Warzone 2100 Forums

#3337This is getting out of hand. I regret caving in to the purists on this one. We're adding a ton of ugly exceptions to the code so that a few individuals should not have to learn anything new.

it was good for the game for over 10 years and now you think you can just make up new rules?

Haven't tried beta 7 yet, but are you sure you cannot fix this by just adding a truck as a stored template?

#3337This is getting out of hand. I regret caving in to the purists on this one. We're adding a ton of ugly exceptions to the code so that a few individuals should not have to learn anything new.

Whats new to learn? That we don't need a HQ? Thats not a valid arguement. Is the need to change the HQ behavior to fit some JS function...Or it was changed and now it cant be fixed?
Why change this code if the need was not there.
Why go against a poll in the forum.
Why cant it be changed back to default and then there would be no problems.
Why does it work one beta release then stop working in the next.
WHY?

And I am not against change or enhancement but to remove something that is in the too hard basket to code or recode or does not fit some changes, delete its function is not logical.
The trend has been if it gets in the way delete it. So the end result will be no structures just units magically appearing.

Berg wrote: WHY?

Saved templates...

The CC prevent to design, but the player could now join with his own templates already done. So they need to review the rules, without adding even more exception to the game.

Well, since I couldn't find this anywhere in the changelogs, it means to me that this is an unintended side effect and not a feature. Therefore I ask you all to stay calm until some developer can confirm this.
Also, taking Per's comment and citing it out of context is not cool. I'm pretty sure he was replying to vexed about a proposed patch.

if that fixes it then what is the problem? making new rules because you don't like the old rules is lame

zany wrote:if that fixes it then what is the problem? making new rules because you don't like the old rules is lame

You dont get it, they remove a rule, they don't add any other... there is no "NEW" rules.

Iluvalar wrote:

zany wrote:if that fixes it then what is the problem? making new rules because you don't like the old rules is lame

You dont get it, they remove a rule, they don't add any other... there is no "NEW" rules.

if you remove a rule that is a new rule since the behavior has changed

Iluvalar is correct. This all started as an unintended side-effect of adding stored templates. Nobody wanted to change any rules at this time. Since then we've tried very hard to keep the rules exactly as they are, but the costs of doing so have shown themselves, as the bug count from the hacks used to keep the rules the same keeps increasing. It would have been cleaner to just change the rules to fit the new logic of players having pre-made templates available, which means that the HQ limiting design is no longer a good idea.

Per wrote:Iluvalar is correct. This all started as an unintended side-effect of adding stored templates. Nobody wanted to change any rules at this time. Since then we've tried very hard to keep the rules exactly as they are, but the costs of doing so have shown themselves, as the bug count from the hacks used to keep the rules the same keeps increasing. It would have been cleaner to just change the rules to fit the new logic of players having pre-made templates available, which means that the HQ limiting design is no longer a good idea.

this is a rule change. does that fix work or not? if it does then why not use it? your lame response of "no longer a good idea" is bullshit it wasn't a lame idea in over 10 years until you guys fucked it up

@Zany: do you want stored templates or not?

Jorzi wrote:@Zany: do you want stored templates or not?

at the cost of breaking the game from how it was? no.
the old moderator that was banned warned all of us about what they are doing to the game and it is all true

Changes that make bugs need fixing not the code changed to suit the bugs.

Anyway, why are we having a debate about the fact that someone found a bug in a beta version?

Berg wrote:Changes that make bugs need fixing not the code changed to suit the bugs.

nobody has said if the fix works or not. if it doesn't work then why did he put it up? why not apply it and let us test it?