New FFA Alliance code test:

[Nielk1]

I have a set of CFGs and DLL code that adds tons more combinations but it had to be done carefully to avoid issues with maps that *don't* have 8+ human teams at once. I doubt GBD accounted for similar issues.

[General BlackDragon]

Go try my code...

And yes, it works fine for any number of humans, allied in any way.

[MrTwosheds]

Surely a map with only 3 spawn points is a map with only 3 spawn points. I don't see how coding will alter fundamental issues of map design.

[Red Spot]

Surely a map with only 3 spawn points is a map with only 3 spawn points. I don't see how coding will alter fundamental issues of map design.

That is pretty much why N1 is speaking up. I understand that it sounds rather insulting towards GBD but N1 knows a bit better what can be done and already is in the dll than most of us.
In the case of spawnpoints for instance, iirc the current dll doesnt have some sort of test/flag in it to work with how many there actually are, telling this to the dll by vars could prevent issues later on (and as I already mentioned N1 knows this a bit better, so my example may be incorrect).

Both GBD and N1 could be a bit less mysterious though ...

[Zero Angel]

I do believe that's an interesting idea. It would allow for 8 players in existing 4-way maps and 6 (or 9) players in existing 3-way maps.

[General BlackDragon]

Ah, I see what N1 means now...

Well, that's handled already by the map maker's and the number of players allowed.

Current ST maps can't turn Teams OFF, so they don't have to worry.

and Current FFA maps have a max players of the max number of "supported" players, so it's fine too.

[Nielk1]

Does your code stop aplying aliances when it hits the limits of the possible teams on a map?

A map that only allows 3 players might use team 4 for AI or pre-placed objects. That is the largest concern. That is a simple version of it BTW, it is most likely to occur with far higher numbers, consider how we have some maps with a great many more teams.

The only real fix is to either get from the map, probably via a custom line in one of the map files, the logical player limit, and the other is to only ally teams with humans on them and check the alliances regularly instead of only at start up.

As a solution to the issue, perhapse it would be best to do the following:
Have Group 0 be FFA and have it in the list.
Have the default value be 0.
Have group 0 be skipped in any aliance figuring code.
Do something tricky with the end game to ensure that people on group 0 can still win (beat everyone else) but it only checks if they have a real player. I think you use a 'team is set up' philosphy so you should be OK with this.

Then map makers can use the EO page that only lists the number of possible teams in its little grid of Group buttons. I don't know how you did it but I would probably do it with a row of Radio buttons set as:

Player1 Name: [FFA](0) [1] [2] [3] up to the max player count -1 (since if each player was on a seperate group they could have just all selected FFA, it makes sence that the total number of groups avaiable would be one less than the max of players.

That would mean a differnt EO page for every max player count. This seems anoying but it creates a very clean and simple interface that would be hard to f*ck up in use.

[Zero Angel]

He does it with radio buttons

Player 1: [1*] [2] [3] ... [14]
Player 2: [1] [2*] [3] ... [14]
Player 3: [1] [2] [3*] ... [14]
etc...

I don't see how that's any different from having a unique FFA group.

However I think it would be possible to add another option to the end of each row. Such as [Commander*] [Wingman]. Simply spawn wingmen without a recycler and in their team's base. Being able to see the Commander's scrap bar would be nice too.

[General BlackDragon]

The code defaults the allies to not allied. (i.e. Does nothing different from normal FFA)

Host can set each team's "allied team", again defaulting to different for each. If any 2 "allied teams" match, those teams are allied.

Also, as for allying with "pre placed objects on map" well, Like turning "teams" off in MPI, Don't do that then. Also, if the host wants a certain team to be allies with said pre placed objects, So be it. That's the host's choice.


As for the commander/thug option...interesting, and possible, but it's a wee bit more work. If a majority of players want that, i'll look into doing it.

[Nielk1]

Also, as for allying with "pre placed objects on map" well, Like turning "teams" off in MPI, Don't do that then.

Good job failing to listen or understand. The problem is NOT maps with 4 teams, it is maps with 14 teams. Which you basically proved you didn't account for, hence exactly what I was worried about.

If the alliance code can handle a 14 team map, how does it handle the same code run on a 4 team map?

Please *THINK*. If the DLL can't handle the 14 team FFA map that is now STOCK in 1.3, it isn't good enough. If the DLL can't handle a normal 4 team map because of the 14 team code, then it REALLY isn't good enough. And for the record, BZ2 has 16 teams, if 0 is for neutral, 1 - 14 for players in the referenced case, that leaves ONE team for enemy objects, which is WRONG to assume for any map other than specific 14 team maps.

The whole point of my note of aa default 0 'no group' was to resolve issues around this very situation.

[MrTwosheds]

but it's a wee bit more work. If a majority of players want that, i'll look into doing it.

Its a certainty, at least half of the players would much rather never command at all, its what makes MPI and team strat the most popular choice of game type.

[General BlackDragon]

If the alliance code can handle a 14 team map, how does it handle the same code run on a 4 team map?

The exact same way.

This code isn't dependent on anything, its completely dynamic.

If you specify allies for all 14 palyers on a map with only 4 players, it'll still ally all the teams you set. But if nobody is on those teams, well...whoopdy doo, nothing happens.

[General BlackDragon]

Re uploaded code.

It now tries to respawn you at an allie's base if yours is gone.

[MrTwosheds]

Attempted to test again tonight, but again the Strat "Community" seemed utterly unwilling to help at all.

[General BlackDragon]

Heh, I would think the strat community would love this.