Renegade
26.11.2009, 19:32:49
"Fix it if it isn't" is cute. One can't even read out of your post what supposedly needs fixing.
And wth is "x" in (10,x)? No warhead should damage anything other than (10,3), (10,2), (10,1), (10,0), (10,-1), (10,-2), (10,-3). Anything else is outside of the lookup table.
Same goes for 11 - only less than half of (11,1), (11,0) and (11,-1) should be damaged anyway - so if you test with an InfantryType in the top-right corner of (11,1), it's no wonder you detect no damage.
Your "reference" of (10,4) being the max that should be reachable by the distance formula also suggests that you still haven't fully grasped how the system works - (10,4) is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's the mathematical maximum reachable. It's not on the lookup table. The game doesn't check it.
So, really...if you can provide simple, reproducible test cases which show the game does damage cells not on the graph, or doesn't damage areas it should on the graph, or something similar, I'll be happy to update the graph. But a claim it doesn't damage (11,1), for example, when less than half of that cell is even within radius in the first place, there is no guarantee your shooter hit the center of the cell, no one knows how damage and PercentAtMax are set, or how you actually tested for damage, is nothing I can act on.
As said - if you had an InfantryType standing in the top right corner of that cell, it's perfectly feasible it didn't get damaged, and the graph would still be correct.
So in order to determine whether anything is inaccurate, I really need more, very precise, details, down to at least the approximate area the shooter hit the impact cell in, and the position and type of testing target in the outer ring.
Also, I'm not sure what you're complaining about with the graph in general...the fact that it's a circle running through the middle of cells is exactly what was now unveiled. If that's the way the game works, that's the way the game works. I can't just make the graph inaccurate to make it easier to read?
- What is PercentAtMax set to?
- Where in the target cell did the impact happen?
- Where in the outer ring cell did you measure if damage happened?
- How in the outer ring cell did you measure if damage happened?
- AP has Verses as low as 25% against some targets. Are you sure nothing was damaged where damage should have been? Is it possible the damage was just so minuscule you didn't see it?
And wth is "x" in (10,x)? No warhead should damage anything other than (10,3), (10,2), (10,1), (10,0), (10,-1), (10,-2), (10,-3). Anything else is outside of the lookup table.
Same goes for 11 - only less than half of (11,1), (11,0) and (11,-1) should be damaged anyway - so if you test with an InfantryType in the top-right corner of (11,1), it's no wonder you detect no damage.
Your "reference" of (10,4) being the max that should be reachable by the distance formula also suggests that you still haven't fully grasped how the system works - (10,4) is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's the mathematical maximum reachable. It's not on the lookup table. The game doesn't check it.
So, really...if you can provide simple, reproducible test cases which show the game does damage cells not on the graph, or doesn't damage areas it should on the graph, or something similar, I'll be happy to update the graph. But a claim it doesn't damage (11,1), for example, when less than half of that cell is even within radius in the first place, there is no guarantee your shooter hit the center of the cell, no one knows how damage and PercentAtMax are set, or how you actually tested for damage, is nothing I can act on.
As said - if you had an InfantryType standing in the top right corner of that cell, it's perfectly feasible it didn't get damaged, and the graph would still be correct.
So in order to determine whether anything is inaccurate, I really need more, very precise, details, down to at least the approximate area the shooter hit the impact cell in, and the position and type of testing target in the outer ring.
Also, I'm not sure what you're complaining about with the graph in general...the fact that it's a circle running through the middle of cells is exactly what was now unveiled. If that's the way the game works, that's the way the game works. I can't just make the graph inaccurate to make it easier to read?
Forum Rules
(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!
(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.