Deactivating the Battle View (from the psx version)

[Buginator]

i would personally like to know where this freaking bull stuff is coming from...

the GPL is known to all parties.  so enuff of the veiled inuendo and whatnots.

if your going to accuse someone of something - do it to their face and not behind them.
thankyou.
;D
and so everyone is up to speed - this is not a flame site.  if you feel the need to do so - go elsewhere.
thankyou.
;D

Hmm, I take it your referring to me, since I think I am the only one that made the GPL comment in this thread.
I was just pointing out to Deus Siddis, about the GPL, if he knew about it, then he wouldn't have asked about the "open source" comment.  I was just trying to inform him.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I am not trying to cause a stir, sorry you took it that way.  If you wish, I will edit the post.  :'(

I am a bit confused on why you think otherwise?

[lav_coyote25]

do not edit your post.

over the last few weeks - monitoring and such - have noticed comments about gpl and such and maybe its just me... being over protective of the community.  when i see what looks like fuel - i tend to get anxious - you would have to know what we all went through over the last 9 years to understand. 

;D

[Rman Virgil]

------>

* It's my fault Lav. I left it open to were Bug was just filling in my omission in a fun, lighthearted way - as I took it..

* The reason I deliberately left-out mention of the GPL in my last post is for this reason....

* For years before the source was liberated under the GPL we in the community had the NON-coerced value of sharing all our source for everything that was created. We were under NO legal compulsion to do so but we did because that was part of our esprit de corps, a fellowship of sharing which means more to me personally to be honest.

* At the same time I understand & appreciate the value behind the GPL and it really is simply that development can proceed even by way of perfect strangers that have no comraderie relationship.... & of course elliminating the financial personal gain from the equation.

- RV

[Deus Siddis]

Sorry, I was just asking to be sure, since folks were comparing binaries and source releases and I was just making sure I had understood correctly that source releases relevant to drive mode were coming.

Had no idea there was anything flameworthy about a public domain license in the first place.

[Rman Virgil]

Had no idea there was anything flameworthy about a public domain license in the first place.

.

* You would think... but, actually it could go down that road if we're not all mature & respectful 'bout the vast gulf between the 2 approaches. And that is no exaggeration.

* Our biinaries will be night & day different. Our source, believe it or not, took an entirely different route - one that was rejected out of hand 3 years ago. And then there is the matter of our data which is NOT goverened by the GPL. So as you can see it's not quite as simple as a "Public domain licence". In some ways it's all a tad unprecidented but completely on the up 'n up.

- RV

[Chojun]

Sorry, I was just asking to be sure, since folks were comparing binaries and source releases and I was just making sure I had understood correctly that source releases relevant to drive mode were coming.

Yes, either way drive mode is coming.  On our end, we're (almost) completely redesigning drive mode, so although it will function similarly to the PSX version, it will be much easier to use and more intuitive than what Pumpkin offered us in the existing code.  We're spending more effort in this area because, largely, we're following the ARTS ideology (Rman can point anyone interested to some good documentation on this) which essentially mandates more of what could essentially be viewed as 'tight no-strings-attached game control/interaction'.  Drive mode is good for this because it affords more direct control over the battlefield without having to worry about all the bothersome, counterintuitive micromanagement.  This is one thing that most RTS games studios to-date haven't been able to understand or figure out.  Most RTS games are a contest of micromanagement, stress, and speed rather than careful design, structure, and support of a military force.

At the risk of being a little off-topic, I offer what I call the MLOC (Minimal Level Of (direct) Control) concept.  This is essentially the fact that top-star generals aren't giving orders to specific soldiers on the battlefield, and the player shouldn't have to, either (to a certain extent, even though they are more like a field commander).

Anyway, back on topic, the community at-large will see this sometime in the near future, but I don't speak for the WRP.

Had no idea there was anything flameworthy about a public domain license in the first place.

Before I get started on this subject I just want people to know that GPL software has been an integral part of my education and learning and I respect it for that.

It depends on what PoV one subscribes to.  When coming from Eidos' perspective, the GPL really was the best for Warzone because it would allow us to have the source while protecting them from competition arising from people taking the source and incorporating it into other proprietary apps (you can not ever make any serious amount of money on GPL softare; lets not kid ourselves, it is Mr. Stallman's goal for all software everywhere to be free in every way).

The GPL is not a Public Domain License.  Despite the GPL being "copyleft", it is still a Copyright license in the sense that the original developer is still steward/copyright owner over the source code and copyright breaks one of the important distinctions between GPL and public domain.  Another important distinction of public domain is that there are no laws, copyrights, or restrictions governing anything that is Public Domain.  Ergo GPL software is not free software in the very sense of the word.

Think of the GPL as this:  Imagine you, a piece of free software, and the GPL, a person standing behind you with a gun to your head.  You're free so everything's fine.  However, in the event you cease to be free...

*click*

[Buginator]

Yes, either way drive mode is coming.  On our end, we're (almost) completely redesigning drive mode, so although it will function similarly to the PSX version, it will be much easier to use and more intuitive than what Pumpkin offered us in the existing code.  We're spending more effort in this area because, largely, we're following the ARTS ideology (Rman can point anyone interested to some good documentation on this) which essentially mandates more of what could essentially be viewed as 'tight no-strings-attached game control/interaction'.  Drive mode is good for this because it affords more direct control over the battlefield without having to worry about all the bothersome, counterintuitive micromanagement.  This is one thing that most RTS games studios to-date haven't been able to understand or figure out.  Most RTS games are a contest of micromanagement, stress, and speed rather than careful design, structure, and support of a military force.

At the risk of being a little off-topic, I offer what I call the MLOC (Minimal Level Of (direct) Control) concept.  This is essentially the fact that top-star generals aren't giving orders to specific soldiers on the battlefield, and the player shouldn't have to, either (to a certain extent, even though they are more like a field commander).

Anyway, back on topic, the community at-large will see this sometime in the near future, but I don't speak for the WRP.

By redesign, you mean a new interface, along with extra data on the radar (or some other kind of HUD) to keep you more informed?
While I was screwing around with the code, I realized that while I was busy squishing (sorry babas!) and basically joy riding around, I didn't have enough information telling me that the enemy is coming at me from behind, until after the fact, when they started to fire at me.  I didn't quite have the rear view mirror code working just yet.
Even in MP, while it may be fun for a bit, without more information, you will soon get your arse whipped pretty easily, since the AI is still pretty dumb without you controlling everything, and what they should be doing.

This is kinda like the warcam being 'attached' to projectiles, it is fun for a bit, watching where you shoot, and going through mountains, but I quickly got tired of it.  Perhaps if instead of the main window, I would have rendered into a smaller window, it would have been nicer.  Dunno.

And getting even more OT, what are your guys thoughts on a all VTOL level?  That would mean VTOL construction units, and everything else.

And just for the record, I need to clear something up, that perhaps has been missed.
I am not officially aligned with any of the current warzone groups.  I am more or less a free agent.
What I say on here or IRC or whatever else, I do *NOT* speak for the Warzone 2100 Resurrection Project people.  They can do that themselves.
I am just a enduser/member of the community who does a bit of coding & a bit (too much) of jabbering.

[Rman Virgil]

* @ Bug: * I'll let Chojun speak to the technical side but this much I'll say...

* "Pilot Mode" (my phrase because it's also gonna be applied to Vtols & Mechs - yes, those too) HAS to be more than a fun novelty because, as you indicated, all novelties wear thin with repetition & even become boring. It HAS to be advantageous in combat... it has to expand player "C-3" in a flowing, intuitive, minimal micro-management way.

* Does that mean we wanna turn an RTS into an FPS - NO ! (though IMHO, the RTS genre can & does subsume ALL other genres... It is the ONLY genre that can do that & as such, it is "Protean".)

* "The Pilot Mode" will NOT change the fact that you still have to command an army.... Not just one soldier or a squad but rather combined arms combat groups deployed from multiple vectors and coordinated velocities.

* Another analogy I use for an RTS is that it is "Symphonic"..... It has defined "movements" that flow into each other. You have your economy, research & design, building your forces, deploying your army & then, at last, COMMANDING on the battlefield, in the heat of carnage & explosions all around you - the climax of all your decision-making choices, efforts, gambles & knowledge. (My ref to Classical music - "Symphonic" - comes from my love for & study of the art form. As a musician I donot play it because my gut-feelings are for Rock, Blues, Funk & Jazz.... Mainly, I'm a bluesman, outta the Albert King / Robert Cray school.)

* All this brings to mind a game I eagerly anticipated some years back.... Artistically it was gorgeous (even by todays standards... a true work of GFX art). Finally I got my hands on it. Within 20 minutes I was done with the game & wanted to throw the disk out the window. The GPMs sucked so bad that as much as I loved the game worlds visuals they receded & become a wonderful novelty that couldnot compensate for the gameplay shortcomings. I felt bad for the artists who slaved & gave  it their all but were ultimately betrayed by the sub-par GPM designers.

* In the same vein 2 of my favorite games of all time, that are inexhaustable tac & strat wise, full of endless, provocative, delight have absolutely ZERO GFX - just pure GPMs.

* Now if you can combine the inexhaustable variety of those  GPMs (as far as winning strats) of those 2 games with masterfully immersive, visually dynamic artwork..... well then you'd have a classic masterpiece. IMHO, Warzone has that very promise. Which is why many of us have been around for well neigh a decade now.

- RV

[Chojun]

Buginator:

As it stands now the extended drive mode won't make it into 1.11 so I'll stay mum on the details.

However as you say, driving the tanks around is pretty fun    However, once you've messed around with it a little you begin to realize why Pumpkin left it out of the PC version.  Although I have no doubt that it would've risen to greatness like any other GPM in Warzone, I guess they simply didn't have time to polish it down to their accepted standards before releasing it.  This is an important distinction between a commercial and community driven project.

It's important that every GPM be balanced before it is incorporated into gameplay.  That is, a GPM must have its benefits and drawbacks.  Currently (IMO) Drive mode offers a new level of fun but doesn't give any strategic advantages.  In fact, I've noticed that the mortality rates of units are higher when you are directly piloting the groups.

As you say, information display is important, but what is more important is the level of control that you should be able to have over the unit when you pilot (this follows naturally since drive mode is a control GPM).  Levels of control will change depending on what unit type or group you are commanding and I'll leave it at that for now.

[Buginator]

Buginator:
As it stands now the extended drive mode won't make it into 1.11 so I'll stay mum on the details.

Mum?  Come on, we need some more spoilers!   

1.11 you say?  Your reviving the old version #'s from the original release, and ignoring the 1.11 & 1.12 patches/mods that were made?
I also don't suppose you have a name picked out, or is it going to be the original name?  This can all get the endusers/community very confused.

However as you say, driving the tanks around is pretty fun    However, once you've messed around with it a little you begin to realize why Pumpkin left it out of the PC version.  Although I have no doubt that it would've risen to greatness like any other GPM in Warzone, I guess they simply didn't have time to polish it down to their accepted standards before releasing it.  This is an important distinction between a commercial and community driven project.

Sure, if it was done right, and not in the state they left it in. (Not that I blame them mind you, looks like they were under the clock)  Then again, my idea of right, might not be your idea of right. 

It's important that every GPM be balanced before it is incorporated into gameplay.  That is, a GPM must have its benefits and drawbacks.  Currently (IMO) Drive mode offers a new level of fun but doesn't give any strategic advantages.  In fact, I've noticed that the mortality rates of units are higher when you are directly piloting the groups.

Balance is a very tricky issue.  Lots of people have said the original wasn't very balanced at all, and usually, it seems people only research the same things to get the best available technology in the shortest period of time.  There wasn't really a rock/paper/scissors to the tech tree for everything.  Troman is improving some stuff, but the process is long & difficult to truly achieve balance.

As you say, information display is important, but what is more important is the level of control that you should be able to have over the unit when you pilot (this follows naturally since drive mode is a control GPM).  Levels of control will change depending on what unit type or group you are commanding and I'll leave it at that for now.

I think level of control & information display need to go hand in hand, with one lacking, it can ruin the other one.

[Rman Virgil]

1.11 you say?  Your reviving the old version #'s from the original release, and ignoring the 1.11 & 1.12 patches/mods that were made?
I also don't suppose you have a name picked out, or is it going to be the original name?  This can all get the endusers/community very confused. Sure, if it was done right, and not in the state they left it in. (Not that I blame them mind you, looks like they were under the clock)  Then again, my idea of right, might not be your idea of right. 

* I was part of both those & to be truthfull they were inapproriately named. Both were extensive MODs and NOT Patches as we had no access to the source when they were created. At the time we saw no harm in the misnomer as getting the source was problematic. That'll be made clear in our release.

Balance is a very tricky issue.  Lots of people have said the original wasn't very balanced at all, and usually, it seems people only research the same things to get the best available technology in the shortest period of time.  There wasn't really a rock/paper/scissors to the tech tree for everything.  Troman is improving some stuff, but the process is long & difficult to truly achieve balance.I think level of control & information display need to go hand in hand, with one lacking, it can ruin the other one.

* All very true & it will be interesting to see your results.

* But here's the kicker.

* I've held the opinion for some time now that the utility of of using-applying a Rock, Paper, Scissors modus to balancing an RTS is greatly inflated & certainly not the only or most elegant or most effective methodology

* 3 recent successful & very well received RTSs have dispensed with that traditional approach to balancing with very powerful results.

* Thus the RPS MO falls within the domain of it's always a good idea to question conventional wisdom ala Socrates, at least, IMHO.

* I could get deeper into this ibut that may not be kwel

- RV