, back to the original topic, please (if there's anything else to be said about it).

Yes, yes your right,

A next tip button would be really cool!, especially if you have read some them allready and want some more, (ie the current one you allready read from a previous game)

A next buttton suported.

200

Feature requests / Re: Next/new hint button on loading screen

« on: 9 February 2013, 13:38:01 »

What the .... does the network have to do with loading content from the harddisk, and i agree, it is sad that Blackops 2 loads faster.

If it could be done without too much hazzle it would be nice to have increased loading speed.(this is mostly a windows issue). Since ive played MG on linux a long time ago and it was def faster on nix than on dozer.