* does the tutorial lie? @ 2004-05-27 23:55 Tom Schaub 2004-05-28 0:37 ` Stan Shebs 2004-05-28 0:47 ` mskala 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Tom Schaub @ 2004-05-27 23:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xconq7 Here is a quote from the tutorial: > The default is to only allow one unit in a cell, but this can be > changed: > > (table unit-size-in-terrain (rubble-pile t* 0)) > [snip] > If you try this out, you'll find that the monster can now cross over > rubble piles, but still has to bash buildings in order to get them out > of the way. I did try this out, and it does _not_ work. No joy. Godzilla just won't walk over rubble piles. Rubble piles also block monster units in the Monster game and the Tokyo 1962 scenario. I using the most recent Xconq-MacOSX-040501 version. What gives? Would I have to make the rubble-pile units capturable to let the monsters walk over them? Tom ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: does the tutorial lie? 2004-05-27 23:55 does the tutorial lie? Tom Schaub @ 2004-05-28 0:37 ` Stan Shebs 2004-05-28 0:47 ` mskala 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Stan Shebs @ 2004-05-28 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Schaub; +Cc: xconq7 Tom Schaub wrote: > Here is a quote from the tutorial: > >> The default is to only allow one unit in a cell, but this can be >> changed: >> >> (table unit-size-in-terrain (rubble-pile t* 0)) >> > [snip] > >> If you try this out, you'll find that the monster can now cross over >> rubble piles, but still has to bash buildings in order to get them >> out of the way. > > > I did try this out, and it does _not_ work. No joy. Godzilla just > won't walk over rubble piles. Rubble piles also block monster units in > the Monster game and the Tokyo 1962 scenario. > > I using the most recent Xconq-MacOSX-040501 version. > > What gives? Would I have to make the rubble-pile units capturable to > let the monsters walk over them? Hmmm, this used to work. My guess would be that rubble piles are exerting ZOC by default and they need to be turned off; ZOCs were added after the tutorial was written. Stan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: does the tutorial lie? 2004-05-27 23:55 does the tutorial lie? Tom Schaub 2004-05-28 0:37 ` Stan Shebs @ 2004-05-28 0:47 ` mskala 2004-05-28 2:07 ` Eric McDonald 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: mskala @ 2004-05-28 0:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Schaub; +Cc: xconq7 I have not specifically tried the case you're talking about, but a couple thoughts: First of all, the tutorial probably *does* lie. So does most of the rest of the documentation. I've written things that the documentation said would work, and had them not work, quite often. You have to solve these things by experiment, and preferably report it so the documentation and/or code can be fixed. On your specific problem, I imagine that it's probably a zone of control issue. I've faced something similar in one of my projects. Units exert a zone of control that by default covers their entire hex, and units from enemy sides cannot enter that zone without attacking and defeating the controlling unit. Look up zone of control (ZOC) in the manual, and try changing the zoc-range table to -1 for rubble piles versus all units. -- Matthew Skala mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca Embrace and defend. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: does the tutorial lie? 2004-05-28 0:47 ` mskala @ 2004-05-28 2:07 ` Eric McDonald 2004-05-28 6:45 ` Jim Kingdon 2004-05-28 17:27 ` Stan Shebs 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Eric McDonald @ 2004-05-28 2:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mskala; +Cc: Tom Schaub, xconq7 On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 18:48, mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > I have not specifically tried the case you're talking about, but a couple > thoughts: First of all, the tutorial probably *does* lie. So does most of > the rest of the documentation. I've written things that the documentation > said would work, and had them not work, quite often. You have to solve > these things by experiment, and preferably report it so the documentation > and/or code can be fixed. I'm not going to sit here and get defensive about the manuals since I didn't write them, and have certainly been frustrated by them a number times as well. However, I am not sure that it is fitting to describe the manuals as "lying". I doubt that Stan wrote them with an intent to deceive. Rather, it seems that features and code changes have accumulated over time, and those that added the features or made the changes didn't bother to document their work in a way that was accessible to users or game designers. So, I would say that they are outdated but not intentionally deceiving. I suppose this might be an issue of semantics though. I think a valid question is: should they be marked as such on the Xconq Web site? These manuals also do contain up-to-date information, so maybe they should simply have a caveat lector note next to their links. > On your specific problem, I imagine that it's probably a zone of control > issue. I've faced something similar in one of my projects. Units exert a > zone of control that by default covers their entire hex, and units from > enemy sides cannot enter that zone without attacking and defeating the > controlling unit. Look up zone of control (ZOC) in the manual, and try > changing the zoc-range table to -1 for rubble piles versus all units. I believe that is what Stan was just suggesting. Alternatively, one might also be able to adjust the 'mp-to-enter-zoc' and 'mp-to-leave-zoc' tables to make the ZOC non-blocking. Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: does the tutorial lie? 2004-05-28 2:07 ` Eric McDonald @ 2004-05-28 6:45 ` Jim Kingdon 2004-05-28 16:46 ` Eric McDonald 2004-05-28 17:46 ` Stan Shebs 2004-05-28 17:27 ` Stan Shebs 1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jim Kingdon @ 2004-05-28 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xconq7 > I think a valid question is: should they be marked as such on the Xconq > Web site? These manuals also do contain up-to-date information, so maybe > they should simply have a caveat lector note next to their links. I suppose some kind of disclaimer would be OK, although of course it might just lead to general doubt and uncertainty rather than critical reading. I'd like to see us do at least *something* about inaccuracies as we notice them. Towards that end, I checked in a change to the example in the tutorial which at least notes the ZOC issue, even though I didn't take the time to really try out the example and figure out how much it matches current reality. (Not to mention think about the teaching order as a tutorial and whether there is a better way to demonstrate unit-size-in-terrain without getting bogged down in ZOC which is a more advanced feature, as the default ZOC behavior is adequate for many games. But I'm saying that a note is a good first step which we can do even before that kind of full update happens). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: does the tutorial lie? 2004-05-28 6:45 ` Jim Kingdon @ 2004-05-28 16:46 ` Eric McDonald 2004-05-28 17:46 ` Stan Shebs 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Eric McDonald @ 2004-05-28 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Kingdon; +Cc: xconq7 On Fri, 28 May 2004, Jim Kingdon wrote: > I suppose some kind of disclaimer would be OK, although of course it > might just lead to general doubt and uncertainty rather than critical > reading. That is why I posed it as a question rather than a possible solution. ;-) > I'd like to see us do at least *something* about inaccuracies as we > notice them. I absolutely agree. Presently, I am running a bit behind because of other obligations and things that I considered to be higher priority wrt Xconq. But, in the past, I think you know that I generally patch the docs as I encounter the flaws.... There was a missing 'create-range' entry reported several weeks ago, IIRC, and I still I haven't looked into that one. I don't think a patch was supplied for it. Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: does the tutorial lie? 2004-05-28 6:45 ` Jim Kingdon 2004-05-28 16:46 ` Eric McDonald @ 2004-05-28 17:46 ` Stan Shebs 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Stan Shebs @ 2004-05-28 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Kingdon; +Cc: xconq7 Jim Kingdon wrote: > >I'd like to see us do at least *something* about inaccuracies as we >notice them. > I did add a couple aids to the process - in the test dir you can do "make cmds-diff" and "make syms-diff", both of which compare docs to source. Just ran both, and they show quite a few discrepancies... Stan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: does the tutorial lie? 2004-05-28 2:07 ` Eric McDonald 2004-05-28 6:45 ` Jim Kingdon @ 2004-05-28 17:27 ` Stan Shebs 2004-05-29 1:20 ` Eric McDonald 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Stan Shebs @ 2004-05-28 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric McDonald; +Cc: mskala, Tom Schaub, xconq7 Eric McDonald wrote: >On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 18:48, mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > >>I have not specifically tried the case you're talking about, but a couple >>thoughts: First of all, the tutorial probably *does* lie. So does most of >>the rest of the documentation. I've written things that the documentation >>said would work, and had them not work, quite often. You have to solve >>these things by experiment, and preferably report it so the documentation >>and/or code can be fixed. >> > >I'm not going to sit here and get defensive about the manuals since I >didn't write them, and have certainly been frustrated by them a number >times as well. > >However, I am not sure that it is fitting to describe the manuals as >"lying". I doubt that Stan wrote them with an intent to deceive. > My secret plot has been uncovered! People are supposed to get discouraged and go play "Halo". Long arm of MS and all that... :-) But seriously, people shouldn't be touching the sources without at the same time checking that the manuals reflect reality. Better to have the bugs and caveats documented than have the manual pretend that some feature is fully functional. The tutorial has a bit of a problem in that it doesn't consist of a single game module that could be in the library and getting tested. Perhaps a series of "checkpoints" of partial tutorial games for which testing could be automated? Stan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: does the tutorial lie? 2004-05-28 17:27 ` Stan Shebs @ 2004-05-29 1:20 ` Eric McDonald 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Eric McDonald @ 2004-05-29 1:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stan Shebs; +Cc: mskala, Tom Schaub, xconq7 Hi Stan, On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 11:26, Stan Shebs wrote: > My secret plot has been uncovered! People are supposed to get > discouraged and go play "Halo". Long arm of MS and all that... :-) The perfect guise: an undercover agent of Mordorsoft working as an open source developer at Apple. > The tutorial has a bit of a problem in that it doesn't consist of a > single game module that could be in the library and getting tested. > Perhaps a series of "checkpoints" of partial tutorial games for which > testing could be automated? This sounds like a good idea regardless of whether the testing could be automated. Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-05-29 1:20 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-05-27 23:55 does the tutorial lie? Tom Schaub 2004-05-28 0:37 ` Stan Shebs 2004-05-28 0:47 ` mskala 2004-05-28 2:07 ` Eric McDonald 2004-05-28 6:45 ` Jim Kingdon 2004-05-28 16:46 ` Eric McDonald 2004-05-28 17:46 ` Stan Shebs 2004-05-28 17:27 ` Stan Shebs 2004-05-29 1:20 ` Eric McDonald
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).