From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12093 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2004 20:38:49 -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 12086 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2004 20:38:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ob2.cmich.edu) (141.209.20.21) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2004 20:38:48 -0000 Received: from egate1.central.cmich.local ([141.209.15.85]) by ob2.cmich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7HKXfP6002223; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:33:41 -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 16:38:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D2A70011; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:14:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: Hans Ronne Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com 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 20:38:45.0555 (UTC) FILETIME=[31066830:01C4849A] 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/msg00935.txt.bz2 On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote: > >> >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. > >> > >>not a > >> fire-at action against the unseen unit (which would be impossible by > >> definition). So the hit chance should really be the same regardless of > >> where the unit is located in the cell. > > > >Only if the other units are seen and we are treating 'fire-into' > >as chosing a random target from among the unit views. In the case > >where the other units are not seen, then this makes no sense. > >Unseen units should be very difficult to hit (unless they have a > >very large target cross-section relative to the size of the cell). > >But this small chance would still be the same regardless of where > the unseen unit is in the cell. Well, no kidding. I am not sure how the position of an unseen unit in a cell found its way into the this discussion. The only time the "position" of an unseen unit in a cell matters is if we roll the dice and the unseen unit is determined to be in the position where the ghost unit was at, in the event of a 'fire-at' at the ghost unit. In the case of a 'fire-into' (here meaning a random barrage into a cell), the position of the unseen unit is totally irrelevant. >You seemed to argue above that we would be > "directly aiming at the subsitute unit", but this is not possible if it is > invisible. Maybe the choice of wording made the meaning unclear. What I was saying that, if you see unit X and aim directly at it, then the chance of hitting it is determined by 'hit-chance' or 'fire-hit-chance'. If you think you see unit Y, aim directly at it, but unit Y turns out to be a ghost and unit X happens to be in the same cell, then the chance of unit X being considered to be in the position of unit Y is really quite small in most cases, and thus unit X should not be hit with the same chance from the barrage intended for unit Y. Clearer or muddier? Eric