Topic: I think I solved the double-fighter bug..

[FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC]

So simple when its figured out, good job Firesoul.

If the host drops, particularly before teams have been setup (say right at the beginning) or later if a new team is added, will mIsHost() report the new updated host correctly, in other words, does this function work properly?

[FireSoul]

So simple when its figured out, good job Firesoul.

If the host drops, particularly before teams have been setup (say right at the beginning) or later if a new team is added, will mIsHost() report the new updated host correctly, in other words, does this function work properly?

Based on results cause by a HostLeft the other night, yes. Further testing where the host purposely drops is recommended for more infomation. Actual registration of AIs in mOnHostChanged might be useful so that new elected host can take over if a host drop occurs later on in the game. A reset of AI commands would also be recommended.

-- Luc

[NuclearWessels]

What about AI-stripping and base busting?  Have those been fixed? 

Tell me exactly what you need tested, I will get it done.

Heh, whoops 

Fluf made me cut and paste a goof through a bunch of the team files while setting up the posted pack.  If  you do run across any real weirdness in the current batch it's Fluf's fault, not the result of FS's fighter-bug fix

Will have it corrected tomorrow, along with more news on the speed setting

dave

EDIT: modified to correctly allocate blame

[762_XC]

if you do run across any real weirdness in the current batch it's my fault, not the result of FS's fighter-bug fix

Incorrect Dave, it's Fluf's fault.

[Fluf]

Yeah get it together Dave!  Everything in the Universe is MY FAULT! 

[NuclearWessels]

Correction duly noted

dave

[Black]

And all is well in the universe ...   

Good work FS!!!

[NuclearWessels]

<scratches the stubble and stretches a few times>

OK, just a bit of an update.

It turns out that in some cases a shipstate class does currently need to be maintained for all teams - notably when it's responsible for performing updates on VCs.   The seek-and-destroy missions should be ok, but some of the ones with additional goals/requirements will need some changes before this fix can be fully applied.  Anywho, as I'm going through this I'm jotting down notes on what will need to be done to fix the remaining cases.

(The short version is that for now the fix might not get applied to some of the ships in some of the missions, but it'll be a minority.)

When I get the updated pack posted one of the big things to watch for in testing is misreporting of wins/losses -  if there's a mission consistently failing to give either the player or a draftee proper credit for a win then the odds are I've updated a case I shouldn't have.

DH - I'm going to have to postpone the speed configuration setting while I get this stuff squared away, but hopefully can come back to it (next week mb?)

dave

[762_XC]

<gives ED another karma boost>

Thank you Dave!

[FireSoul]

<scratches the stubble and stretches a few times>

OK, just a bit of an update.

It turns out that in some cases a shipstate class does currently need to be maintained for all teams - notably when it's responsible for performing updates on VCs.   The seek-and-destroy missions should be ok, but some of the ones with additional goals/requirements will need some changes before this fix can be fully applied.  Anywho, as I'm going through this I'm jotting down notes on what will need to be done to fix the remaining cases.

(The short version is that for now the fix might not get applied to some of the ships in some of the missions, but it'll be a minority.)

When I get the updated pack posted one of the big things to watch for in testing is misreporting of wins/losses -  if there's a mission consistently failing to give either the player or a draftee proper credit for a win then the odds are I've updated a case I shouldn't have.

DH - I'm going to have to postpone the speed configuration setting while I get this stuff squared away, but hopefully can come back to it (next week mb?)

dave

Hmmm..
.. why would non-hosts have to deal with the shipstates (and teamstates while at it) of the AIs? Is there a way to redo these exceptions so that only the host cares about this?

[FPF-DieHard]

Thanks Dave.   If we go live on August 21, we pretty much need the missions ready by August 14.

Again, I have a work around that would allow the existing missions to work in GW3.  Simply restrict ALL carriers in the Client shiplist.  They will no longer show up in missions but will still be available for players to purchase in the shipyards.

[FireSoul]

Thanks Dave.   If we go live on August 21, we pretty much need the missions ready by August 14.

Again, I have a work around that would allow the existing missions to work in GW3.  Simply restrict ALL carriers in the Client shiplist.  They will no longer show up in missions but will still be available for players to purchase in the shipyards.

I have something to add..
.. just like the double-fighter bug, the double weapons were always in effect.. most people probably just never noticed. Are you sure of your fix?

[NuclearWessels]

Hmmm..
.. why would non-hosts have to deal with the shipstates (and teamstates while at it) of the AIs? Is there a way to redo these exceptions so that only the host cares about this?

I don't think there should be an issue redoing the handful of exceptions - haven't spotted any yet that should be overly difficult ...  "cautiously optimistic" is the phrase

dave

[FPF-DieHard]

Thanks Dave.   If we go live on August 21, we pretty much need the missions ready by August 14.

Again, I have a work around that would allow the existing missions to work in GW3.  Simply restrict ALL carriers in the Client shiplist.  They will no longer show up in missions but will still be available for players to purchase in the shipyards.

I have something to add..
.. just like the double-fighter bug, the double weapons were always in effect.. most people probably just never noticed. Are you sure of your fix?

The EEK missions do not due double heavy weapons any more (90% certain that got fixed).  I have seen double-mauler shots with the current ED core missions.

Double weapons is mostly noticable with plasma, we haven't seen plasma on the GW series yet.

As far as my "fix," Both EEK and ED missions will not draw restricted ships so this SHOULD work, I have not had a chance to test it yet.

[FireSoul]

no carriers.. that's gonna get boring..


..waitaminute, I'll be flying Klingon! Their fighters SUCK!..
... Carry on. 

[FPF-DieHard]

no carriers.. that's gonna get boring..


..waitaminute, I'll be flying Klingon! Their fighters SUCK!..
... Carry on. 

More boring than Stock missions?   

[762_XC]

I would rather watch a sewing tournament than play stock missions again!

[NuclearWessels]

Yup, testing now.

Dod you have any patrols that do not start the players in motion?

Most of the _tw patrols start you off standing still (can't honestly remember when I did that) so if the total war pack is ok for you at least there are a few options

dave

[NuclearWessels]

Core missions
Total War missions
The whole shebang

OK, I've completed the script revisions and tested the majority of the core/total war missions (plus a handful of the weirdo specialty missions) and no glitches so far.

EDIT: all three updated versions are now online

Keep your eyes peeled for abnormal mission endings or results reporting,
hopefully other than that we'll be ok

thanks again!
dave

[FireSoul]

Fetching now. Which server has these missions? Bonk's?