.com.unity Forums
Page 241 of 310 « First 141191231239240 241 242243251291 Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Dominions 3: The Awakening (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=138)
-   -   Bug: Bug Thread: Discussion (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=30593)

Kadelake December 28th, 2008 11:42 AM
Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfb (Post 662434)
Result: It's like I said, if you conquered prov B in magic phase enemy units cannot move from A to C, through B.
What happens if you conquer C in magic phase and enemy units are trying to move from A to C through B? Will they still be able to attack C even though they didn't start out next to C.

PS: Sorry if this is the wrong thread for the question. It seemed kind of related to the discussion.

Gandalf Parker December 28th, 2008 12:04 PM
Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfb (Post 662383)
I don't understand what you mean by "the magic phase knocks out most of the sanity checks".

I was talking about if your army is moving from A to C through B, and your enemy casts Call of Winds on B. The game currently already does some sort of additional check on movement orders, because your army stays in A instead of ending up in C (assuming the hawks take B).

As far as computation time is concerned, I'm just speculating, but re-doing the test for underwater entry based on globals and commander amphibious attribute is just order N where N is the number of commanders, and even 15000 is an extremely small number for any system built since 1980. :)
That would be one test, one time.
But when it was said that another sanity check should occur after the magic phase then I was taking it to mean the full sanity check phase should occur again after the full magic phase. It sounded like it would involve checking all magically enacted movements again.

But if its just that each movement should be reality checked, and each magical action be checked when it occurs, then that would be minimal. Of course its never the ONE check. Its the additive of every additional check that comes up for discussion. And we have had many people praise Dom for running on systems they cant run other games on.

Actually I have no problem with long hostings. I dont tend to blitz much so everything is either hosted on a capable server, or its on my desktop and I appreciate the long hostings making me look up and realize that I should take care of other things. As far as I am personally concerned I wouldnt mind if every "hoggish code" (AI, checks, random events) that was cut-back due to host-time considerations was put back in full-force (or at least optioned).

Loren December 28th, 2008 01:39 PM
Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker (Post 662458)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfb (Post 662383)
I don't understand what you mean by "the magic phase knocks out most of the sanity checks".

I was talking about if your army is moving from A to C through B, and your enemy casts Call of Winds on B. The game currently already does some sort of additional check on movement orders, because your army stays in A instead of ending up in C (assuming the hawks take B).

As far as computation time is concerned, I'm just speculating, but re-doing the test for underwater entry based on globals and commander amphibious attribute is just order N where N is the number of commanders, and even 15000 is an extremely small number for any system built since 1980. :)
That would be one test, one time.
But when it was said that another sanity check should occur after the magic phase then I was taking it to mean the full sanity check phase should occur again after the full magic phase. It sounded like it would involve checking all magically enacted movements again.

But if its just that each movement should be reality checked, and each magical action be checked when it occurs, then that would be minimal. Of course its never the ONE check. Its the additive of every additional check that comes up for discussion. And we have had many people praise Dom for running on systems they cant run other games on.

Actually I have no problem with long hostings. I dont tend to blitz much so everything is either hosted on a capable server, or its on my desktop and I appreciate the long hostings making me look up and realize that I should take care of other things. As far as I am personally concerned I wouldnt mind if every "hoggish code" (AI, checks, random events) that was cut-back due to host-time considerations was put back in full-force (or at least optioned).
The thing is, the checks we are proposing are basically trivial. Most of the hosting time goes to the AI (in SP) and to battle resolution anyway.

For checks this simple I definitely disagree with the notion of making them optional--testing that option will take an appreciable percent of the time that the whole test would take.

Gandalf Parker December 28th, 2008 02:05 PM
Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 
I agree. This one by itself would be more of a waste of programming overhead to make it optional than it would be itself. Only if it was a "recheck all moves" might it be considered. And even then probably not by itself.

I meant that the whole collection of "would be nice but takes too long" would have been good to pile into an option for servers and people at work.

For the original clarified description of this check, I withdraw my comment. :)

Illuminated One January 5th, 2009 09:07 PM
Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 
I think there is a bug concerning underwater resources and land castles.
I've got two 50 admin land castles bordering an uw province I have taken and the uw province has 0 resources.

chrispedersen January 5th, 2009 11:03 PM
Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuminated One (Post 664289)
I think there is a bug concerning underwater resources and land castles.
I've got two 50 admin land castles bordering an uw province I have taken and the uw province has 0 resources.
And why is that a bug?

thejeff January 5th, 2009 11:21 PM
Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 
Land castles don't get resources from underwater provinces, so it seems reasonable that the uw provinces shouldn't lose resources?

Illuminated One January 6th, 2009 12:59 AM
Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 
Exactly.
I'm not sure though, that the land castles are responsible I just can't find another reason.

Incabulos January 6th, 2009 02:59 PM
Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 
I have that same issue in Chololera Mp game. I have two 50 admin forts bordering a water province and now the water province has 0 resources; just the same as the land province split between the two forts. The land one makes sense but not the water one.

chrispedersen January 6th, 2009 04:45 PM
Phoenix Immortal Bug
 
SOoooo..

Phoenix .. attacks some enemies...
Gets afflicted. (With disease) Dies. Blows up on battlefield.

Second incarnation. Has 1 hp. Blows up. dies.
Repeat, quite afew times.


Being immortal, and fighting in dominion, it returns to castle.
It has healed the disease affliction, but still only has 1 hp.
Kinda sucks being a god with 1 hp.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:47 AM.
Page 241 of 310 « First 141191231239240 241 242243251291 Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.