Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Siberian HEAT

His latest patch is going to most likely be referenced as 2.0, and it fixes the flaw introduced in 1.06 and adds in some other minor tweaks. We haven't really been given the green light to say what those tweaks are, but it is safe to say they won't be major revisions to the code.

Will there be support for modified executables?

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


Will there be support for modified executables?

Not positive, although there is some discussion on integrating some of the current databases (XIX, Modern.exe, etc.) into the "official" release.

ORIGINAL: Siberian HEAT

Not positive, although there is some discussion on integrating some of the current databases (XIX, Modern.exe, etc.) into the "official" release.

The majority of scenarios made for modified executables use a unique .exe rather than one of the few standard ones, and furthermore they use modified graphics, tags, etc. as well as just changed databases.

There's no practical way of having the new version support existing .exes, but the scenario editor should support the same functionality currently available with the BioEd, such that any changes to the database and to the paths for graphics etc. are incorporated into the .SCE file. Of course, if you wanted to have any modified .exe scenarios included in the initial release, you would have to provide the designers with these tools ahead of time.

Ideally, the editor would be able to import the .XML files exported by the BioEd. That would save designers a lot of time.

LOL BioEd is ideal way to alienate current players and totally confuse newcoming players and potential customers.

If I'd be in charge of this project - which, luckily, I am not - I'd nip all BioEd related ideas in the bud, with evil grin on my face. (But that's just me )

O.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

LOL BioEd is ideal way to alienate current players and totally confuse newcoming players and potential customers.

How is a new feature integrated into the system going to confuse new players?

Your total and unwavering opposition to any attempts to further develop TOAW are well documented. How about you now shut up and let us get on with making a better game? The fact that the BioEd was first of all created (after an Olympian effort by its creator) and then used by now a good chunk of the TOAW scenario design community is indicative that this is a natural progression for TOAW.

An equipment editor has been the most requested new design tool since the days of Volume I. Yves is not even the first person to try to implement one- there was an equipment editor for Volume I version 1.06 as well, IIRC. That you still think that it's stupid and difficult to use is merely an indication of your stubbornness.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
...
If I'd be in charge of this project - which, luckily, I am not - I'd nip all BioEd related ideas in the bud, with evil grin on my face. (But that's just me )

O.

Yeah, luckily for us too!

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
An equipment editor has been the most requested new design tool since the days of Volume I. Yves is not even the first person to try to implement one- there was an equipment editor for Volume I version 1.06 as well, IIRC. That you still think that it's stupid and difficult to use is merely an indication of your stubbornness.

Death to BioEd!

Who or what is Yves? [&:] I never said "it's stupid and difficult to use" (where did you get this?). I just think it's unnecessary and goes (somewhat) against Norm Koger's design decision(s) that are behind the original game. You can add whatever you want, but it does not necesarilly equal "further development".

Besides it's more fun to flame you TDG guys than average MS-hating Linux teenagers [;)] You're more predictable. This board is becoming boring, we from the Stubborn Naysayers Club (SNC) need a good solid campaign against something. BioEd fits the role fine.

Death to BioEd!

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

LOL BioEd is ideal way to alienate current players and totally confuse newcoming players and potential customers.

How is a new feature integrated into the system going to confuse new players?

Your total and unwavering opposition to any attempts to further develop TOAW are well documented. How about you now shut up and let us get on with making a better game? The fact that the BioEd was first of all created (after an Olympian effort by its creator) and then used by now a good chunk of the TOAW scenario design community is indicative that this is a natural progression for TOAW.

An equipment editor has been the most requested new design tool since the days of Volume I. Yves is not even the first person to try to implement one- there was an equipment editor for Volume I version 1.06 as well, IIRC. That you still think that it's stupid and difficult to use is merely an indication of your stubbornness.

..wot he said..

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Who or what is Yves?

Designer of the BioEd.

I just think it's unnecessary

OK. How else do I seperate the replacement pools for different nationalities in multinational scenarios without compromising on equipment performance? How else do I make panzer regiments extra-slippery without compromising by adding 'soft' equipment which will distory the fighting capability of the unit? How else do I create the FW-190F/G attack versions, of which several thousand were built?

How else would Rhino Bones have created War of the Ring, or Jarek White Eagle, Red Star? How else would Sstevens have been able to properly simulate the impact of SAMs in his Middle East Scenarios and of nuclear weapons in his Berlin Crisis scenario? How else would Chuck etc. have been able to simulate pre-1914 warfare without excessive density penalties?

The BioEd vastly increases the range of situations which can be simulated by TOAW. Even better, if you don't like it, don't bloody use it! No-one's forcing you to. This would be like if people who didn't want to vote demanded that democracy be abolished. Why? Other people quite like it, thanks.

and goes (somewhat) against Norm Koger's design decision(s)

Where's he said so? Notably, a number of equipment items which weren't in Volume I are now in TOAW:COW. Evidently, Norm didn't see anything sacred in his original database construction.

Besides it's more fun to flame you TDG guys than average MS-hating Linux teenagers [;)] You're more predictable. This board is becoming boring, we from the Stubborn Naysayers Club (SNC) need a good solid campaign against something. BioEd fits the role fine.

The difference is your arguments here might have an impact. Plenty of other subjects to discuss where our opinions are irrelevant. How intelligent design? I want to discuss intelligent design.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Who or what is Yves?

Designer of the BioEd.

Besides it's more fun to flame you TDG guys than average MS-hating Linux teenagers [;)] You're more predictable. This board is becoming boring, we from the Stubborn Naysayers Club (SNC) need a good solid campaign against something. BioEd fits the role fine.

The difference is your arguments here might have an impact. Plenty of other subjects to discuss where our opinions are irrelevant. How intelligent design? I want to discuss intelligent design.

Anything's possible. Seriously, what are the arguments against BioEd? I'm not sure that I buy the 'it bothers newbies' argument, If they care about the details of the equipment table while learning, there is something else going on that isn't good. I'm not sure why it would bother the older players either?

I can understand from a marketing perspective why you might not want to include it out of the box, it's something else to support, and I'll bet that someone will try to add in some equipment that the engine wasn't designed to support and will scream that it's broken. Aside from that argument, though, what other problems does it cause?

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I can understand from a marketing perspective why you might not want to include it out of the box, it's something else to support, and I'll bet that someone will try to add in some equipment that the engine wasn't designed to support and will scream that it's broken.

One can already break the game pretty good with the existing tools. I believe there's a disclaimer somewhere.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
I can understand from a marketing perspective why you might not want to include it out of the box, it's something else to support, and I'll bet that someone will try to add in some equipment that the engine wasn't designed to support and will scream that it's broken.

One can already break the game pretty good with the existing tools. I believe there's a disclaimer somewhere.

Have you ever seen those actually work?

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Who or what is Yves?

Designer of the BioEd.

Besides it's more fun to flame you TDG guys than average MS-hating Linux teenagers [;)] You're more predictable. This board is becoming boring, we from the Stubborn Naysayers Club (SNC) need a good solid campaign against something. BioEd fits the role fine.

The difference is your arguments here might have an impact. Plenty of other subjects to discuss where our opinions are irrelevant. How intelligent design? I want to discuss intelligent design.

Anything's possible. Seriously, what are the arguments against BioEd? I'm not sure that I buy the 'it bothers newbies' argument, If they care about the details of the equipment table while learning, there is something else going on that isn't good. I'm not sure why it would bother the older players either?

I can understand from a marketing perspective why you might not want to include it out of the box, it's something else to support, and I'll bet that someone will try to add in some equipment that the engine wasn't designed to support and will scream that it's broken. Aside from that argument, though, what other problems does it cause?

..i didn't break it, and really i tried, all the way to flying aircraft carriers..the BioEd is a designer's dream bolt-on even if it can't do elephants..

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


Anything's possible. Seriously, what are the arguments against BioEd? I'm not sure that I buy the 'it bothers newbies' argument, If they care about the details of the equipment table while learning, there is something else going on that isn't good. I'm not sure why it would bother the older players either?

I can understand from a marketing perspective why you might not want to include it out of the box, it's something else to support, and I'll bet that someone will try to add in some equipment that the engine wasn't designed to support and will scream that it's broken. Aside from that argument, though, what other problems does it cause?

My only real concern about BioEd, is that the program needs to be bulletproof, in ensuring that a game started with one particular executable (database) is not playable on any other executable. Thus, if I start a game with an unmodified executable, I don't send my turn off to somebody who has an executable that has a database that skews the results of the combat, by augmenting, or imposing a deficit, on the values of side specific equipment.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


Anything's possible. Seriously, what are the arguments against BioEd? I'm not sure that I buy the 'it bothers newbies' argument, If they care about the details of the equipment table while learning, there is something else going on that isn't good. I'm not sure why it would bother the older players either?

I can understand from a marketing perspective why you might not want to include it out of the box, it's something else to support, and I'll bet that someone will try to add in some equipment that the engine wasn't designed to support and will scream that it's broken. Aside from that argument, though, what other problems does it cause?

My only real concern about BioEd, is that the program needs to be bulletproof, in ensuring that a game started with one particular executable (database) is not playable on any other executable. Thus, if I start a game with an unmodified executable, I don't send my turn off to somebody who has an executable that has a database that skews the results of the combat, by augmenting, or imposing a deficit, on the values of side specific equipment.

..that depends if it's a modified database, one with extra unit types, or a completely new one

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

My only real concern about BioEd, is that the program needs to be bulletproof, in ensuring that a game started with one particular executable (database) is not playable on any other executable.

Well,
a) there are about fifty other ways of cheating
b) if an equipment editor were built into a new version of TOAW, then I would expect changes to be part of the .sce file. So there would be no problem unless someone were to hack that file, in which case they could cheat in some other way just as well.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

My only real concern about BioEd, is that the program needs to be bulletproof, in ensuring that a game started with one particular executable (database) is not playable on any other executable.

Well,
a) there are about fifty other ways of cheating
b) if an equipment editor were built into a new version of TOAW, then I would expect changes to be part of the .sce file. So there would be no problem unless someone were to hack that file, in which case they could cheat in some other way just as well.

There are also things like checksums that will ensure that the executable and data files match exactly. While they can be hacked, it's pretty darn difficult. They're simple to put into place, and should work for 99% of the time when someone might 'accidentally' use the wrong exe. I'm not sure what the minimum requirements are going to be for the new version, but there's an excellent chance that we can do something like that.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


Anything's possible. Seriously, what are the arguments against BioEd? I'm not sure that I buy the 'it bothers newbies' argument, If they care about the details of the equipment table while learning, there is something else going on that isn't good. I'm not sure why it would bother the older players either?

I can understand from a marketing perspective why you might not want to include it out of the box, it's something else to support, and I'll bet that someone will try to add in some equipment that the engine wasn't designed to support and will scream that it's broken. Aside from that argument, though, what other problems does it cause?

My only real concern about BioEd, is that the program needs to be bulletproof, in ensuring that a game started with one particular executable (database) is not playable on any other executable. Thus, if I start a game with an unmodified executable, I don't send my turn off to somebody who has an executable that has a database that skews the results of the combat, by augmenting, or imposing a deficit, on the values of side specific equipment.

The simple way around this problem and all cheating is not to play against assholes. It's as simple as that.

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
The simple way around this problem and all cheating is not to play against assholes. It's as simple as that.

Do you have an asshole detector to sell?

Then how do you know who's an asshole?

All multiplayer/PBEM software should be made bullet proof and there's no way around it...

O.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
The simple way around this problem and all cheating is not to play against assholes. It's as simple as that.

Do you have an asshole detector to sell?

I use my brain, and while it's not for sale, presumably you have one also. You can just tell. I've played on several ladders before- Rugged Defense, The Blitz, etc. and I can pretty quickly pick out somebody who's cheating. Somebody with nothing better to do than cheat in a wargame is such a big asshole that they can't help but manifest it in other ways. There were so many of these people on ladders that I stopped using them. I just play with friends, and it's a much more enjoyable experience.

All multiplayer/PBEM software should be made bullet proof and there's no way around it...

I don't care about PBEM security insofar as it does not adversely affect other aspects of the game. But in this case, people are suggesting building in functionality to suit active ladder players, who are a small minority of all wargamers, and simultaneously locking out functionality that results in better scenarios, which can be enjoyed by everyone who plays the game.

There is a reason why most games, TOAW included, have tons of holes in their PBEM security- most wargamers don't care about secure PBEM! People who buy these games are interested in a fun historical simulation. Those who want secure PBEM are a niche within a niche.