Theory and Experiment #1

I agree with most if not all of the PM that led me here....the TT_-_Dow_conversions.rtf file should be available to all mod members but not to the public, while this mod has the policy of free to use content, i do not consider that said file is of such nature but more as a kind of FoK moding constitution xD which is exclusive to the our mod, most of the original content in the file was put by MK (afaik) and I added a bunch of extra stuff.

The updated and last version of this file (not sure if is the same you have West) is located in the SVN "luas" folder, right now i think that only horus, patman, homer, MK and I have access to it but perhaps we can ask dibujante to allow all other mod members to DL that SVN folder but restricting testers not so involved in the mod creation process.

Homer new CC aproach apparently works very well, i have yet to test it as well as regen rates and "Feel no Pain"... btw im still in favor of leaving the current Dmg and HP ratio and these fixes may make it work better than before.

I think all this talk of fixes has vaulted way past the basics far too quickly. Rather than begin our discussion with the fixes why not begin it by describing the problem and then going back to the essential TT rules. Once we define the problem in this way then we can agree on what the problem actually is...as of right now I am not convinced we are on target. At the very least we should avoid...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f-kfRREA8M

...putting things on top of other things and calling it a day. I have already expressed the idea that focusing on regeneration is focusing on a secondary issue, its a way of putting something on top of hit points. Just like those clever python boys I am not sure putting regeneration on top of hit points explains or does much in the way of expressing true TT dynamics. Putting things on top of other things surely will bring some results but what does it define as the problem? As far as I can tell its a way of smudging HP so that it smooths out damage: its like having a primary HP value, a hard number, and then generating a multiplier which expresses its sustainability. What is not sustainable about the primary value, why is this secondary or 'handicap' value even necessary? Is it the way damage works that necessitates regeneration? If HP as a base value and damage as a base value are just straight TT derived values then how is regeneration useful to this basic TT centered scheme? This is what I struggle to understand from within the 'TT-centric' system itself. I can explain its use from the outside by saying its a way of sustaining lengthy combat actions but what purpose does it have internally as in within the basic system itself. Regeneration appears to be the ugly step child whose paternity test has always been clouded in suspicion. I would love to have someone answer to these core questions from...

a) ...a purely TT centered position...
---------------------------------------- > c) ...where 'a' and 'b' eventually reach a clear definition of the problem.
b) ...the current FoK position...

If we can get to 'c' we will have resisted the urge to put things on top of other things and get down to the elementary particles that comprise this issue. Define the problem and we are off to the races!

just a fyi:

Ira and I thought it might be a good idea to open up a section on the current FoK forums titled "the Think-tank". it would be a subforum available to everyone with the purpose of getting serious and sophisticated gameplay discussion going. why public? maybe we could find some talent that way. if that doesn't work out we can still move that section to the internal section. Ira and/or me will craft a charta about what discussions should look like there and the section would have to be strictly moderated. and we'd need you people to simply ignore stupid or not so clever comments .... COMPLETELY.

cause the idea of a hidden forum.... well I don't mind the idea of a closed group. But the existance of this group should be made public.

Hi guys. Patman and I discussed using FoK in Exile but ultimately we both agreed we didn't like the 'under the table' feel of it. I know that is not the real intention of this but that is how it will be perceived by the rest of the group. And right now the last thing we need to do is promote more factions within our ranks. Therefore we came up with an alternate proposal that I want to hear your thoughts on. Our alternate idea (well Patman gets the credit really) is to create public subforum title 'Think Tank' where members can discuss how to take TT and turn it into FoK. The reason for it being public is two fold a) there are some smart non internals out there and adding them to the conversation would be very beneficial b) any non internals that stand out quality wise can be tapped for internal status. To make this idea work we will need the forum to be tightly moderated and we will need a very very precise guideline for discussion. We need a guideline that is so precise it will be obvious when someone has not posted something to the standard.

Currently I have:
A subforum for serious discussions on how to best translate general TT rules into a real-time strategy environment. All are welcome but those not engaging in serious discussion will have their posts removed.

I'm sure we can condense or define our intents better.

Rules so far:
1) No off topicness.
2) Posts need to be clear and well structured. No rambling all over the place. If you can break your post down into I.II.II, A.B.C. that would be great. Just a suggestion.
3) If someone asks you to clarify your meaning do it.

Well this "General Internal Discussion" is accessible to the public as I can even view this thread without logging in. I have been holding back my involvement in the discussion of this thread because of this. The script of the post is basically ready. I do not know if the content of my discussion is allowed to be disclosed to the public. How to find this out and what is the corresponding solution would you suggest?

In addition, would the posts in this thread be transferred to the appropriate forum for the purpose of continuity?

I think discussion of how to interpret general rules from TT to FoK should be public. I don't see any point of hiding it away. It would actually be interesting for the public to peer into the discussion and if they have words of wisdom, let them speak.

Ok, I'm just a little bit confused as Melooo said otherwise in a few posts back above. Well, I think it will not be much of a problem as well. But Melooo and MK are the people who did the conversion and its documentation. I think we should ask them for their opinion.

What I'm referring is different than making the 'constitution' of FoK public. I mean that we should allow the public to discuss how general TT rules should be implemented into FoK. Like how to rework CC or rending, etc. Now rules laid out in the constitution might be brought up but even then I don't actually agree we should keep it super secret. The reasons for keeping it private would be that no one can make a copy of FoK. But let's be honest, that would be a hug undertaking and DoW1 modding isn't nearly as popular as it used to be. We don't have to worry about such things anymore. Also, one sure way to increase interest in FoK is to show the public we are interested in their input, given they can make informed posts and discuss well. This is a great way to breathe some life back into FoK.

Admin wrote:I think discussion of how to interpret general rules from TT to FoK should be public. I don't see any point of hiding it away. It would actually be interesting for the public to peer into the discussion and if they have words of wisdom, let them speak.

I think you have the idea correct but the interpretation of this space for thinking and posting quite backwards. The idea is to develop ideas here and export them to the boards. Public discussion on serious issues where math, pre-planning and systematic understanding of rules is necessary gets a giant fail on the boards 95% of the time. As West explained in his first post this space is for technical work which often gets ignored, flamed or mistreated (read) on the primary boards. Further its like that specialized discussion one has in university within one's own department, the level of the conversation is far more specialized than what the public may tolerate...it allows you to talk shop. Though even more than allowing you to talk shop it is encouraged. If you look at this open FoK derived forum as something negative because it creates divisions well as West stated those divisions are self imposed. Invites have gone out to those who are interested in the technical side of FoK, the real nuts and bolts. Certain board members have come out and actually said they are not interested in such things...and then end up derailing the conversation. This is an open attempt to subvert that kind of interference. There is no prohibition that says one cannot post here and post on the boards or vice versa, rather this is an open forum for those who have showed interest in the more technical side of FoK.

Now as to speak for creating another new sub-section to FoK for serious discussions don't you find that a bit odd? The same people who express and show in their posting habits a radical aversion to a technical stance on issues are going to feel as if they must make their presence heard on this new 'sub-forum' you are opening. This will be perceived as the locus of all important decisions so everyone will post as they normally do. What you will end up with is another version of the same intolerance you had before. Look everyone basically agreed that the level of sophistication/maturity was a problem; why not have this be a place where those who are interested in the nuts and bolts do serious work. Its no different than a person who is not a mechanic not working in the garage fixing cars. If we are willing to specialize admin positions and other types of authority why not also prioritize serious thinking about the nuts and bolts issues in a place that is insulated against disruptions? For some reason people are ready to assign authority to disciplinary and monitoring positions but not to the content they are made to protect : good game-centered thinking.

That said if you don't give this an honest try then I am afraid FoK will continue to head in its serious posting nose-dive. No amount of moderation will fix that only a place where mechanics and mechanical theorists can work their trade.

Admin wrote:What I'm referring is different than making the 'constitution' of FoK public. I mean that we should allow the public to discuss how general TT rules should be implemented into FoK. Like how to rework CC or rending, etc. Now rules laid out in the constitution might be brought up but even then I don't actually agree we should keep it super secret. The reasons for keeping it private would be that no one can make a copy of FoK. But let's be honest, that would be a hug undertaking and DoW1 modding isn't nearly as popular as it used to be. We don't have to worry about such things anymore. Also, one sure way to increase interest in FoK is to show the public we are interested in their input, given they can make informed posts and discuss well. This is a great way to breathe some life back into FoK.

That is exactly the purpose of this forum. To allow the mechanics to be mechanics and talk shop in a very objective way while looking to post their findings in the larger boards when the argument is done. There is nothing super secret about this...as West said people will be allowed to come and go if they show serious interest in having serious nuts and bolts discussions. Its easy to see who is interested by who replies and what they say to this groups findings when we post our conclusions on the main boards.

Finally...a serious discussion relating to the mod. Even more interesting is the fact that it's not taking place where one would think it would be...and that says a lot about the state of things on the official forums - which sadly I rarely visit these days for what will seem to be obvious reasons.

Right - my two cents: I say make the conversion rules public. When I originally set down the core conversion rules around 2006 (or so )in a certain text file, said rules were the pooling and distillation of ideas from 3 different sources - Myself, Dibujante, and Hybris. Since then, the rules have been expanded and refined further thanks to the influx of other ideas from melooo, Homer, and Ira. As can be seen and evidenced, the mod has only gotten better as a result of the expansion of the core conversion ruleset...and I strongly feel that making the rules public will stimulate intelligent discussion revolving around pushing the mod further.

Perhaps it may even inspire and influence others that are working on other DOW mods or even W40K themed mods for other games. Hell - maybe some devs (you know who they are) will wake up and realize that a few unpaid gamers have a better way of doing things than themselves.

Which funnily enough was one of the original goals I had when I started this whole thing

Mirage Knight wrote:Finally...a serious discussion relating to the mod. Even more interesting is the fact that it's not taking place where one would think it would be...and that says a lot about the state of things on the official forums - which sadly I rarely visit these days for what will seem to be obvious reasons.

Right - my two cents: I say make the conversion rules public. When I originally set down the core conversion rules around 2006 (or so )in a certain text file, said rules were the pooling and distillation of ideas from 3 different sources - Myself, Dibujante, and Hybris. Since then, the rules have been expanded and refined further thanks to the influx of other ideas from melooo, Homer, and Ira. As can be seen and evidenced, the mod has only gotten better as a result of the expansion of the core conversion ruleset...and I strongly feel that making the rules public will stimulate intelligent discussion revolving around pushing the mod further.

Perhaps it may even inspire and influence others that are working on other DOW mods or even W40K themed mods for other games. Hell - maybe some devs (you know who they are) will wake up and realize that a few unpaid gamers have a better way of doing things than themselves.

Which funnily enough was one of the original goals I had when I started this whole thing

You can make the conversions public but you can't make the public know, consider or even take seriously their basis in the hard rule of the TT game. I am not saying that full disclosure is not a useful thing but unless you hedge your bets you are going to end up flipping a coin. I'd rather not leave things to chance nor would I like someone coming up with modification to a rule based system that did not understand the system. This is why a technical work shop such as this is so important. When you have a technical issue you don't greet open answers from anyone who strolls along but only ask those who show they are interested, have a good knowledge base and are will to engage in others ideas - this has been stripped from the boards over quite a long period of time. If there is something good this group can do besides get technical and engage in honest to goodness argument its give a good example of the kind of posts that show a maturation of ideas.

You can make the conversions public but you can't make the public know, consider or even take seriously their basis in the hard rule of the TT game.

Actually yes you can by setting up guidelines for discussion. Such as "A subforum for serious discussions on how to best translate general TT rules into a real-time strategy environment. All are welcome but those not engaging in serious discussion will have their posts removed." Note the bold. And if people don't abide by the guidelines they are out.

Also, let's not fool ourselves, the technical rules we are talking about are not all that hard to understand or comment on. All of you were at one point new to FoK. You seem to have adapted fairly well.

Admin wrote:

You can make the conversions public but you can't make the public know, consider or even take seriously their basis in the hard rule of the TT game.

Actually yes you can by setting up guidelines for discussion. Such as "A subforum for serious discussions on how to best translate general TT rules into a real-time strategy environment. All are welcome but those not engaging in serious discussion will have their posts removed." Note the bold. And if people don't abide by the guidelines they are out.

Also, let's not fool ourselves, the technical rules we are talking about are not all that hard to understand or comment on. All of you were at one point new to FoK. You seem to have adapted fairly well.

Maybe so but in order to translate you must know the whole lexicon...just think of translating foreign texts to English. In principle the challenges are somewhat similar. I don't know if many or any of you have ever had to translate a serious technical text into another language or form (as in translating rules) but its quite difficult you must know the grammar and context very well indeed. So on the other end don't figure that understanding the rules is simple either or can be accomplished by anyone who does not have a basis in that kind of language to begin with. Its not too different to my mechanic example...get a mechanic to work on a car but don't invite the neighborhood to do it by committee.

And by keeping it private we will assure ourselves we never get any more excellent mechanics. The great thing about this topic is you can easily spot the bad mechanics in the discussion because they wont know the TT rules. If FoK wants to keep going strong we need to make sure we are getting as much talent on board as possible.

Admin wrote:And by keeping it private we will assure ourselves we never get any more excellent mechanics. The great thing about this topic is you can easily spot the bad mechanics in the discussion because they wont know the TT rules. If FoK wants to keep going strong we need to make sure we are getting as much talent on board as possible.

Sure which is why West's initial idea was to get a good working engine here and then put the best ideas on the board to see who can tinker.

Also keep in mind when, not if, people find out there's another forum all hell will descend, or ascend, on us.

I'll make a forum and we can see how it goes. I'll put West in charge of moderation. The idea is if, after a month or so of rules enforcement, it doesn't look good we can shift to a forum where people can see but not comment. If people feel they can contribute we can let them in.

Admin wrote:Also keep in mind when, not if, people find out there's another forum all hell will descend, or ascend, on us.

I'll make a forum and we can see how it goes. I'll put West in charge of moderation. The idea is if, after a month or so of rules enforcement, it doesn't look good we can shift to a forum where people can see but not comment. If people feel they can contribute we can let them in.

Right. Those who can tinker would certainly be welcome, you have to find aptitude before you can project any far ranging mechanical skill. If we let West moderate the public forum we would have something. Though if it does not work out this is the next best thing.

So if West is the moderator of this new forum section then he will make the rules so we don't have to worry about anyone else bringing any terms to the table. We have all seen what kind of objectivity West can bring to the table so lets hand him the ball and see what kind of game he can pitch.

okay, the plan is:

start it out as a public forum.

problems that could arise:
a) more people participating = slowed down process -> basically like the normal forum -> If you can't keep up with the topic and its content, keep out.
b) people spamming it with their "ideas" -> a whole lot of useless but well-meant posts -> more moderation -> a)
c) "other" internals joining the fun -> a)

as Ira already said. we'll make it clear to everyone that if we don't like the way things go we'll make it a closed group, meaning that people won't get the chance to see the magic happen/participate in it. depending on who causes the problems (internals or publics) the group will be for internals or only for you guys with new members needing to "apply".

West will be moderator. and the admins of course.

now as guy already stated, truth is that there is a divergence between the two groups of the mod team. no point in denying that. but it's kinda hypocritical of you (MK) to say that the internal forums are in a bad state when after all it was you who got Rocktober!, Warforger, Mosh, Katie, Scott, etc. on the team, which were decisions I totally couldn't understand back then. sure more people means more bugs found, but at what price.... anyway, I don't wanna turn this into a rant about other members. they're in the team now, no way to change that. that would be kinda inappropriate.

so in case we get threads of the kind: "OMG, these forums are not a good idea, they create elitism, blabla" I have only one question to ask: "guy, could you please stay out of these discussions?". don't take it as an offense. but i fear things will get far out of hand if you and your witty/sarcastic posts join the fights. now I know that I have always been the person to defend the "others". because the main forums had the purpose of being for everyone. if we create a forum dedicated to you guys, it will ONLY be dedicated to you guys.

oh and yes we can copy the few posts from here to there....

Pat - no actually it isn't hypocritical of me to say that.

Rock, Katie, and Sqwerl have offered valuable input when time allowed them to do so with regard to game mechanics and bug fixing. Their keen interest in TT and in the mod made them natural choices as internals and I do not regret that decision one bit. You'll notice that one of those three have left the forums because of abuses of power, the lack of serious discussion and focus. Also note the state of affairs starting sliding downhill AFTER I retired as head mod meister. The moment I did that, Scott set out to expand his powers and remove anyone that got in the way of what he wanted - total admin control of the forums. And frankly I don't recall making him an internal to begin with. After he'd become an internal and started getting the mod additional exposure, I made him head of PR because of his talents and drive and to get him to quit whining about his lack of recognition within the community.

And WTF is with all the Rock / Sqwerl / Katie hate?

Seriously?

P.S. There's only one decision I regret making - and I'm not at liberty to discuss that here.

Alright it's up.
http://fok.dow-mods.com/viewforum.php?f=118

yes it will be up to everyone to make sure the atmosphere stays what it should be. Rocktober and Gorb will have moderator capabilities as well as will the mod leads.