AE logic glitch re: inability to set escort objectives to appear upon escort's rescue

[moonligh7er]

The example is a required escort which destination is a destructible object. Setting the object to become active after the escort is rescued generates 6 of the same errors, seemingly something like a cerebral hemorrhage (see screenshot). This is a logical failure. It should stand to reason that an objective might become available, say, simultaneously to when the escort informs you of it. -.- How is this not a main use of this? It is the time that it makes most sense for the player to become aware of the objective, and how video games traditionally work??!

I adore using escorts, particularly optional, for generating waypoints, since there's no way to set a waypoint on or off for each objective (there should be, and specifically on or off; sometimes you have more intel than others--here should also be a way for your contact to interject messages on a trigger eg we got this intel or your objective changed or just some advice like one fight it's prudent advice to focus on the AV but not prudent to know that til a particular point). Anyway, the escort function is limited by little undersights like this.

On that note, enemy groups should be optional (like they are for escorts) around allies, and allies should be able to set a waypoint for you like escorts but only requiring you to go there and not to take them there. Enemies should be able to betray their team and join you. And, you should be able to set a trigger for released captives to betray you, especially upon their release (especially useful for when the surrounding group is allies and you, through architect magic, see to their release which may be wonderfully problematic as they were your captive). 

Technically the errors being generated/the inability to set an escort rescue as the trigger for their destination objective appearing is the only glitch, but the other items are just incorrect by rite of stifling the absolutely massive potential of this awesome although gut-wrenchingly glitchy system (still groundbreaking).
 

Edited September 3 by moonligh7er

[Rudra]

Can you provide a screenshot of the settings for both objectives? The error is saying that they are both dependent on each other rather than one triggering when the other is completed.

 

(Edit: And yes,you can set an in mission ally that has no guards to defeat to free. You simply select "Empty" from the normal list of enemies.)

Edited September 3 by Rudra

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, moonligh7er said:

Technically the errors being generated/the inability to set an escort rescue as the trigger for their destination objective appearing is the only glitch,

Okay, I think I understand what happened. No, you cannot set an escort to an added objective in AE if that objective is also linked to the escort for any reason. That function only exists in dev made missions. You can have an escort be the trigger to spawn or activate an objective, but that objective cannot be their destination. And that objective will not go active or be spawned (depending on your settings) until the escort has either fled on his/her/their/its own or you have successfully escorted him/her/them/it to the mission door. (Edit: If you want the ally/escort and the objective to both go active at the same time, then you need another objective that triggers them. They cannot trigger each other except as 1 triggering the other after the first is completed. So for your example, you can have the escort objective be the trigger to activate the glowy objective upon the escort either being freed and running away on his own or being successfully led to the mission entrance depending on your settings, *or* you can have another objective such as a boss objective that upon completion activates the escort and the other objective simultaneously. However, in the latter case, the escort and the other objective would need to be linked to the previous objective's completion, not each other.)

 

Edit again: What you can do to keep it simple, say you want a glowy collection and an escort. You can set the glowy to go active when the escort is rescued, have the escort follow you or run off or do whatever with some escort text/dialogue, and then simply go to the glowy yourself. If you want to have the escort follow you to the glowy, then set the escort to follow, give text/dialogue when freed, go to the glowy, and then finish going to the mission entrance. As long as the escort is not triggering off the glowy with the glowy triggering off the escort. This means no setting the escort's destination to the glowy, because that is a circular trigger. Or you can have the glowy already there and active, and set the escort's destination to the glowy that way. Or you set another objective like a boss fight and have that trigger both the escort and glowy objectives, and still retain the ability to set the escort's destination to the glowy. (Edit yet again: In this last case, yes, the escort can have the glowy as his/her/their/its destination because the glowy is being triggered by the preceding boss fight, not by the escort. So they are not linked to each other, but are rather both linked to the boss, which allows you to set the escort's destination to an objective the escort is not itself triggering.) (Yet another edit: However, this will mean that the player can simply go collect the glowy even without the escort, but the escort will still need to be taken to the glowy even if it has already been collected to complete their objective.)

 

(Hopefully final edit: I think my attempts to clarify are actually just further muddying the explanation. If anyone can make sense of what I posted and is willing to translate, it would be appreciated....)

 

Edited September 3 by Rudra

[moonligh7er]

Yeah sorry for screenshot, I thought of that later but the point was really just to show the error (requiring suspension of belief about, "is it plugged in," / was it user error-it wasn't). In another arc it generated just one error. I think it is by design, but it is 'designed' (nerfed) incorrectly, it is wrong, and I will die, loudlyand  with superior KB and heroes flying everywhere, on that hill lol

The/an issue is, the only way to set waypoints AFAIK is with escorts. Optional escorts are an awesome tool for many reasons, and their ability to generate a waypoint is one'f their/the most awesome mechanics. There should be other ways to set waypoints (eg your contact calls you on a trigger, or just a waypoint toggle on objectives), and the escorts shouldn't even need to necessarily go to the destination but might do something else, a pseudo-escort I guess but the option for them to just run exists too so.

But instead of making sense, they're severely nerfed. And they don't even just say in the error that is's dev's only option or anything, they make a plainly untrue statement (that it's a circular dependency--It isn't, in any way or at all; on the contrary it cannot be said to be circular in any way as it is factually how linear storytelling works in VG's incl as you said CoH--you get info/waypoints either off something you kill, or some kinda phonecall, or an NPC you itneract with). The statement is unquestionably false, so, it's a glitch. I think reporting something as a glitch is the correct response to having one' s intelligence insulted about how circular reasoning works and calling stuff (linear mechanics) what it isn't (circular dependency). Whatever we're calling it, it should be corrected/improved. The current system is invalid for a VG-level builer, and extremely creatively stifling without any reason to be.

I really don't see a justification for jamming a kryptonite ball gag into the creative potential of AE. Do we just want more farms? I thought encouraging main gameplay or legit story arcs was goal with all the nerfs? So, can we have the literal most basic VG mechanics that make the most/sometimes only sense to make awesome story arcs without doing superhero backflips or just getting brickwalled a lot of times..? Rewards are already nerfed (btw Anyone know?--Is rewards being nerfed for custom chars only or arcs in general?) which, absolutely, some things shouldn't be farmable... But why nerf the bare-minimum VG mechanics and cripple traditional/valid, linear storytelling mechanics? How is that shutting down an exploit?? Farms don't use these mechanics and the mechanics don't lend themselves to exploits ayway (it's not like the escorts run to the objectives and you can just follow them, or something like that). Whether intentional or not, it's wrong, and I disapprove. Wrong may simply mean room for improvement and not yet awesome-ified like the Homecoming team has been doing. I really just don't believe my toon finding out the things exits at the moment they're told it exists as makes sense allows any sort of exploit or advantage other than coherence and good, valid, video game/story flow.

Anyone know?--If an arc makes the dev's choice list, do they remove those limitations (on sensible waypointing, escort options as discussed ^, etc.)? I honestly care more about the mechanics than the rewards being unlocked (a few mil and a few special items and whatever XP is standard per minion, AV etc. is all fine by me) but both would be nice... IMO I've made an arc that's more fun and action-packed than ITF even with dev powers blocked, so I mean what's the concern lol. Fantastic content? I might get it if corporate still owned the game or the og dev's didn't wanna be upshown, but... I really hope that it's just that the current dev team just hasn't gotten to unlocking AE's potential. yet. I mean, we just got the ability to play-raid with our own SG's on our bases recently, right?

Edited September 5 by moonligh7er

[moonligh7er]

Another issue is it will let you use an objective (eg the destruction of an object--only example I know for sure) as a "mule" for multiple triggered events, but how many of those actually work is another one of those secret numbers AE doesn't care to share with the architect.

And so for example I have at least 2 or 3+ triggered events set after the destruction of a thing (I think I had to remove the ambush as one cuz ambushes are senselessly greedy about being the only thing that can be connected to the thing they're connected to), and one of hem (an escort betraying the player) will not trigger (which is dumb because as storytelling goes, it often makes sense that the 'ally' betrays you when they get what they want--I don't know if the betrayal wouldve even worked if it were the only triggered event, I was forced to go a diff direction cuz the inadequacy/invalidity of the mechanics/nerfing of the mechanics.. gonna call stuff what it is.. screwed up my storyline). And so, as with the glitch I posted about here, it seems it 1) can't count, and 2.) will allow you to publish while pretending there's no error, allowing you to publish, and then start trimming stuff from missions (with no preference at all for trimming non-required content from the mish first) seemingly when the maps is actually generated, leading to the nav box being empty at a point cuz it didn't bother spawning the next objective. Basically, AE has no clue what's going on and so naturally doesn't bother communicating it to you. Nerf what you want, but these are factually glitches where AE is literally too dumb to count where that's arguably it's main, further arguably it's only job...

These glitches, intended and not, almost kill entire tropes in AE. It's criminal. :*)

 

Edited September 5 by moonligh7er

[moonligh7er]

These limits are so lame because... For example! There's this absolutely gorgeous mechanic wherein if you use the 'free a captive' to instead have a captive (enemy group is allies, captive shows as enemy until freed), and that captive has a toggle power with a fun effect, it will be toggled on while they're captive. Some favorite examples are hurricane--your allies keep them captive, but they're getting blown back and kept at distance, like they're struggling to keep a powerful foe at bay! Another is, is it static field? The PBAOE lightning field toggle. You walk by and notice they're veryyy slowly draining health from the allies keeping them captive. What if then we were able to set a 'free a captive' to betray us on a trigger? Which would make sense! (eg we dont know the prisoner but their enemy is ours maybe at an experimental facility--a trope that comes up all the time in superhero movies... or the captive is being held by the cops and you need to free them despite being your enemy for some reason--another whole trope killed by the nerfs). I just thing it's spooky and mechanically excellent to come back to the guards dead and the AV you thought was on lockdown missing, or free (another trope--currently dead, but easily given life).

Anyone who thinks I'm not on to something, Play Radiance of Theia (2 arcs). Or just think of your favorite AE arcs. Give some of us better, VALID, BARE MIN. mechanics and imagine the stuff we can do. I'm not clueless to available mechanics, and I wanna make really good stuff. This lameness is severely limiting, and physically painful lolll. At least represent it honestly and say it's nerfed/blocked instead of generating fake errors, where if I were to believe that they believed the error was as stated that I would also have to believe whoever made this doesn't know how lines let alone time works-!

Edited September 5 by moonligh7er

[Rudra]

2 hours ago, moonligh7er said:

And they don't even just say in the error that is's dev's only option or anything, they make a plainly untrue statement (that it's a circular dependency--It isn't, in any way or at all; on the contrary it cannot be said to be circular in any way as it is factually how linear storytelling works in VG's incl as you said CoH--you get info/waypoints either off something you kill, or some kinda phonecall, or an NPC you itneract with)

If you have two objectives that are triggered off of each other, then yes, it is circular logic. Going by what it looks like you were doing, you had an objective to free an ally or escort and freeing the ally/escort spawns a glowy that is the destination of the ally/escort. The problem, and what makes it circular logic, is that just freeing the ally/escort does not complete the ally/escort objective because you have that ally/escort set to follow the player to the spawned objective. So the ally/escort objective both creates the glowy and cannot be completed until the glowy is reached. That objective cannot do that. That makes the glowy objective dependent on the ally/escort to exist because it is spawned by the ally being freed, and it makes the ally/escort objective dependent on the glowy to exist because that is the completion destination. That is the circular logic. A creates B and B creates A.

 

(Edit: To be clear, what is going is: The escort/ally objective requires the glowy objective to exist in order to function. The glowy objective requires the escort/ally objective in order to function/exist. They both require the other in order to work. That is circular, not linear. Yes, the escort/ally objective does not require the glowy objective to exist, but it does need it to function because that is the escort/ally final destination, and that destination is part of the escort/ally objective itself. A destination that does not even exist when the game goes to create the ally/escort objective because it can't until the ally/escort objective is already partially completed. And the escort/ally objective needs its destination to exist to properly spawn the escort/ally objective, which it can't do because the destination cannot be spawned until you have already started the ally/escort objective.)

 

Edited September 5 by Rudra

[moonligh7er]

To be clear, I'm saying objects should be able to be set as objectives when he escorts that inform you of them upon their freeing inform you of them (not after the escort is complete, which would be circular logic). You finding out about something when you're told about it isn't circular, it's how reality is, AE is just not v.thoughtfully made, or is severely limited (we know it is, but I'm only asking after ridiculous limitations that break storytelling and reality, not things that would allow for exploits). There's honesty not two ways about that or really a question. At most, someone could try to justify it (if intentional) by pointing out an exploit it allows (and of the asks I've listed), but I can't think of any.

Two things can be triggered off the same thing and still be linear. That's not circular. It's just the game has a cerebral hemhorrage reconciling two of certain mechanics together because of the way it's coded, whatever the motive for the bad coding decisions. As to what I'm talking about, when a escort tells you something exists and you find out, when told, as you would in reality, that that thing exists, that is not circular logic. Just because the system is programmed in a 2 digit IQ way that doesn't mirror reality doesn't mean what's written right there in there error is true. It is linear logic--just logic that is above the system's logic, or blocked by it. There's nothing wrong with my logic; it's the game's that's broken. I'm asking for a change.

The object the escort seeks appearing when they tell you of it makes perfect sense and is only a conflict because of bad coding unable to reconcile too many mechanics at once (particularly in certain combos or when certain ones, like ambushes, are in play) or intentional limiters. I see what you're saying about two things occupying one spot, but the simple fact is that there is not a non-manufactured conflict there not because what I'm asking for is not only not illogical, but again it is traditional VG mechanics, more common in games than not, and so the opposite of an unprecedented ask.

Didn't you say those options are available in dev mode? That would clarify that a real error doesn't exist, or if what they're calling an error is really, as I said, a limitation. In pure logic, there is absolutely nothing circular about what I described. Whether the game currently allows that logic to play out (no) is the problem.

Beyond logic, into how the game currently expresses what logic it does allow for: The escort does not require the glowy to be active before they're rescued (although itll spawn it, it wont be clickable or glowing or making noise til triggered, if assigned a trigger). This is true in the current state and the improved state I'm asking for, just the same. The only difference would be in allowing multiple mechanics to intersect, or not; nothing about possibility or practicability.

There is no logical reason it couldn't be altered to accommodate in it's v.special brain (and this is especially true and shouldn't be an issue as all the settings in question are either within the same mish elements or within two connected elements) that it doesn't need to spawn two of the same glowy (it would be simple to code in... "if this AND this are checked, don't have this unnecessary, manufactured cerebral hemorrhage you're currently coded to have for zero improvement to the game but the opposite"). The glowy already exists in either case (unclickable as said), and in either case does not become active until the escort is freed. There's no reason other than sub-par mechanical provisions or intentional limiters, certainly there is nothing in logic itself, that prevents an NPC from informing you of an object, you becoming aware of an object when they inform you of it, and the NPC also wanting to go there--or even not even go there, just tell you about it and make a waypoint. The same's true of all the other mechanics I listed. None of these present logical conflicts, they present challenges the code isn't equipped to resolve (and often AE isn't even clever enough to know when there is an issue--it certainly can't count, and the entity responsible for generating the actual map lol does not communicate with the AE builder v.well or at all on certain things).

The alternative is the architect having to do unnecessary backflips with often v.limited number of obejctive slots (which backflips cannot make up for all the things that cant be done due to limitations liek this), such as making different triggers that you have to try to mask cuz they don't make sense cuz they're the WRONG moment... or just not being able to do certain cool stuff, a LOT of it, the most COMMON mechanics of it found in VG's, and some of the best mechanics...

I appreciate your explanation of what's going on, but what's going on is 1.) not necessary, 2.) seemingly not that hard to fix, and 3.) a code and not a logic issue, and exactly what I'm saying is wrong, and how it shouldn't work. The game not being currently set up to accommodate irreproachable A=B=B or A=B+C logic about how time-space actually works doesn't make my logic flawed, or change anything in the current code that I've highlighted as being, well honestly plainly wrong, but are minimum different from normal mechanics an the mechanics the devs used both, and definitely unideal and severely throttling of AE's potential, whether intentional or no.

Please stop stifling excellence in ways that only detracts and does not add value to the game! Or: Please get to this particular improvement at some point! lol

Edited September 5 by moonligh7er

[moonligh7er]

Oh the other thing was yes I can make allies an select empty for the enemy group, but then it will spawn a random group anyway. -.- This is clearly not a user error. I mean, clear to me anyway because setting was: Enemy group empty. Reality was: Spawned random mob. Either they spawn a group or none, and they spawned one despite being told not to. It's also dumb that you can't make a mission with no enemy group set for the mission anymore. Tryna figure out what exploit that prevents? But exploits aren't my area so maybe there aresome.

Any case, there are severalll severe examples of AE allowing things that aren't actually going to be allowed when the map generates, or doing something other than instructed because oops that thing doesn't work in the way AE represented that it can.

eg, back to the example of AE allowing more triggerable events to be attached to the same objective completion (in my test, an object destruction) than will actually play out in the mission (in my test, the escort failed to betray me). I could prove that it's plugged in, but it would require game capture. I'd be happy to walk somebody through all of this in a video if somebody on the team was like, 'yeah, we care about that and aren't doing it on purpose or are willing to hear out your analysis of it's negative impacts on the builder/game and re-asses.'

I've probably listed 15 issues or glitches over a couple of posts not even including, "we should be able to do this." This post's issue is included in the 15 because my logic isn't circular, the game's is just weak, presents conflicts and limitations that don't exist in reality or game development and easily don't have to exist in AE either, and is non-representative of reality or it's own easily-unlocked potential. The mechanics are literally already coded, they just need to be reworked for more complex interplays... that aren't actually complex but the most basic and common logic chains of VG dev. I guarantee testing the efficacy of the simple changes called for would be near infinitely easier than trying to make something slightly complex as an intermediate architect expecting to use the most traditional VG mechanics in AE's current state. It's simple connections that are blocked, and bad/limited logic in the code, nothing impossible or difficult (which, makes it almost clear it must be intentional--but again, calling this circular is itself a logic glitch, or an untruth masking a shameful nerf, so mods will move my post if they think it more appropriate somewhere else, but I believe this goes in the bug section, if nothing else for for extremely-misleadingly incorrect word usage--Just either say the area's off limits to plebs, or say something about the code being too dim to follow the logic, cuz it's not an issue with logic itself, and I can prove it mathematically... or by sarcastically re-enacting most any everyday event in life in a demonstration of space-time and causality).

Edited September 5 by moonligh7er

[Rudra]

You need to view the logic question from a game code perspective. If the ally/escort requires an objective as its destination, even if that objective is to be spawned by just freeing the ally/escort, you still have a circular logic problem from how the game operates. The game cannot partially load objectives. It loads your requested objectives. Your escort/ally objective must be partially completed in order to spawn the objective you want the ally/escort to go to. The game cannot do that. It looks at the objective and sees that for the ally/escort mission, it also needs another objective that does not exist yet. It checks that other objective and sees that other objective requires the ally/escort objective in order to spawn. Because the other objective requires the ally/escort objective to spawn, and the ally/escort objective requires the other objective to spawn, because again the game cannot and does not partially load objectives, the game sees that the ally/escort objective requires the other objective to be a valid objective and the other objective requires the ally/escort objective to be valid, and that renders both objectives invalid because they are dependent on each other in order to exist.

[moonligh7er]

In the very mission in question the NPC was too dim to actually follow me. First of all, it needs to NOT be an option for the NPC to do anything other than follow if the objective requires heir arrival at it! Common sense. But that's not what happened here, though it is allowed. The NPC was set to follow, but failed to. Man AE is a joke in bad taste, why we can but also why we can't have nice things. I did nothing wrong, no user error, and this clown shoes software embarrassed me in my group. Again. I ran through this, making no changes to this boss' settings in-between, which makes it fairly clear this is a random glitch cuz it didn't happen on my run yeterday. Honestly sick of looking stupid cuz someobody else years was, or was lazy, had all that time to correct themselves, for money (or as a department lead), and... That's how you get disappointed idealists mislabeled as cynics.

Just because everybody always assumes it wasnt plugged in, he was set to follow, and he was set to the destination. This is irrefutably a glitch or irrefutably unideal programming logic (suer, why not allow options that make objectives impossible like no-follows on required escorts!)(at least would be irrefutable to anyone who looked at the full mish, which a team member I'm sure can--anyone else will have to believe me or not, cuz I mean... I'm pointing out flaws, not asking for workarounds). Honestly nobody should lean even slightly toward I'm wrong when I say there's a glitch with AE lol, it's possibly more glitches than not. But everyone just tends to say, "that's not been my experience," (which for some of these things I bring up they're so common that that response is a tell that they have little AE experience), or they're just uninterested in these obvious, massive improvements and bringing the system up to speed with.. what makes sense, to start.. 

Everyone appreciate your AE architects! They did superhero backflips around terrible coding decisions and completely random, nonsensical glitches with no warning if they brought you an even slightly complex arc.
 

I wondered if setting them to "single" is what broke them? Or a more sensible cause, maybe choosing an enemy group along with single? That may be a user error, but it's not one that should have generated the follow-fail and the existence of this failure is a glitch; AE needs to be intelligent enough to reason that, "single," is the ultimate answer and the group selected doesnt matter. I added enemies (but forgot to change single) cuz it kept spawning enemies even when instructed not to. Not sure how to win. Genius has limits but... the unnecessary issues with this... doesn't... I mean someone was paid to approve this as ready for release lmao come on... This of course is the least impactful issue I've highlighted and is possibly fixable by playing along with AE's petty requirements and threats of breaking (if it is selecting an enemy group that broke it--but I'm actually leaning toward, that's not it, cuz I set enemies to all escorts and only that escort failed to follow--and he was the only one we were REQUIRED to bring to the objective, so the entire issue is just really bad coding...).

I also didn't know, "single," meant, "none," because... they should have said, "none." Their use of semantics there is honestly misleadingly garbage... If you ask how many of something, "single," means one, not, "none and that something else that wasn't the question is alone/surrounded by none of what was the question."

I'm just getting frustrated cuz I think i'm working harder than the OG devs who were responsible for AE lmao

Edited September 5 by moonligh7er

[moonligh7er]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

You need to view the logic question from a game code perspective. If the ally/escort requires an objective as its destination, even if that objective is to be spawned by just freeing the ally/escort, you still have a circular logic problem from how the game operates. The game cannot partially load objectives. It loads your requested objectives. Your escort/ally objective must be partially completed in order to spawn the objective you want the ally/escort to go to. The game cannot do that. It looks at the objective and sees that for the ally/escort mission, it also needs another objective that does not exist yet. It checks that other objective and sees that other objective requires the ally/escort objective in order to spawn. Because the other objective requires the ally/escort objective to spawn, and the ally/escort objective requires the other objective to spawn, because again the game cannot and does not partially load objectives, the game sees that the ally/escort objective requires the other objective to be a valid objective and the other objective requires the ally/escort objective to be valid, and that renders both objectives invalid because they are dependent on each other in order to exist.

I really don't need to review the logic from a game code perspective, because this (the features I'm asking for and definitely some form of how this game was dev'd) is how most games work. CoH is the substandard outlier here; what I'm asking for is not, "extra," in the slightest. The game code needs to be reworked to be more intelligent. Again, didnt you say these options were enabled for devs? That alone would prove no conflict exists, the features are just blocked. Most video games also prove what I'm saying is possible. I can't even believe this is a question or that you believe what I'm asking to be even slightly outlandish or difficult to understand or to deploy... It is how most game mechanics work! Have you played other VG's??

I am looking at it from a code perspective though. All along, I'm saying the code is substandard. Wrong semantics are used. Perfectly sounds logic is disallowed. And then all the other issues AE isn't even clever enough to notice or mark as wrong, or glitches it presents iconsistenty, making them v.difficult to trace and annoying cuz they were never necessary. Anybody saying otherwise is in denial/has played nothing else, ever... I get it that the code doesn't allow it, currently. I said that. That was the issue. But the infrastructure for the code to allow it is there, and there's no reason it should be unallowable. It is how the reality of time-space works, and the code needs to adjust, not reality or how VG mechanics almost always work lmao. Or, it can stay substandard and we can continue to get mediocre at best back from it. I'm just saying what it could/should be. Not looking for excuses about why it's not that way because of how it's currently set up. If you think those excuses mean it cant be different, well, I mean, you're obviously wrong. Like every more polished game has proven it.

The game being too dumb to follow ABC logic doesn't in any way mean that the logic I'm laying out is wrong or that the code for that logic would be at all difficult to deploy. Game devs do it. In virtually every game. And all the feature, again, are right there. The code is there. If you can get an ally to betray you, the code is there for an escort to betray you, etc. None of this is outlandish lolll I'm so confused by your, 'it is this way and therefor could be no other way,' vibe??! Just like you can edit AE's, and just like you can patch and update the game, the code behind AE can be edited, and honestly more easily than adding new content or fixing some of the stuff the awesome Homecoming team has been.

Story of my life... People telling me perfectly reasonable and possible things aren't even when they're obviously possible and resistance makes no sense lol. T endure reality instead of improving it, because, 'it is this way.' Why report any bugs or feedback then? They all call for recoding, don't they? Unless there's an editing system they're using, but that wouldn't fix much if it's anything like AE so the HC team must have code skills? With them, this is an easy fix. I'd like to get to the part of the discussion or to a commenter who at least is on the level of understanding it's possible, because I'm taking psychic damage being pulled down and gaslit to believe it's not, when it factually and obviously is not at all. Literally only AE's current clown shoes code is what makes it impossible. That does not make editing that code to bring it up to speed with better-coded games impossible or even hard given the recourses have already been coded.

Like, I'm gonna get disrespectful if this is the overtone of responses and I have to launch a server not for anyone to play on but just to be like THERE FIXED IT WASN'T HARD thanks for telling me the sky is purple. 😄 I bet I could do it with ChaGPT tbh, and they nerfed 40 back to like 3.5 (getting gaslit about that too lol even though a lot of people are saying it and it's obvious to anyone who uses it professionally or academically...). Why? Cuz the code is already there. Something in the game already does what I want something else to do, or something is not working as intended/is breaking stuff/AE can't count, etc.--or I wouldn't even bring it up. Really looking for forward movement and productive discussion, not questions that have already been answered (eg is it possible).Not to be rude but that vibe is really psychically draining and not only non-productive or redundant but actually stifles civilization in general every day lol

Edited September 5 by moonligh7er

[Rudra]

12 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

I really don't need to review the logic from a game code perspective, because this (the features I'm asking for and definitely some form of how this game was dev'd) is how most games work.

This is City of Heroes. Not "other games" or "most games". It is City of Heroes. So yes, if you want to use the AE, then you need to understand how it works.

13 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

The game code needs to be reworked to be more intelligent.

This is the Bug Reports forum, where we report things the game is supposed to be doing but isn't or report the things the game isn't supposed to be doing but it is. This sounds more like you are pitching a suggestion and those should be posted on the Suggestions and Feedback forum available from the site's Home page under the Development and Testing section. You can also just click this link:

https://forums.homecomingservers.com/forum/45-suggestions-amp-feedback/

 

17 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

Again, didnt you say these options were enabled for devs? That alone would prove no conflict exists, the features are just blocked.

The devs don't have the option, they make it. They have to sit down and configure the mission(s) the way they want to do what you are asking for. And then they have to work through all the ways the game breaks trying to do that. Not something that can just be thrown into AE for the rest of us to use because we aren't going to sort through the game code to find out why the game is breaking for trying to do what we want.

 

18 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

Most video games also prove what I'm saying is possible.

Again, this is not most games. This is an over 20 year old game with notoriously bad code.

 

19 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

Have you played other VG's??

Yes, I have. Thank you for the insult.

 

21 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

I am looking at it from a code perspective though. All along, I'm saying the code is substandard.

No, you aren't. You are complaining that an ancient game with notoriously bad code that still allows us to make our own story arcs using our own missions and our own enemy factions with our own enemies is broken and needs to be fixed because it is working the way it is designed to. And what I am telling you is how the game works, how AE is set up to work, and what you need to do in order for your presented objectives to work within how the game is set up to have it work.

 

24 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

But the infrastructure for the code to allow it is there, and there's no reason it should be unallowable.

Then make a suggestion to have it changed to work that way instead of claiming that the way it is designed to work is a bug.

 

25 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

It is how the reality of time-space works, and the code needs to adjust, not reality lol.

And thanks again for being derogatory.

 

25 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

I'm just saying what it could/should be.

Then make a suggestion on the Suggestions and Feedback forum instead of claiming you found a bug. AE is working the way it was designed to and what you are reporting is not a bug, it is how AE is designed.

 

26 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

Game devs do it. In every game.

We are not game devs making game content. We are players making use of the tools the devs were able to make for us to create our own content. So any attempts to compare what AE does to what any game developer for any game does is a failure of a comparison. We don't have to deal with trying to sort through game code to find out why what we implemented failed. We don't have to sit down and go through the game's code and write whole new scripts for our AE missions/arcs. So the tools provided to us players, not game devs, are going to be much more limited in the scope of their function.

 

29 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

And all the feature, again, are right there. The code is there.

Except it isn't. Because to do what you want the way you want requires 3 separate objectives to be loaded and run. Objective 1 is to find and free the escorted NPC. Objective 2 is to spawn the destination when the escorted NPC is freed. And objective 3 is to lead the escorted NPC to the destination. However, how AE is set up, you cannot do that with the existing escort objective. Because if the escorted NPC is to be led to a destination other than the mission exit, then that destination has to exist in order for the escort objective to work. The game cannot partially load objectives, and your destination that the escort objective is looking for does not exist at the time the escort objective is called for by the game to be spawned. If you were a dev working your way through the game's code to make your mission work, then with a fair amount of headache to get it to work, you can get it to work. As a player using premade objectives that we just fill in the available variables of, you cannot do that because the game does not process the objective in a manner that lets you.

 

34 minutes ago, moonligh7er said:

I'm so confused by your, 'it is this way and therefor could be no other way,' vibe.

Again, I am telling you how AE as it exists works. If you want to propose a change to AE, then you need to submit a suggestion on the Suggestions and Feedback forum instead of pretending to be reporting a game bug.

[lemming]

Just to note: Yes, an object's destruction can trigger NPC betrayal.   I've used it a lot.  They can also betray nicely after a hostage rescue.

 

While there have been some changes to the AE, the only real changes seem to be adding power sets and being able to edit the mission files to be used with more powers for NPCs (at the cost of not being XP for defeat)

 

The AE code from what I recall was done by someone who didn't stick around and poorly documented.   It's a totally different animal than mission codes, which is another reason that things that can be done in mission writing isn't available in AE.

[moonligh7er]

The objective is already there, either way. The objectives are on the map, 'partial-loaded,' from the very beginning of the level even if inactive/untriggered. The question and the only thing you can set is when it becomes active. That's why when testing if you click through the objectives, you'll find it already there, and why when playing the mish that if you go to where it is before it's active, it'll be there, just not blinking or making noise. All as explained. It doesn't, "spawn," 'physically.' It pre-exists. The map populated it at it's big bang. It wasn't an object that would have otherwise been on the map either. If I were asking for the objective to appear at any time after the rescue, that would be circular logic and ofc not possible within current infrastructure that could be copied or integrated because NPC's can't just be triggered to set a new or second objective or say a thing except on specific conditions (though, that would be an easy trigger to make--why? because triggers exist already and so do popups).

Also, yes, there are options in AE builder and to the HC team that exist but not for us in AE. Some of them HC disabled intentionally, for good cause but if this was one (as alluded to I don't know) disabling this I do not believe to have the intended effect I'm aware of (avoiding exploits), but it does have an identifiable deleterious effect, and produces glitches of it's own when players attempt perfectly reasonable things.

It's ridiculous that you're saying the infrastructure isn't there because it literally is; the code obviously exists because these things all happen in the game, and menus and options and configurations at least for the main example are literally all things you can select in the AE builder, they just gen an error or worse, don't generate an error but break the arc. I would call this a glitch because the options are there, they reasonably should work, they just don't. I would also call it a glitch for it being incorrect and misleading to call it a circular dependency when it's closer to the truth that AE can't chew just any flavor of gum at the same time as walking successfully; in reality it's nothing to do with circular logic, but through the eyes of AE's limitations--but those limits are in config, not infrastructure.

The game code is already breaking and not doing 'what we want,' so what are you talking about lmaoo. This is a fix for something presented and something that there's code for but that doesn't work, and it, and definitely the definite-glitches mentioned, are fixes, not the future causes of glitches or brickwalls already happening--that's circular reasoning. By 'what we want' I mean basics/things it is demonstrably capable of/things that are literally on the menu.

Asking if you've played other games when you're acting like my ask is even slightly outlandish isn't an insult. And, you think me pointing out that the game doesn't reflect how time works is not derogatory. They're not insults and I mean no insult toward the creators of a game I love (and obv am not referring to HC team when I speak of devs here--they've made massive improvements to the gorgeous mess they took up <3), but these are not insults, they're either facts (about great work--or I wouldn't be here--and bad work) that are at the core of the quality and potential of this thing, or otherwise (what you're feeling insulted by) questions I think warranted by a Twilight Zone reception about how I can't leave the Village lol

Edited September 5 by moonligh7er

[moonligh7er]

1 hour ago, lemming said:

Just to note: Yes, an object's destruction can trigger NPC betrayal.   I've used it a lot.  They can also betray nicely after a hostage rescue.

 

While there have been some changes to the AE, the only real changes seem to be adding power sets and being able to edit the mission files to be used with more powers for NPCs (at the cost of not being XP for defeat)

 

The AE code from what I recall was done by someone who didn't stick around and poorly documented.   It's a totally different animal than mission codes, which is another reason that things that can be done in mission writing isn't available in AE.

Escorts can't betray you upon arrival to their destination was the issue. Which is goofy and eliminates a whole number of tropes for that moment in the story.

Captives can't be se to betray you after being rescued either, which eliminates a number of other tropes. I'm looking at a captive right now. If you have done that before, they nerfed it.

I think HC disabled some other stuff, also to prevent exploits they said, including custom character behaviors and stats, but Idk if any of what I'm on about is part'f HC's moves. I know there were a couple of other things I dunno about that people who apparently used AE a lot on live said were removed, something like enemies around a type of NPC objective and stuff like that. I know you can't custom-place enemies now is one thing, which is sad, and again, devalues the potential of the builder in a way that cant be skill or creativity'd past.

HC may have changed the triggers and may be responsible for breaking everything (some/all the specific things above) and why we can't have nice things, for all I know. Idk. It's difficult to find info on but it's been suggested. If HC did remove the ability to do all that super-basic stuff that I highlighted as being there but not working / that that person was flailing at me about being crazy and impossible, and it turns out was part of the OG code all along lmao.. then I am totally talking about HC's work (which I imagine would've been to prevent (worse) glitches, which if so didn't prevent as many glitches as functionalities it removed), and they should know that the effects of those particular changes are probably not as intended, have massively badd side effects, and are extremely unintuitive probably because some of the stuff on the menu that I'm talking about not working used to work. It would make sense, because as I tried to explain in another conversation, the things are all right there on the menu, make sense, are what's intuitive, are all even if fragmented already in the code, and for all I know may have been usable features in the past because they are literally options, or are options one place but not another or in one combo but not another. Maybe the whispers of a golden-age of common-sense features I almost know must have been there because they are what actually makes sense... are just whispers.

Edited September 6 by moonligh7er

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, moonligh7er said:

The objective is already there, either way. The objectives are on the map, 'partial-loaded,' from the very beginning of the level even if inactive/untriggered. The question and the only thing you can set is when it becomes active. That's why when testing if you click through the objectives, you'll find it already there, and why when playing the mish that if you go to where it is before it's active, it'll be there, just not blinking or making noise. All as explained. It doesn't, "spawn," 'physically.' It pre-exists. The map populated it at it's big bang. It wasn't an object that would have otherwise been on the map either. If I were asking for the objective to appear at any time after the rescue, that would be circular logic and ofc not possible within current infrastructure that could be copied or integrated because NPC's can't just be triggered to set a new or second objective or say a thing except on specific conditions (though, that would be an easy trigger to make--why? because triggers exist already and so do popups).

Also, yes, there are options in AE builder and to the HC team that exist but not for us in AE. Some of them HC disabled intentionally, for good cause but if this was one (as alluded to I don't know) disabling this I do not believe to have the intended effect I'm aware of (avoiding exploits), but it does have an identifiable deleterious effect, and produces glitches of it's own when players attempt perfectly reasonable things.

It's ridiculous that you're saying the infrastructure isn't there because it literally is; the code obviously exists because these things all happen in the game, and menus and options and configurations at least for the main example are literally all things you can select in the AE builder, they just gen an error or worse, don't generate an error but break the arc. I would call this a glitch because the options are there, they reasonably should work, they just don't. I would also call it a glitch for it being incorrect and misleading to call it a circular dependency when it's closer to the truth that AE can't chew just any flavor of gum at the same time as walking successfully; in reality it's nothing to do with circular logic, but through the eyes of AE's limitations--but those limits are in config, not infrastructure.

The game code is already breaking and not doing 'what we want,' so what are you talking about lmaoo. This is a fix for something presented and something that there's code for but that doesn't work, and it, and definitely the definite-glitches mentioned, are fixes, not the future causes of glitches or brickwalls already happening--that's circular reasoning. By 'what we want' I mean basics/things it is demonstrably capable of/things that are literally on the menu.

Asking if you've played other games when you're acting like my ask is even slightly outlandish isn't an insult. And, you think me pointing out that the game doesn't reflect how time works is not derogatory. They're not insults and I mean no insult toward the creators of a game I love (and obv am not referring to HC team when I speak of devs here--they've made massive improvements to the gorgeous mess they took up <3), but these are not insults, they're either facts (about great work--or I wouldn't be here--and bad work) that are at the core of the quality and potential of this thing, or otherwise (what you're feeling insulted by) questions I think warranted by a Twilight Zone reception about how I can't leave the Village lol

Stop arguing about how you think something should work as opposed to how it actually works and is designed to work on the Bug Reports forum and take it to the Suggestions and Feedback forum. I'm done with you. Bye.

 

Edited September 6 by Rudra
Edited to add missing "you".

[moonligh7er]

I don't how it was or who changed what, but that's not the point; I know what's not working, how it should work, how it's right-there for it to work literally on the menu, and a rudimentary idea of how to go about making it actually-work as seemingly intended, not only removing current glitches but enabled features disabled due to glitchiness if the case. I'm really good at it and it's the nature of my work. Although coding isn't my work, finding inconsistencies / pattern recognition / problem identification / improvement are, I have friends whose are coding is, powerful AI and other resources I've used to work on other projects in areas I was clueless to, sometimes a little extra money, the power of obsession, and for complicated scholarship reasons no classes til Spring. The only real added value would be a bit'f my financial and time resources, not putting myself on par with HC team, but I imagine those are the shortest resources, particularly the time. But I will literally contribute work to help make AE make sense, glitches and, "areas for improvement," if that's not something they have resources for. But like, if given a hook, like, 'hey we don't hate you for saying it could be should be done even if you don't believe I can, and wouldn't brickwall the features for this or that reason if you could produce something solid'. People can flail at me all they want about how disrespectful it is to call things what they are, but they can get out my way while I demonstrate the, 'impossible,' thing. Happy to spend insane amounts of time to look through AE's code. Happy to learn more as would definitely be needed to add (vs change) anything as that came up.

I could almost run support for AE builder's UI though tbh. Although I have plenty of stuff I have little clue about, mostly what needed to be was a question was a question. Anyway I will post some of these ideas for improvement in the feedback section, others that there's not room to disagree on being glitches (eg random color changes--though probly not that one being minor and probly on a list just low on it) here but not in conversation format... but I believe the listed menu items not being orderable despite being on the menu (and I don't mean like letting captives betray you, though that too, but like setting an objective to become active when the escort informs you of it / is freed / sets it) is a glitch, and calling things what they aren't in errors (circular when it's causality is perfectly linear and only circular to AE which entity sees the world in 2D and as flat) is a glitch at best. Sorry for the inconvenience and again if mods don't agree with my definitions, please move to feedback or improvements section.

Edited September 6 by moonligh7er

[moonligh7er]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

Stop arguing about how you think something should work as opposed to how it actually works and is designed to work on the Bug Reports forum and take it to the Suggestions and Feedback forum. I'm done with you. Bye.

 

In that particular moment it was much less of the theoretical discussion and more I was correcting you on your incorrect explanation of how it actually currently works. All of which was pointless, because noone asked about almost anything you said, I don't believe you read half of what you replied to (evidenced by need for re-explaining), and other than disagreeing on whether a menu item not working despite being on the menu qualifies a glitch, it was all just a tar pit of lack of imagination, and like nothing even fantastic, just figuring out how we can have an apple over here if there's currently an apple right over there, lmao. Bye now. Don't forget to leave your safety patrol belt when you go off duty.

Edited September 6 by moonligh7er

[lemming]

1 hour ago, moonligh7er said:

Captives can't be se to betray you after being rescued either, which eliminates a number of other tropes. I'm looking at a captive right now. If you have done that before, they nerfed it.

That is literally what I have setup.

I have captives that are EBs that get rescued from enemy mobs.   And I have a trigger that sets them to betray you.  It used to be a destruction of an object, but now it's when you rescue a different captive.   And I swapped that in the last couple months.

 

Now it would be nice to be able to lead someone somewhere, and then betray, but that's not feasible in AE as it is.  As Rudra says, suggestion, not a bug.

 

I don't think a lot of what you say was possible ever was.   It would be nice, but how the AE was setup, you don't get multiple triggers with one item.   I loaded my AE files from live onto HC and they all worked.   I've redid most of them since then due to some of the changes that did happen, but stuff with various triggers have always been fairly limited in scope.   And there have always been easy ways to trip yourself up with objectives and other items.

[moonligh7er]

3 hours ago, lemming said:

That is literally what I have setup.

I have captives that are EBs that get rescued from enemy mobs.   And I have a trigger that sets them to betray you.  It used to be a destruction of an object, but now it's when you rescue a different captive.   And I swapped that in the last couple months.

 

Now it would be nice to be able to lead someone somewhere, and then betray, but that's not feasible in AE as it is.  As Rudra says, suggestion, not a bug.

 

I don't think a lot of what you say was possible ever was.   It would be nice, but how the AE was setup, you don't get multiple triggers with one item.   I loaded my AE files from live onto HC and they all worked.   I've redid most of them since then due to some of the changes that did happen, but stuff with various triggers have always been fairly limited in scope.   And there have always been easy ways to trip yourself up with objectives and other items.

It's funny you should say any of that because I was just coming here to say that I stand corrected on escorts not being able to betray you upon arrival to their objective. That is an available setting. Idk if it was too many triggers on one thing and AE just picking some instead of generating an error because builder and actual map gen communication is poor, but it just worked for the first time, and I think I was confusing the feature never having worked correctly with it being missing.

So that is possible. I just ran it, it worked, and it was honestly by happy mistake that I landed on a combo of triggers that it worked. However, there may be an issue were AE is trimming stuff and it just happened not to trim a required objective that time and I didn't notice what it did trim. In one test version, it trimmed the escort's ability to follow me to the destination which was required! removing a mob or something solved that, cuz builder doesn't know how many of the things it thinks are allowed will actually be spawned by the separate magical entity that generates the actual map, and that entity gives no cares, it'll start trimming starting with required objectives or seemingly simple functions such as an NPC's follow ability--it was set to follow and its destination set, only thing I changed at all to fix it or between tests was making getting spawns beneath that secret number of max spawns builder won't share probly cuz it doesn't know it.

For the other part... Multiple triggers are possible. I read they nerfed it from unlimited to 1, but the builder allows several, and I've seen 2-3 successfully go off within a reasonable or at least acceptable timeframe of the actual trigger event. However, they spawn strangely and often incompletely (maybe like 2/3 or 3/4 will trigger correctly), and order is seemingly random.. and sometimes there are delays between items cuz I don't think they go off simultaneously per se. So, I mean, maybe you missed something else that is or was possible. But I think 2 triggers might be consistently safe? Dare I say 3 though I haven't hawk-eyed how they've manifested as not all are 'the' or the-immediate objective.

As for the captives, Idk, here's a screen of a captive. I'm certain you're mistaking "allies" for "captives." Allies can betray you, and you free them just like captives, though unlike captives you can't add allies around allies, only captives--which I'd rather have the latter anyway if I had to choose cuz then your allies have captives). What I said or meant to was captives cannot betray you, and that you having captives would be 1000x cooler than it already is if they could betray you. I mean, they can kill your soldiers if their PBAOE toggle does damage (which is stunningly beautiful to realize lol), and they appear as enemies until/unless freed, sooo... The menu is also right there where it says stuff like, 'runs here or there,' and could also say, 'betrays,' or a separate dropdown option could make them betray you.



I will create a couple of the SICKEST scenes and arcs  just given 1.) meteor working correctly/at all (or other powers like mass levitate--really? an AV is never gonna flex with mass levitate or meteor even if their only move and on max difficulty? come on--and btw I know there are options that we don't have for say triggering certain moves at certain health levels as is seen in main-game)... and 2.) the ability for escorts to betray you upon bein rescued--especially rescued very slowly and subtly by their PBAOE toggle cuz the real issue is they're already in enemy mode and it forces ally when they're freed. I want the danged AV to do evil stuff after he's freed himself. I played on Pinnacle and that's what I would like to seee. But wait, somebody's gonna tell me the resource for meteor or mass levitate doesn't exist just cuz it's not currently not working correctly, even though it's right there on custom powers list in AE and can be literally pointed-to existing in-game. 😄 Ooff I can't...

Edited September 6 by moonligh7er

[moonligh7er]

And this ^ is a perfect example of some things that are possible for one type of objective (captives can have allies around them but allies cant, allies can betray u but captives cant), providing the code for another objective to have the same function, easily.

This is all way off track from what I'm calling a glitch/the main example of course, and clearly by design (just, bad design choices). But, the whole first conversation was way off track from any added value and a lot of the added issue/shortcoming point-outs were more visual aids, although the convo did produce a solid list of glitches or bugs that can't be called anything else, along with I-wishes. And I mean we can separate the numerous glitches from the numerous 'areas for improvement,' but all of these are either glitches or causing them, or just causing more opportunity for bugs for having to do backflips to do stuff that's right there to do but is toggled to, 'lol nah.'  Still though I'm saying incorrect semantics about circular logic and menu options not working are bugs and either not intended, intended by someone unfamiliar or careless with the words they're using, or intended but causing unintended consequences and other bugs...... options which again I'd almost bet money used to or do somewhere by just looking at how the UI is built, what options it lets you select and generates an error but doesnt make it orange in the dropdown menu like normal when an option would be in conflict, etc. though that's hard to pinpoint the last bit cuz it's inconsistent.

Mods may user their powers to move the Earth beneath me and I'll find myself over in feedback and take note of their definition and appreciate their time spent moving my post or destroying me or whatever.

Edited September 6 by moonligh7er