View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002437 | AI War 1 / Classic | Bug - Other | Jan 14, 2011 2:55 pm | Jan 15, 2011 4:30 pm | |
| Reporter | Toll | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 4.066 | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 4.067 | ||||
| Summary | 0002437: Siege Starships still fire upon harvesters when they're covered by a harvester exo-shield. | ||||
| Description | The summary says it all, really. Even though Siege Starships fire antimatter bombs, and harvester exo-shields are immune to them, they still fire on the harvesters covered by it, doing no damage at all. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
Oh, yikes. This is a huge and wide-ranging issue, actually. Hmmmmm.... |
|
|
I don't know if it's related, or needs its own topic, or is just not a bug, but trying to attack a unit under a forcefield with a siege starship results in the starship trying to fly up to the forcefield and bump into it for a while before it goes off to do something else. Trying to attack the FF gen directly will result in the normal behavior of doing nothing. |
|
|
I believe that's the same issue, Bob, and both should be fixed with this: * A whole host of internal logic changes have been made to forcefields. Most of them are a bit difficult to explain, but the upshot is that now instead of caring about "strong" and "Weak" forcefields in most cases (aside from collision with forcefields), the game just tracks a single protecting forcefield for all the ships, and tracks an additional "firepower-reducing forcefield" for the human ships only. The only firepower-reducing forcefields for the humans at the moment are those three basic ones and the player home planet ones. In the past, there was a lot of logic that was incorrectly only looking at "Strong" forcefields for decision making purposes, and now all of that just looks at the generic forcefield protector, which should lead to a lot of subtle ship targeting improvements. It may also lead to some new issues, go figure, but that's kind of unavoidable as a risk. * When determining firepower against a ship under a forcefield (and thus also hit chance, etc), ships now use the firepower they would have against the forcefield, rather than the ship itself (assuming the attacker isn't immune to force fields). Given that's the firepower that would hit the forcefield, that's more accurate for decision-making in general, but this is particularly critical as of late because of how some ships are now unable to hit some forcefields (ie, the anitmatter bombs). This change should prevent things like siege starships from trying to fire against ships that are under a forcefield that just nullifies out all their damage. If that doesn't solve the problems in the next release, though, then please let us know! I'll push that out in about an hour or so. |
|
|
By the way, siege starship description still says they "do grievous harm to... forcefields". Not so much! |
|
|
Hmm. I just had another Siege Starship appear in a wave. While it didn't attack the harvester under the forcefield directly now, it did attack the harvester exo-shield building itself (which of course isn't covered by its own shield). |
|
|
See above, I guess. |
|
|
Do you have a save that can demonstrate this? |
|
|
Hrm. I'll try to create one, but no guarantees as for how long it'll take... |
|
|
Ok -- no worries, and I appreciate it. |
|
|
Ah, you're in luck! One of my recent autosaves have a siege starship on my planet. EDIT: After loading the game, the harvesters were reset, but the shields remained. The siege starship kept firing on them though. |
|
|
|
|
|
Got it for 4.068 :) |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2011 2:55 pm | Toll | New Issue | |
| Jan 14, 2011 3:11 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0008481 | |
| Jan 14, 2011 3:11 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Jan 14, 2011 3:11 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => confirmed |
| Jan 14, 2011 3:53 pm | BobTheJanitor | Note Added: 0008482 | |
| Jan 14, 2011 4:09 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0008485 | |
| Jan 14, 2011 4:09 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | confirmed => resolved |
| Jan 14, 2011 4:09 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Fixed in Version | => 4.067 |
| Jan 14, 2011 4:09 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Jan 14, 2011 8:38 pm | BobTheJanitor | Note Added: 0008502 | |
| Jan 15, 2011 7:06 am | Toll | Note Added: 0008523 | |
| Jan 15, 2011 7:06 am | Toll | Note Added: 0008524 | |
| Jan 15, 2011 7:06 am | Toll | Status | resolved => feedback |
| Jan 15, 2011 7:06 am | Toll | Resolution | fixed => reopened |
| Jan 15, 2011 12:42 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0008550 | |
| Jan 15, 2011 12:44 pm | Toll | Note Added: 0008551 | |
| Jan 15, 2011 12:44 pm | Toll | Status | feedback => assigned |
| Jan 15, 2011 12:45 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0008552 | |
| Jan 15, 2011 12:48 pm | Toll | Note Added: 0008553 | |
| Jan 15, 2011 12:49 pm | Toll | File Added: Autosave_2011_01_15_13_09_14.sav | |
| Jan 15, 2011 12:51 pm | Toll | Note Edited: 0008553 | |
| Jan 15, 2011 4:30 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0008563 | |
| Jan 15, 2011 4:30 pm | keith.lamothe | Status | assigned => resolved |
| Jan 15, 2011 4:30 pm | keith.lamothe | Resolution | reopened => fixed |
