Possible bug with targeting

[Zaustie]

Hello everyone,
I wanted to come back to terminal and tried playing around a bit in 1 on 1 matches and noticed a small inconsistency in the targeting of firewalls.

Given the following starting position

everything seems to happen according to the documentation: the three scramblers get into range of the first destructor and one of them gets attacked by that destructor…

and eventually it is destroyed after 3 attacks/frames.

because one scrambler was destroyed, the destructor attacks a new for one more turn, before the two remaining scramblers move into range of the new destructor.
Now to the actual bug:
The two scramblers move into range of the second destructor. Since they are both at the same distance, the lower health target should be attacked by both destructors, taking 2 times 16 damage and being destroyed in the process… instead, each destructor targets a different scrambler, resulting in both scramblers still living at the end of the turn (see final screenshot).

Is this a bug? Or intended (but non documented) behaviour?
(I have not been working on terminal for a while, so I’m sorry if this issue has already been addressed or I’m just not applying the rules properly)

-Zaustie.

[Demorf]

Welcome back!
There was a VISUAL bug in the past, where units do no die, on the frame they should.
Did you checked the actual frame logs ?

[Zaustie]

I tried looking at the replay file but I cant quite parse it in my head. here’s a replay file with just that frame, I hope it helps
bug?.replay (35.1 KB)

[Demorf]

Here, this is is the important part of the frame log, it looks normal to me.

And here is some info on how to read the logs: https://docs.c1games.com/json-docs.html

       {..."events":{
                "move":[
                  [[11,22],[11,23],[0,0],5,"3",1],
                  [[11,22],[11,23],[0,0],5,"4",1],
                  [[11,22],[11,23],[0,0],5,"5",1]],
                "attack":[
                [[13,25],[11,23],16,2,"2","5",2]]]
        }}
        {... "events":{
                 "attack":[
                    [[13,25],[11,23],16,2,"2","5",2]]
        }}
        {..."events":{
                "death":[
                    [[11,23],5,"5",1,false]],
                "attack":[
                    [[13,25],[11,23],16,2,"2","5",2]]
        }}
        {..."events":{
                "attack":[
                    [[13,25],[11,23],16,2,"2","4",2]]
        }}
        {..."events":{
                "move":[
                    [[11,23],[12,23],[0,0],5,"3",1],
                    [[11,23],[12,23],[0,0],5,"4",1]],
                "death":[
                    [[12,23],5,"4",1,false]],
                "attack":[
                    [[14,25],[12,23],16,2,"1","4",2],
                    [[13,25],[12,23],16,2,"2","4",2]]
        }}
        {..."events":{
                "attack":[
                    [[14,25],[12,23],16,2,"1","3",2],
                    [[13,25],[12,23],16,2,"2","3",2]]
        }}
        {..."events":{
                "death":[
                    [[12,23],5,"3",1,false]],
                "attack":[
                    [[14,25],[12,23],16,2,"1","3",2]]
        }}

[Zaustie]

Thank you for the info.
If I’m reading it correctly it looks all right too… I guess its just a visual bug then.
Should I close this thread somehow? If yes, how do I do so?

[Demorf]

No problem,
Your finding is legit, and they should probably fix it at some point, but seems Visual bugs have low priority.

Go coding and join the weekly competition!

[RegularRyan]

Thanks for handling this Demorf.

I can confirm that this is the same visual bug we have had for a while. I’ll bump this fix up in priority.

[Demorf]

Hey @RegularRyan
How difficult will it be to share the front-end code for the playground ?
We can definitely help with some small bugs like this, end event suggest some improvements here and there.

There are few people recreating the Playground already … so may be adding a option for Skins, Mods, Plugins down the road can be interesting.

[RegularRyan]

@Demorf

How difficult will it be to share the front-end code for the playground ?

The biggest concern for me personally with opening up the codebase more is that it could reveal potential security issues. I will open a discussion about increasing our open sourced code beyond just the starter-kit, the benefits seem apparent. Note that it will probably be some time before such a possiblity is realized.