Leader an Beneifits

[pry]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Got it and they are on the way to you Pry.

Are these files what you all started with or what you ended up with????

[Black Cat]

Matrix

Was not the "Leader Bug " listed as 'Fixed" in the list of changes that came out with the 1.30 Patch ? ( which was 2 months in production and testing )


Also while several Matrix people, including Mike, responded to this thread, no one answered the upthread question if a patch that fixes the " Leader Bug " will be issued at once or rolled into 1.40 in some distance future.

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Matrix

Was not the "Leader Bug " listed as 'Fixed" in the list of changes that came out with the 1.30 Patch ?

They thought they did. But obviously there are several reasons for leader bug, so now they try to track them all dawn and fix in 1.4.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Matrix

Was not the "Leader Bug " listed as 'Fixed" in the list of changes that came out with the 1.30 Patch ?


Also while several Matrix people, including Mike, responded to this thread, no one answered the upthread question if a patch that fixes the " Leader Bug " will be issued at once or rolled into 1.40 in some distance future.

I believe so but it turned out to bea cockroach...needs a few more stomps.[:)]

[2ndACR]

Sorry Pry, stepped away from the computer for a few. See you PM box.

[Black Cat]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Matrix

Was not the "Leader Bug " listed as 'Fixed" in the list of changes that came out with the 1.30 Patch ?


Also while several Matrix people, including Mike, responded to this thread, no one answered the upthread question if a patch that fixes the " Leader Bug " will be issued at once or rolled into 1.40 in some distance future.

I believe so but it turned out to bea cockroach...needs a few more stomps.[:)]

Something certainly is needed at Matrix Ron..........it`s difficult to see how that could have slipped past the patch testing to be listed as " Fixed ".

[Tankerace]

According to Frag, there are only 2 instances of it that have workarounds.... however this was obviousl not the case. According to pry, they have a hard time duplicating the bug.

My theory is since they couldn't reproduce it, they just assumed it was fixed. As long as it gets fixed (preferably sooner than later) I'll be happy. Course its still ironic that because everyone at Matrix as away, the patch was delayed for what was it, 1 week, week and a half. To bad they couldn't have double-double checked it then.

[2ndACR]

Ron, expect an answer from Pry in your inbox soon. He has found the problem or problems.[:-]

[Tankerace]

problem = bad

problems = really bad

deleting an entire folder of graphics you had worked on for War Plan Orange-------- suicidal.


And yes, I have encoutered all three in WPO development.... lets just say I learned I needed to back up stuff the hard way.

[2ndACR]

I will let Pry explain it to you guys. it is above my head editor wise.

But I would go with the 3rd option with the small run down I got from Pry.

[pry]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Sorry Pry, stepped away from the computer for a few. See you PM box.

No problem...

Important Message for Ron...

Ron do us all a favor and let go of the mouse and step away from the computer... [;)]

It is going to be quicker to start all over again than try to fix the all damage done to the ship data base.... every Allied ship assigned leader is between 1 and 3 slots off from where they are supposed to be.... The leader data base is Ok but your ship data base is truely and fully hosed...

Lexington's commander should be 18379 but you have 13882 some are off 3 some 2 and all the others 1 and I don't know how you did it but that is your problem (The game is doing exactly what you told it to do, BTW)

[Tankerace]

Hrm.... how could the ship database hose it? Unless.... Oh, I see it. When he moved the leaders down, they took the COs in those slots, and then he put in the default leader, the ships looked for the new leaders in the new slots.

[Tankerace]

The Magical post! The start date of War Plan Orange! Hallujah!

Ok, just thought that was interesting.











<-------- 1922 baby, booyah!

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Matrix

Was not the "Leader Bug " listed as 'Fixed" in the list of changes that came out with the 1.30 Patch ?


Also while several Matrix people, including Mike, responded to this thread, no one answered the upthread question if a patch that fixes the " Leader Bug " will be issued at once or rolled into 1.40 in some distance future.

I believe so but it turned out to bea cockroach...needs a few more stomps.[:)]

Something certainly is needed at Matrix Ron..........it`s difficult to see how that could have slipped past the patch testing to be listed as " Fixed ".

They are working their butts off on this. It seems it might have something to do with losing leaders when a ship is lost so it takes time for it to become readily apparent. This game is pretty big, sometimes things just slip through the cracks.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Sorry Pry, stepped away from the computer for a few. See you PM box.

No problem...

Important Message for Ron...

Ron do us all a favor and let go of the mouse and step away from the computer... [;)]

It is going to be quicker to start all over again than try to fix the all damage done to the ship data base.... every Allied ship assigned leader is between 1 and 3 slots off from where they are supposed to be.... The leader data base is Ok but your ship data base is truely and fully hosed...

Lexington's commander should be 18379 but you have 13882 some are off 3 some 2 and all the others 1 and I don't know how you did it but that is your problem (The game is doing exactly what you told it to do, BTW)

Well, without an editor manual I inserted two leaders in empty slots...mistake apparently hitting insert when I did not have too. So, the database for leaders seems a bit unfriendly to me. Amazing how 2 leaders could affect thousands of ships!!! There has to be a better way to build the database to Fischer Price it for the PC challenged.

That's a lot of work completely wasted.[:(]

Thanks for the effort and consideration though Paul. Seeing how much haedache I caused you with my typo, I guess I now know how ya felt.[;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Hrm.... how could the ship database hose it? Unless.... Oh, I see it. When he moved the leaders down, they took the COs in those slots, and then he put in the default leader, the ships looked for the new leaders in the new slots.

Right, so I'm thinking when leaders are lost, this same thing might be happening. Worth a shot. Hopefully it is linked so my work is not a complete waste.

[pasternakski]

I tried to tell you people more than two years ago that this game would turn into the tar baby if you strayed from game design and tried to pander to the "mod people."

You have sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.

Congratulations.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I tried to tell you people more than two years ago that this game would turn into the tar baby if you strayed from game design and tried to pander to the "mod people."

You have sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.

Congratulations.

WTF do tar babies, leaders and mods have to do with each other? Making scenarios with the editor is not screwing with the game. Having leaders was a game design decision, they (the devs) did not pander to anybody. I for one would have liked them to have left many design decisions for the alpha stage, but most of the design comes from UV so no dice. Not a whole lot of pandering going on from my seat. I'm not sure where you are coming from with that other than the fact you are obviously frustrated with it. Many are, myself included, but hey, they are working on it. It will work out in the end. Whether we have any hair left on our heads is another matter.[:D]

[pry]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Thanks for the effort and consideration though Paul. Seeing how much haedache I caused you with my typo, I guess I now know how ya felt.[;)]

No problem Ron, you must have also inserted some ships because only the allied ships are wrong, the Japanese ships are all still correct. Like I told you before never use insert when using the data base editor.

Also FYI, you added a bunch of classes 409 to 437 in the class data base and assigned them Japanese bitmap numbers that will cause a CTD when the player tries to look at the ship details this will have to be corrected also.

Check your email...

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Thanks for the effort and consideration though Paul. Seeing how much haedache I caused you with my typo, I guess I now know how ya felt.[;)]

No problem Ron, you must have also inserted some ships because only the allied ships are wrong, the Japanese ships are all still correct. Like I told you before never use insert when using the data base editor.

Also FYI, you added a bunch of classes 409 to 437 in the class data base and assigned them Japanese bitmap numbers that will cause a CTD when the player tries to look at the ship details this will have to be corrected also.

Check your email...

Thanks. Darn, I don't remember adding those ships in there. Stayed up too darn late I guess and screwed the pooch. Did not "insert" any ships, perse. This is a shared database so who knows. Sounds like a fresh start is in order.

Thanks again.