Alpha Test Game 4

Avacar said:
Please verify the last few turns' worth of successful tailing to let me know.
Click to expand...
Looks correct from my end for Turns 23-26. We don't have any data prior to that, IIRC, so everything looks good.

Ironduke said:
That's actually very interesting... If you take evasive action, you shouldn't be able to "stay on target." Or to put it differently, if you got your hands full evading a missile, you should definitely lose your tailing result.
Click to expand...

I agree on this and think it should be a rule for the next version of the game (tailing and evasion should be exclusive of one another, or if you do one you can't do the other).

Got some RL to take care of; hopefully I'll be able to stop holding up the works later today.
 
Ironduke said:
That's actually very interesting... If you take evasive action, you shouldn't be able to "stay on target." Or to put it differently, if you got your hands full evading a missile, you should definitely lose your tailing result.
Click to expand...
Fix is in place. You'll still succeed at tailing, but if you evade, you won't be able to actually get a message.

As a better fix, I could update/modify the end phase orders window such that you simply can't both evasive action AND tail (make it either or, orders wise). You could still chaff though...
 
27CP: Archon was given the option to shoot. When I opened the orders window, it told me I had "no forward targets in range". This is actually the case; Archon shouldn't have a valid target. Is this a bug we're still trying to track down?
 
capi3101 said:
27CP: Archon was given the option to shoot. When I opened the orders window, it told me I had "no forward targets in range". This is actually the case; Archon shouldn't have a valid target. Is this a bug we're still trying to track down?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but low priority. For now, I'm worried about not being offered commands when you should; incorrectly predicting no commands but offering a blank window just in case is an acceptable thing at this development level. It means we're almost ready for me to move on and tackle the major rewrite to targetting needed to get line of sight working.
 
Um... It took me a while to actually realize this, but: Why did Zeta 1 move straight ahead at speed 5? I'm pretty sure I issued a "speed 5, turn 3 to starboard" command, which should have been 3 hexes forward and then a 180. (Especially after I had the tailing info from Dark Archon.) Any idea what went wrong there?
 
Ironduke said:
Um... It took me a while to actually realize this, but: Why did Zeta 1 move straight ahead at speed 5? I'm pretty sure I issued a "speed 5, turn 3 to starboard" command, which should have been 3 hexes forward and then a 180. (Especially after I had the tailing info from Dark Archon.) Any idea what went wrong there?
Click to expand...

Trying to figure out which turn you're talking about here...looks like you moved forward at speed 5 in 27 MP, but you wouldn't have gotten tailing information for Dark Archon that turn. You got tailing info for Archon in 26 MP and moved forward with speed 2; that was the last time you would've gotten any tailing data for Archon.
 
True, you're right about tailing. I wasn't tailing Dark Archon in that turn, but I definitely wanted to do a 180 at speed 5 instead of just a straight 5. Just curious what went wrong... Is there any way to see if my orders went through correct in the first place?

Definitely no need to change the running game now, but this is the first time I noticed the game seemed to either use false data or interpret it wrong.
 
Ironduke said:
True, you're right about tailing. I wasn't tailing Dark Archon in that turn, but I definitely wanted to do a 180 at speed 5 instead of just a straight 5. Just curious what went wrong... Is there any way to see if my orders went through correct in the first place?

Definitely no need to change the running game now, but this is the first time I noticed the game seemed to either use false data or interpret it wrong.
Click to expand...
Okay.. well reverse engineering orders is always tricky; a lot of reference IDs for me to line up, but I think I found the right one.

Order got stored as:
mode: 0, MPint2: 0, MPint1: -1, Details: 5|0, target: -1

Which the game should interpret as:
regular Movement, Forward 5, no turn.

So either you mis-remembered what you did, or the orders window changed sometime after you clicked and before it got stored. (Which would be a first). I really can't diagnose which really happened in any easy way. Just keep an eye out to see if it happens again.
 
I was using Safari on my iPad that turn, maybe that's got something to do with it... I'll pay extra attention next time I'm issuing movement orders from the tablet. The other orders I tried (combat and end phase stuff) seemed to work all right.
 
Turn30EP:

Need to check Barrel Rolls again...interface says nobody's rolling except Wandering Soul, but there are some eights and nines for Bravo1's and Zeta1's shots, so Dark Archon should've taken some serious damage this turn.
 
Going back and forcing out the TR values is kind of a pain, especially when a few full turn cycles have passed. I'm going to let this slide. In exchange, I'm going to update the field reports to list the effective TR's that are needed. Unfortunately since this is 'stored' data instead of on-the-fly generated, old field reports will not be augmented with it.
 
Oh darn, I should learn to read my own rules correctly, haha... Fun fact of the day: I got a tailing prediction for Dark Archon to "afterburn and turn starboard 33." Then, in the field report, it said Dark Archon did "afterburn and turn to port 3." I guess it's just an issue for 180° turns. And shouldn't we just call them 180s?
 
Ironduke said:
Oh darn, I should learn to read my own rules correctly, haha... Fun fact of the day: I got a tailing prediction for Dark Archon to "afterburn and turn starboard 33." Then, in the field report, it said Dark Archon did "afterburn and turn to port 3." I guess it's just an issue for 180° turns. And shouldn't we just call them 180s?
Click to expand...
Yeah, we probably should. This again goes back to the fact that I have a function which turns the numerically-stored turn value (-3 or 3 in this instance) into a text string, and does so basically by interpreting it and adding port/starboard. When I re-write that function, I'll put in an exception for the 180° turns to drop the port/starboard adjective.

I assume that the '33' was a typo on your part just now in the post, and not what actually showed up in the tailing report?
 
Avacar said:
I assume that the '33' was a typo on your part just now in the post, and not what actually showed up in the tailing report?
Click to expand...
Guess I should have included a "(sic)" there, because it really showed up like this in the game. Sorry to say it wasn't a typo... ;)
 
Ironduke said:
Guess I should have included a "(sic)" there, because it really showed up like this in the game. Sorry to say it wasn't a typo... ;)
Click to expand...
Really weird. I can find no reason in the code why a 33 should show up just by looking. I'd have to recreate the situation and step through the code to figure out what happened. Let me know if it happens again, otherwise I'll chalk this up to a one-time fluke for now.
 
Turn35 CP:

You ever get to playing a game of chess, and make a move, and realize the moment you let go of your piece just how stupid your move was, and you pray to God that your opponent doesn't see just how stupid your move was, and of course they do see it? That happened to me in 35MP about two seconds after I confirmed the order for Wandering Soul.

Ever write a run-on sentence on a public forum?

Should've banked right at speed 1. Now I'm probably going to lose a fighter...
Well, hell. Let's get this over with...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top