264 replies to this topic

[Kekoulis]

Let us finish this glorious testing campaign with an equally glorious screenshot of our Living Saint Celestine (who I have found for 45 euros here in Athens Centre,do not know if worth it though.)

 

[attachment=40411:20171002233927_1.jpg]

[Gambit]

EXCELLENT!!

We are done then

Next stop, Assault maps

 

Funny how my purgators have my allies' colour scheme. (Yes I know this is a known issue,a very minor I might add,but it is still worth sharing,I guess).

Well, I can fix this. Need some work, since it has to be done to all races that get turrets from other factions...

I thought it was OK, because I explicitly said (in fact I tried to cover it) that "it was an addition from a fellow chapter". So I guess the other Colour Schemes were OK.

Brother Kekoulis, do you want me to fix it?

[Kasrkin84]

All markers for the Rynn's World: Krugerport Bridge map appear to be in the correct locations, with none of them being out of bounds or in seemingly inappropriate locations.

[Kasrkin84]

Ok, all map issues have been sorted out EXCEPT for the ones with missing detonate markers - not really sure what the correct sort of placement for these should be. Any general pointers? The other maps don't seem to be that consistent about this, so I've not been able to use them as a guide.

 

Once I'm finished, I'll redo all the map icons and minimaps as well.

[Gambit]

All markers for the Rynn's World: Krugerport Bridge map appear to be in the correct locations, with none of them being out of bounds or in seemingly inappropriate locations.

Ah, yes, my bad.

brother Kekoulis just said that the reinforce markers would be more appropriate if moved to a new location.

See his post here: https://forums.revor...-3#entry1068151

 

 

Ok, all map issues have been sorted out EXCEPT for the ones with missing detonate markers - not really sure what the correct sort of placement for these should be. Any general pointers? The other maps don't seem to be that consistent about this, so I've not been able to use them as a guide.

OK so these are two places where two more buildings of the enemy are spawned. Something like a secondary outpost.

These buildings (SCaR) spawn squads, that attack the players at random intervals.

Placement: As sneaky as possible!!! Suggestions:

1] The two markers placed next to each other, and near the attacker AI (last slot player) base. Not too close, but if possible at a "hidden" or "protected" place. This is the

2] The buildings are places away from each other, at map places that are better suited for sabotage attacks. Behind the enemy lines, for example.

3] SUPER suggestion: You add SIX markers (or as many as you like - named mk_detonate_1 to mk_detonate_xx), and place them at varied locations of your choosing   Then I update the SCaR, and we have the buildings appear at random places in each game!

The flaw of this method is that you will have to add all markers to all maps again   So yeah, better go with 1] or 2].

 

NOTE: Whatever the place you choose, please try to avoid the direct paths amost the bases, so that to avoid spawning attempts on top of passing units (no problem with this though!!!). So better choose "remote" or "strategic" locations, suited for back-door attacks, if possible.

 

Once I'm finished, I'll redo all the map icons and minimaps as well.

Excellent!!!!

I will wait, so that to add your maps to the next Unification version.

THANKS A MILLION man

 

 

 

P.S.: By the way, I think it is VERY easy to use the new Unification_Vanilla (the bugfix mode) as a prerequisite for Strongholds. Did it give you any issues? I think you just have to "empty" some SCaR files, and "empty" the new maps.

I would keep some SCaR though, like the Flyer Fix. The players will still be able to use flyers with ease, and the AI will do so as well, in DC Strongholds.

 

Off-Topic

I love and play Strongholds so much, that I am really thinking to make them able to CO-EXIST.

Just imagine the package: Assault + Survival + Skirmish + ... STRONGHOLDS!!! A killer combination of features

And all, bugfixed.

But yeah, too many changes to the Vanilla Files, so we better keep Strongholds STAND-ALONE.

Edited by Gambit, 03 October 2017 - 10:25 AM.

[Kekoulis]

 

Brother Kekoulis, do you want me to fix it?

No need man.As you have said,it is a lend-lease from a brother/sister faction(and in accordance with the ''lore'' you have added-really nice). But if you ever have some spear time AND really want to ''fix'' this,then go ahead.But this is for a future time I believe.

 

Well,I have tried Unification New Races with Strongholds and it worked really well. At least make the bare minimum of Unification as a requirement for Strongholds-it's the new  Bugfix after all!

Edited by Kekoulis, 03 October 2017 - 11:50 AM.

[Kasrkin84]

 

Ok, all map issues have been sorted out EXCEPT for the ones with missing detonate markers - not really sure what the correct sort of placement for these should be. Any general pointers? The other maps don't seem to be that consistent about this, so I've not been able to use them as a guide.

OK so these are two places where two more buildings of the enemy are spawned. Something like a secondary outpost.

These buildings (SCaR) spawn squads, that attack the players at random intervals.

Placement: As sneaky as possible!!! Suggestions:

1] The two markers placed next to each other, and near the attacker AI (last slot player) base. Not too close, but if possible at a "hidden" or "protected" place. This is the

2] The buildings are places away from each other, at map places that are better suited for sabotage attacks. Behind the enemy lines, for example.

3] SUPER suggestion: You add SIX markers (or as many as you like - named mk_detonate_1 to mk_detonate_xx), and place them at varied locations of your choosing   Then I update the SCaR, and we have the buildings appear at random places in each game!

The flaw of this method is that you will have to add all markers to all maps again   So yeah, better go with 1] or 2].

 

NOTE: Whatever the place you choose, please try to avoid the direct paths amost the bases, so that to avoid spawning attempts on top of passing units (no problem with this though!!!). So better choose "remote" or "strategic" locations, suited for back-door attacks, if possible.

 

 

Seems that some of the smaller maps don't have the space for 6 separate markers, so 1 or 2 would work better.

 

Alternatively, there doesn't need to be a fixed number of markers on all maps. The larger ones could have more markers, the smaller ones could have fewer (with a minimum of 2). A simple looping Marker_Exists check could be done to count the number of possible locations to spawn enemy buildings.

Edited by Kasrkin84, 03 October 2017 - 02:21 PM.

[Gambit]

Indeed!

Whatever you want man.

So, add as many markers as you deem right, in any map

I make a loop that choose 2 randomly from whichever total number you have added in each map, and that's it!!

I will prepare the code NOW!!!

Even if you keep it to the standard of 2 marker, it will still work, so whatever you want.

Please, keep marker naming enumeration to mk_detonate_n, where n = 1, 2, 3,...

 

--------------------------------------------

 

By the way, I was thinking the same for the Wargear upgrade.

Now, the Daemonhammer that grants the wargear to heroes always appears in one place. Can we make again three or four markers at random places that can have the hammer (one of them will, of course, chosen randomly)? You will have to remove it though from each map, and the we add the hammer model through SCaR,...

 

I know it's a lot - so WHATEVER you want!

Edited by Gambit, 03 October 2017 - 06:28 PM.

[Gambit]

OK, code updated.

- Now if a map does not have the mk_detonate_1 marker, you will simply get a warning (NO SCaR error).

- Add as many markers as you want, and the code will randomly choose 2 of them for the 2 buildings. (Even if the map ONLY has the mk_detonate_1 marker, there will be no issues - only 1 building will be built )

- Save feature is of course supported (the 2 chosen markers are saved in a global array )

Edited by Gambit, 03 October 2017 - 07:52 PM.

[mdcertainty]

Awesome guys good progress! Thanks to all of you.
Extra thanks to Brother Kekoulis that you play-test so intensely I wanted to do so, but it seems I'm stuck doing some modding here and there *lol*.
Funny enough yesterday I played my 1st *serious* skirmish match (Wh_As vs. IDH) like in 5-6 years without any DoW playing, finally I played a match again, was a sweet battle.

Edited by mdcertainty, 04 October 2017 - 09:42 AM.

[Gambit]

...was a sweet battle.

Just wait a bit more, I coded MORE fixes on the core Survival code, as well as at the "peripheral" win conditions!!

And once brother Kasrkin upload the maps, we will have NEAT, flawless Survival gameplay.

... After that, I will fix the CTDs of SM TH attacks and IG valkyries...

Edited by Gambit, 04 October 2017 - 10:18 AM.

[mdcertainty]

Just wait a bit more, I coded MORE fixes on the core Survival code, as well as at the "peripheral" win conditions!!

And once brother Kasrkin upload the maps, we will have NEAT, flawless Survival gameplay.

... After that, I will fix the CTDs of SM TH attacks and IG valkyries...

Great!

Guess there's only one way to show proper appreciation.

"FUCK YEAH!!!"

Edited by mdcertainty, 04 October 2017 - 02:43 PM.

[Kasrkin84]

Another question about Survival maps - some of them have pre-built turrets on them. Should these be removed? Otherwise it makes it a bit more unfair for certain factions. For example, on a map with pre-built Imperial Guard turrets, if player 1 is also Imperial Guard then they'll be able to build fewer extra turrets of their own due to the cap. If player 1 is any other faction though, then they basically get an extra 2 turrets on top of their usual cap.

[Kekoulis]

There is no limit in how many turrets you can make in survival. Brother Gambit fixed that with a corresponding SCAR. But yes, it is indeed a bit awkward for Tau to use IG turrets. But that just adds more fun to gameplay (in my opinion).

Edited by Kekoulis, 04 October 2017 - 10:02 PM.

[Kasrkin84]

Fair enough. So would a better alternative be to use Scar to spawn the appropriate turrets for each faction, rather than have them pre-placed in the mission editor?

[Gambit]

Fair enough. So would a better alternative be to use Scar to spawn the appropriate turrets for each faction, rather than have them pre-placed in the mission editor?

That would be THE BEST approach

But... this is map-oriented, right???

Unless there is a SPECIFIC marker, with a SPECIFIC naming for the positions of these turrets, it would be difficult for SCaR.

But if this is the case, why not!!!

 

 

Further Updates

- 1] OK, I re-wrote many parts of the Heroic Defence wincondition, and I created a trick to make survival even more Save-friendly.

Needs some more testing, but so far, if you save after the first 2 minutes, the save is (I dare say) perfect!

With brother Kasrkin's map updates, this new Combat Mode is indeed a GOOD addition.

- 2] I updated the TH SCaR. More options added (if you take down the TH prior to deploying the troops, they WON'T deploy! So try to take it down!) The TH itself got a new squad and entity and icon. And a destruction FX. Timings are much better now, as well. All and all, it is very good. BUT... some glitches still occur. I suspect memory buffer overflow (engine-related). NOT of consequence, no CTD, no damage, so we are all good!

- 3] I also fixed the issue when sometimes the enemy was sitting idly, and his waves were not attacking. Now, an extra rule scans for those squads, and makes them to (randomly) attack the player(s).

 

So, the only remaining issue is the bombing runs of the IG. I have already made some updates there, but didn't test them. So I may have already fixed the (hopefully last) CTD that exists there.

 

 

P.S.: I am really overdoing it with coding. 8 hours str8 today But at least we are almost done.

Edited by Gambit, 05 October 2017 - 12:05 AM.

[Kasrkin84]

I'll just give the turrets marker names like mk_turret11, mk_turret12 etc. for player 1, and mk_turret21, mk_turret22 for player 2 (I can't imagine there'd ever be any reason to have more than 2 each). The Scar code could check for the presence of these markers and then spawn the appropriate turret in that location. Note that you almost certainly would need to use Entity_CreateBuildingPositionForce() rather than some other function to spawn them, as the turrets are often placed tight up against impassable terrain.

 

Aside from that, I think this may take me a little longer than I first expected. Most of the maps have various other problems, especially with the impass maps being set up very badly. I'm not going to spend loads of time trying to make them perfect, but it will mean a few more days at least.

[Gambit]

I'll just give the turrets marker names like mk_turret11, mk_turret12 etc. for player 1, and mk_turret21, mk_turret22 for player 2 (I can't imagine there'd ever be any reason to have more than 2 each).

Excellent!! Two notes:

1] Some maps have more than 2 turrets per player... So please add them all! No need for a fixed number, as the code can check for existing markers with the wildstring (thanks for this, I was not ware of the "marker exist" function )

2] You will also need mk_turret51, mk_turret52 (etc.), because in some maps, the AI attacker (player "5") also has map turrets!

 

The Scar code could check for the presence of these markers and then spawn the appropriate turret in that location. Note that you almost certainly would need to use Entity_CreateBuildingPositionForce() rather than some other function to spawn them, as the turrets are often placed tight up against impassable terrain.

As an algorithm it's very easy for us 10 mins work!

BUT THANKS for the functions. I wasn't aware that I should use this one either.

Like I said, the algorithmic issues are really trivial for a programmer - but you "HAVE to know your functions" !!

 

Aside from that, I think this may take me a little longer than I first expected. Most of the maps have various other problems, especially with the impass maps being set up very badly. I'm not going to spend loads of time trying to make them perfect, but it will mean a few more days at least.

NO PROBLEM!!!

DO YOUR BEST!

There is no rush brother K.

 

 

Further Updates

1] OK, so I rewrote the Valkyrie bombing code. Created new entity so that to be NEAT. And fixed some issues with design. BETTER, and no SCaR issues.

2] The Tau had some issues with their Manta strike, so I fixed that as well.

3] Some other general code updates that makes save EVEN more accurate. I was saving every 3 mins in games, and re-loading, and had no issues so far.   But we must check ALL configs and combinations - and they are too many!

Anyway, things are now CONSISTENT.

 

First post, with what is pending, concerning Survival, updated.

[Gambit]

OK, race-specific turret placement code done.

It recursively searches (repeat until marker not found) for mk_turret1n, mk_turret2n and mk_turret5n markers, where n = 1,2,3,...

And force-places the buildings at the marker locations.

 

@Brother Kasrkin

Man, I know it is much, but I want to ask for something more:

1] Please place the mk_turret markers not too-close, because some buildings (like Ork Wag Banners) are a bit larger... Visually, it will be a bit awkward. Also, you can place more turret markers, at places you deep proper at your whim in each map!!! Especially for the AI player, I would love to see him a bit better fortified in 2p vs AI maps... (2 Players are too strong against 1 AI).

2] Can you place at least 2 SPs and 1 Relic, near the AI enemy player, on the maps that do not already have them? In insane, the AI plays against the player(s), and with no Relic and some LPs, their performance is hindered...

 

I know it is too much, but hey, you are doing a VERY thorough job, so I think this will is not that tiresome for you, brother K...

Edited by Gambit, 06 October 2017 - 11:06 AM.

[Gambit]

More progress

Tyranids as enemies and their spores, had some inconsistencies.

Also, their 6th wave (and up) was giving a nasty CTD.

Fixed.

 

 

Guys, please do not play the current Survival maps in Unification. The amount of fixes in the new one I have created now, renders the previous Survival support... poor.

Evenmore, with the updates brother K will perform on the maps, and all additions and fixes, things will be MUCH more ordered, proper and functional.

 

SO BETTER FOCUS on our race mods, like Space Wolves or Chaos Renegades, until the next version is ready.

Edited by Gambit, 06 October 2017 - 11:52 PM.