• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Hells Gate   03/24/2019

      Break through the lines, and enter Hells Gate!!! This will be the next CRS organized event.  Lead by the High command from each side.
      Free Premium Access for the event
      Date: 3/30/19 Time: 11:00 AM Server time/ 12:00pm EST/ 1600 GMT
abe250

Tents at FB

30 posts in this topic

10 minutes ago, B2K said:

It's game code - anything is possible.  The real question is, given the limited resources we have, is the ROI worth the opportunity costs?

That's a really wiiiide blanket statement. SOME things... and even some pretty amazing things are possible. But I do not believe that one can just go. I want this to be possible, and have CRS go. Oh OK... We can do anything..... NO game can do anything and everything. EVERY game has forums where people are asking for things the game was never designed to do.

There comes a point where the effort and investment in trying to fulfill customer expectations overreaches the abilities and resources of the developers of any game. I honestly think that the nested spawn PPOs being suggested would likely involve as much work, if not more, than the development required for CRS to begin and complete WWII Online 2. (assuming that it would even be possible then)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quincannon said:

I honestly think that the nested spawn PPOs being suggested would likely involve as much work, if not more, than the development required for CRS to begin and complete WWII Online 2.

Not really.
Already have host rule check if exist $mission obj_fms and if placer = ML, delete obj_fms, else placement = false
(pseudo code obviously)
So you give it another object to check for in parallel
if exist $mission obj_FB_INF for example

Not so much nested as parallel side by side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Not really.
Already have host rule check if exist $mission obj_fms and if placer = ML, delete obj_fms, else placement = false
(pseudo code obviously)
So you give it another object to check for in parallel
if exist $mission obj_FB_INF for example

Not so much nested as parallel side by side.

Look. You're a decent guy and probably know your coding stuff. I'm not a coder.

BUT.. and no offense...

I will believe that it can be done and will be done when CRS.... and ONLY CRS... says so. That goes for any suggestion that anyone ever makes, including me.
I wouldn't care if Bill Gates and  a still living Steve Jobs both showed up at my door with teams of developers and told me that it's possible. It's not their game. It's not my game or yours... It's CRSs baby... And they are the only ones whose word I will take as gospel regarding what can and can not be done on THIS game.

But no matter what... none of this stuff is a weekend fix.  CRS and others have made it clear that even with the new program... they are still learning, and sometimes still undoing what was done years ago. Easy isn't easy until they have done it. So even if what you say is possible, you cannot KNOW that it won't take a ridiculous amount of time and effort to do what you are suggesting.

!S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2018 at 10:02 AM, Quincannon said:

That's a really wiiiide blanket statement. SOME things... and even some pretty amazing things are possible. But I do not believe that one can just go. I want this to be possible, and have CRS go. Oh OK... We can do anything..... NO game can do anything and everything. EVERY game has forums where people are asking for things the game was never designed to do.

There comes a point where the effort and investment in trying to fulfill customer expectations overreaches the abilities and resources of the developers of any game. I honestly think that the nested spawn PPOs being suggested would likely involve as much work, if not more, than the development required for CRS to begin and complete WWII Online 2. (assuming that it would even be possible then)

Not really a wide statement.  Code is code.   The opportunity costs are the mitigating factors to a decision.   If we go with 'feature A' what do we give up by not going 'feature b'?  What do we gain?

That decision point is why we generally ask for more details on a topic/idea.  The more details given in an idea the easier the decision is to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Quincannon said:

Look. You're a decent guy and probably know your coding stuff. I'm not a coder.

No I am not a coder either, i wish.
Oh i understand it to a point, i may even do some stuff that some might consider coding of a sort
though i would consider it simply scripting or dabbling (or fumbling) and not even worthy to stand in the shadow of
people like the ones who are actually coding and rewriting the game into 64bit and so forth.

Nothing, when you are adding something new or making a complete change, is a weekend thing
On that you are right, even if you could spit out the required lines of text, you have to test it against all possible failures that you can think of
and evaluate it against it's intended effect on gameplay, gather data and feedback, see if anything needs adjusted or what not.

For years, the old team told us lots of things cant be done.
We dont like that answer.

it's one thing to work with the abilities of the game engine or to decide that while a think CAN be done it should not be done
because it does not add to players fun or enjoyment or give challenging gameplay, or to set something as a long term goal because it has a large dependency list on other things that need to come into line also.



RonRon "Merlin51" Eigenberger
Terrain
merlin51@corneredrats.com

Edited by merlin51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.