From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25638 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2004 18:00:40 -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 25626 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2004 18:00:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ob2.cmich.edu) (141.209.20.21) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2004 18:00:39 -0000 Received: from egate1.central.cmich.local ([141.209.15.85]) by ob2.cmich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7HHtPP6024350; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:55:25 -0400 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:57:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC9570011; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:23:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: Hans Ronne Cc: Stan Shebs , Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2004 17:57:49.0422 (UTC) FILETIME=[B58570E0:01C48483] X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-Spam-Score: -0.9 () X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00928.txt.bz2 On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote: > >And of course if the view isn't cleared, the AI (or less-intelligent > >human player :-) ) could keep shooting over and over at the mirage > >aka decoy, which is exactly what the crafty Xconq player wants to > >be able to set up, heh-heh. > > Right. The question of when to clear the view is actually quite tricky. > Should a single failed action do it? I don't think so. But there has got to > be a point where even a stupid AI realizes that it is shooting at a mirage. In the case of firing, I think that a percent chance of the mistake being discovered was suggested. The percentage would take care of this problem as it would remove the unit view. > Another thing I thought about is to gradually let a unit view fade away as > it ages. The views have a dating mechanism, but it is currently not used > for anything. The corresponding thing for the AI would be to make a unit > view a less attractive target as it ages. I like this idea. > There is also the problem of what should happen if the targeted unit is not > there, but something else is sitting in the cell instead (not an uncommon > situation). My feeling is that fire-at should somehow default to fire-into. Unless the code in the Dec 29 patch is failing, this is what the Tcl/Tk interface should be doing. However, I do not feel that this is the correct answer; the only reason I implemented it that way was because the attempted fire mechanism didn't exist. > The probability of hitting an unseen unit should not be affected by the > fact that you think you are shooting at something which is not there. Why? Surely if you were firing at an individual unit, then the chance of another just happening to be in its place coupled with the chance of hitting the substitute unit should be smaller than the hit chance of directly aiming at the substitute unit. > I agree that tactical level games would be the most affected ones. As I > mentioned in a reply to Eric, I think that tactical unit deployment > (putting a phalanx in the same cell as a chariot to protect it) would > become much more important than it is now. But this should make most games > more interesting. And would ruin an important aspect of others. Eric