Openra: Incorporate RA-Classic ruleset as an optional mode for RA mod

[netnazgul]

https://github.com/OpenRA/raclassic recently worked on by @MustaphaTR is as close a mimic of original gameplay as it can be in OpenRA ruleset.

Integrating it into the core game as a playable mode will solve a lot of legacy issues with RA not being entirely true to the original and free up a lot of constrains wrt game balance (Hinds to Soviets, new units, new features, etc).

Partly it also relates to a #14325 but probably on a bigger scale.

Ping @IceReaper as someone who already works on a similar feature for KKND mod.

[ghost]

solve a lot of legacy issues with RA not being entirely true to the original and free up a lot of constrains wrt game balance (Hinds to Soviets, new units, new features, etc).

Do I read that correctly as "limit the development goal of retain the feel and nostalgia of the older games to a mod that nobody plays so the popular RA mod does not have to adhere to it"?

Otherwise incorporating it into the main RA mod wouldn't change anything. Doing so to free the RA mod from the aforementioned limits / goals would also mean that the project has failed at one of its goals. This might be the case, but should be communicated as such then.

[pchote]

I assume from this and some of the comments on other PRs that the tired OpenRA scope argument has done another round on the Discord...

I have tried to politely address this each time it comes up without offending anybody, because I do believe that other ideas and perspectives have merit. This time i'm going to be blunt, because the amount of time this is wasting is getting ridiculous.

The recent discussions I've seen suggesting to split "classic" vs "modern" RA have, from their tone and context, been difficult to read as anything except "give the whiners somewhere to go so the adults can get on with building a Proper Multiplayer Game". This is a bad faith argument that I find difficult to take seriously.

The "constraints" that come from trying to do our best good-faith modernization of the original game is the one thing that makes OpenRA a worthwhile project. I know from earlier discussions that some people see RA1 as nothing more than a free asset pack that can be rearranged to build whatever they want, but there is a term for that: asset theft. This is both morally and legally wrong, and will not be happening here under my watch. We can argue endlessly about where the line between modernization and ripoff actually sits, but to me the important point is the intent. The people arguing to remove the campaign, or tell players "this is OpenRA not RA, deal with it" in order to simplify or justify MP changes have crossed that line. The success of the project so far shows that the current approach that tries to balance classic vs modern is both workable and worthwhile.

People have three options if they want to change direction and build a game that isn't dragged down by the burden of considering the original: 1) Fork OpenRA or create your own mod 2) Kick me off the project 3) Start a project to create a new game universe and asset set that could become a new flagship OpenRA mod without being a clear ripoff.

[ghost]

I'm not even sure if it's possible to recreate the exact "RA95" feeling with the OpenRA engine.
If one wants to play RA95 online, OpenRA could warn and redirect to https://cncnet.org/red-alert (or MustaphaTR's mod).
IMHO recreating RA95 in OpenRA is like recreating Starcraft in Starcraft 2, Age of Empires in Age of Empires 2, and so on. It's nostalgia but also a huge downgrade.
The OpenRA website states "Classic strategy games, rebuilt for the modern era." which can be misunderstood. The only classic things present in OpenRA are purely graphic stuff like terrain, buildings and units, everything else has been upgraded (even some of these graphics have been modified).
To answer this question you could write somewhere "OpenRA is not the original and doesn't try to look like the original. If you want the original you can try CnCNet."

[abcdefg30]

To answer this question you could write somewhere "OpenRA is not the original and doesn't try to look like the original. If you want the original you can try CnCNet."

Easter-egg hidden in the FAQ: https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/wiki/FAQ#this-is-not-true-to-the-original

[FiveAces]

The recent discussions I've seen suggesting to split "classic" vs "modern" RA have, from their tone and context, been difficult to read as anything except "give the whiners somewhere to go so the adults can get on with building a Proper Multiplayer Game". This is a bad faith argument that I find difficult to take

seriously. />

Just to clear things up, I didn't intend to start this debate in bad faith. My opinion is that both fans of the traditional RA gameplay and the more progressive multiplayer community stand to gain something from this, hence why I brought forth this proposal. I don't think anyone wants people to just go and transform OpenRA into something completely different; the reviewing process has ensured in the past and is going to ensure in the future that this project doesn't stray too far from the source material.

[netnazgul]

I guess that I've miswritten the intentions in the OP. I didn't mean it to be "lets throw nostalgists the back-to-the-roots mod and free ourselfs to subvert OpenRA into something of our making".

[Orb370]

I'm pretty sure ppl actually besieging pchote everytime about hinds to soviets
is a terorist
sending emails and constant irc messages
change my mind

I'm pretty sure Pchote is eluding to these type of comments. I don't think they're representative of what everyone thinks, it's just Ganon is very loud.

Though, despite that I agree with Pchote. This kind of "grounding" keeps the project in check.

[MustaphaTR]

3) Start a project to create a new game universe and asset set that could become a new flagship OpenRA mod without being a clear ripoff.

I actually would like to try to attempt such thing. In other hand i'm already full with mods so it is not really feasible for me to do it. If anyone with more time wants to attempt such thing tho i can provide ideas.
I'm not the best when it comes to artwork either anyway. Best i could make from scratch would have artwork quality along the lines of Dune 2 with hand drawn sprites. I don't know anything about modelling.

[matjaeck]

There remains an ever reoccurring debate (#18235, #18256) about introducing new changes that the one group of players insists to be shipped with the mod while the other group considers them to be beyond of what can be added to an authentic re-imagination. This all happens in a world where hosting a MP lobby implies often enough to negotiate/fight out what the "correct" options are (especially if player chose to play with shroud).

I think that the root cause of all these problems is that OpenRA's RA has no clear gameplay branding. Confronting the players every match again with the decisions about a bunch of super impactful game mechanics (fow, shroud, limited build area...) prevents that. And this also motivates people to request adding checkboxes for N other features, potentially to a point, where the work OpenRA has put into building their imagination of RA becomes obsolete and replaced with (the fight over) a combination of checkboxes.

To improve the situation for all stakeholders, I propose to replace the checkbox section in the options tab with a radio-button switch of options

• Classic,
• Modern or Casual,
• Competitive,
• Custom.

The first 3 options represent opinionated presets for currently available checkboxes (or possibly other rules) while the Custom option unlocks the lower part of the settings screen with a mutator selector much like in http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l422/kassulke29/ScreenShot001.jpg (https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues/9422#issue-108076616). In an ideal world, people could then add their own mutators/rule extensions to their support directory and activate them via the Custom-Setting in the Lobby so that they would work map independent, possibly sharing them with other clients.

Regardless of what implementation is chosen (#13629 / #14325 / #9422), I believe it would help a lot to approach each target group with an opinionated gameplay setup that reflects what OpenRA has decided to be while leaving the rest to (as such expressed) customizing and modding.

[netnazgul]

I agree to that, as it seems a good solution to streamline user experience when configuring games.

There are a lot of options not exposed to checkboxes that might be changed around. Current interface can encompass that and only shows a bare minimum of preferences developers considered important to select; this approach is not scalable and has also led to a certain mess of these preferences being all over the yaml in the engine: some are under MapOptions directly while others are their own traits, some under World while others stem from Player and so on.

It may be more useful to introduce an interface of selecting yaml config files that are to be implemented in a way similar to how they work in modified maps.

[IceReaper]

For KKnD i also need this. Especialy the split between the classic rules and the modern ones is an ongoing problem in KKnD too. The most easy solution i had implemented was to split out specific values, allowing people to tweak numbers. The original idea for that came form KKnD2 which had an in-game unit editor:

The big problem however was that the changes i need are way more advanced then simply modifying numbers. The simple idea is to select a ruleset in the lobby, plus filtering for the shipped rulesets in the server browser. That allows multiple pre-made rulesets to play with. Additionally if it should allow people to also use custom rulesets, an ingame rules editor could be made, and allow the game admin to select a local rules setup, which then will be transmitted to all clients in the lobby.

So i personally would prefer the hybrid approach of both: Having some pre-defined rulesets, plus implementing the networking part, so in the future i would be able to implement a proper unit editor and allow people to play with custom stats like KKnD2 did.

[Yara-smurf]

To improve the situation for all stakeholders, I propose to replace the checkbox section in the options tab with a radio-button switch of options

• Classic,
• Modern or Casual,
• Competitive,
• Custom.

+1 on the list. Would be even better if servers are tagged with what is the default.

Not sure what you mean however by "replace the checkbox section". For custom to work, the checkboxes have to stay?!

[Smittytron]

To improve the situation for all stakeholders, I propose to replace the checkbox section in the options tab with a radio-button switch of options

Classic,
Modern or Casual,
Competitive,
Custom.

The problem here is that OpenRA's already overwhelmed maintainers would have to support 4 different game modes for just one mod. And don't forget single player missions, which are currently tied to the same ruleset as competitive play with a few overrides. It would be a large undertaking to adjust each mission to Classic rules if that's the objective here.

I genuinely felt after the last balance patch I did that OpenRA was quickly running out of 'must have' changes needed for healthy competitive play. It's time to start separating 'needs' from 'wants'.
ERCC is a want in my book, as mapmakers can simply ensure that one player doesn't have place refineries directly south of ore. Look at BW for example, which hasn't had a balance patch since the '90s and is currently balanced entirely by mapmakers.

[matjaeck]

The problem here is that OpenRA's already overwhelmed maintainers would have to support 4 different game modes for just one mod.

The way I imagined it would not mean having different rulesets, only presets for the current checkboxes. I was not proposing separate balance rulesets as that causes more damage than the map/unit breaking balance changes from the competitive community that we just have to live with.

Not sure what you mean however by "replace the checkbox section". For custom to work, the checkboxes have to stay?!

The way I described it would mean that the checkboxes were available as mutators when activating the Custom option.

It's time to start separating 'needs' from 'wants'.

100% agree but who defines the needs?

[netnazgul]

Look at BW for example, which hasn't had a balance patch since the '90s and is currently balanced entirely by mapmakers.

FWIW ERCC is exactly this, and also OpenRA provides broader (though maybe harder to use) modding tools. But when comparing to SCBW you need to take into account that it was frozen in around 2004, while OpenRA RA mod is a game on top of a "forever-in-development" engine.