Lumituisku Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 Since 4.1, I have noticed that on many missions where previously were no problems units with "Random" routes now sometimes don't pick a route. For example classic TANKS missions. - It seems that even when there is two different routes leaving from way-point with "embark If" commands. One with "0<=random variable NEW < 50" and another with "50<=random variable NEW < 100" AI unit sometimes doesn't pick either. So... I wonder, if there has been a change in this that I have somehow missed to notice? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toyguy Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 That doesn’t seem like it would ever work as a new number is being requested each time, thus the condition could be false each time. You’d want to request once, then act on it if less than 50 or else take the other route. No need to request another value. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 44 minutes ago, Lumituisku said: For example classic TANKS missions. - It seems that even when there is two different routes leaving from way-point with "embark If" commands. One with "0<=random variable NEW < 50" and another with "50<=random variable NEW < 100" AI unit sometimes doesn't pick either. It is rather confusing, but '<' is treated as '<=', so if random variable new is '50', while 2 routes have embark logic "0<=random variable NEW < 50" and "50<=random variable NEW < 100", embarking conditions will conflict each over. This means, there should be one unconditioned route, and variables ranges for conditioned routes need to be adjusted. See SBWiki article: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Random_Numbers_In_Control_Logic 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumituisku Posted August 24, 2019 Author Share Posted August 24, 2019 Interesting. Thank you guys. This seems to have solved it very well indeed. Units keep now moving nicely around the map once again. So basically problem is (was), when random variable new gets same value that is on two or more conditions , AI wont be able to choose witch one to take and will instead stay where it is due to that conflict? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 Just now, Lumituisku said: So basically problem is (was), when random variable new gets same value that is on two or more conditions , AI wont be able to choose witch one to take and will instead stay where it is due to that conflict? Exactly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotareneg Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Toyguy said: That doesn’t seem like it would ever work as a new number is being requested each time, thus the condition could be false each time. You’d want to request once, then act on it if less than 50 or else take the other route. No need to request another value. In 4.0 and older, it generated one "new" random number on arrival to a waypoint and checked it sequentially against each conditional route, which let you have a bunch of routes fan out from that waypoint. Now that it rerolls "new" with each check that won't work anymore, so scenarios that used it break. Either use fixed random variables (X03, etc.) that don't change or a series of 50/50 splits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngel Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 3 hours ago, Rotareneg said: In 4.0 and older, it generated one "new" random number on arrival to a waypoint and checked it sequentially against each conditional route, which let you have a bunch of routes fan out from that waypoint. Now that it rerolls "new" with each check that won't work anymore, so scenarios that used it break. Either use fixed random variables (X03, etc.) that don't change or a series of 50/50 splits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 11 hours ago, Lumituisku said: Since 4.1, I have noticed that on many missions where previously were no problems units with "Random" routes now sometimes don't pick a route. For example classic TANKS missions. - It seems that even when there is two different routes leaving from way-point with "embark If" commands. One with "0<=random variable NEW < 50" and another with "50<=random variable NEW < 100" AI unit sometimes doesn't pick either. So... I wonder, if there has been a change in this that I have somehow missed to notice? There has been a change that broke many of my scenarios which worked perfectly before. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 25, 2019 Members Share Posted August 25, 2019 While we rate it as invalid, we're still working on a fix, and I think it'll make it into the next patch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Ssnake said: While we rate it as invalid, we're still working on a fix, and I think it'll make it into the next patch. If the multiple rolling of the dice was the original intended behaviour, why give the user 2 values to for the variable to be between? ZERO < NEW < UserValue would have been enough, but we have the current setup, UserValue1 < NEW < UserValue2 which implies to me it was designed for the behaviour I used to rely on 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngel Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 No because don't forget there are the Xn numbers which are covered by the same logic entry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, DarkAngel said: No because don't forget there are the Xn numbers which are covered by the same logic entry. No, that’s different, X1 etc will be the same throughout the scenario. NEW should be a new value each time a waypoint is reached. The complaint is that now it is new again for each individual route leaving a waypoint. Edited August 25, 2019 by ben 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 25, 2019 Members Share Posted August 25, 2019 It's always been that XNew would be rolled new every time that it would be tested. A bug in that routine allowed you to apply it the way you did in past versions (it should have failed back then already). That bug was removed, which on the one hand makes the description of it as a "new bug" "invalid" but at the same time we acknowledge that leaving you with this the way it is now isn't exactly helpful either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.