nihilesthetics2 wrote:I know when Im beaten. I graciously withdraw this feature request
Dude, by no means are we the committee that decides what will make it into future patches. I was just expressing an opinion as to whether or not I felt it was likely that it wouild be added, and whether or not it should be high up on the list of things we, as a modding community, think are essential to be added to the game. If nearly everything else on the list was added/fixed, and IV still wanted to add something to the game, then this'd be a great idea. I just see other things that would be better worth their limited and precious development time (since most of their time is probably spent on Defcon these days).
nihilesthetics2 wrote:trickfred wrote:nihilesthetics2 wrote:3. Fix caves.
Add it to a mod as a static shape, and throw an AISpawnpoint under it. Done in EW Part 2. (Were they supposed to originally do anything different, anyways?) Didn't see it as a priority, that's why I didn't list it.
I always thought of them more as radardishes but without the line of sight. But youre right - who knows?
...That would be an awesome way to use them. There's no real way to even trick the game into adding that functionality though... If there was some kind of scriptable ability to add and remove units from a map during gameplay (more reliably than an AISpawnPoint), with triggers, like a scripttrigger that doesn't delete itself after first use, that deletes a DG when it enters, and then places a DG at the second (cave) point...
nihilesthetics2 wrote:trickfred wrote:nihilesthetics2 wrote:Fix Safeareas ( can go on and offline )
That's been discussed in other threads, and there are good reasons for and against it. Something about a 'sticky' and 'latched' option, to choose whether or not they go offline again, and then having them all stay online permanently once all of them in a level are active, for game.txt purposes. The way items are removed from game.txt after they're executed thouugh, I don't see this as likely in any form.
I was thinking more along the lines of the difference between team 0 and team 1 with this one. I might be getting confused again, but as I remember it, team 0 safearea population uses >= logic, but team 1 uses = logic. A team 0 safearea with 0 population parm, and 1 or more units within the range will go online, but a similar setup with team 1 will only go online when the number of units within range actually reaches zero.
I actually like it that way - allows objectives to be created like 'defeat all spiders', and such. The last level of Stricken, and several levels of my mods (ALL of ArcadeRemix) wouldn't work if team 1 safeareas didn't use = logic... unless you could then use BuildingOffline as an objective requirement. I guess that would require SafeAreas to be changed, but that would break a lot of things now.... seems like a messy change.
Edit:
trickfred wrote:Edit: We should talk to Nihil about web-enabling his script, so you can dump your .ase file onto his site and have it spit out a .shp file. That is, if his web server supports perl.
Thats a nice little project to keep me occupied for a while. I was meaning to update it to generate markers anyway. Good idea.
N2[/quote]
Thanks. I was actually going to ask you if I could do it, my new webhost supports perl, but since it's your script and all...
), because the building stays online when the population is greater for both teams. But for team 0, a safearea of population 0 will go online even if the level starts with a team 0 unit in range. If it was fixed you could create an objective like ' dont loose all your darwians'.
I love the safe area ideas, however I also know how long it will take someone to figure it all out.
