From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6355 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2004 02:06:48 -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 6295 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2004 02:06:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net) (216.148.227.85) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Sep 2004 02:06:46 -0000 Received: from [192.168.181.128] (c-67-172-156-222.client.comcast.net[67.172.156.222]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20040904020645014002aeohe>; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:06:46 +0000 Message-ID: <41392315.6060204@phy.cmich.edu> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:51:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (Windows/20040626) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lincoln Peters CC: Xconq list Subject: Re: Indirect cXP awards? References: <1094253252.32432.2234.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1094253252.32432.2234.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg01100.txt.bz2 Lincoln Peters wrote: > I don't see a way that the actions of one unit can result in a cXP award > for another unit (though I imagine that such a thing would involve the > "unit control" mechanism). Is there a way to do this? Is this > something else that has yet to be implemented? Or has such a thing even > been considered yet? I hadn't considered this before. I think you may be right in that the unit control mechanism should be involved for "missile units". I have thought about the distinction between guided, seeker, and simple missile before, but the particular cXP consequence of using a guided missile had escaped my attention. This is an interesting consideration. > (This kind of mechanism would not only be applicable to ships carrying > missiles. It could also be applied to starship firing photon torpedoes, > wizards firing fireballs, and all sorts of other things. And, since the > attack is supposed to affect units in multiple cells, the firing > mechanism is inadequate.) I think the concept of spread damage (as opposed to point damage), which has been discussed on the list several times before, may be one way of modeling the explosion. I also think that this would probably be easier to implement than to link a missile unit's cXP back to the unit that launched the missile. In the case of spread damage, I am not sure that it makes sense to award cXP for each unit damaged, but simply to award a fixed amount if there was a chance of a hit. If I get tired of working on the SDL interface this weekend, I will probably look into the spread damage (and possibly some other combat-related) stuff. Eric