Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Coding Ambiguity"
(how about a compromise?) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ==RE: Bug or Not Bug== | ||
| + | :''Please have the discussion here rather than spread over seperate pages.'' | ||
But why not add to this section?:<br> | But why not add to this section?:<br> | ||
- You can't use Voxels=yes on building and infantry<br> | - You can't use Voxels=yes on building and infantry<br> | ||
| Line 8: | Line 10: | ||
But things, which you already posted here, too? | But things, which you already posted here, too? | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{quote|Both Sides, from [[Talk:Bunker Barracks Cannot Evacuate Bug]]|It's not a bug... | ||
| + | game engine not support it only, not more. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Re:''' What would you prefer to label it as? | ||
| + | |||
| + | C&C game engine 2 UnSupported things | ||
| + | - or - | ||
| + | C&C game engine 2 conflicting things}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have to admit that, when I first saw the Mobile Factory stuff, and put it into context with the (very fitting) category name "Coding Ambiguity", I kinda thought it was good to have it written down, available for newbs, and marked it patrolled. But I also have to admit that, after reading the Bunker Barracks text, my thoughts were more into the direction of "Soooo? That's logical game behavior? Where's that a bug?". | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think the whole problem is not the description of the problems occuring, but rather their labeling as bugs. The name "Coding Ambiguity", imo, was selected very well. It's just that most of these ambiguities (like VK said similarly) appear because the game is ''coded'' to do what it does. In other words: It's the exact opposite of a bug. It's exactly the behavior intended for the functions involved, only in a situation Westwood's originally rules never created, and therefore wasn't taken into account. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Since the information given is valuable nonetheless, my suggestion is to simply remove the "bug" label. Put "Coding Ambiguity" down as a seperate kind of "code result", next to normal behavior, bugs, and crashes. Make Category:Coding Ambiguity a subcategory to [[:Category:General Editing Information]]. Or [[:Category:Miscellaneous]]. Since the only problem for everybody who ''does'' have a problem with these category is the "bug" description, I think that'd solve it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Then again, as you can see from the fact that I didn't do anything "godly" yet, I'd like you guys to sort this out. Vinifera created the cat and the pages, VK disputed it, I think you guys are perfectly able to figure this one out on your own. So see this just as my two cents, not as "death from above".<br> | ||
| + | ~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[ModEnc:Administrators|SysOp]]) 00:37, 22 August 2006 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 00:37, 22 August 2006
RE: Bug or Not Bug
- Please have the discussion here rather than spread over seperate pages.
But why not add to this section?:
- You can't use Voxels=yes on building and infantry
- You can't make air-to-air combat
- ...
funny...
Well the reason I don't do that is because those aren't cases of coding ambiguity. That's why I don't do it.
But things, which you already posted here, too?
game engine not support it only, not more.
Re: What would you prefer to label it as?
C&C game engine 2 UnSupported things - or -
C&C game engine 2 conflicting things
I have to admit that, when I first saw the Mobile Factory stuff, and put it into context with the (very fitting) category name "Coding Ambiguity", I kinda thought it was good to have it written down, available for newbs, and marked it patrolled. But I also have to admit that, after reading the Bunker Barracks text, my thoughts were more into the direction of "Soooo? That's logical game behavior? Where's that a bug?".
I think the whole problem is not the description of the problems occuring, but rather their labeling as bugs. The name "Coding Ambiguity", imo, was selected very well. It's just that most of these ambiguities (like VK said similarly) appear because the game is coded to do what it does. In other words: It's the exact opposite of a bug. It's exactly the behavior intended for the functions involved, only in a situation Westwood's originally rules never created, and therefore wasn't taken into account.
Since the information given is valuable nonetheless, my suggestion is to simply remove the "bug" label. Put "Coding Ambiguity" down as a seperate kind of "code result", next to normal behavior, bugs, and crashes. Make Category:Coding Ambiguity a subcategory to Category:General Editing Information. Or Category:Miscellaneous. Since the only problem for everybody who does have a problem with these category is the "bug" description, I think that'd solve it.
Then again, as you can see from the fact that I didn't do anything "godly" yet, I'd like you guys to sort this out. Vinifera created the cat and the pages, VK disputed it, I think you guys are perfectly able to figure this one out on your own. So see this just as my two cents, not as "death from above".
~ Renegade (SysOp) 00:37, 22 August 2006 (CEST)
