Alpha Test Game 4

[capi3101]

Turn 10, movement phase.

So, Quail's out and I'm down one Sartha.

.........um, what the hell just happened?

Okay. Emotional moment over with. Back to debugging.

Quail I can see...he zigged when he should've zagged. The HS missile banked and nailed him. Afterburner movement's working the way it should be now, that's a plus.

Uh...wasn't that the same missile that I thought should've been gone last turn? What's the word on that...I might be misreading the rules (p. 8) here, but DFs and HS missiles only last one turn, FFs and IRs 2 turns, and Torpedoes 3, right? I mean, it'd explain why the DF Wandering Soul launched at Sierra2 last turn is gone already.

As for my poor toasted fuzzbucket-bucket, I'm not seeing it. The missile wouldn't have been able to bank until after it was past him, and it would've had to have turned twice to nail him from that same position. The only thing that makes sense is if the missile flew at him in a straight line from the launching point.

And then there's the question of why Grimreaper wasn't given the option to try to evade. He still had burner...but he would've had to go off the board before he can turn. If you guys have implemented code where that's no longer legal, that's cool.

 

[Avacar]

#6: If the bearing is greater than 120 degrees or less than 240 degrees, reject as target.

......um, not that it may matter much for the game right this second, but shouldn't that be "greater than 120 degrees and less than 240 degrees"? I mean, my bearing could be 300 degrees...that would be greater than 120 degrees. Or it could be 90 degrees...that'd be less than 240 degrees. Just saying.

You're right, but I also lied. In fact the way it works is that it must have a bearing less than 120 or greater than 240 to be considered a target, at which point the 'or' logic is okay. I guess I phrased it above as target rejection and got my logic inversed, when the code actually works on target approval.

Okay...I'm holding up the works at this point.

I think I see why the game might've thought Archon needed to do something. Going back to your targeting algorithm for FF missiles:

#4: If the bearing to the target is between -1 and +1, and it is less than our max speed away, THAT'S OUR TARGET

Am I right in thinking that means one hex to the left or to the right of the missile's current heading?

No, those were bearing angles in degrees; basically that's a very quick and coarse way to say 'straight ahead +/- any simple error that may not produce a mathematically perfect bearing of 0'.

Turn 10, movement phase.

Uh...wasn't that the same missile that I thought should've been gone last turn? What's the word on that...I might be misreading the rules (p. 8) here, but DFs and HS missiles only last one turn, FFs and IRs 2 turns, and Torpedoes 3, right? I mean, it'd explain why the DF Wandering Soul launched at Sierra2 last turn is gone already.

Um... (does a quick look-up of the rules).. yes, HS's shouldn't actually have multi-turn survivability. We definitely had one kicking around.

Okay, I think what happened was that the HS was initiated with a life of 1, but both the full piece list and the missile list went through and each applied a life deincrement to it, getting it to the dreaded '-1' value which means live forever. I've split the rot_death deincrementation to manually handle ships, missiles, and environmental effects (flak/explosions/asteroids) separately now, so I think the HS's will now honour their lifetime of 1 properly. Watch for this and test for it! Change is live.

And then there's the question of why Grimreaper wasn't given the option to try to evade. He still had burner...but he would've had to go off the board before he can turn. If you guys have implemented code where that's no longer legal, that's cool.

Yeah, that's weird. My post above just went through how we knew it had missiles coming in, and the popup even agrees.... this might be related to that bug I mentioned I had just fixed with the 'sit-out' code detection. It was a typo, and sadly it won't kick in until the end of the next combat phase, so this might be fixed. We'll just need to fire more FF's at people and see. (This is definitely an FF related issue; I'm sure for any other missile that would have given the option to evade).

 

[Avacar]

Interesting bug that came up. The field report says:

Bravo 1 can tell where Quail 5 will fly next (rolled: 9).Quail 5 takes evasive action.
Quail 5 successfully performs a shelton slide (9>=6).
Sierra 2 takes evasive action.
Sierra 2 fails to perform a shelton slide (1>=6).
Heat-Seeking Missile smashes into Quail 5! shields depleted, 14 damage done to hull.Friend-or-Foe Missile smashes into Grimreaper! shields depleted, 4 damage done to hull.Quail 5 has been destroyed

So now I see that Bravo 1 is orange, meaning it is allowed to wait on tailing info from Quail 5... who blew up! Ironduke: what does your tailing info window tell you? Is it freaking out, or okay or what?

 

[capi3101]

Hey, out of curiosity, who killed Grimreaper? I was assuming it was Sierra1 in that post above, but it could just've easily have been Bravo1's missile. I mean, there were three FF launches last turn and only one of them hit. Sierra2's missile most likely went off the board (though we didn't get a notice for it). If Bravo1 hit Grimreaper, then we've accounted for all the missiles; Sierra1's missile flew off the board. If it was Sierra1, though, then where is Bravo1's missile?

We'll just need to fire more FF's at people and see. (This is definitely an FF related issue; I'm sure for any other missile that would have given the option to evade).

Could be a problem for this game; Bravo1 and Sierra2 are the only ships that still have them on their rails...

 

[Avacar]

There isn't a good way for me to track kills at the moment, just deaths. I know that sounds like the same thing, but it isn't quite. I'll see how much time it will take to check and tweak the shot code to track kills (and then process deaths immediately).

 

[Ironduke]

Okay, just to get this straight: There's no team IFF implemented, but we still use the Confed/Kilrathi IFF? If so, it's true that FF missiles from Confed craft would only hit Kilrathi fighters and Confed fighters with a damaged hull (and vice versa). I kinda thought that "no team IFF" meant that it's a free-for-all with no IFF whatsoever. (I seem to remember now that we had this Confed/Kilrathi IFF discussion before...)

Banking of missiles: Hm. A strong hm. Fighters can bank because they have special thrusters. Missiles, on the other hand, tend to only have one engine in the rear. Is that really enough to let them bank?

 

[Ironduke]

So now I see that Bravo 1 is orange, meaning it is allowed to wait on tailing info from Quail 5... who blew up! Ironduke: what does your tailing info window tell you? Is it freaking out, or okay or what?

I got the exact same message. No ship name given, and another slide to the right. What's worse, I got it in the MP again instead of the EP. (Or do I only have a chance to read my tailing predictions during EP while we're waiting for other players?) Which means tailing is currently worth zilch, because we'd need to get that info BEFORE issuing our own movement orders for the next turn. Or am I missing something?

Edit: On second thought, forget what I've just said. I expected tailing predictions to be up in EP, but since movement has yet to take place after MP, everything's okay.

 

[capi3101]

Turn 10, combat phase:

Banking of missiles: Hm. A strong hm. Fighters can bank because they have special thrusters. Missiles, on the other hand, tend to only have one engine in the rear. Is that really enough to let them bank?

Physically, and realistically, probably not. However, in real life a missile (even a tracking missile) would be fired such that it would travel a minimal amount of distance to its target, more or less in a straight line. The game's movement system for missiles as it is (if I understand it correctly) doesn't do a particularly good job of emulating this...I'd submit that "banking" is necessary for that reason (that and/or another turning opportunity for them later on in their movement).

Seeing pilot ratings in the stats this morning.

Another question...both of my fighters failed Shelton Slides this last turn. I notice that they say (1>=6). I'm assuming that "1" is my die roll...my 2d6 die roll. Rolling a 1 shouldn't be a valid possibility (unless the result is modified in some way, which it shouldn't be if I'm reading the rules right); what's the story on that?

 

[Avacar]

Okay, just to get this straight: There's no team IFF implemented, but we still use the Confed/Kilrathi IFF? If so, it's true that FF missiles from Confed craft would only hit Kilrathi fighters and Confed fighters with a damaged hull (and vice versa). I kinda thought that "no team IFF" meant that it's a free-for-all with no IFF whatsoever. (I seem to remember now that we had this Confed/Kilrathi IFF discussion before...)

Correct. The Missiles have Confed/Kilrathi IFF hardcoded, at least right now. I think once I actually teach 'team' concepts, I might outright switch it to be a team IFF instead of a race IFF (and just assume that we'll set up race/appropriate teams when we want game-realistic scenarios). Would everyone be okay with that change if/when teams exist? Actually this brings up a whole other debate that I might spin off (like do we want to keep the race-coloured backgrounds for ships, or would we want ships coloured by team, etc.)

Banking of missiles: Hm. A strong hm. Fighters can bank because they have special thrusters. Missiles, on the other hand, tend to only have one engine in the rear. Is that really enough to let them bank?

I can see arguments both ways, but gameplay wise here's the argument for banking. Because missiles right now can only either go straight, or turn, there are some opportunity-fire-arc shots that a missile that is self tracking (we're talking about the FF here) wouldn't consider a shot, whereas with banking logic it would be able to track and hit those. (i.e. would you have wanted during the Turn 9 to have Bravo 1's missile track Grimreaper?) This doesn't really affect the DFs at all, since I just treat them as fast weapons, but it would affect the turn 2 of a IR or Torp, which needs to chase targets.

Physically, and realistically, probably not. However, in real life a missile (even a tracking missile) would be fired such that it would travel a minimal amount of distance to its target, more or less in a straight line. The game's movement system for missiles as it is (if I understand it correctly) doesn't do a particularly good job of emulating this...I'd submit that "banking" is necessary for that reason (that and/or another turning opportunity for them later on in their movement).

Yeah, this is what I was trying to say. Banking would help deal with firing a "straight line" missile at a larger angle, within the firing arc, without expecting a tracking missile to fly forward and turn. Drat, that still doesn't sound right, but I think Capi said it pretty well.

What's worse, I got it in the MP again instead of the EP. (Or do I only have a chance to read my tailing predictions during EP while we're waiting for other players?) Which means tailing is currently worth zilch, because we'd need to get that info BEFORE issuing our own movement orders for the next turn. Or am I missing something?

Edit: On second thought, forget what I've just said. I expected tailing predictions to be up in EP, but since movement has yet to take place after MP, everything's okay.

Yeah... I was about to say that it would be pretty hard for me to program the future! Weird that it gave you that strange message again. I definitely need to code in some death-detection.

Seeing pilot ratings in the stats this morning.

Yeah I announced this over in the dev thread. For this game I've set it all at 'Regular' for all pilots, meaning it should have no effect on the game.... so you guys get to try to imagine if it has an effect an complain when you now get to blame the supposedly 0 bonuses everyone has not really being 0. Alpha Game 5 will very specifically have varying pilot skills to see if we can notice on-average higher and lower rolls.

Another question...both of my fighters failed Shelton Slides this last turn. I notice that they say (1>=6). I'm assuming that "1" is my die roll...my 2d6 die roll. Rolling a 1 shouldn't be a valid possibility (unless the result is modified in some way, which it shouldn't be if I'm reading the rules right); what's the story on that?

Great question, but easily explained. When I started working on WCTOO, Ironduke and I discussed that carefully, and decided to use an expanded "dice" set. Ironduke had originally chosen d6's because that is the most common die available for people playing at home, but the computer has no limits. The 2d6 has average roll of 7, and has a normal distribution, whereas the 1d12 has a uniform distribution. It also did simplify and add back in the crit rolls of '1' and '12'. So yeah, anywhere in the manual that you read 2d6 read it now as 1d12. If this was posted, it is really early in the dev thread, if at all. (Honestly it might have been an email between us)

 

[capi3101]

So yeah, anywhere in the manual that you read 2d6 read it now as 1d12. If this was posted, it is really early in the dev thread, if at all. (Honestly it might have been an email between us)

Ah......I should've asked that question earlier, then. A couple of the decisions I've made in the game so far were based on the 2d6 distribution.

 

[capi3101]

Turn 11, movement phase:

Looks like Zeta1's counter for chaff didn't iterate like it was supposed to; he's still listed as having two chaff pods.

The fiery remains of Quail5 and Grimreaper still appear to be on the board as well.

 

[Avacar]

Turn 11, movement phase:

Looks like Zeta1's counter for chaff didn't iterate like it was supposed to; he's still listed as having two chaff pods.

The fiery remains of Quail5 and Grimreaper still appear to be on the board as well.

Yeah, it looks like the change I made to de-incrementing rot timers has backfired. The explosions still think they have 1 turn to go. I'm going to leave them up, but tweak the code; in theory they should go after the next EP phase if I get it fixed.

Also good catch on the chaff pods; not sure if the issue is related... checking... I have no idea why this isn't working. I think it was working before, meaning it might be related to the lack of explosions going away.

Okay I've got a potential fix in for the explosion issue. Let's see if this resolves the chaff issue magically as well.

 

[Avacar]

I've put in a minor fix for tailing. I think this should give better information to people who are trying to tail. By which I mean it should tell you when the program messed up instead of giving you some sort of weird error message.

 

[capi3101]

Turn 11, end phase.

...and Lady Luck finally shows up. Something told me shooting off that DF was a good idea. #sigh

Okay...so if I understand the rules correctly, taking evasive isn't going to help me, because the Sierra 2's missile was fired off in my face and my burner will just fly me straight into it, correct?

I'm curious as to what emergency option is available to Sierra 2...by my reckoning, he shot off all his forward guns, so point defense is out. My missile is flying into his face, so chaff pods are out. And he's out of AB fuel, so evasive is out. Maybe the game is considering his turret?

In any case, looks like the game's going to be down another two craft next turn. Unless Lady Luck continues the trend, of course...

 

[Avacar]

I'm curious as to what emergency option is available to Sierra 2...by my reckoning, he shot off all his forward guns, so point defense is out. My missile is flying into his face, so chaff pods are out. And he's out of AB fuel, so evasive is out. Maybe the game is considering his turret?

Yeah, the game thinks Sierra 2 has 3 reserved shots. Looking into it... aha; it is counting missiles. Oops. Bug Found! Working on a fix now... mostly done, but need to write some exceptions for turrets...

In any case, looks like the game's going to be down another two craft next turn. Unless Lady Luck continues the trend, of course...

Then time to start thinking about Game 5.

edit: Okay so I messed with point defense and turret interaction in a big way. I may have broken things. The good news is that forward-facing missile attacks will no longer be rear-turret worthy. Nor will missiles try to opportunity fire. The bad news is that I may have either added or disqualified more potential turret point defense opportunities. Ultimately turrets auto-point defense; you can't target them, so that had to get updated a bit.

I request that someone fly a broadsword in Game 5 and we'll see if it point defenses properly, or how badly things are broken.

Skanks: technically the game had been waiting on you, but after the bug fix, you had no options, so I submitted a blank order in for you.
/edit

 

[capi3101]

Turn 12, movement phase:

Okay...so Wandering Soul got a reprieve by hitting the 'burner, even though the missile he was evading was shot off in his face. Pretty sure that shouldn't have happened (based on that same line on p. 10, "The Rapier could not outrun the missile, though, if it performed a 180° turn"). Pretty sure we've talked about this before; don't recall if we tried a fix or not. We also didn't get a report of Sierra2's missile leaving the combat zone.

We've still got Quail5's and Grimreaper's grease spots on the board as well.

 

[Ironduke]

Turn 12 MP: "Zeta 1 can tell where Sierra 1 will fly next (rolled: 9)." Then clicking on tailing predictions: "None of your ships are tailing enemies, commander." M-hm...

 

[Avacar]

Well this is all sort of bug today.

Turn 12, movement phase:

Okay...so Wandering Soul got a reprieve by hitting the 'burner, even though the missile he was evading was shot off in his face. Pretty sure that shouldn't have happened (based on that same line on p. 10, "The Rapier could not outrun the missile, though, if it performed a 180° turn").

Yeah... at the moment as long as you do afterburn, you can avoid missiles to the face. I probably need to code a fix for that, but for now, it is not a bug in the code, just a shortcoming.

We also didn't get a report of Sierra2's missile leaving the combat zone.

Interesting; I had a weird thing come up during turn processing, a null value tried to clean itself up. Maybe it got shot down or something, but I don't know how. I don't know what went wrong; we'll just need to wait for it to happen again.

We've still got Quail5's and Grimreaper's grease spots on the board as well.

Drat, so much for that fix. I'll try another one when I have time.

Turn 12 MP: "Zeta 1 can tell where Sierra 1 will fly next (rolled: 9)." Then clicking on tailing predictions: "None of your ships are tailing enemies, commander." M-hm...

Don't submit orders! I'll use this as an opportunity to debug. I may have to take control of the ship for a bit, but I'll return it without submitting orders (i.e. you may never know I did it).

 

[Avacar]

Turn 12 MP: "Zeta 1 can tell where Sierra 1 will fly next (rolled: 9)." Then clicking on tailing predictions: "None of your ships are tailing enemies, commander." M-hm...

Don't submit orders! I'll use this as an opportunity to debug. I may have to take control of the ship for a bit, but I'll return it without submitting orders (i.e. you may never know I did it).

Okay so I found the problem, I think. Well I know the short-term problem, but I think I also fixed the longer term one.

Here's the short term problem: the tail target you has listed in the database wasn't updated to match this turns' tail target data. Changing the number to this turn's number for Sierra 1 allowed the tailing data.

So that raised the issue: why didn't the tail target value id get updated? I already had retroactive database update code (implemented because of a related issue we had had with missile targets about 6 months ago). I discovered that I was correctly updating the tail target data on ships that had already put their new turn into the database, but not the ones still waiting their turn! I've updated both systems to break it down better and update both cases.

So as with all my code changes... I might have introduced bugs or made things worse, but who knows? In theory it should be fixed.

I've returned control of Zeta 1 to you (it was mine during this testing).

 

[Ironduke]

I guess you're all seeing this, but in case not:

"indicator:database_tail_target_update (1): MySQL query error: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'WHERE `id`=3245' at line 1 SELECT `multiturn_data` WHERE `id`=3245"



That said, I was able to see what Sierra 1 was going to do in 12 MP.