In D1950#82162, @Nescio wrote:

Actually I disagree; damage is a mass noun, unlike resources.

True... Though we're talking about different kinds of damage. Perhaps "DamageTypes" ? Bit long perhaps. I guess we can keep Damage maybe.
I'm guessing "Damages" just isn't english.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Actually I disagree; damage is a mass noun, unlike resources.

In D1718#82159, @wraitii wrote:

I can have Alive1 Alive2 Alive3 Alive4 :) Indeed NotBeingGathered could use an Alive and Dead State

I don't see how having multiple Alive would make any difference than just having one with the combined effects?

I can have Alive1 Alive2 Alive3 Alive4 :) Indeed NotBeingGathered could use an Alive and Dead State

I don't see how having multiple Alive would make any difference than just having one with the combined effects?

In D1718#82157, @wraitii wrote:

In D1718#82140, @Stan wrote:

So you could have growth , regen, and another doing stuff when the resource alive
And decay, rotting, and burning doing something else when the resource is dead

You can also have the no gatherer decay or grow the resource all at the same time.

Mh, I would say no, unless I've misunderstood something. You can have a constraint for "Alive", a constraint for "Dead", and one for "NotBeingGathered". That can give you up to 4 different rates: Alive / Alive + NotBeing Gathered + Dead / Dead + NotBeing Gathered, but actually Alive / Dead + NotBeingGathered would be tied somewhat since you can't have a different value to NotBeingGathered for both, which seems impractical.

In D1718#82140, @Stan wrote:

So you could have growth , regen, and another doing stuff when the resource alive
And decay, rotting, and burning doing something else when the resource is dead

You can also have the no gatherer decay or grow the resource all at the same time.

In D1718#82139, @wraitii wrote:

In D1718#82138, @Stan wrote:

See the test, you can combine them all :)

I don't see a test with multiple constraint in the same element?

In D1718#82138, @Stan wrote:

See the test, you can combine them all :)

In D1718#82133, @wraitii wrote:

Questions:

• This seems to allow only one constrain at a time. I think we might want to allow "Alive - Not Being Gathered" and "Dead - Not Being Gathered" to be more different than that for example.

Questions:

• This seems to allow only one constrain at a time. I think we might want to allow "Alive - Not Being Gathered" and "Dead - Not Being Gathered" to be more different than that for example.
• Why do we allow decay when Alive? If we removed that, we could simplify the template considerably.
• Naming of "Value", "Interval" and "Limit" isn't obvious imo. Also whether these are seconds, HP, or milliseconds?

I still believe you should remove dependencies on "GetTypes" everywhere where you've introduced them. I don't think it's needed anywhere and things should work without needing to define them explicitly anywhere (in fact the global script should be removed I think then).

Given that in D1938 we're going to make most code damage-type agnostic, I don't think we really need a list anywhere, so I don't think the JSON files are necessary. They could still be useful to provide "default" values for additional metadata, but I don't think that's such a stringent requirement atm.

In D1950#81210, @Freagarach wrote:

A question: Should I make it "Damages" instead of "Damage"? Cf. "Resources"?

Don't make "Slaughter" a special case. Instead, make the template accept an <InstantKill/> parameter which gives this property to any attack.

Looks good to me, there's a little bit of cleanup to do perhaps but I think that can be handled before committing.
Thanks for the patch again :)

The cathedral and the bazaar
To be honest, i never figured out which was which. It's all cathedrals.

Why not both ? Isn't that what open source is for ? Giving the ability to everyone to adapt code ?

In D1628#82092, @nani wrote:

Nice, what it will become of this diff now?

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

@Stan, this is what I meant ;)
It defaults to "false".

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Rewritten and combined most functions.
Combining states has yet to be done.

Nice, what it will become of this diff now?

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Okay, kind of (very) hacky but I got formations working now. I'll go clean stuff up and return to do formations properly when the cleaning is done.

Thanks!
I'm currently trying to make formations also be able to use this, but it's kind of a hard task as some code magically points to other functions in an unexpected manner ;)

Thanks for another useful patch @Freagarach :).

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Made sure that only ranged units have the button (and respond to the order).

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Finished first version.

In rP22345#33910, @wraitii wrote:

@Freagarach rP22367 should have improved many/all of the above. Chasing can still exhibit the "unit stops" behaviour - that's a unitMotion issue, which I will fix later.

Yeah, I saw your hard work on it, thank you! That means my testing of other stuff should go easier as well :)
I am patient, dont rush ;)

(as mentioned some time in the lobby)

Needs too may licences & code too ugly to commit.

Closing as it does not archive the desirable results.

prototype.isControlAll()  = function()
{
let state = GetSimState().players[g_ViewedPlayer];
return state && state.controlsAll;
}

This way the variable and the setter hunk would be avoided, at the cost of having the g_ViewedPlayer reference here and GetSimState(), as opposed to having it in the other file.

Probably wrong approach.

Wrong approach.

Wrong approach.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Remove dead line from backup-ratings.sh

Add the backup scripts based on those deployed by Itms and user1

(Again, the patch looks very good to me)

Fixes "check".

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

@Freagarach rP22367 should have improved many/all of the above. Chasing can still exhibit the "unit stops" behaviour - that's a unitMotion issue, which I will fix later.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

First version, incomplete but bedtime ;)