View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0019647 | AI War 2 | Gameplay Issue | Jun 29, 2018 10:25 am | Jul 1, 2018 8:28 pm | |
| Reporter | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | BadgerBadger | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 0.746 Disposing of the Invisible Man | ||||
| Summary | 0019647: Rallying to control group with strongest ship in motion should go to destination. | ||||
| Description | BADGER_TODO or KEITH_TODO: If the target entity that we are rallying to already has movement orders, then we should rally to its eventual destination, not its current one. This applies in particular to ships that would be rallying to something that was newly-created. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| related to | 0019477 | resolved | BadgerBadger | Rally menu gets confused about Group IDs |
|
|
Doesn't this maximize the chance that your rally path accidentally walks you through enemy forces, or into an enemy planet before the rest of the fleet (if the constructor is closer to the destination than the control group is)? It would be slightly more efficient, sure, but there are potential downsides. I will investigate what makes sense when I get home |
|
|
My thought is this process: 1. Ships from control group are mostly on planet A, waiting to attack or actually attacking or whatever. 2. New starship is constructed on planet B, now becoming the strongest ship in the control group. Thanks to a recent change it will rally to A just fine. No problems yet. 3. New smaller ship is constructed on planet C. Starship is the strongest thing and is still on planet B rather than planet A. So while that starship is created, small ships from planet C are all heading to spots in a travel line on planet B, and later on planet A, spread out in a mess as they head towards its location as it travels to the main group. |
|
|
So the original code says "When rallying to the group target, once you get close enough then copy the group target's orders". Unfortunately it defined "close enough" poorly, so it would never actually work. I changed the definition and now it seems to be okay. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2018 10:25 am | Chris_McElligottPark | New Issue | |
| Jun 29, 2018 10:25 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => assigned |
| Jun 29, 2018 10:25 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => BadgerBadger |
| Jun 29, 2018 10:26 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Relationship added | related to 0019477 |
| Jun 29, 2018 10:30 am | BadgerBadger | Note Added: 0047624 | |
| Jun 29, 2018 10:32 am | BadgerBadger | Note Edited: 0047624 | |
| Jun 29, 2018 10:35 am | BadgerBadger | Note Edited: 0047624 | |
| Jun 29, 2018 10:37 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0047626 | |
| Jul 1, 2018 8:28 pm | BadgerBadger | Status | assigned => resolved |
| Jul 1, 2018 8:28 pm | BadgerBadger | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Jul 1, 2018 8:28 pm | BadgerBadger | Note Added: 0047666 |
