Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
You gave it a requirement of 2 hatcheries, so it made sure there was 2
hatcheries. It's not really a bug, but more of an interface mislabeling problem.
You wanted 2 bases, a base being a hatchery, lair or hive. I don't see a reason
to ever require hatcheries explicitly, it seems like it should have a "bases"
requirement instead.
Original comment by AudioL...@gmail.com
on 28 Oct 2010 at 7:13
No what he means is he specified in the waypoint that he wants 2 hatcheries,
and in the final 1 hatchery 1 lair. But it still gets 2 hatcheries to satisfy
the waypoint, ending with 2 hatcheries 1 lair.
I tested this and agree that this is a bug that should be fixed.
Original comment by azzur...@gmail.com
on 28 Oct 2010 at 11:07
(To be more clear, there is no way for the user to specify/get a fast expand
with only 2 bases when also requiring a lair)
Original comment by azzur...@gmail.com
on 28 Oct 2010 at 11:12
I disagree, it's not a bug. It works as intended in the software. The problem
is how the user interacts with the software.
Hatcheries just need to be changed to bases and relabeled as such.
Original comment by AudioL...@gmail.com
on 29 Oct 2010 at 12:16
Bases could be misleading if you place the hatchery in your main. This wouldn't
allow higher mineral income or 2 extra gas extractors.
Anyway, you guys are just arguing about semantics. The bottom line is that this
needs to be improved by either allowing a lair/hive to be counted as a
hatch/lair, or by adding an additional requirement field for "hatch OR lair OR
hive". This way, if you wanted 3 hives so that your expansions are super beefy,
you could type "3" in the "hive" field, but if you just wanted 3
larvae-producing structures, you could type "3" in the "hatch OR lair OR hive"
field. Or maybe call it "larvae-producing structure".
Original comment by Sketh...@hotmail.com
on 29 Oct 2010 at 2:25
Original comment by AudioL...@gmail.com
on 29 Oct 2010 at 12:28
Original comment by AudioL...@gmail.com
on 29 Oct 2010 at 6:00
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
Sketh...@hotmail.com
on 28 Oct 2010 at 6:25