RevolutionDCM for BTS

[phungus420]

Mamba, all I want is a stable core where events and interdependencies work. Removing those sections of code from being corrupted by WoC will fix that bug. Interdependcies will work. This is what I want, nay need. I hate having a major bug like that in the core of my mod. What is so . .. .. .. .ing hard for you to understand about that?

Quit telling me I need WoC, I don't need it, WoC can go . .. .. .. . itself. If WoC is there and it doesn't hurt me, fine. But right now it hurts my mod, so I want it, or at least the parts that are buggy fixed or removed.

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[phungus420]

Also Mamba show me a mod that uses the interdependicies of WoC in a useful way, especially in a way that couldn't be done without WoC.

Oh that's right you can't, because it's broken.

 

[phungus420]

...Yes, removing it would make the bug disappear...

That's the GOD DAMNED POINT!

 

[mamba]

Also Mamba show me a mod that uses the interdependicies of WoC in a useful way, especially in a way that couldn't be done without WoC.

Oh that's right you can't, because it's broken.

Now this truly is pathetic, if your car needs some gas you refill it and do not say it is broken. The only thing this is broken is the event interdependencies, none of the (by far larger) rest.

As to showing you a mod which uses them, mine does, which is similar in scope to yours (going by Wolfshanzes mod, which yours is a derivative of, never actually tried RoL).

Yes, anything could be done without WoC, just not modular, with less flexibility and more effort (when combining things from different mods).

So, remove WoC from your dll and stop proclaiming it is all broken when only a small part is.

 

[mamba]

That's the GOD DAMNED POINT!

it would not fix the bug, that is my point

Removing a feature is not fixing a feature.

Remove it from your dll, you clearly roll your own dll to begin with. Stop pestering this thread with your wishes which are not the wishes of the RevDCM authors, as they already pointed out.

In fact you already got glider to the point where he is willing to provide a WoC free dll for you every once in a while. Now let him fix it instead of still demanding it to be removed for all of us.

 

[phungus420]

it would not fix the bug, that is my point

Removing a feature is not fixing a feature.

Basic comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Let me explain this in a simple way.

There is a bug in RevDCM that causes interdependencies to fail. This ruins a bunch of events and causes secondary issues.

The cause of this bug is known to reside in the WoC code. Removing that section of WoC will cause the game to work properly.

When a bug ceases to exist, this is known as fixing a bug.

Hence removing interdependencies from being corrupted by WoC fixes the bug.

Now quit pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

Remove it from your dll, you clearly roll your own dll to begin with. Stop pestering this thread with your wishes which are not the wishes of the RevDCM authors, as they already pointed out.

Quit pestering me Mamba. The only reason I keep posting is to correct your assinine and wrong position that using broken code is a superior to using working code.

In fact you already got glider to the point where he is willing to provide a WoC free dll for you every once in a while. Now let him fix it instead of still demanding it to be removed for all of us.

The rest of WoC seems to work fine now with no problems. There really is no reason to remove WoC and have glider work on two seperate gamecores. However if the only way to remove interdepencies from the corrupting influence of WoC is to remove WoC, then yes, that is a viable option. And one I will happily accept.

However it makes more sense to have a working dll with what we have going on now minus WoC Interdependcies. And offer a broken version for those like you who want to have interdependencies not work I suppose.

Anyway I've said my piece, and I'm pretty clear and I think everyone gets it, except you. So if you really want me to stop repeating my clear and obvious desire:

To have a stable core, with no major bugs.

Then stop poking me.

 

[johny smith]

I commented out the section related modular events in cvinfos. I compiled a dll. Source code changes included. Makefiles should still work.

Edit: I forgot something will send another up.

 

[phungus420]

Wow, thanks Johny. Will let you know if it works or not. No time to test it now, probably wol't get to it for a couple of days. I do really apreciate that though.

 

[johny smith]

It is really late here. Sorry I am tired, and not have looked at the SDK in a little while. I had commented out something that I should of left alone. Anyway I just gave it a quick shot at commenting it out again. If still problems will have to look deeper is all I know right now. Sorry again for the mix up.

Edit: That means use the BtS schema for events. All the changes have been commented out.

 

[mamba]

Basic comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Let me explain this in a simple way.

well, the same could be said about you

There is a bug in RevDCM that causes interdependencies to fail. This ruins a bunch of events and causes secondary issues.

The cause of this bug is known to reside in the WoC code. Removing that section of WoC will cause the game to work properly.

by removing functionality, removing functionality is not fixing it. And don't tell me this is what called fixing a bug is, because by fixing a bug, you keep the functionality in place.

When a bug ceases to exist, this is known as fixing a bug.

No, fixing a bug is when the functionality remains unchanged, except for the bug that is removed

Quit pestering me Mamba. The only reason I keep posting is to correct your assinine and wrong position that using broken code is a superior to using working code.

LOL, I keep posting because you are putting all blame on WoC even for stuff which is not related to it.

The rest of WoC seems to work fine now with no problems. There really is no reason to remove WoC and have glider work on two seperate gamecores. However if the only way to remove interdepencies from the corrupting influence of WoC is to remove WoC, then yes, that is a viable option. And one I will happily accept.

Well, I don't, and as far as I can tell neither does glider

Anyway I've said my piece, and I'm pretty clear and I think everyone gets it, except you.

I have no idea how you come to this conclusion. I see little agreement with your position here. Granted, I see little with mine either, we both discuss this without much outside involvement, I just have no idea how you can take this as support of your position.

To have a stable core, with no major bugs.

amen to that, and let me further add, with full functionality

 

[phungus420]

well, the same could be said about you

No, I've been pretty clear and concise. You just refuse to accept the basic definition of a software bug, and keep trying to get me to admit, or at least let pass the notion that broken code is better then working code.

You're flatly wrong. Broken code is buggy. Working code is not. I don't want bugs, hence my request for working code.

Why the hell do you have a problem understanding that? And what possible purpose do you think convincing me I'd be better off with broken code would serve you that you need to spend so much time persuading me of such?

Also in case you haven't noticed Johny Smith has already provided a template that comments out WoC interdependencies. It's an initial release, so it may or may not work, but it's a start, and based on previous experiences with RevDCM development I'm pretty sure glider will have out a RevDCM version with working interdependencies soon based on this release. Which will be nice, it'll be great having a fully functional core now, without the need to post a major bug in my Mod's synopsis.

So why again do you feel the need to convince me I should use buggy code? What purpose is this serving you Mamba?

 

[mamba]

No, I've been pretty clear and concise. You just refuse to accept the basic definition of a software bug, and keep trying to get me to admit, or at least let pass the notion that broken code is better then working code.

I do not accept your definition of a bugfix, because it is wrong, plain and simple. It is the removal of a broken feature. A bugfix were a fix to a broken feature instead of its removal.

If a doctor were to shoot the patient instead of cure him, he would not be sick any more either, somehow few people consider this appropriate treatment though.

Why the hell do you have a problem understanding that? And what possible purpose do you think convincing me I'd be better off with broken code would serve you that you need to spend so much time persuading me of such?

Because there is a difference.

I never tried to convince you to use broken code either (and I really have no idea how you can construe this notion from what was being said). I said the code should be fixed, not removed.

Also in case you haven't noticed Johny Smith has already provided a template that comments out WoC interdependencies. It's an initial release, so it may or may not work, but it's a start, and based on previous experiences with RevDCM development I'm pretty sure glider will have out a RevDCM version with working interdependencies soon based on this release. Which will be nice, it'll be great having a fully functional core now, without the need to post a major bug in my Mod's synopsis.

I noticed, that does not mean I cannot reply to our discussion however.

So why again do you feel the need to convince me I should use buggy code? What purpose is this serving you Mamba?

I do not care for what code you use, I never tried to convince you to use buggy code either. You have some flawed logic here.

I want WoC fixed and included in RevDCM whereas you want WoC out rather than waiting for a fix. I just want to make clear that while you are very vocal about getting WoC removed rather than wait for a fix, your opinion on how to address this is not the only one.

As to this being a major bug, it is a minor one imo. It only affects a few events, this certainly does not break games (as a major bug would).

 

[phungus420]

Events work in BtS. They do not in RevDCM. Plain simple truth. No ammount of obfuscation will change that fact mamba.

And your doctor analogy is stupid. The patient (RevDCM) was fine until it made a major change, and got hurt as a result. Any physician's first advice will be to stop doing whatever caused the injury. Then maybe ease back into it if apropiate, or depending on the type of activity and the injury abandon it all together. You don't break your ankle and get pissed off and tell the doctor they aren't fixing it when they tell you to stay off your ankle.

I hate stupid analogies like yours.

Common sense man, Events work without WoC, they are broken with them. Remove Interdependencies from WoC and that removes, ie fixes the bug (broken events and interdependencies). That's it. Keep obfuscating and making stupid argument, it doesn't change the simple fact you are telling me to accept broken stuff, when working code is available. And you can sod off with your similarly broken oppinion.

I want working code, not now, not right this instant. All I want right this instant is for you to stop being an ass and demand I accept broken code, and accept fixing it somehow doesn't fix a bug. If my beutifull RevDCM core works like it always used to, without the need of me placing a comment in my mod intro saying "Major Bug -Events are sort of borked", I'll be happy. As then this bug will be fixed.

I want a stable core, and WoC and all it's features are irrelevant.

You want WoC, and stability and bugs are irrelevant.

That's the difference as far as I can see. And in the overall scheme of things in a match up between bug free and working, vs more possibly neat features that are broken, the majority of gamers will pick the working game. Some people don't care, and accept random crashes and broken stuff, but for me it's just irking. Especially in this instance where the bug can be fixed by just dropping a non working part of the code. It doesn't even work anyway, that's what's so flabbergasting about your stance.

 

[mamba]

Events work in BtS. They do not in RevDCM. Plain simple truth. No ammount of obfuscation will change that fact mamba.

I never disagreed with this, as you should know

Keep obfuscating and making stupid argument, it doesn't change the simple fact you are telling me to accept broken stuff, when working code is available. And you can sod off with your similarly broken oppinion.

I never said you should be accepting anything, apparently you do not get what I say even when I spell it out in the simplest of terms.

I want working code, not now, not right this instant.

then wait for the bugfix, instead of asking for the removal of a feature

All I want right this instant is for you to stop being an ass and demand I accept broken code, and accept fixing it somehow doesn't fix a bug.

show me where I demanded this, removal != fix, no point in arguing this one any more, this seems to be lost on you.

I want a stable core, and WoC and all it's features are irrelevant.

to you, not to me

You want WoC, and stability and bugs are irrelevant.

no, I want both

Which is why removing something instead of fixing it does not solve the issue, you still have to come back for a fix anyway.

It doesn't even work anyway, that's what's so flabbergasting about your stance.

which is why it should be fixed (read : fixed, not removed)....

 

[phungus420]

The bug is fixed if it is removed. It's that simple.

Further sometimes you can't have both. As right now, You either have broken events or you don't.

Your mind can't grasp mutually exclusive concepts I suppose.

 

[OrionVeteran]

Gee! What a friendly disagreement.

Permit me to risk a sort of mediation here.

Once the author of a mod is made aware of a reported bug, I say let the author of the mod worry about the bug. Generally, if a bug can be fixed, then the author should post an update so that the capability or feature can remain in the mod. Meanwhile, if there is a way to temporarily disable the feature, just until the release of the future update, that might make sense and should be considered to avoid the issue in the interim. Assuming this bug does in fact exist, the users have lost the capability intended, no matter if the author leaves the capability in the mod or removes it.

So, the author is faced with a couple of questions: How much trouble is it to temporarily disable the feature? Should the feature be disabled or is it easier just to turn out the fix in the next release? The goal is to return the mod to the users, bug free, as soon as possible. Point is: The author must decide what to do after a bug is reported.

For those, who can't wait for the author's decision, they can attempt to either fix the bug or disable the feature themselves, if they have the knowledge and capability to do so. If a user finds a way to fix the bug, it is polite to share the fix for the benefit of all.

Lastly, I'd like to say, fixing bugs takes time and user's must understand how difficult it is sometimes to troubleshoot a problem and write a fix. I've had problems in my mod that took weeks to fix. But I eventually get them resolved and post an update. Point here is: Let's give the author time to work the issue and make the decision, as I mentioned above. Hope this helps in a diplomatic way.

Respectfully,

Orion Veteran

 

[frekk]

Well, now that johnny's been kind enough to provide source code with the event dependancy code commented, this is now a nonissue because you can simply remove dependancies from events.

I'll bet this won't fix Phungus' problem with continuous slave revolts, though. Since the revolt choices all work fine, the event itself isn't broken. It's what the AI chooses that's the problem, and that has to do with the AI code, not the dependant events code. Probably something to do with Better AI, I think. Could even be a change in 3.19.

 

[mamba]

The bug is fixed if it is removed. It's that simple.

Further sometimes you can't have both. As right now, You either have broken events or you don't.

Your mind can't grasp mutually exclusive concepts I suppose.

And what exactly makes this mutually exclusive ? Of course either you have a bug or you don't, but having a feature or a bug is not mutually exclusive, that is what bugfixes are for.

 

[tgvulcan]

Nice work here phungus. I agree screw WoC and fix however you have to fix it.

How do we make maps for this mod? Is it py maps only or can pre made maps be used? If I can do a pre made map how do i go about doing it?

 

[johny smith]

What is this a pogo match? One person bounces one complaint in a ridiculous rant and then the next bounces one back. Guys please just shut up with the pointless stick this where the sun don't shine liners. This is just annoying. Complain, complain, and complain. Then a page later in thread we might have some information. It is same cycle over and over. If commenting out fixes the events great if not then we know it is a bug that will need to be fixed.

If you do not want the WoC in you know you have the SDK in front of you? There are comments in the SDK to show where it is at. glider said he may make one dll minus WoC from time to time. If such a hurry why not try it yourself. I just don't get it. Any minor bug turns into a catastrophe and the WoC must be ripped out. Then it goes not the entire WoC. Then goes dump the whole damn thing. The one thing this shows you guys don't even know what you are doing with it in the first place. Which of course you will come here and complain about since you never want stuff you do not use.

There are others who do use it. Please respect that and just don't start the same rants unless you actually have a point. And now I am ranting about ranting. I will be quiet now this is not even my thread. If you actually need something from me let me know.