From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18186 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2004 01:46:03 -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 18177 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2004 01:46:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.202.55) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2004 01:46:03 -0000 Received: from [192.168.181.128] (c-67-172-156-222.client.comcast.net[67.172.156.222]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20040817014602011004jveue>; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:46:02 +0000 Message-ID: <4121634E.2030805@phy.cmich.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:21:00 -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/msg00912.txt.bz2 Hans Ronne wrote: > No, your patch addressed a different problem: the fire-into-empty cells > cheat. OK. Then I misunderstood your complaint. >What I am talking about is attempting to fire at unit views in order > to find out if the unit is still sitting there or if it is a ghost view. > And this exploit is still possible, both in the tcltk interface and in the > mac interface. In effect, what it means is that you can attempt to fire at > unit views for free until you target a real unit, in which case the fire > action will execute and you will be charged. Right. And I saw that that was a problem, and wrote a comment (in the aforementioned patch) that suggested "attempted fire" as a way to deal with the problem you describe. > It is not as bad as the fire-into-empty-cells cheat, but certainly not > something that should be permitted without any cost in acps or materials. Agreed. > Only real actions, whether they fail or not, should provide information > about the enemy side and its units. Agreed. Eric