176
Off topic / Re: Browsers
« on: 21 June 2011, 01:18:23 »
Hmm...double post. 
Anyways, Firefox 5 is released! Well, not officially...yet.
Anyways, Firefox 5 is released! Well, not officially...yet.
News:
Check out the latest MegaGlest news on our e-mail newsletter (subscribe), Twitter, Facebook and Google+.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
177
General discussion / Re: Discussion about Resource Modifiers
« on: 20 June 2011, 23:26:43 »
I don't think Glest was about anything much, it was just an awesome and free game. GAE was the one that added those ideas, I think. They are nice ideas, but MG isn't GAE.
178
MegaGlest / Re: Auto heal/repair
« on: 20 June 2011, 22:44:29 »
2.) I was replying to your (...)
And never will get to unless it is readded. Besides, is there a reason they can't try both?Yes, so simply have the patience to wait for it to be readded. We have more important things to deal with it. Try both? Anyone can try it in GAE.
179
General discussion / Re: Discussion about Resource Modifiers
« on: 20 June 2011, 22:42:14 »Quote
You are wrong. I have played MG multiplayer games before, just not with you. I can't play on my regular connection, but I have played full games before on other's connections. I've also played a lot of multiplayer on more stable games, and still decree this could be a fun option.I might be wrong on that part, but I still don't think you play with the regular community of MG. Thus you've never seen and discussed about the AI and everything else. Which is somewhat related to this. Balance. That's my real point.
Quote
Worried about cheating? DON'T USE IT!That's not the right way to deal with it though. It'll take steps, as I've said before. For MG at least, it's not like that.
It is GAE logic, because GAE= customizability. MG is something different, it's not GAE.
Valid reasoning required. The question isn't why, I already explained that. The question is: Why not? After all, the most brilliant part is that you DON'T HAVE TO USE IT! It's at the player's own discretion (and if single player only, it would never affect anyone else. If multiplayer available, perhaps it would require all players to agree to that). It would be a fun feature when you want a faster game, or a "bigger" game. It's like how Project Green was made to let players skip resource gathering and jump right into the action. Instead, you can speed up the resource gathering (on any faction too) to jump into the action faster. Or you could pit yourself with a 3x multiplier against a CPU with a 5x multiplier, just for insanely epic battles.Now now Omega, don't go trying to apply GAE logic to an MG feature request.
So, again, please explain the "why not" clause.
While GAE is meant to be whatever the player/designer wants it to be, MG is a more specific kind of game -- I'm not sure what direction it's going, but it's a finite one. This is the impression I get anyway. Feel free to correct me, anyone.
And besides, the question is always "why", NOT "why not", when dealing with feature requests. There's no sense in the developers putting forth the effort for something that hardly anyone is going to use/enjoy. The burden of proof is there because everything takes time to implement, and there is the opportunity cost of not working on something else with that time.
180
Mods / Re: Military Tech Tree
« on: 20 June 2011, 22:24:16 »Do you mean this one? http://sourceforge.net/projects/glestae/files/military/military3-beta.zip/downloadI still think you should release a sneak peek of Military, as it seems to be improved a lot. A lot of changes, right? I'd love to test it with Git Master...While I see your point, I am simply not happy with how it looks at the moment, and want to improve on this. However, if you'd look around the GAE board, you'll find a snapshot I uploaded so there was an addon available to test. Just make sure you download the one Silnarm uploaded slightly after, as the one I uploaded is not git-master compatible. Please bear in mind it's just a snapshot, is not finished, may be buggy, and has some incomplete stuff still. Also, the git-master was/is having some addon troubles and as a result, the menu model and language files are not working.
Oh. Well, I'm sure someday it'll be fixed.
181
MegaGlest / Re: Auto heal/repair
« on: 20 June 2011, 22:21:21 »1.) Yes, unfortunately.QuoteIs a poll really the way to do it? As I said before it should only be people who actually play MegaGlest...and a poll can't really justify that. Just wait until we try this area repair more, please. Then we should actually think about this.1. Does that justify removing the poll?
2. This is the MegaGlest board, why would someone who hasn't at least played MG a little be here (I may be mostly a GAE fan, but I have played MG, though it is incompatible on my home network because there is not yet any method of reconnecting).
3. Why not ask people if they prefer auto-repair, area-repair, or old fashion "click and it shall be done" repair?
2.) Because since MG is more about multiplayer, with singleplayer there is little change from Glest, besides added data, better AI and pathfinding, and everything related to particles. For reconnecting, Softcoder said before that MG would have to have save games implemented first, as it's a base...or something like that.
3.) Well not everyone has actually tried area repair yet, so that wouldn't be fair.
182
General discussion / Re: Discussion about Resource Modifiers
« on: 20 June 2011, 21:35:25 »
Well, can you guys actually say that it's "not fine"? It's cause you and Hands hasn't actually tried a real MG multiplayer game before, successfully. Therefore you guys can't see my reason of the argument, which is the main problem... It's not just an idea... The flat out reason is related to cheating and then, balance.
It's cause you and Hands hasn't actually tried a real MG multiplayer game before, successfully. Therefore you guys can't see my reason of the argument, which is the main problem... It's not just an idea... The flat out reason is related to cheating and then, balance.And it's not because of simply "I don't like it, so it shouldn't be implemented." It's for other reasons. This is all applied to multiplayer, where it's way different from singleplayer. Eventually we need to deal with cheating too. You've failed to realize that. Who plays megaglest for it's singleplayer, anyways? Aren't you the one that always says MG is just multiplayer? If there's going to be any change, it's going to be with multiplayer. But that's going to take some steps, as Ishmaru said. Maybe you should actually try playing a few multiplayer games, Omega. Then, maybe you would understand what I was talking about.
183
MegaGlest / Re: Placement of Social Networking (and other) Icons on MegaGlest.org
« on: 20 June 2011, 21:11:07 »
It was stickied so people can vote, and so we can actually have those icons someday...
Anyways, 2 more people till 25...then I can actually get better insights and a URL. I mean, someone already took "Glest"...
Anyways, 2 more people till 25...then I can actually get better insights and a URL. I mean, someone already took "Glest"...
184
General discussion / Re: Discussion about Resource Modifiers
« on: 20 June 2011, 21:06:50 »
Just because we're using the term "serious", doesn't mean it's not fun. Try it yourself, and you'll see... 
Without a second thought? I've had many thoughts on this...
Without a second thought? I've had many thoughts on this...
185
Mods / Re: Military Tech Tree
« on: 20 June 2011, 21:00:05 »
I still think you should release a sneak peek of Military, as it seems to be improved a lot. A lot of changes, right? I'd love to test it with Git Master...
186
MegaGlest / Re: Auto heal/repair
« on: 20 June 2011, 20:56:48 »Edit: Im not totally against GAE system but If we were to implement Gae system, lets set some rules for its functionality.Yes, it's rules like this...and probably more, if it was to be implemented. If so it would a be in the ini...
1) we need to have a way to enable and disable this on an unit level (ex some enabled other not) within game (actually game mode not menu) (maybe done already?)
2) there should be an option to decide weather auto repair is initially enabled or disabled from that units creation. whats default setting for unit. Probably as an option menu or ini setting.
3)... i forgot -__- ill add it when i remember... The first two are the most important anyway.
In my opinion to make it work the best, it should be off by default, and then it would be easier for specific groups to auto repair and such...at least in Warcraft III, it was like this. It worked really well.
Quote
How so? Balance isn't an issue since you can use it if you want, but those who really believe that it is a negative can just... not... use it... If you find it "unbalancing" to not use, then just...use...it...Because in multiplayer, all settings should be the same for each human...or else it wouldn't really be fair. In singleplayer, no one cares. Can't you see that?
Quote
If I recall, it was never put to a general consensus, just the one line statement that Titi opposed it. But may as well solve that, I'll add a poll.Is a poll really the way to do it? As I said before it should only be people who actually play MegaGlest...and a poll can't really justify that. Just wait until we try this area repair more, please. Then we should actually think about this.
187
General discussion / Re: Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others think the same way
« on: 20 June 2011, 20:48:47 »Another thing I'd rant about is people, modders i guess, not seeming to appreciate the generosity of the programmers who contribute to the two forks and various tools.Exactly. That's why it took so long for even a chance of having a merge, to happen...
Basically it's this:
I think people are giving MG less credit than the devs deserve. Getting multiplayer to work is one of the most difficult tasks in game development (Wikipedia). Any feature used in multiplayer (which means most if not all of the single player features) could potentially break it. GAE has had the luxury of not having to worry about that. GAE has also focused more on getting features out rather than worrying about producing the best gaming experience. Like multiplayer, it is a difficult task and the MG team has worked really hard to make both single player and multiplayer a fun experience (regardless of anyone's subjective opinion).
I can understand the frustration of having two programs that appear to serve the same purpose. This is the nature of open source (more specifically GPL software). Another fork could appear tomorrow and that would be ok. If this were not possible then there might not be a stable multiplayer at all. When it comes down to it the people that do the work get the say. This was stated from the beginning of discussing the merge.
188
Forum discussion / Re: SMF 2.0 - First Looks
« on: 20 June 2011, 20:41:48 »Well, it still doesn't really count...if all people do is post on the off topic section. Etc...Will our post counts be reset!I recall this huge whine where evryone where chanting "POST COUNT DOES NOT COUNT! POST COUNT DOES NOT COUNT!" now I see this...how...interesting..
189
Feature requests / Re: Ingame Statuspage
« on: 20 June 2011, 09:39:33 »
I guess the closest thing is the ? key...
191
Closed bug reports / Re: incomplete buildings bug in 3.5.2
« on: 20 June 2011, 09:08:29 »
Cool! Please remember to commit it. 
What's the better behavior for CPU Megas?
What's the better behavior for CPU Megas?
193
General discussion / Re: Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others think the same way
« on: 20 June 2011, 06:34:53 »
While what you said is mostly true, it is kinda ironic. Anyways, there has been no trending pattern. It was just one thing, auto repair for MG, where your claim was faulty. Also, as I've said at the other thread, apply please your own idea to MG's area repair.
And really this is just about how people handle things. Peoples' methods will always be different. You have to accept that, not everything can be the way you want it or rather whatever you think that it's right.
(But, I do agree with some of the things you've stated...of course.)
And really this is just about how people handle things. Peoples' methods will always be different. You have to accept that, not everything can be the way you want it or rather whatever you think that it's right.
(But, I do agree with some of the things you've stated...of course.)
194
MegaGlest / Re: Bug: no more auto heal/repair
« on: 20 June 2011, 06:33:16 »
Well yes it has basic rules, but I'm talking about some more specific ones. Maybe it's just bad AI, or both, but it just doesn't seem as nice as other auto repair in other games.
Quote
It can be disabled in the INI anyway [for GAE]. It just brings forth the "just because you don't like it doesn't mean others think the same way" argument.GAE is just about singleplayer though, which makes a big difference when disabling if it was in MG. That argument is faulty, as most of the MG community (at least when we were discussing about this before didn't like it.) Anyways, once we evolve on this "area repair", it'll be nice enough. (Now, please apply your own argument to this. Just because you don't like it, most of us actually do like it.)
195
Forum discussion / Re: SMF 2.0 - First Looks
« on: 20 June 2011, 06:19:11 »
Thanks for working on it! Hopefully the extra space above the activity bar will be gone...
20,000 spam accounts...
20,000 spam accounts...
196
General discussion / Re: Discussion about Resource Modifiers
« on: 20 June 2011, 06:16:24 »
Project Red doesn't have any type of logic, as it's just adding GAE features. I think you misunderstood me.
Now I understand why it's "GAE logic"...
No extra effort was expended to remove it, it was a judgement that either titi or softcoder chose. It was included for testing, obviously.
Anyways, it's all up to the developers.
And it's not because of simply "I don't like it, so it shouldn't be implemented." It's for other reasons. This is all applied to multiplayer, where it's way different from singleplayer. Eventually we need to deal with cheating too. You've failed to realize that. Who plays megaglest for it's singleplayer, anyways? Aren't you the one that always says MG is just multiplayer? If there's going to be any change, it's going to be with multiplayer. But that's going to take some steps, as Ishmaru said. Maybe you should actually try playing a few multiplayer games, Omega. Then, maybe you would understand what I was talking about.
Now I understand why it's "GAE logic"...
No extra effort was expended to remove it, it was a judgement that either titi or softcoder chose. It was included for testing, obviously.
Anyways, it's all up to the developers.
And it's not because of simply "I don't like it, so it shouldn't be implemented." It's for other reasons. This is all applied to multiplayer, where it's way different from singleplayer. Eventually we need to deal with cheating too. You've failed to realize that. Who plays megaglest for it's singleplayer, anyways? Aren't you the one that always says MG is just multiplayer? If there's going to be any change, it's going to be with multiplayer. But that's going to take some steps, as Ishmaru said. Maybe you should actually try playing a few multiplayer games, Omega. Then, maybe you would understand what I was talking about.
197
Maps, tilesets and scenarios / Re: 2 Multiplayer Maps by Nickplayer
« on: 19 June 2011, 18:08:45 »Nice idea, but who will do it?Yeah, that's always the problem. Maybe this could become a community project.
Quote
Oh, i forgot to tell this: you can get over the sea with the flying stuff.Of course. I guess the world map, for MG at least would be exclusively for air units.
198
Maps, tilesets and scenarios / Re: 2 Multiplayer Maps by Nickplayer
« on: 19 June 2011, 18:00:35 »Well, they could be a series of scenarios.A bigger map could become a problem, especially a 512x512 (or 512x256) maps. Do you mean this: Europe on a map and Asia on another map? It would be far a scenario, I think.Oh, ok. Yeah, it seems like this needs to be a 256x256 map, or even a 512x512 map.Well, I previously meant that we could mix up a lot of the tilesets into a special one, just for that scenario. Not sure if the Annex one will really fit Earth...Not current version but the original was very Earth like, and designed for multiple biomes as well.
The It should be bigger for he world but how big i have lag issues with 256x256 maps... If this were a scenario it should be done foe GAE as it has boats!! Whats the earth without naval battles?
If it becomes a scenario, I agree. Though then a lot of people would miss out...Maybe we should have specific maps for each country.
199
General discussion / Re: Discussion about Resource Modifiers
« on: 19 June 2011, 17:19:26 »
How many people would really play those "unserious" games? Would it really be beneficial, or would it just give them a false sense of hope that they could just always change their resource multiplier so they would always beat CPU megas. Those are the question that I asked myself, and the same questions I thought when this was implemented...
Anyways, all up to titi.
Anyways, all up to titi.
200
General discussion / Re: Discussion about Resource Modifiers
« on: 19 June 2011, 16:39:54 »
Those would be the steps, I just believe MG isn't intended for that...After all, 99 percent of the games are serious. 