From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10681 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2004 04:37:13 -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 10664 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2004 04:37:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.198.39) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 27 Aug 2004 04:37:12 -0000 Received: from [192.168.181.128] (c-67-172-156-222.client.comcast.net[67.172.156.222]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004082704371101500p7ob2e>; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 04:37:11 +0000 Message-ID: <412EBA5B.9020209@phy.cmich.edu> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 05:10:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (Windows/20040626) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elijah Meeks CC: xconq7@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: CXP??? References: <20040826191225.10275.qmail@web13126.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20040826191225.10275.qmail@web13126.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg01044.txt.bz2 Elijah Meeks wrote: > Okay, so you don't get cxp from ranged attacks, unless > the ranged attack is performed against a unit in the > hex adjacent? And you only get cxp if the attack > misses?? I finally took a good look at cxp, after > assuming that I wasn't paying attention before, but > now that I have, it looks screwy. Does anyone have > any firm rules on how cxp works and whether or not > it's supposed to work like this? It seems haphazard. You may have found a bug, depending on one's interpretation of when cXP should be awarded. The following exists at the end of 'attempt_to_capture_unit': if (chance > 0) { if (atker->cxp < u_cxp_max(a)) atker->cxp += uu_cxp_per_capture(a, o); /* (should not increment if side just changed?) */ if (other->cxp < u_cxp_max(o)) other->cxp += uu_cxp_per_capture(o, a); } The "problem" is that experience is always being gained whenever 'chance' is greater than 0, even if the capture is determined to have failed. The misses that you are seeing are also attempted captures (restricted to range <= 1), which is why combat experience is being "incorrectly" gained. The other way to gain experience is with model 0 attacks and fires. However, looking at this code makes me realize that it may also be buggy, again depending on one's interpretation of combat experience. The question here is: should failed attempts gain as much experience as successful attempts? Eric P.S. It should be noted that the defender can gain cXP just being attacked or fired upon, and it gains the same amount as if it was the attacker. Defenders also gain experience from being captured and resisting capture (as seen in the above code). Both of these cases seem a bit odd to me.