From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15685 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2004 01:39:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15678 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2004 01:39:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rwcrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.198.35) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2004 01:39:57 -0000 Received: from [192.168.181.128] (c-67-172-156-222.client.comcast.net[67.172.156.222]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <200408170139560130016pihe>; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:39:56 +0000 Message-ID: <412161E0.8020609@phy.cmich.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:46:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (Windows/20040626) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans Ronne CC: xconq7@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00911.txt.bz2 Hans Ronne wrote: >> How is attacking a ghost unit any different than a miss? > > Because we are dealing with a failed task here, not a failed action. We > never get to the point where we attack the ghost unit. I disagree. There is (or should be) an attempted attack carried out on the ghost unit. As near as I can tell, an attempted attack could be framed in terms of an action (which may, in turn, invoke other actions). > OK, then we agree on that point. That does, however, rule out the acp > penalizing scheme as a possible solution. Only if you insist on thinking inside the box and are unwilling to develop additional machinery. I am suggesting an "attempted attack" action or something akin to an action. > If a unit does carry out an attack which is unsuccessful, yes. But if it > only gets as far as contemplating an attack (task execution) which never > happens, It is not a matter of "contemplating"; it is a matter of "attempting". As I see it, anyway. >I don't think it should be penalized. Thinking about doing > something is not the same thing as doing it. Exactly. > P.S. I think the real problem here is that real units instead of unit views > are being checked at a point (task execution), where only unit views should > be checked, since that is all the AI or the human player should ever know > about. I agree about 90%. >References to real units should be strictly limited to the action > code where things do happen. Anything before that is AI code (or interface > code), and should be treated accordingly. I agree 100%. Eric