73 replies to this topic

[ArkhanTheBlack]

Well and the first beta tester award for finding serious bugs in beta 5 goes to...: Zenoth

I tried black fortress with the same constellation and I got a crash. It was AI related, therefore I'm the guy to blame. Your system is...innocent, and therefore spoken free of all punishment to replace power supplies or other fancy stuff.

I'm now trying to track the error down. It's not jump code related, since one of the guard AI's caused it. It looks like it was caused either by the captureplan or by the defendplan. I'll post more when I found it.

The "issue" in question comes from that IG's Techpriests. I saw one of them constantly trying to build back a structure that kept getting destroyed by some group(s) of Orks infantry nearby. I believe it was a vehicles production structure. The Techpriest simply tried three or four times, and as soon as the basic components arrived for the structures to be built (you know, from orbit), then it get blown away immediately. But the Techpriest resumed and really wanted a structure placed there badly.

Well that's a tricky issue. It's necessary for the critical tier 2 fights that they are allowed to build with close opponents, but such a build - destroy loop is a nasty thing. I have to think about how to avoid it...


BTW, Zenoth I thought you have a power system. Why do you play without shadows?

Edited by ArkhanTheBlack, 04 February 2006 - 08:37 AM.

[Zenoth]

BTW, Zenoth I thought you have a power system. Why do you play without shadows?

It's quite simple, and embarrassing, but I can live with it.

That's due to the fact that Relic decided to rely on Stencil Shadows.

And simply said, ATi's current architecture (X1K series, even including the brand new X1900's), and any previous generations capable of DirectX 9 effects, refuse to perform decently when faced with a software using Stencil Shadows.

Look at an ATi engineer, and just pronounce the word "Stencil" and you'd guarantee yourself one way trip to six feets under the ground.

Nah, but seriously, that's the reason.

ATi products, at the moment, can perform "correctly" under Stencil Shadows, but not in Dawn of War. As soon as the load on the shader processors is heavy, then Stencil Shadows information gets in at the end of the queue (that's what I was told by one of my friend anyway ... I myself know pretty much nothing about graphics processing units and the technical terms and designs).

It's also the situation with Age of Empires III's Shadows. I know, since I own it and play it regularly.

[Zenoth]

Oh, Arkhan, I just played another game in Fort Atlantis.

With the exact same settings.

It did not crash that time ... how strange

It will be difficult for me to "replicate" the crashes if the crashes themselves do not happen in every games, but instead occur "once in a while".

As you say Arkhan then it may not be related to the jump code. Time will tell with your findings now that you've also experienced a crash.

And, Theta, thanks for taking some of your time and testing in Fort Atlantis as well. What I can say about your report regarding that map, is ... well, nice to see that it did not crash. But now, after playing a game in it just a few minutes ago without crashing as well ... and according to what Arkhan says, we can only keep in mind that it doesn't crash in each and every single games.

It's seem to happen randomly.

So perhaps Theta you've just been lucky that what is causing the crash simply didn't happen during your game. But happened during the one I played earlier and in the latest Arkhan tried in Black Fortress.

Also ... I'm starting to believe that the fact that I just downloaded and installed a new version of Black Fortress may not have been the cause of the game/map's stability during my test. Again, it might simply be related to the fact that what "requires" to happen within the A.I to cause the crash just didn't happen during that game.

Argh ... it's getting a bit more complex than what I personally expected.

[Excedrin]

I played a couple games against it tonight, I noticed a bug in this replay:
http://dow.lerp.com/...0203.230651.rec

Basically, the SM decides to kill my guardsmen by dropping armories on them.

[ThetaOrion]

In my Mountain Trails game up above, the IG kept repairing or replacing a Machine Shop that I kept destroying or trying to destroy. I was actually very impressed with that. Yes, they could maybe have gotten better mileage by putting out more troops instead of repairing or replacing that building, but in truth, they built a second Machine Shop somewhere and pumped out a whole bunch of troops while I was trying to destroy the one Machine Shop, so they got me in the end. It's the first time I have ever seen the IG produce HellHound tanks on the Mountain Trails map, and those two HellHounds melted my Berzerkers away in a matter of seconds.

I was very impressed with it all. No more TechPriests locked infinitely into suicide rush mode. I was in their base after all, and the TechPriests switched between fighting me, building buildings, and retreating. I thought it was all very impressive. And, the TechPriests were produced again whenever I killed them.

I have been very impressed with Beta 5. I'm going to have to develop new strategies for winning besides my early rush into their base.

Yes, I need more time with it to know for sure if the AI is good in all situations and on all maps, just like we need more input from other people before we know for sure whether the crashing to desktop is universal or tied specifically to Zenoth's machine for some unknown reason.

Zenoth's reports on the Black Fortress sound promising.

--

EDIT:

It's good to know that Arkhan was able to get a crash.

Now, what's the exact layout you guys are using to get the crash? What factions where on what map(s)?

Edited by ThetaOrion, 04 February 2006 - 10:44 AM.

[ThetaOrion]

--
||
--

I played in Fort Atlantis, a 4 Vs 4, two SM's, two IG's, two Orks and two CSM's.

This is the layout you were using, right?:
1-SM Human Player
2-SM
3-IG
4-IG
vs.
5-Ork
6-Ork
7-Chaos
8-Chaos

--

Is that the same layout you and Arkhan are using on Black Fortress as well to get the crash? And, which version of Black Fortress is Arkhan using? If Arkhan is using the older map, then that might explain the crashing on that map, but not the crashing on Fort Atlantis.

Edited by ThetaOrion, 04 February 2006 - 10:58 AM.

[Zenoth]

This is the layout you were using, right?:
1-SM Human Player
2-SM
3-IG
4-IG
vs.
5-Ork
6-Ork
7-Chaos
8-Chaos

Hmmm ...

Actually it was:

1- SM (Me)
2- IG
3- SM
4- IG
Vs
5- Chaos
6- Ork
7- Chaos
8- Ork

I remember that clearly. On each of the map's sectors / quadrants, there were two different factions. For example, with the set-up above, there was Me, with IG on my side. On another, there was the other SM faction, again with an IG ally. Same goes for Chaos and Orks being together.

[ThetaOrion]

Okay, beauty.

When I test Beta 5 (and the future Beta 6), I'll go with those settings on Fort Atlantis and BlackFortress to make sure that I'm actually focussing on testing a layout that is known to potentially cause problems.

I hope Arkhan has indeed found the culprit and fixed it in the Beta 6, as suggested elsewhere.

[thudo]

A new build is going up tonight as Arkhan fixed the CTD bug. >yey!<

[ThetaOrion]

I gotta get offline and go to work.

But, I'll look for the next beta online tomorrow and try giving Fort Atlantis (and maybe .9 of BlackForest a go). I might have to leave BlackForest for Zenoth and Arkhan to try. So, I'll go for a Fort Atlantis test at the suggested layout, once the Beta 6 comes out. Trying to coordinate testing here.

[Zenoth]

The first thing I'll test with Beta 6 is Fort Atlantis once again, just to make sure. If I get no crash during the first try, then I'll play two, three and even four games if needed.

If it doesn't crash after say ... three games, then it should be all right, at least in Fort Atlantis.

Then I'll proceed with Black Fortress, and then the usual 2 Vs 2's and free-for-all games in smaller maps as I usually do.

Edited by Zenoth, 05 February 2006 - 07:28 AM.

[thudo]

Beta6 is now LIVE on the site! Go grab!

[ThetaOrion]

Okay, got it installed and will give it a go.

--

EDIT:

Yes, I played Beta 6 at the HARD setting with Fort Atlantis with the exact same layout that Zenoth suggested.

I'm either getting a better feel for the FA map, or the Imperial Guard are better AI allies than the Eldar were on this smaller map, because I actually won!! On small maps, the Eldar really suffer, because they take longer to power up, and you have to carry them until they get going.

Still, I think the Orks are the weakest faction and the easiest to destroy.

Anyway, NO CRASH.

Now we have to see if Zenoth can play without crashing.

Edited by ThetaOrion, 06 February 2006 - 02:46 AM.

[Zenoth]

Superb.

On my way to testing.

Thanks !

[Malkor]

I get the feeling no one is listening to my comments about the IG build order, and why they shouldn't be building commisors instead of getting the tactical command/tier2/ect in a swifter manner. As it is they get DESTROYED in my FFA/team games on insane. The other races are functioning very well, in turn.

[thudo]

How can the IG Commissar be a problem for the IG buildorder? It strengthens the Guardsmen and the cost of a Commissar is not that high compared to a Command Squad (which we hear all the time NOT to build).

IG are the ONLY race.. well apart from Steel Legions where it takes forever to tech to good Tier2+ vehicles. All other factions get solid vehicles in Tier2 (ie. SM dread spam). This would not be a problem if WA wasn't so console-like but thats an old hat debate now. IG requires lots of careful teching and sometimes luck to get to Sentinels/Chimera/etc.. IG used to be feared in Tier1 with their deadly Guardsmen + Grenade Launchers + Commissar spammage but that seems to be solved now. Ugh..

RTS Industry needs to hire BALANCE ENGINEERS for these games.. <sigh>

[ThetaOrion]

Regarding the IG Commissar Debate, many known experts do believe that an Attached Priest is better for a squad than and Attached Commissar. But, it would take longer for them to research and get the Priest, as I understand it.

I think what Malkor is saying is that he wants the game to be limited to Two Sets of IG Guardsmen and two Commissars attached, especially on the smaller maps, and then rush towards Tier 2 and tanks. I think part of the problem is that the IG put too many resources into Tier 1, including the Tier 1 Command Squad and Commissars. The IG do better building buildings and getting to Tier 2 quickly. If IG produces too much Tier 1 stuff, including repetetively producing the Command Squad like beta 5 was doing in one of my games, then the IG are wasting resources and getting behind. A single IG Commander produced and killed repetetively really is a waste of the IG resources -- I went through and killed off at least three IG Commanders in a row on my Mountain Trails Map Beta 5 game. The IG would be better off putting up a building or a turret, or researching and getting Tier 2, instead of producing one Commander after another and getting it killed.

Thud and Arkhan need to study this and see if any trickery can be done so that not as much IG is wasted on Tier 1.

Of course, Malkor will have to continue to speak for himself until he is seeing what he likes.

--

And, as usual, this must be a FFA gripe. Because in my recent 4vs4 game on Fort Atlantis, I thought that my two IG AI allies did really well.

Edited by ThetaOrion, 06 February 2006 - 02:43 AM.

[Zenoth]

Well, as I said, I played in Fort Atlantis first (after installing Beta 6).

I've just finished the third game in a row. All of them 4 Vs 4's (SM/Eldar/IG/SM Vs CSM/Ork/CSM/Ork). At the Hard difficulty level, resources rate at Standard, and game speed Normal.

None of the three games crashed.

So, right now Beta 6 seems very stable.

I will test in Black Fortress as well soon, and change the teams a little.

And, by the way, I still haven't seen a Bloodthirster so far. The Chaos Lord and Sorcerer were both trained regularly lately in each games, but none of them transformed into a Bloodthirster a single time, even though they had a lot of resources, more than enough to do it a few times even. But that's just in Fort Atlantis so far. I have yet to see if the Chaos will also refuse to make one in my future tests.

[ThetaOrion]

No BloodThirsters here either in Beta 6. I don't remember seeing a BaneBlade from my IG allies either on the Fort Atlantis Map. That map is small and tight, though.

Nevertheless, I imagine that the Orks still don't produce Squiggoth on the Castle Assault Map?

And, we have to keep our eyes out for the Eldar Avatar and our AI SM LandRaider too.

Maybe that's why I won so well on my last Fort Atlantis game with Beta 6, because maybe I was the only one with an Avatar, the only one with an Uber LandRaider?

--

It's really good to hear that the CTD's appear to be gone for Zenoth. The last two Beta's kind of went into that issue, and now we can concentrate on other things like whether the AI is producing Ubers or not.

Edited by ThetaOrion, 06 February 2006 - 03:14 AM.

[Zenoth]

Good point Theta.

Well, come to think of it ... I also haven't seen other uber units. No Bloodthisters of course, but also no Avatar/Squiggoth/Landrider or Baneblade. In all my three tests.

Hmmm ...

Arkhan, have you done anything to other ubers other than the Bloodthirster ?

Just to be sure.

Edited by Zenoth, 06 February 2006 - 03:34 AM.