What do you find annoying about the BETA ?

[Buginator]

Dual turrets..  still lots of flaws here. .one the update states theres the ability for mlti turrets on vehicles AND structures.. someone elaborate on t hat as hard points are the only structures wiht turrets and none can have multi turrets on them unless someone gave a secret fix to the fortresses i dont know about.

and ive noticed a FATAL flaw in the vehicle ones where very often the primary turrent has a very difficult tine trackign and attacking things while the secondary turret never seems to miss a shot...
even more so.. i tried an AA/cannon combo.. leaving a few vehicles able to defend itself agsint ground units and air units.. but the AA guns NEVER fired.. and NEVER tracked.. they stayed in thier neutral direction for the vehicles life no matter how close i got to vtols..
------

I don't think the multi-turret code was ever finished/debugged all the way.  I rather not see it in its current state, and perhaps only be in debug builds/mode.

im also noticing EXTENSIVE problems with the cursors in relation to the build menu...  ill tell a truck to build a series of structures wiht the Shift click method.. then select another truck.. and for some reason the build men will still be stuck on the first trucks build orders even though a new truck is selected.. and pressing any thing in the build menu for the new truck will cancel out the last trucks orders...  ive found that right clicking int e open area to FULLY deselect all units before then clicking another unit will clear this problem out but when in the heat of battle thats an extra and unnesecary step that wasent in previos versions.

I don't think the cursor code has been touched in ages.
I wonder if this issue is in the original or not?

[ChronoSphere]

Two things i still find annoying as hell:

- when set to retreat @medium/heavy damage, it causes the deselelection of the unit upon triggering, which makes impossible to correct the unit's behavior (see below).
can't think of a way to get around that though cause.. it's he most logical thing to do. If you don't deselect it, it would mean your next order would most likely tell the unit to rejoin combat. Still it's pretty annoying

- the pathfinding =_= i just love how the units decide to retreat through unknown terrain, usually through an enemy base *cough* Most units i lose in campaign is because of that.
A suggestion: if i understand it correctly, currently the pathfinding code calculates the shortest way between current position and destination. Is it possible to change it to calculating the shortest way between current position and destination only using cells that are not covered by fog of war?

[A4tech]

Dude, what you want from "patch finding" or other game bugs?
Game size less then 50mb, developers are NOT pros in coding and/or not interesting in project source upgrading. They code it in free time. Believe, they (coders) DON'T have free time  ;D

[ChronoSphere]

not interested in changing the source code? you might want to take a look at this.

2.3 - The campaign restoration release (Xmas 2008)

    * Replace missing FMVs with something else.
    * Allowing playing campaign as multiplayer.
    * Multiplayer save and load.
    * Improve path-finding.
    * Improved graphics.

Improving path-finding is on their list and i just posted a suggestion (even though they most likely have thought about this idea already)
Where in my post did i say they should do it now?
And everything they do has something to do with upgrading/fixing the source.

[A4tech]

In my opinion source code will be uprading much faster if players (we) support them (donations)  ;D
Dudes, am I wrong,huh? 

[Buginator]

In my opinion source code will be uprading much faster if players (we) support them (donations)  ;D
Dudes, am I wrong,huh? 

I am not sure that is allowed or not.

In either case, I don't think sending $$$ will get anything done faster.

[kage]

I am not sure that is allowed or not.

In either case, I don't think sending $$$ will get anything done faster.

that's definitely allowed, and especially encouraged when it comes to the GPL. and even if this community has rules against this, the community doesn't own the code exclusively, so they can't prevent donations from going to the cause.

anyways, donations work well if the donations are regularly made, and in total are a decent amount -- this way the donations can go to someone who will work less at their "day job" to do more for this project.

if the donations aren't regular, the best system is a bounty system where someone specifically pays to get a feature added or a bug fixed.

[Buginator]

that's definitely allowed, and especially encouraged when it comes to the GPL. and even if this community has rules against this, the community doesn't own the code exclusively, so they can't prevent donations from going to the cause.

anyways, donations work well if the donations are regularly made, and in total are a decent amount -- this way the donations can go to someone who will work less at their "day job" to do more for this project.

if the donations aren't regular, the best system is a bounty system where someone specifically pays to get a feature added or a bug fixed.

Just where would you send the $$$ to?
Kamaze is the only one that is spending money, since he is the one running the forums.

You have any references to projects that have done that?  I just don't see a good way to handle the funds.
As for bounty type system, I guess that can motivate some people.  :-\

[A4tech]

Overall: make Paypal support button and you will see how donations will come. Ofcourse, donations = faster code fixing + new game futures making  ;D .
Dudes, think about it.

[The Commander]

Overall: make Paypal support button and you will see how donations will come. Ofcourse, donations = faster code fixing + new game futures making  ;D .
Dudes, think about it.

What are you talking about? Duke Nukem 3D is open sorce now and look how big that it with its port Eduke32. Only one guy works on that and he doesnt ask for donations, it even surports Quake 3 Models now!

[A4tech]

I'am just think about it, not saying "Make it!".  :-\ dude, slow down...
Maybe that guy have no life and coding Duke nukem like crazy. WZ coders (in my opinion) have they problems, and donations to theyr spent time on the S code upgrading would be BEST "thank you!" ever.
Wrong again?

[The Commander]

I could post a bunch of reasons why its a bad idea and why your wrong again because I am also from the Duke community as well as spend time on this when I can, but sure i guess we all can have opions

[gnou]

There is a problem with behavior "hold position", units stop firing.
Sometime, in heavy battle, selection by group take to be effective :
- units well selected, but the order cursor is not really actived.

[Arcalane]

Overall: make Paypal support button and you will see how donations will come. Ofcourse, donations = faster code fixing + new game futures making  ;D .
Dudes, think about it.

Not necessarily, but it'd be one way of letting people help. More people should get into coding it though, that's a more direct solution for faster code fixing.

Stuff that bugs me now;

Bomber VTOLs suck ass. Said that before, I'll say it again.

Minirocket Pods are overpowered. They shred early walls like a chainsaw through warm butter, which is just ridiculous. I've seen them carve up defensive positions like a starving man digging into a roast duck dinner. It's possible to counter them, yes, but their anti-structural damage is ridiculous. I'm not saying that it's bad for them to be good against tanks, but it'd be nice if they weren't so goddamn powerful against structures, especially early on before you can get proper upgrades to your walls. Let Minirocket Artillery pick up the slack for anti-structure, and make the MRA less effective against tanks. MRPs then become their anti-tank counterparts, and we have a nice balance; use MRPs as early escorts for your MRA tanks!

The same applies for anti-tank missiles in general such as Lancers, Scourges and Tank-Killers. I can understand bunker-busters being incredibly effective against structures, but these are ANTI-TANK missiles. Not MURDERIZES EVERYTHING EXCEPT CYBORGS AND AIRCRAFT missiles.  ???

VTOL Scourges without accuracy upgrades are also extremely good against tank clusters. Their precision can actually be -bad- in some cases. Perhaps we need some kind of heavy anti-group tank weapons (fixed bombs or new cluster missiles?) for VTOLs.

VTOL Scourges are obscenely powerful against structures and can two-shot just about any structure. Bombs, comparatively, are incredibly weak in my limited experience of using them, due to the fact that they slow the bomber down a ridiculous amount, making you need to use heavier chassis to ensure the bomber survives, likewise causing a loss of speed from the increased chassis weight. Even light-chassis bombers go incredibly slowly - in fact, they go slower than their wheeled, halftracked or tracked groundpounding equivalents (not hovers, because hovers are bloody fast) and look like they are about to stall and drop out of the sky!

That said, there is stuff I like; the new rapid-fire flamers are lovely and much more flamerlike, even if fire damage is highly impractical against tanks. I do hope they're good against cyborgs and hard/soft structures (flood bunkers w/ fire, incinerate internals of factories, etc.) to compensate. I never used them before due to the slow ROF and short range.

[Player1]

Is it just me, or are your units supposed to revert to hold ground after being repaired by repair vehicle? I've noticed on the second campaign1 mission, after my MG guys get repaired by my repair guys, they go into hold ground stance, even after setting them to gaurd mode. they won't even defend themselves after getting attacked. also, sometimes the oil derricks disappear during a skirmish. I dunno.