idea's bug's

[KWo]

Originally Posted by sPlOrYgOn

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..

Like You found a fix in Your edit2 - one way is after setting min_bots 0 max_bots 10 writing by this lazy person a command at the end of podbot.cfg :
pb fillserver
or he can do this: don't need touch (but he can) min/max_bots and simply write in podbot.cfg 10 addbot command lines, like I do...
It was sufficient ask me first, how to prepare a game on the server with 10 bots than totally change the specification and change the meaning of some parameters.
This is a lesson for You for the future - believe me - it's better ask first the people than lose one week of hard unless work.

But , OK - this time You dedicated to this problem is probably not 100% losed.
I suppose all Your effort to do some change in this autoaddremove has its begining here:
http://forums.bots-united.com/showthread.php?t=1669
Because now You now very well how this function works, this "eventually making server empty" should be for You simply for fix (BTW some fix for this situation is seting min_bots at value You want...).
With this problem is corresponding another one :
http://forums.bots-united.com/showthread.php?t=1765
I proposed some way http://forums.bots-united.com/showpo...5&postcount=13
but I'm not sure it can realy help. We have to try first , maybe in some beta if You want and if You find a time for this and if the order of priority will reach this topic.

Another thing is - if some server's owner wants to have at the end of the game the same number of bots like on start of the game. If there is not any bot on the server (server is started without bots - without any addbot or fillserver command - only if admin realy want bots - he add them manualy to the server), after there are joined some people - for example 10 people and after some time they leave the game (so every client disconect in this case probably the same - bot will be curiosaly added, so when all players left the game in this case probably You have 10 bots on the server (but You didn't added them by fillserver or addbot command - so why exactly are they there? I suppose this admin doesn't want this. This is for discussion. I don't know how it should be - maybe this is correct (start without bots, players connect, after player left, and at sever there are some bots without any reaction of server's owner) - maybe bots should not be added.???

Another thing is - You want setup server with 10 bots , but You don't want the situation - player connect - bot kicked or player disconnect - bot added to the game. You want still 10 bots on the server.

So for bots of these example above Your CVAR can be useful - set it to 0 and this solve these problems above. If people want normal add/remove bots like until now - Your cvar should be 1 (defaiult if not specified - should be 1).
So all Your effort with testing this autojoining don't need to be taken as negative here - now You can use all You know in this topic to implement this what I described few lines above, what T Wrecks described in some his post and, I suppose, what Huntkillaz wanted, too.
Doing this cvar with this meaning like I described is safe because it doesn't change the functionality of existing bots-servers and this Your change gives a new future (if somebody wants use it). Think about this once again and don't give up. Your effort to do something here is realy good (at least the same like mine ) and I have the respect for all time You dediacted to this bot. So don't think I have something against You - no. Like I promised You few weeks ago - I can be Your beta tester but I need only speak before You change something. It's maybe because You are so young, sometimes You are too fast when You want to do something. Try in this way - if You want change something - ask first the people - this should be sufficient. The majority will be a winner. But for now there are many bugs to fix and idaa's to do... Every new beta You are better and better - so don't give up.
And I'm agree with T Wrecks - all we have to thank You - You made realy a big and good job.

[Hot-Doc]

Hi all,

reading all this dedicated server related things I ask myself if this REALLY is something for good old PodBot. OK, I'm lazy, so I appreciate every automization. But if I want to manage my dedicated server I certainly stick to a tool especially dedicated to this problem (mean!).

Please don't get me wrong here, every proposal is usefull, but as long as there are glitches affecting GAMEPLAY (which is what 90 percent of all gamers will notice) is there really a reason to worry about the interpretation of podbot server configs (how many dedicated server admins are there compared to gamers?) WHILE there is a much smarter, easier and more comfortable solution available?

I'd like to propose to stop with any argues about this matter and wait until botmeister releases his meanmod source. Then there will be a much more profund basis for all this kind of problems. Either integrate features directly into podbot or improve mean itself. Whereby I think that bot management via a third party tool has certain advantages over any built-in bot feature (especially multi bots handling).

Hope you'll get my point and won't feel attacked somehow...

[>BKA< T Wrecks]

Originally Posted by sPlOrYgOn

so do you want longer APMD numbers??

No, the apmd numbers are ok. I was referring to a bug fix you made some time ago. Originally, connections could be added no matter how long they were. So, if you wanted to make a connection to a WP that was 150 units away and missed the WP when aiming at it, you could end up with a connection through half the level and three solid brushes, 800 units long or something stupid like this.
After the fix, a manually added connection was denied if it was longer than the current apmd setting. To stay with the example, the connection would have been denied if I had apmd set to 100.
Both situations, before and after the fix, have their pros and cons. Being totally unlimited had the advantage of being able to connect everything manually without having to change apmd all the time.
After the limitation this became impossible, but the advantage consisted in a reduced risk of making totally unwanted connections.
Now, as both solutions have their advantages, I think the ideal solution would be to add an option to enable / disable manual connections being limited to the current apmd values. That's what I meant; I hope I explained it a bit better this time.

Originally Posted by sPlOrYgOn

(sorry i had originally thought it was an a.. for a very long time..)

Aah, no problem. I just thought "Hey, my nick isn't that hard to read, or is it?". At least it's not as much of a PITA to write as yours... Oh, and once we're at it: There's no "_" between the T and the W, just a blank space... Gee, I feel like a teacher. Yuck! 9_9

I'm going to open a new thread on each topic (apmd & manual connections and DS commands) tomorrow.

[sPlOrYgOn]

Okay I've now added the thing about making waypoints BIG and FAT when pointed at so you can easily make/delete paths...
so now do you want it to always ignore APMD for path creation?
because you won't make any mistakes now..
and you could never make a 800 unit long connection the limit is only 500 without APMD blocking
I've compiled a dll that limits connections to 500 (just like in R1) and also has the bigger waypoints when pointed at..
http://www.mapzap.org/podbot/WaypointDLL.zip

[Huntkillaz]

lol will try this tomorrow.

i was wondering the wp's use the lightning sprite. waht if we create a new sprite that's much straighter ?

ps: T wrecks need feedback on the new wp colours

[>BKA< T Wrecks]

Well, I haven't checked the new dll with waypoints getting bigger when you point at them, but I did test one with the new WP colours... me likes!

Normal WPs a tad darker, that's ok.
Goal WPs in purple was really a good idea, especially when you have ladders near a map goal.
Incoming connections in teal - well, it's a much stronger colour than brown. The good aspect about the brown colour was that it showed quite clearly that it was a connection that starts from a different waypoint than the one you are standing on; it made those incoming connections look half-transparent, and that was quite nice. The downside, however, was that in some situations you could fail to see them. In this respect, the new colour is of course better. So far, I like the brown a bit more, but then again I'm just not accustomed to the new colours yet. I suggest leaving it as it is now (teal, that is) and wait if somebody protests.
The new colour for those beams that indicate the directions bot aim at when camping is great! Now it can no longer be mixed up with those fat red danger indicator bars.

All in all, the new colours make the WP system much more n00b-friendly, as each waypoint type has a unique colour and there are no similar things to mix up. Keep it like this, it's good!

Oh, and concerning apmd when manually connecting: I think now, with "selected" waypoints being bigger, the limitation of manual connecions to apmd settings is obsolete. Now, if you point to a WP but another node behind it is "active", you will see it before you make the connection. Thus, you won't miss any more.
So 500 is the limit, ok. But that's enough in order to screw things up. Yesterday I waypointed a map where I added a connection down from a crate back to the ground. Then, in game, the bots behaved SO odd!! When I looked at the waypoints, I found that the connection down from the crate had missed the targeted WP by fractions of an inch and led to a WP in a tunnel under the courtyard instead!!!! Things like this won't happen with the new dll.

EDIT
8o Maaaaaan, why wasn't this feature implemented earlier?? This is SO great!!! Makes pointing & connecting so much easier, incredible!
However, I can't really use this dll. The debuggoal command doesn't work at all.

[sPlOrYgOn]

debuggoal works just fine..
it's "pb debuggoal"

can we do something about the teal?
I think partially color blind people like me might get the incoming and outgoing connections confused..
I did a few times...

[>BKA< T Wrecks]

Arrrgh, "pb debuggoal"! Well, I guess that explains a lot. :RTFM:, T Wrecks! 9_9

Oh, and about the teal- of course, I don't insist on having teal as the one and only color for incoming connections. Maybe it would be best if you suggested something? I mean, I can't possibly tell how hard colours are to tell apart if you're partly colour blind. You can, and that enables you to pick colours that you can easily distinguish. This will make the WP editor more user-friendly! I'd only suggest not to take a very glaring colour in order to keep a visible difference between incoming & outgoing connections. How about something like that blue you can see at the left and right of this forum if you have your resolution @ 1024*768 or higher?

[Huntkillaz]

@T wrecks i made normal a tad darker coz some really bright maps and alot of bright green hurts the eyes o_O it dropped from 255 to 200 i think


actually i was gonna say that teal needs to be darker..rigt now it's more like cyan than teal
<------------ it should be like that msn thing there..

rgb colours:

teal = 0 100 100 (lower the last 2 to make it darker)

camps (try these and see if u can tell a slight diff between start and end beams)

start : 255 150 0
end : 230 115 0

and yeah as T wrecks said ur suggestions are welcome

ps: note ms paint colours and actual colours in game are slighly off 9_9 so any colours i give u may have to be tweaked

[Huntkillaz]

*bump* wohoo...it makes it easier to get the wp now instead of randomly tapping delete while searching for the connection at the same time

but i was thinkin if we could make a beam fire out of our gun we could see more clearly which wp where hitting..... (ie we could see how farr off we are from the wp)

u know whAt the code for the old 'find' command can be useful here instead of the connection being between us and the wp it could be changed to jump between wp's ( firing a single beam) so it moves between wp's as our cross hair moves past em sorta thing

the bots are way better now and did u do anything to fix that problem where 2 bot's would get stuck at the same wp.....now there jumping around like pb2.5 styles