ACAR 100% Loss Odds In StratCon: Issue & Fixes

Brief Description

In StratCon scenarios, players are encountering an issue where ACAR (presumably a game mechanic or unit within the MegaMek/MekHQ environment) consistently reports a 100% chance of loss, even when the player possesses a significant force advantage over the opposition. This is contrasted with PACAR, which, in the same situations, auto-resolves battles with much greater success. A specific example is cited: the Recon Evasion mission, described as an "easy fight," suffers from this ACAR miscalculation. This problem occurs without the use of any custom units, suggesting it's an issue within the core game mechanics rather than a conflict with user-generated content.

When dealing with strategy games like MegaMek, accurate auto-resolve calculations are crucial for efficient campaign management. The frustration of seeing a guaranteed loss prediction from ACAR, despite having a stronger force, can be a major impediment. It forces players to manually fight battles they should theoretically win easily, disrupting the flow of the game. This is especially true in long campaigns where numerous minor engagements can bog down progress if each one requires manual intervention. Accurate predictions also impact resource management; if ACAR consistently overestimates losses, players may be hesitant to engage in battles, even when strategically advantageous. This cautious approach can slow down progress and potentially lead to missed opportunities. A reliable auto-resolve system should empower players to make informed decisions about when to fight manually and when to let the computer handle the encounter, ensuring a balance between strategic depth and efficient gameplay. Thus, the inconsistency between ACAR's predictions and the actual outcomes, as highlighted by the PACAR results, undermines the player's trust in the system and reduces the overall enjoyment of the game.

The core purpose of auto-resolve in a tactical game is to simulate battles quickly and efficiently, providing players with an estimated outcome based on unit strengths, terrain, and other relevant factors. When the system fails to accurately predict the outcome, it not only frustrates the player but also diminishes the strategic value of the feature. A 100% loss prediction, especially in scenarios where the player has a clear advantage, suggests a fundamental flaw in the underlying calculations or algorithms. This can lead to a situation where players are forced to ignore ACAR's predictions altogether, relying instead on their own judgment or, as in this case, the results from a different auto-resolve system (PACAR). This undermines the purpose of having multiple auto-resolve options, as one is clearly unreliable. Furthermore, the issue can impact the player's overall understanding of the game's mechanics. If ACAR consistently misrepresents the balance of power, it can lead players to develop incorrect assumptions about unit effectiveness and combat strategies. This is particularly problematic for new players who are still learning the intricacies of the game. Therefore, resolving this issue is critical not only for improving the player experience but also for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the game's simulation.

In the context of game development, such discrepancies in auto-resolve calculations often point to underlying bugs or imbalances in the system's logic. It's possible that ACAR is weighting certain factors too heavily or failing to account for others, leading to skewed results. For example, it might be overemphasizing defensive capabilities while underestimating offensive firepower, or vice versa. Alternatively, there could be a specific bug related to the Recon Evasion mission or certain types of units, which is causing the miscalculation. Diagnosing these issues requires a thorough examination of the game's code and algorithms, as well as extensive testing across a variety of scenarios. Developers typically use debugging tools and techniques to trace the flow of calculations and identify the point at which the error occurs. They may also conduct comparative analyses, comparing the results of ACAR with those of PACAR or manual battles to pinpoint the discrepancies. Once the root cause is identified, the developers can implement a fix, which might involve adjusting the weighting factors, correcting errors in the code, or even re-designing parts of the auto-resolve system. Effective communication with the community, as demonstrated by the user's detailed bug report, is also crucial in this process, as it provides valuable insights and helps to prioritize the most pressing issues.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Go to the Briefing Room within MekHQ.
2. Select the Recon Evasion mission.
3. Choose the Auto resolve option.
4. Specifically select ACAR to handle the auto-resolution.

Attach Files

The user has provided the following files for further investigation:

• NKL Company.cpnx.gz: This file likely contains the save game or campaign data, allowing developers to load the specific scenario and replicate the issue.
• mekhq.log: This log file should contain detailed information about the game's operations, potentially including error messages or other clues related to the ACAR miscalculation.

The provision of these files is invaluable for debugging, as it allows the developers to step into the exact situation the player experienced. The .cpnx.gz file is particularly useful because it encapsulates the campaign state, including unit deployments, mission objectives, and other relevant factors. By loading this file, developers can bypass the need to manually set up the scenario, saving time and ensuring that they are testing the exact conditions under which the bug occurred. The log file acts as a sort of black box recorder, capturing the internal workings of the game engine. It can reveal the sequence of calculations performed by ACAR, the data it used, and any errors or warnings that were generated. By analyzing the log file, developers can often pinpoint the exact line of code where the miscalculation originates. Together, these files provide a comprehensive snapshot of the issue, enabling developers to efficiently diagnose and fix the problem. This type of detailed bug reporting is crucial for maintaining the quality and stability of complex games like MegaMek.

The ability to reproduce a bug consistently is paramount to fixing it effectively. The user's clear steps to reproduce the ACAR issue significantly aid the developers in their investigation. By following these steps, they can reliably trigger the bug and observe its behavior firsthand. This is crucial for verifying that the bug exists and for testing potential solutions. Without a reliable method of reproduction, developers might struggle to understand the issue or might implement a fix that doesn't fully address the underlying problem. The clear steps outlined in the report also facilitate collaboration among developers. If multiple developers are working on the issue, they can all use the same steps to reproduce the bug, ensuring that they are all on the same page. This consistency is essential for efficient debugging and problem-solving. Furthermore, the steps to reproduce serve as a form of documentation for the bug. They can be used to create test cases that automatically check for the bug in future versions of the game, preventing it from re-emerging. Thus, the user's thoroughness in providing these steps is a valuable contribution to the bug-fixing process.

In addition to the specific files provided, other diagnostic methods might be employed to further investigate the ACAR issue. Developers could utilize debugging tools to step through the code execution of ACAR, observing the values of variables and the results of calculations at each stage. This allows them to pinpoint the exact point at which the miscalculation occurs. Profiling tools could also be used to analyze the performance of ACAR, identifying any bottlenecks or inefficient code sections that might be contributing to the problem. Another useful technique is to create simplified test cases, isolating specific aspects of the game mechanics that might be involved. For example, developers could create a scenario with only a few units and a minimal set of objectives, allowing them to focus on the core combat calculations without the complexity of a full mission. Comparative analysis, as mentioned earlier, is also a valuable tool. Developers could compare the calculations performed by ACAR with those of PACAR or with the expected results based on manual battle simulations. This can help to identify any systematic biases or errors in ACAR's logic. Finally, gathering additional data from other users who have experienced the issue can provide further insights. This might involve collecting additional save games, log files, or detailed descriptions of the scenarios in which the bug occurred. By combining all of these diagnostic methods, developers can build a comprehensive understanding of the problem and develop an effective solution.

Severity

Medium (Gameplay Limitation): The issue impairs non-core functionality, resulting in a less-than-ideal but still playable experience. This suggests that while the bug is disruptive, it doesn't completely prevent players from progressing in the game.

The classification of severity is a critical aspect of bug reporting, as it helps developers prioritize their work. A "Medium" severity rating indicates that the bug has a noticeable impact on the player experience but doesn't render the game unplayable. In this case, the 100% loss prediction from ACAR is clearly frustrating, but players can still bypass the issue by using PACAR or manually fighting battles. However, the fact that ACAR is providing inaccurate predictions undermines the intended functionality of the auto-resolve system and can lead to strategic missteps if players rely on it. A lower severity rating might be assigned if the bug only affected a minor feature or had a very limited scope of impact. A higher severity rating, such as "Critical," would be appropriate if the bug caused crashes, data loss, or made the game completely unplayable. The severity rating helps developers allocate their resources effectively, focusing on the most impactful bugs first. It also provides a framework for communicating the status of bugs to the community, giving players an understanding of which issues are being addressed and when they can expect fixes.

In the context of software development, a medium severity bug typically warrants attention but might not be the highest priority. Developers often triage bugs based on a combination of severity, frequency, and impact on users. A bug that affects a large number of users or has a significant impact on core functionality is likely to be prioritized over a bug that is less common or has a more limited effect. However, even medium severity bugs need to be addressed to maintain the overall quality and stability of the software. They can contribute to a negative user experience and can potentially mask more serious underlying issues. The process of fixing a medium severity bug might involve a range of activities, including debugging, code refactoring, and testing. Developers might also need to coordinate with other teams, such as QA or design, to ensure that the fix is properly implemented and doesn't introduce any new problems. Effective bug tracking and management systems are essential for this process, allowing developers to track the status of bugs, assign them to specific individuals, and monitor their progress towards resolution. Ultimately, addressing medium severity bugs is a crucial part of the ongoing maintenance and improvement of any software product.

MekHQ Suite Version

The issue is reported in MekHQ Suite Version 50.10. This information is crucial for developers as it allows them to focus their efforts on the specific version where the problem occurs. It also helps to avoid confusion with potential fixes or changes introduced in later versions.

Specifying the software version in a bug report is a fundamental practice in software development and maintenance. Each version of a software application represents a specific state of the code, with its own set of features, bug fixes, and potential issues. A bug that exists in one version might have been fixed in a subsequent version, or it might not exist at all in an older version. Therefore, knowing the exact version number is essential for developers to accurately diagnose and address the problem. It allows them to reproduce the bug in the same environment as the user and to verify that any fixes they implement are effective in that specific context. Version information is also crucial for bug tracking and management systems. It allows developers to group bugs by version, track their resolution status, and generate reports on the overall quality of each release. Furthermore, it facilitates communication with users, providing them with information about which versions are affected by a particular bug and when they can expect a fix. In the case of MekHQ Suite Version 50.10, developers can focus their investigation on the code changes and features that were introduced in this version, potentially narrowing down the scope of the problem.

In addition to the specific version number, other details about the software environment can also be helpful in bug reporting. This might include information about the operating system, the programming language used, and any relevant libraries or dependencies. For example, in the case of MekHQ, knowing the Java version is important, as Java is the runtime environment on which the application is built. Differences in Java versions can sometimes lead to compatibility issues or unexpected behavior. Similarly, the operating system can influence the way the software interacts with the hardware and other system components. A bug that occurs on one operating system might not occur on another. Providing this contextual information helps developers to create a more complete picture of the problem and to identify any potential environmental factors that might be contributing to it. It also allows them to test fixes in a similar environment to the user, increasing the likelihood that the fix will be effective. In some cases, the bug might be specific to a particular combination of software versions and operating systems, making it even more important to provide detailed environmental information in the bug report.

Operating System

The user is running Windows 11. This, as mentioned above, is important for ensuring compatibility and identifying potential OS-specific issues.

The operating system is a critical component of the software environment, and its influence on software behavior cannot be overstated. Different operating systems have different architectures, system calls, libraries, and drivers, which can all affect how an application runs. A bug that manifests on Windows 11 might not occur on macOS or Linux, and vice versa. Therefore, knowing the operating system is essential for developers to accurately reproduce and diagnose bugs. It allows them to set up a testing environment that closely matches the user's system and to investigate any potential OS-specific issues. For example, a bug might be related to the way the application interacts with the Windows registry, or it might be caused by a conflict with a specific Windows service or driver. In such cases, developers need to be able to debug the application within the Windows environment to understand the root cause of the problem. The operating system also plays a role in memory management, process scheduling, and other low-level system operations, which can indirectly affect the behavior of applications. Therefore, providing the operating system information in a bug report is a crucial step in the bug-fixing process.

In the context of cross-platform software development, the operating system becomes even more significant. Applications that are designed to run on multiple operating systems need to be carefully tested and debugged on each platform to ensure consistent behavior. Developers often use conditional compilation or platform-specific code to handle differences between operating systems. However, these adaptations can sometimes introduce new bugs or inconsistencies. Thorough testing on each target platform is essential to identify and address these issues. The operating system can also affect the user interface and user experience of an application. For example, the look and feel of a graphical user interface (GUI) might differ slightly between operating systems, due to variations in the native GUI libraries and widgets. Developers need to take these differences into account when designing and implementing the user interface, to ensure a consistent and intuitive experience for users on all platforms. Therefore, when reporting a bug in a cross-platform application, it is particularly important to specify the operating system on which the bug occurred.

Java Version

The user is using Adoptium Temurin 17.0.17+10, which is a specific distribution of the Java Development Kit (JDK). This detail is crucial because MekHQ, like many other games and applications, relies on Java to run. Different Java versions can have varying levels of performance, stability, and compatibility.

The Java version is a critical piece of information for diagnosing issues in Java-based applications. Java is a platform-independent language, meaning that Java code can theoretically run on any operating system that has a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) installed. However, different Java versions can have different implementations of the JVM, which can lead to variations in application behavior. A bug that occurs on one Java version might not occur on another, due to changes in the JVM, the Java class libraries, or the Java language itself. Therefore, when reporting a bug in a Java application, it is essential to specify the Java version that is being used. This allows developers to reproduce the bug in the same Java environment as the user and to investigate any potential Java-specific issues. For example, a bug might be related to a change in the garbage collection algorithm, a new security feature, or a deprecated API. In such cases, developers need to be able to debug the application within the specific Java version to understand the root cause of the problem. The Java version can also affect the performance of the application, so it is important to consider this factor when troubleshooting performance-related issues.

Adoptium Temurin 17.0.17+10 is a specific distribution of the OpenJDK, which is an open-source implementation of the Java SE (Standard Edition) platform. OpenJDK is the reference implementation of Java, and Adoptium Temurin is a build of OpenJDK that is provided by the Eclipse Adoptium project. Other popular distributions of OpenJDK include Oracle JDK, Azul Zulu, and Amazon Corretto. Each distribution might have its own specific features, bug fixes, and performance characteristics. Therefore, when reporting a bug in a Java application, it is helpful to specify not only the Java version but also the distribution that is being used. This provides developers with more detailed information about the Java environment and can help them to narrow down the scope of the problem. In the case of Adoptium Temurin 17.0.17+10, developers can consult the release notes and bug fixes for this specific distribution to identify any known issues that might be related to the bug being reported.

The information provided about the Java version, specifically the Adoptium Temurin 17.0.17+10 build, includes an expiration date of 10/30/2025. This date is significant because it indicates the end of support for this particular version of the JDK. Java versions typically have a defined lifecycle, with support being provided for a certain period of time. After the end of support date, the vendor will no longer provide security updates or bug fixes for that version. Using an unsupported Java version can expose the system to security vulnerabilities and compatibility issues. Therefore, it is recommended to upgrade to a supported Java version before the end of support date. In the context of bug reporting, this information is useful because it can help developers to determine whether the bug might be related to a known issue in the specific Java version that is being used, and whether upgrading to a newer version might resolve the problem. It also serves as a reminder for the user to keep their Java environment up-to-date, which is an important aspect of maintaining the security and stability of their system.

Final Verification

The user has confirmed the following:

• This is a single, unique issue that hasn't been reported before.
• All necessary information has been provided.
• All relevant files (logs, save, etc.) have been included.
• The issue has been discussed on the MegaMek Discord.
• The issue is being opened on the correct repository.

These confirmations demonstrate a high level of diligence and thoroughness in the bug reporting process, significantly aiding the developers in their investigation.

Final verification checklists are a crucial part of the bug reporting process, ensuring that bug reports are complete, accurate, and actionable. By confirming that the issue is unique, the user avoids duplicate reports, which can clutter the bug tracking system and waste developers' time. Verifying that all necessary information is included ensures that developers have the context they need to understand the bug and reproduce it. Attaching relevant files, such as logs and save games, provides developers with the raw data they need to diagnose the issue. Discussing the bug on community forums, such as the MegaMek Discord, allows users to share their experiences and potentially find solutions or workarounds. It also helps to ensure that the bug is not a known issue that has already been addressed. Finally, confirming that the bug is being reported to the correct repository ensures that it is being seen by the appropriate development team. The user's diligence in completing this checklist demonstrates a commitment to helping the developers resolve the issue efficiently and effectively.

In the context of software quality assurance, a well-structured verification process is essential for maintaining the quality and stability of the software. Bug reports are the primary means of communication between users and developers, and the quality of these reports directly impacts the efficiency of the bug-fixing process. A complete and accurate bug report allows developers to understand the issue quickly, reproduce it reliably, and implement a fix effectively. Verification checklists help to standardize the bug reporting process, ensuring that all reports contain the necessary information and are presented in a consistent format. This makes it easier for developers to triage and prioritize bugs, and it reduces the amount of time spent on back-and-forth communication with users. Verification checklists also serve as a form of documentation, providing a record of the steps that were taken to report and verify the bug. This can be useful for tracking the progress of bug fixes and for identifying patterns or trends in the types of bugs that are being reported. Overall, a robust verification process is a key element of a successful software quality assurance program.

In conclusion, the user has reported a significant issue with ACAR in StratCon scenarios within MekHQ, where it consistently predicts 100% loss odds even in favorable situations. The detailed report, including steps to reproduce, attached files, and system information, provides a solid foundation for developers to investigate and resolve the problem. The user's thoroughness and attention to detail are commendable and will undoubtedly contribute to a more efficient bug-fixing process. This highlights the importance of clear communication and collaboration between users and developers in maintaining the quality and stability of software projects. For further reading on bug reporting best practices, you may find helpful resources on the Mozilla Developer Network.