This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
XC7 protection
- To: Xconq 7 Mailing List <xconq7@cygnus.com>
- Subject: XC7 protection
- From: Keir Novik <ken21@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:52:33 +0100 (BST)
- cc: Stan Shebs <shebs@cygnus.com>
Xconq 7.2.2, for X11.
I'm a bit confused with how the table protection is supposed to work.
According to the docs
- Table: `protection' U1 U2 -> N%
This table gives the effect of occupants of type U1 on the chance
of another unit's attack hitting their transport U2, as well as
the effect of the transport U1 on the chance that occupants of
type U2 will be hit. This is a multiplier, where 100 has no
protection, values less than 100 decrease hit chance, and values
greater than 100 increase it. Each occupant will be taken into
account when computing transport's protection. Defaults to `100'.
Okay, fair enough. So consider the following bit cut from a game:
(add hp-max occupant 1)
(add hp-max transport 100)
(table hit-chance
(occupant transport 80)
(occupant occupant 100)
(transport u* 0)
)
(table protection (transport occupant X))
where I plan to consider the effect of varying whatever number I put in
place of "X". Now, I did a little experiment, where we have 24 occupants
in a transport, and then attack that transport 8 times. Here are the
results, hit/miss indicating whether or not we hit the transport and the
number in parenthesis indicating the number of occupants destroyed in that
attack.
X=1:
hit(1), miss(0), miss(1), hit(0), hit(0), hit(0), hit(0), hit(1)
X=10:
hit(3), miss(2), hit(2), miss(0), miss(1), hit(3), miss(1), miss(0)
X=50:
miss(5), miss(3), hit(1), hit(3), miss(1), hit(4), miss(0), miss(1)
X=99:
hit(1), miss(0), miss(0), miss(0), hit(0), miss(1), hit(0), miss(0)
X=100:
no occupants destroyed
X=200:
no occupants destroyed
This strikes me as a bit unusual, seeing as how the docs suggest occupants
are more vulnerable for X > 100. Stan, is this how it's supposed to work?
- Keir