Re: [Warzone-dev] Getting rid of third-party mods
2009/5/8 bugs buggy buginato...@gmail.com: Check the lua branch. Most all these script issues will be fixed with lua, once we get that up and running. AFAIK, Gerard did have AIV at least partially converted. Does Lua fix the BecomePrey issues? If so, why not just replace it with BecomePrey? BecomePrey was designed for 1.10, and Aiv was designed for 2.1, and 2.2 balance is _much_ more similar to 1.10 than 2.1. Plus, I've heard that BecomePrey is overall a much better AI than Aiv - many have mentioned that BecomePrey is hard to beat at the lowest settings, while Aiv can be beaten by spamming flamers on lowest pretty easily. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Getting rid of third-party mods
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Zarel zare...@gmail.com wrote: BecomePrey was designed for 1.10, and Aiv was designed for 2.1, and 2.2 balance is _much_ more similar to 1.10 than 2.1. Plus, I've heard that BecomePrey is overall a much better AI than Aiv - many have mentioned that BecomePrey is hard to beat at the lowest settings, while Aiv can be beaten by spamming flamers on lowest pretty easily. Note that these balance issues have almost entirely to do with the given selection of droid templates that each AI has, and almost nothing whatsoever to do with the AI script code itself. Changing the droid templates for an AI script is pretty trivial. If the templates for AIV are so bad (which sounds quite probable), we can just replace them with the templates for trunk AI. - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Getting rid of third-party mods
Hi all, On 8 May 2009, at 07:52, Per Inge Mathisen wrote: Note that these balance issues have almost entirely to do with the given selection of droid templates that each AI has, and almost nothing whatsoever to do with the AI script code itself. Also worth pointing out that AIV was never tweaked for T3. It was designed primarily for T1 and early T2. Regards, Freddie. PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Getting rid of third-party mods
On 5/8/09, Zarel zarelxxx...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/8 bugs buggy buginxxx...@gmail.com: Check the lua branch. Most all these script issues will be fixed with lua, once we get that up and running. AFAIK, Gerard did have AIV at least partially converted. Does Lua fix the BecomePrey issues? If so, why not just replace it with BecomePrey? BecomePrey was designed for 1.10, and Aiv was designed for 2.1, and 2.2 balance is _much_ more similar to 1.10 than 2.1. Plus, I've heard that BecomePrey is overall a much better AI than Aiv - many have mentioned that BecomePrey is hard to beat at the lowest settings, while Aiv can be beaten by spamming flamers on lowest pretty easily. Nobody has converted BP to lua yet. The main issue with BP is that it passes bad values, which cause asserts. Obviously this doesn't happen in release builds. Moving everything toward lua makes it easier to debug these kinds of errors, since with the current system, it is very difficult, if not down right painful to traceback to the troublemaker. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Getting rid of third-party mods
On 5/8/09, Per Inge Mathisen per.xx...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Zarel zare...@gmail.com wrote: BecomePrey was designed for 1.10, and Aiv was designed for 2.1, and 2.2 balance is _much_ more similar to 1.10 than 2.1. Plus, I've heard that BecomePrey is overall a much better AI than Aiv - many have mentioned that BecomePrey is hard to beat at the lowest settings, while Aiv can be beaten by spamming flamers on lowest pretty easily. Note that these balance issues have almost entirely to do with the given selection of droid templates that each AI has, and almost nothing whatsoever to do with the AI script code itself. Changing the droid templates for an AI script is pretty trivial. If the templates for AIV are so bad (which sounds quite probable), we can just replace them with the templates for trunk AI. - Per Yes, it is trivial, but since so much has been changed in terms of the 'rebalance', I am not ever sure the original templates would be of any use. It would have to be a custom job. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 bugs buggy wrote: 2.2 has been 'cooking' for a extremely long period of time. Pushing beta builds to a lackluster community response, and, what is worse is, people are still creating new content for 2.1, which won't work with 2.2. Has there ever benn some kind of announcement/news/blog entry to make sure that people _know_ about this? Something definite, something people can rely on ;) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFKBITc4y86f1GXLDwRAkeDAKDLYm+nYjvC9d1PXT7j4AHBvlDsGgCgsKya GFEsq+BksFGw43d/VZr+h/I= =pstX -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
Am Freitag, 8. Mai 2009 07:13:48 schrieb Stephen Swaney: Actually, releasing two versions should be approximately twice as much work. Build scripts are written and if no one broke them, then they will still work. Upload takes under an hour (depending on your connection). Why did we backport bugfixes to 2.1 at all, if we are so very determined to never release them? In fact, why do we backport any bugfixes? If we are so much against maintaining older branches, why don't we just release a 2.2 final, and continue with the 2.3 alphas/betas/rcs, to start 2.4 immediately after 2.3 final? Actually not all of the above is pure sarcasm. It has some valid point, imo. If attention is split so badly, and that is hurting us so much, we could as well not draw any attention from our latest efforts to something legacy. On the other hand, if we want to support legacy versions, the statement that they prevent testing of the next generation looks somewhat against the policy. --DevU signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
[Warzone-dev] Final call for 2.2 changes
Can everyone speak up on what they do/do not want in 2.2? About mods: * NTW Delphino said he will maintain it, and wishes it to remain in svn. * 'grim's' mod is broken. ( I think we should remove it, for reasons stated on ML) * Remove 'autoload' folder? ( I think we should remove it, for reasons stated on ML) About sequences.wz * It does *not* contain any info about all the files inside. Should it have GPL / COPYING.REAMDME in it? * I also suggest a version number for this file. (for when/if we update the vids) About music: * New music from the community. is listed in the Roadmap.Unsure what to do about this? About maps: * New maps from the community. is listed in the Roadmap. Unsure what to do about this? Config file changes: * Any more requested changes? About known issues: Do we revert this patch, or apply the new patch (Artillery prediction fix) ? http://developer.wz2100.net/ticket/374 About .po files: A forum post (thanks stiv), and trac (auto) e-mail has been sent to all those involved. Anything else? ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
On 5/8/09, Kreuvf kre...@warzone2100.de wrote: bugs buggy wrote: 2.2 has been 'cooking' for a extremely long period of time. Pushing beta builds to a lackluster community response, and, what is worse is, people are still creating new content for 2.1, which won't work with 2.2. Has there ever benn some kind of announcement/news/blog entry to make sure that people _know_ about this? Something definite, something people can rely on ;) Besides the Front page announcing the beta candidates, and the global announcement in the forums, and the talk on the ML, then, no. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Final call for 2.2 changes
2009/5/8 bugs buggy buginato...@gmail.com: About mods: * NTW Delphino said he will maintain it, and wishes it to remain in svn. Someone needs to give Delphinio SVN access. * 'grim's' mod is broken. ( I think we should remove it, for reasons stated on ML) Agreed. * Remove 'autoload' folder? ( I think we should remove it, for reasons stated on ML) Sigh. I've had rewrite loading code on my list of things to do, for a while. Gimme some more time with it. About sequences.wz * It does *not* contain any info about all the files inside. Should it have GPL / COPYING.REAMDME in it? Well, I think the GPL included with the rest of the game should suffice, shouldn't it? * I also suggest a version number for this file. (for when/if we update the vids) I'm guessing we're only going to update them once, ever, so we can just rename it to video.wz, then. In fact, I propose after we rename all the .ogg files to .ogv and reencode them, to distribute a 160 MB video.wz, and a 1 GB video-highquality.wz. Config file changes: * Any more requested changes? About the colored cursor thing - I have a decently high-end computer and I still experience mouselag. It might not be consciously noticeable, but it could still impact user experience. About known issues: Do we revert this patch, or apply the new patch (Artillery prediction fix) ? http://developer.wz2100.net/ticket/374 We've done neither. We have, however, fixed some of the other issues with this patch. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
