![]() |
idea's bug's
here's everything i found in ideas common q's and the outer pb2.6mm forum...
i got tired when i reached the bug reports...so if anyone wnats to finish it be my guest... Ps: i tried uploading a doc but the files size 51k and max allowed is 19k.. Quote:
|
Re: idea's bug's
Ok, here's a bit of stuff I collected (not as thoroughly and concisely as Huntakillaz, though - just to keep track of what's still missing).
I tried to sort it by priority... but of course, priority for you can be different than for me. First of all, some good news: -Aiming code has been improved, no wiggling & more human-like (haven't tested yet) -Grenade throwing bug is fixed (again, not tested yet) -Changed WP colours in editor for clearer look -WP check bug (jumped to wrong WP) is fixed I'm sure I missed some more... but even if it's "only" this, it's a nice package... a TON of thanks and applause to sPlOrYgOn and all others who contributed their part (you know who you are)! =) 1. Button code As described in some other threads, the button code doesn't work very well. Bots should a) ignore things like trigger_multiple (if a button targets a trigger_multiple and the trigger_multiple targets the door) and just look for a func_button or whatever can be used for the same purpose. b) not stray from WP navigation completely, but first move to the WP nearest to the button detected. c) push the button and walk back to the nearest WP d) proceed. If this is possible, of course... :D One idea: We currently have a button flag that forces bots to push a button; else they will only look for buttons if their path is blocked. How about this: a) The button flag tells bots where to check for buttons, i.e. it activates the button code. Now if a connection is blocked by a func_door or whatever, bots would push the button nearest to the flagged WP, and if there's no obstacle detected, bots will proceed to the next WP. b) If there is no button flag, bots will know that all doors etc. open automatically, and their button search routine will remain idle. They just won't try to push a button, they won't even search for one. 2. DediServer commands / parameters a) addbot seems to work correctly - a bot is added if I enter this command, or if I have it in my podbot.cfg. If maxbot (see below) is lower than the amount of addbot lines in your cfg, no addbot should be executed after maxbot is reached. b) minbot / maxbot should only determine how many bots may be on the server, but it shouldn't do anything itself, or maybe just add bots until minbot is reached - but not a single bot more. c) fillserver should be a command that must be actively entered (or chosen from a menu) - when executed, it should fill all free slots and then stop. If there are less free slots than maxbot (e.g. 5 free slots on server, rest occupied by humans, maxbots 12), it should be limited by the 5 free slots and not try to add 12 bots. If there are more free slots then maxbot, what then? Stick to maxbot and leave some slots free? Or override maxbot in this case? d) autoaddremove should be a parameter that determines if a free slot is refilled with a bot automatically, or if a bot is kicked automatically when a player joins. It should, however, only be used to fill or free slots as human players leave / enter the game. It should not execute any addbot commands or automatically fill the server. That's the way I understand these functions were meant to work originally - if I'm wrong, please correct me. From what KWo posted, I understand that they don't seem to work like this on a dedicated server. 3. collectexperience So far, collectexperience off will crash the server on map change. As experience really enhances gameplay, I think it could be forced to on, without an option to deactivate it. As long as it can be turned off, doing so shouldn't result in crashes... ;) 3. WP debuggoal a) Enemies AND map goals should be ignored during debuggoal b) debugging passages through various WPs should be possible c) Bots should stop moving once they have reached the goal WP. They keep falling off walls & ledges before you can enter a new goal WP. :( For the rest, see above or ToDo-List... or I forgot :D |
Re: idea's bug's
One good news - kick bot from selected team is made already by sPlOrYgOn.
Another thing wanted by many people - for all releases , all betas - write exactly version number in code to show in console or as motd or something in log. This can be also building number (like for HL). But every release - official or beta - separate number. For example last sPlOrYgOn beta - 2.2beta4 . Another thing I posted this - bots at the end of one map , after mapchange should be the same at begining of the new map (ignoring addbot command from podbot.cfg after mapchange - execute them only at first load the game) saving the list of bots at end of the one map and re-enter them to the game at the start the nem map (hard because of this changelevel and ServerDeactivate). |
Re: idea's bug's
okay for release numbers..
here's how it goes.. "Podbot 2.6mm Release X.Y" X will be incremented for each release.. Y is incremented only when there was a problem with the first initial release such as a little tiny bug that needed fixing.. the next release is R3... so the betas are actually R3 betas.. the min_bots and max_bots problem can all be solved.. if only you guys read what was in the podbot.cfg since pb2.5... Quote:
it's pretty close how CF wanted it.. yet KWo complains that it's an auto fillserver... I will now DEFAULT min_bots and max_bots to ZERO.. that way there will be no limits and no bots added automaticly when those 2 commands are commented out.. once you uncomment it should do exactly like how that quote is.. |
Re: idea's bug's
Quote:
Read this above 10 times carefuly and quiet. "Bots will be added to the server..." - here is nothing about autoadding bot (Can You see some word as "automaticaly"). If there would be "Bots will be added to the server automaticaly until..." - in this case You could be right. But there is nothing about "automaticaly". So in this case You are wrong. Bot will be added until ... This until is the most important word in this frase (an accent of this frase). So You can use addbot command until reaching the max_bot or maxplayers value. The same for fillserver - bot will fill server until reaching max_bot or maxplayers value. But never without these commands! Yes - only in one case - some player is disconnected - without commands fillserver or addbot - some bot will be added automaticaly. # After players disconnect from the server, bots # will be automatically added back to the server until the total number # of players reaches max_bots again. And here You have this word "automaticaly". This is only one case of auto joining bots. Try to understand this. It's simple. I hope now this is clear. |
Re: idea's bug's
you see..
the problem is.. automatic is implied... if it wasn't automatic.. it will NOT reach max_bots... will implies that it is going to happen in the near future... and in order to make that statement true it NEEDS to be automatic.. |
Re: idea's bug's
Quote:
You are a coder. You have to know this. When You define for example some array, Your default (start value) is the max of this array definition implied? No - You have to define the start value manualy. (almost allways default is min, BTW :) ) But why it has to reach max? Why do You think in this way the number of bots has to reach max_bots value? It can , but it hasn't...This max_bots variable was made by CF to prevent the situation, when You use fillserver and all free slots are filled by bots and there isn't any free slot for a player. If You not define (comment out) this variable, bot will fill Your server until reaching max_players variable (max_bots by default is 32). To prevent this situation CF made a limit (LIMIT, LIMIT, LIMIT). Try to understand this intention of author. He wrote this intention exactly - set this variable (max_bots) at_least one less than mp_maxplayers (read this comment in podbot.cfg once again) to let at least one player to join. OK - I'm tired by explaining this. Maybe the problem is once again my bad english. In my country is now 3 AM so it's a time to sleep for me. So - for now a little suggestion. Maybe You are right, maybe I'm right - wait for opinion of other peoples and change nothing in this topic. Majority will be a winner. Now I start a pool - who is right? Me or sPlOrYgOn? |
Re: idea's bug's
name leak, check wp glitch, friendlyfire, wp status (done by PMB.. long ago I believe..), Auto Path Max Distance (APMD) (also by pmb), and kick name bot. ALL OF THOSE ARE DONE :D
and to the rest... some are in progress... some are too hard for me to do with my current knowledge.. and some I haven't started yet :D [edit] okay KWo lets give you a situation... suppose a person wanted 10 bots to begin with.. then he wanted one to leave everytime a player joined.. and one to join everytime a player left. if 10 players join then there should be no bots.. but this guy who owns this server is lazy and wants it all done for him... if min_bots and max_bots was the way you want it.. he would never beable to have it all done for him.. because he would set min_bots to ZERO and max_bots to 10.. making no bots automaticly join.. but a bot will join if a player leaves.. so after the first player leaves then a bot will join if there are less than 10 players.. but that wouldn't be what the server owner wants.. but if max_bots and min_bots were implemented the way I interpreted CF's message... then there would be 10 bots that auto join at the begining of server.. then after that the bots will leave each time a person joins until there are no more bots because min_bots is zero.. and also if maxplayers is set to 32 then once the amount of players reach 10 there will be no more bots but max_bots does not restrict people joining meaning people can keep joining until it reaches min_bots. once enough people leave to go under max_bots then bots will fill in the spaces to make the amount of players in the server 10.. at any given moment the server will have 10 or more people/bots.. that will attract people to join the server if all he wanted the bots to do was to attract people.. and that brings me to my goal of working on this bot.. which is to make them humanlike enough so that people that join the server would never know they were playing against bots.. so if these 2 things are done then server owners can attract people with "people" (bots :D) and they wouldn't even think that those other guys weren't people :D.. [/edit] [edit2] bleh screw this arguement.. I think it's having a negative effect on these forums... I'll just do it the way you interpreted CF's words... the little story above can be fixed if that lazy person just put "pb fillserver" or something... bleh.. tired of arguing.. gets us no where... [/edit2] |
Re: idea's bug's
Ok ok, having read all this stuff I think that this is not even a question of right or wrong - as the argument showed, there are really two ways to interpret CF's explanations, and there are also two ways to get these functions to work in a way that makes it easy for server admins to have bots behave exactly as they (the admins, not the bots) want.
I'm still a bit wasted right now... half past nine local time and still a bit drunk from yesterday... I'm gonna ask my friend Robert if he's happy with the way DS works right now... he's always running games on DS, so he ought to have noticed if something goes wrong or is bad to handle. We've been discussing this stuff a lot now, but I think what would really help is some feedback by a user not involved in the discussion; some user who doesn't read or interpret all this stuff, but only tries to reach a certain situation and uses the given commands and parameters in order to do so - is this difficult or confusing for him or does he get what he wants right away? Concerning the rest, I agree... much has been changed already, and when I remember the somewhat chaotic start, it's all the more astonishing what a good job you actually do, sPlOrYgOn - kudos and thanks again! =) Just one little remark concerning the apmd thingy... afaik, path creation is now limited to the distance apmd is set to. This is nice, but originally I had thought about an option to have it this way. You know, sometimes it can come in very handy if you want one or two longer connections... that's why I'm still waypointing with R1... :D |
Re: idea's bug's
so do you want longer APMD numbers??
yes i agree with T_Wrecks (sorry i had originally thought it was an a.. for a very long time..) we should ask how Server owners want it... that way instead of having it like CF's way we can please the people who will actually use these commands.. |
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:50. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.