Steady

Slowly working thru my checklist. Haven’t actually gotten to the stage where I can log into the beta server and crash it by trying to look at a spawn list yet.

Actually, I derailed myself minutely by deciding that the server should bootstrap the toet_headers table with basic template headers if it is empty when the server starts up (that solves startup failure #4) and that it should tolerate an empty toet_vehicles table too (startup failure #5), which allowed me to nix another TODO item – the templates are now re-read once a minute, and any increases in vehicles are immediately applied.

It used to trickle vehicles over a period of an hour or so when they were introduced or increased, which I thought gave the introduction of vehicles a little more “role play”. But frankly, it just seemed to annoy people so – for now, new vehicles get added immediately.

Ok – new version has finished copying over to the beta cluster. Time for Test#9.

I’ll journal my progress here until my next post…

 

Test#9: Typo in SQL query.

Test #10: Map/Mission server barfing loading the weapon lists.
Test #11: Map/mission server was loading stuff in a crazy order.

Test #12: Cell host died. No core, no log message, running with debugger.
Test #13: Cell host was loading WEAPONs 3x. New object-oriented weapon loading code did not like this.

Test #14: Missed one, cell host was loading WEAPONs 4x.

Test #15: Able to log into server, no spawn lists (correct – no brigades have

templates and no templates have vehicles)

toe11.jpg

Test #16: Assigned templates to brigades, no spawn lists (correct – no templates have vehicles)

toe21.jpg

Test #17: Assigned levels of “50” to some vehicles. Spawn lists appeared.

toe3.jpg toe4.jpg

Test #18: Modify rifleman count to 400, see if spawn list updates. FAILED.

toe5.jpg

ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?

Test #19: Modify rifleman of the French template. Voila!

toe6.jpg

Test #20: Spawn British Light Mortarman. Success!

toe7.jpg

Test #21: Despawn. Success!

toe8.jpg

Test #22: Spawn French Rifleman. Success!

Test #23: Despawn. FAILED. Waiting for mission results followed by CTHL. Not entirely surprising.

And that’s where I head home, download the betas and maybe get one or two more tests done. It takes between 3-5 minutes to start the client on my machine at work and I was up until 5am this morning ;)

You’d be expecting me to have tested whether or not my vehicle reservation changed the spawn lists, but I know that code is still partially #ifdef’d so no need to poke it with a stick yet.

26 Comments

This is kind of exciting….from my perspective in the peaunut gallery..

Posting updates to the topic as I progress.

Riveting! :)

BTW, I was thinking this yesterday – are sure you don’t want to obscure those CVC values before you post those images?

Yikes, Horse is probably right… if not before, now that he’s drawn attention to it, for sure. :(

Does teh TOE grow with population increases and deflate when they log?

Those are made up dev cluster CVCs. If you take offense at the random numbers I type there, bend over honey…

I was just concerned about possible downstream effects if they’d been spotted by the hoi polloi, but if they’re imaginary numbers, no worries eh? :) And seriously Krenn: security through obscurity? If they’d been real kfs could have easily deleted the comments etc.

Anyway, more congrats on the progress so far!

Added some more screenies ;)

Easting: No, nothing fancy like that right now.

Very nice, keep up the good work.

Looking good.

If there any limit to the number of templates you can have? I.E could each individual Divison/Brigade have it’s own unique TOE?

KFS1, so if I understand it in the right way, from a browser you can change the values ingame ?

If yes, does this mean that in the future HC’s will be allowed to handle spawnlists from offline, according to what’s available with the RDP ?

You know, I kinda wish that vehicles appeared on the spawnlist according to two methods: trickle AND batches.

THe trickle of equipment satisfies people who just show up to a battle and want a chance of getting somthing other than a rifleman, whereas the arrival of a batch (lets say a 4 tank platoon) makes the battle less predictable and possibly increases teamwork among the non-trooper crowd.

Sry, that was very much off topic!

Trout

Also, can you “lock” certain paramters into the template so that the person who makes up the ToE can be restricted in some ways? (ie: preventing the creation of goofy ToEs, or ToEs that might harm gameplay?)

——————
mwhittman said

“If there any limit to the number of templates you can have? I.E could each individual Divison/Brigade have it’s own unique TOE?”

I’m a bit sceptical about allowing the HC to control equipment. I would prefer it to be controlled by CRS in the interim.

You might be able to start trickling new equipment in again, as long as TO&E allow for them to be concentrated in a brigade at first, as to represent new units being formed or their equipment being replaced.

I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to let HC control that though.

Trout: The current supply system uses something called “trickleMode2” for the initial population of a spawn list which essentially does what you described.

My point, though, was that people in general appear not to like unpredictable.

It’ll be down to Killer/Gophur whether we introduce unpredictable again before releasing TOEs.

Zeb: No, not via an in-game browser; currently I am only aware of an intention to make it possible for HCs to submit their RDP sheets at some point via an in-game control that replicates the current spreadsheet.

When this concept was discussed in the TOE planning meetings, we briefly discussed the possibility of eventually extending it to allow an OIC some degree of “field” control – e.g. allowing them in some limited fashion to prioritize resupplies.

My lack of familiarity with these longer-term plans should not be interpreted as a need for player submitted ideas.

“My lack of familiarity with these longer-term plans should not be interpreted as a need for player submitted ideas.”

Pff, like that has any affect at all. :-p

“My lack of familiarity with these longer-term plans should not be interpreted as a need for player submitted ideas.”

Yeah, I was thinking the other day that perhaps you should change that.

Gnasche: Accept player ideas, or change his familiarity with long term plans?

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: