I'm been fiddling with the MPI AIPs for a little while now, and in testing, there seems to be a major problem with the basebuildminimum for two buildings:
- Training center
- Tech center
Depending on the build order and the map, either building may fail to build. The constructor goes through the motions (with sound fx), but nothing materializes (not even the wireframe).
My guess is there is a bug with the available space check, since both of those buildings are an odd shape (2x1 grids). Donextonfail does not work to bypass this condition, so there's no easy way to work around this problem.
I've got a test AIP (nothing but scrap collecting and base building) and AIP log files. GreenHeart suggested I replace the IA AIP and make a save file to show this... is the log file enough?
So, am I on glue, or is this a real bug? :?
im not sure about this, but could it be that since the comp always makes buildings facing south (thats why the comp's base it at the north) the buildings are build one way, but the comp only looks for two adjacent squares, so half the time the comp finds two adjacent build squares, but cant make because they arent in the right orientation? Im not sure, but would it be possible to give the comp a modifyed recycler that has a comstructor which builds the two buildings at once, but then a dll splits them? So they would originally be a square, but then be split into two parts? Dont know how that would work though... :s
Make sure the pathpoints for it are set correctly and their should be no problems...
I ran into this problem a while back on IA: Chill when 1.3 was still in private beta. I have since "played" with the map and have gotten the AI to properly build everything without problems but it seems I've created a couple more problems that still need some minor tweaking. You might want to try moving the Recy "spawn point" a little at a time. Whatever you do, make sure the Recy is facing the same direction as when you started when your done.
Ah... I'm not modding maps or anything... I've been working on improving the stock 1.3 AIP and that's it. The Scion side works great, but the ISDF side is giving me ulcers. :oops:
The AI looks to be making some miscalculations for the 2x1 size buildings (maybe due to orientation?). There's no problem with the bigger 2x2 buildings - factory, service bay and bomber bay, so it's a pretty specific bug.
I want to make a whole set of alternate AIPs, but I gotta get this issue resolved. If "donextonfail" worked properly in this case, it would be enough to workaround this bug (by re-ordering the build on the fly until everything fit).
Is this on every MPI map or just the ones where the Recy is a little cramped for space? I've noticed a tendency for the AI to have a problem building the training center when the Recy had little room to work with on the left side (looking at upgrade console from insinde Recy). The only exception I've seen is on IA: Iceberg. Not really sure whats going on with that map as it has the least amount of room around the Recy than any other stock map. :?
Like I said, it depends on the map and the build order. It's pretty simple to test... make the AIP set with a build order like:
ibpgen
ibfact
ibcbun
ibarmo
ibpgen
ibsbay
ibtrain
ibtcen
ibpgen
ibbomb
Now this order will work on MP Dunes, but fails on Chill and HiLo. I've tried literally dozens of build orders, and by fixing it on one map, another would fail. Rinse and repeat. If it fails, it's always on either ibtrain or ibtcen.
I've had ibbomb fail to build on cramped maps, but if will obey the "donextonfail" order, nor does the constructor actually try to build the ibbomb in those cases. So, I'm pretty sure the bug specifically affects training and tech centers.
Anyway, this seriously limits the AI's ISDF strategies, since losing training and tech center means no bomber bay, apc or walker.
How about we cut to the heart of the problem and give the Tech/Training square aprons?
-Av-
heh, just rotate the xis 90 degrees and were set :lol:
i wonder what would be supporting them then...guess thet connection pad is pretty strong...
Quote from: wugNow this order will work on MP Dunes, but fails on Chill and HiLo. I've tried literally dozens of build orders, and by fixing it on one map, another would fail. Rinse and repeat. If it fails, it's always on either ibtrain or ibtcen.
Not sure why it would do that at all :s .
Av, Would that take care of the problem on a cramped map like Chill? I'm not so sure it would because when I caught the cons trying to build the TC, it was try to build it in a really odd location (all or partly on the Recy).
I've read few posts here but I have a hunch of why it may fail to build.
The computer builds the building in a set direction, and the constructor tries to build the building, but it doesn't build, because the structure overlaps another owns terrain building / rugged terrain. I've tried this bug in old 1.1 games, where I would select any building, and make the constructor build, but I'd move the build rectile so fast that it goes over another buiding/rugged terrain/non-adjacent terrain, and I'd lose the scrap, and the constructor would go through full animation, but nothing materialized.
I suggest having something in the AIP so that you can configure where the AI builds, and/or what way the building is flipped.
There is already a buildlocation command in the aips. map makers have to make sure their maps work with the corresponding aips and vice versa.
Its just a question of testing things out and setting the path points right.
I've got a rather cheesy solution to this problem. If you can't make the AI place nonsquare objects, don't have any nonsquare objects. Untill the AI can place them, just make them square.
Quote from: Total Oblivion OmnisI'd move the build rectile so fast that it goes over another buiding/rugged terrain/non-adjacent terrain, and I'd lose the scrap, and the constructor would go through full animation, but nothing materialized.
I wonder if that bug is present in 1.3, it could be annoying as hell in 1.2...
Then there's the case where you accidently deploy the rec ontop of the basepool...
The Recy deploying issue is being addressed in 1.3.
The 1x2 buildings being a problem for the AI has been brought up many times but a decent solution hasn't been forthcoming. The way I see it the easiest thing to do is:
1. Expand the apron from 1x2 to 2x2 either by moving the buildings into the middle of a square apron OR doubling the buildings OR stretching them into wider buildings.
2. Cut them down into 1x1.
#1 may be an issue on some of the more cramped maps, while #2 may be disrespectful of the original designer. Personally I'd like to see them expanded into 2x2 square buildings and the more cramped maps expanded a bit for more elbow room if necessary.
Most of the Scion buildings are 2x2 so it's not an issue for them.
-Av-
Yes but Scion bases are always smaller than ISDF bases, thanks mainly to Power.
not always
scion bases can take up an expance, but they generally end after so long
but the dower in the field+spirewalk can take up a bit of space...
The real reason for an ISDF base being larger than a Scion base is the abundance of Power Generators vs the Lung system. The ISDF Power Generator is one of the biggest hogs in the game. Fill a base up with them and watch your comp drop to single digit framerates...
From a gameplay POV this creates a map specific limiting factor to ISDF expansion. On a cramped map you run out of room for PS's, so you can't have as many remote Gun Towers. It may even come down to choosing between base defenses and remote defenses... this is a GOOD strategy element.
So, you see, many MP players would look upon changing the 1x2 buildings as either gaining or losing a couple of PS's, depending on the maps played. That's why I say if the 1x2 buildings are changed the more cramped maps should be changed also, to keep the total build areas the same.
I think Bridges and HiLo are the two biggest issues... changing the buildings is easy.
-Av-
Well strat is very delicate, MPI isn't. Therefore make the MPI buildings different, perhaps combine the Tech centre and Training Fac into one 2x2 building that just looks like two seperapte constucted buildings...most people probably won't notice, and you won't have to screw up Human strats or change any maps.
Strat isn't delicate, Strat players are. :D
That wouldn't be a problem, other than maybe confusing the couple of newbies that show up from time to time. It'd be very easy to have the AI use square buildings...
-Av-
but can you make it so it dies seperately? without lungs though (isdf dont do lungs well...)
:?
They would still be separate buildings, only square... the only question is 1x1 or 2x2?
-Av-
I personally think giving the ISDF two more 2x2 buildings would be a very bad idea... Mostly because of base room.
The two buildings don't BOTH have to be the same size. Make one bigger and the other smaller.
Can you make a three block L shape? AI Build would require a free four square, but after it's done, one square would be still available for the other building? It would guarentee both can fit in the same amount of space, but the build order would be specific (L shape first). Probably too much baseplate strangeness for that.
I'd prefer both smaller though. ISDF bases tend to ramble on too much as it is.
have training and tech be one 2*2 building, but make it so they are killed seperately somehow
Quote from: Spawnhave training and tech be one 2*2 building, but make it so they are killed seperately somehow
Uh huh, sure, right after I finish world peace...
:lol:
Gotta love that word "somehow"...
-Av-
lungs?
That would give you both buildings when you built one... the AI cheats enough as it is... :)
-Av-
...and would also mean that if you destroyed one, it could only be replaced by the 'add lung' command, and that if you destroyed the other, both would die.
could make the lung a spawnpoint i guess, but that'd be messy
i know, that is why i said "somehow" :D
"Strat isn't delicate, Strat players are."
Dark fox might have something to say about that. Not only the strat isn't delicate comment, but also the idea that he is a fragile player as well....
I don't think Av had DF in mind when he made that comment. My interpretation of that comment sees it aimed at some of the more childish straters (you know, the ones that don't like their exploits taken away from them).
yeah, like how people complained when ai3 rats were introduced, and now its standard...
As with most of my comments I don't have any particular person in mind at the time that I make it. I try to consider the whole of the Community.
Strat is not delicate. It can change, evolve, become something completely different, and it's still Strat and someone will still like to play it. There are tons of Strat games out there, all different, and mods that turn them into something else not thought of by the game's creators. In the Battlezone universe there have been many different versions of BZ strat. FE has a Community Created version of strat, and it has a whole different set of units/weapons/rules/etc. from stock play and yet it's still Strat.
It's not "Strat" that's ever complained about any change, it's the Players. It's not "Strat" that's spent a year or so learning a certain way things are, and now resists learning anything new. See? Strat is what you make of it. It's not delicate at all, it can be hammered and molded and changed and still be Strat.
What's delicate is the Player base. Finding the right elements to appeal to as many different Players as possible is the Holy Grail of game development. The games that do it well make money and have large communities, those that don't die off.
Now, BZ is a dead game regardless of what version you play. BZ1 and 2 survive only because of a handful of hardcore enthusiasts. Changing the nature of Strat at this point could cause those few playing Strat to move on, because none of them seem willing to relearn the game. I don't blame them, but at times there's a little too much attitude involved and not enough civility for me.
Anyway, that's why I say Strat isn't delicate, the Players are. Change Strat too much and you have to look for new players, and that's not happening in the BZ universe...
-Av-
Thats a bit like saying your face isn't delicate, because if i changed a few bits here and there (like, broke the cheekbone, mabey turned the nose upside down...) it would still serve its function or being able to see/breath/protect the brain.
But noone cares if strat is asthetically pleasing :P
Quote from: Jwk the Hemp MonkeyThats a bit like saying your face isn't delicate, because if i changed a few bits here and there (like, broke the cheekbone, mabey turned the nose upside down...) it would still serve its function or being able to see/breath/protect the brain.
Not exactly, as that would be cosmetic changes not related to function. In the case of BZ2 the changes are almost entirely under the hood and to most players very subtle if noticeable at all. To take it to an extreme example it would be like making you see out of your mouth and breathe through your eyes without changing what it looks like from the outside.
Most people wouldn't notice, but every surgeon dealing with that person would find it very unsettling.
The 'vets' are the surgeons in that example...
And remember that I inherited the word 'delicate' from the previous posting... :) Delicate meaning 'fragile', or 'easily broken' is the intended use here, not 'weak' or 'effeminate'...
In a game with the meager player base that BZ has making too much of a change is ill advised. The player base is too small, and there's no influx of new players that don't already have predisposed notions of gameplay.
In the case of a 'new' version of BZ in another engine it would be economically adviseable to drift a little more towards FPS, providing strategy elements that are there for those that want them and invisible to anyone not interested. I know I've gone on about it before but it boils down to:
If you were an FPS player you'd pick a team, grab a ship, and go to it.
If you were an FPS oriented player but a little more interested in strategy you'd check the Objectives list, browse the radar screens, see what the enemy was doing, then outfit a certain ship and take off with an objective in mind.
If you were an RTS player you'd hop into Command mode, check the screens, and send AI supplies and defenses to key points as well as inform non-RTS players of strategic objectives.
That's what I'd like to see for BZ3, all wrapped up in a nice futuristic military wrapper...
-Av-