This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long)
- From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- To: Hans Ronne <hronne at comhem dot se>
- Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:09:06 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long)
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:
> OK. So your scheme doesn't distinguish between visible and invisible units.
It doesn't need to. 'fire-into' doesn't need to distinguish
between visible and invisible units.
> That makes your whole argument about units "u1" and "u2", which was based
> on one of them being visible and the other invisible, irrelevant to the
> issue at hand (how to best model hits against stacked units).
Bullshit. And you know it. The argument about units "u1" and "u2"
pertained to _your_ scheme and not mine. Please stop twisting
things; it is starting to get a wee bit annoying. I am not asking
to admit your argument was wrong; if you're too proud to admit a
mistake, that's fine by me. But don't sit there and take what I
say out of context and attempt to distort it. I will not let you
win an argument that way.
Only visible units can be targeted by 'fire-at'. The only way to
have a chance to hit an invisible unit should be by using
'fire-into', and the chance of hitting an unit (visible or
invisible) with 'fire-into' (unaimed fire) should not be the same
as with 'fire-at' (aimed fire).
> The problem with visible and invisible units having the same hit-chance is
> something that we will have to fix regardless of what model we use for the
> fire-into action. It could all be handled by tables, as already discussed.
Right.
> We should not make things more complicated than they have to be by
> introducing other units and their sizes into the hit-chance calculations
> for a given unit.
Without the introduction of an additional table or property, it is
highly unlikely you will find an acceptable solution to the
problem.
> Good. Let's forget about bringing the sizes of other units into the
> hit-chance calculations, then.
If by sizes, you mean the target area suggestion that I had, then
maybe you should think a little bit more closely about it. It is,
in fact, equivalent to introducing an 'indirect-fire-hit-chance'
table or whatever the f___ you want to call it.