New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[SotA] S9 loss condition doesn't work #3192

Closed
beetlenaut opened this Issue May 28, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@beetlenaut
Member

beetlenaut commented May 28, 2018

In 09_Training_Session, you are supposed to lose if all your new Dark Adepts die, so they are counted in a die event. The condition upkeep=full filters out potential loyal adepts and the leader. However, leaders now have upkeep set to full, so that doesn't work. The game always counts one too many adepts (because it counts the leader), and you don't lose if they all die.

So, the leader, Ras-Tabahn has to be made loyal at some point before that scenario starts, or another condition has to be added to the die event in that scenario to filter him out, or the engine has to go back to making leaders loyal by default. I'm not sure which would be better.

@sigurdfdragon

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

sigurdfdragon commented May 29, 2018

The fix I'll do sometime in the next week will be to adjust the wml filter conditions.

@CelticMinstrel

This comment has been minimized.

Member

CelticMinstrel commented May 29, 2018

I think making leaders have upkeep=loyal by default would be best. Not sure if that's easy though.

@gfgtdf

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

gfgtdf commented May 29, 2018

I think making leaders have upkeep=loyal by default would be best. Not sure if that's easy though.

this would then again compablity issue for no reson in the next release, also it might give problems when a leader is converted into a non-leader and it keeop or doesnt keeo it's loyal upkeep..

@sevu

This comment has been minimized.

Member

sevu commented May 29, 2018

Probably best to filter out the leader with canrecruit=no added to the filter

@CelticMinstrel

This comment has been minimized.

Member

CelticMinstrel commented May 30, 2018

this would then again compablity issue for no reson in the next release, also it might give problems when a leader is converted into a non-leader and it keeop or doesnt keeo it's loyal upkeep..

Well, the compatibility argument is moot if this is a bugfix (that is, we're changing it back to how it worked in 1.12). As for the second thing, the easiest way to get around that would probably be for the upkeep getter to also check whether the unit can recruit; then setting the upkeep of a leader unit would have no effect, but if the unit is no longer a leader, whatever upkeep was set suddenly takes effect again.

@gfgtdf

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

gfgtdf commented May 30, 2018

Well, the compatibility argument is moot if this is a bugfix

it's not, people that write addons for 1.14 will expect the new behviour, changing it will break their addons.

that is, we're changing it back to how it worked in 1.12)

noone showed yet that it behaved differntly on 1.12

As for the second thing, the easiest way to get around that would probably be for the upkeep getter to also check whether the unit can recruit; then setting the upkeep of a leader unit would have no effect, but if the unit is no longer a leader, whatever upkeep was set suddenly takes effect again.

that is exactly the current beviour.

sigurdfdragon added a commit that referenced this issue May 31, 2018

SotA S09: Fix #3192
...by making the filter more exact.

[ci skip]

jostephd added a commit to jostephd/wesnoth that referenced this issue Oct 6, 2018

SotA S09: Fix wesnoth#3192
...by making the filter more exact.

jostephd pushed a commit to jostephd/wesnoth that referenced this issue Oct 7, 2018

SotA S09: Fix wesnoth#3192
...by making the filter more exact.

(cherry-picked from commit 047eded)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment