Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

The place to discuss balance changes for future versions of the game.
(Master releases & 3.X)
Reg312
Regular
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Reg312 » 28 Feb 2013, 10:53

@Iluvalar:Nice pictures :)
Miss-radius calculated on start. My bullets are not curving.

I think your patch is more complicated. May be there is a some reason why your patch was not applied to game?
I think your picture requires more parameters than just hit-chance. Hardcoded distibution is not good.

Originway
Trained
Trained
Posts: 412
Joined: 08 Aug 2012, 06:22

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Originway » 28 Feb 2013, 20:10

most people do not care!
they just want something that looks right and is fun to play!
real life calculations are not fun and are not meant for games!

Originway
Trained
Trained
Posts: 412
Joined: 08 Aug 2012, 06:22

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Originway » 28 Feb 2013, 20:41

another option is to add a simulator mode for those people that want it

Jorzi
Regular
Regular
Posts: 2008
Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 00:14

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Jorzi » 28 Feb 2013, 21:46

Originway wrote:real life calculations are not fun and are not meant for games!
While it is true that you can make up physics any way you want, it's still real life calculations.
In fact, without at least a basic knowledge of calculus and a good grasp of analytic geometry, making a proper game (at least in 3 dimensions) is not really going to work out imo.
ImageImage
-insert deep philosophical statement here-

User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1802
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Iluvalar » 28 Feb 2013, 23:23

Reg312 wrote:@Iluvalar:Nice pictures :)
Miss-radius calculated on start. My bullets are not curving.

I think your patch is more complicated. May be there is a some reason why your patch was not applied to game?
I think your picture requires more parameters than just hit-chance. Hardcoded distibution is not good.
ok ok, a single bullet doesn't curve. But still the weapon become more accurate when the target is more far. :|

As far as I know, there were no good reason to not apply my patch. Except they didn't wanted to change the game before the 3.1 release. Well, that was not a good reason either XD . Also some people failed to really understand the bug and they argued that the prefer an accuracy variable with the target size to look more real. But... nobody came with a clear idea how to manage that and keep the gameplay somewhat the same.

Yeah, a weapon specific spread parameter would be awesome. But still, when I did my tests, a default distribution looked way better than none. I came up with that when I started to wonder how much far a miss could miss. It allow the best of both world : Can miss by a large amount, but usualy miss by a short range.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Reg312
Regular
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Reg312 » 28 Feb 2013, 23:57

Is your patch applicable for current 3.1/master?
Seems i have to try and see.

User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1802
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Iluvalar » 01 Mar 2013, 02:34

I made it for some 3.1 beta. So it should work as is. AFAIK nobody else changed that part.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Deus Siddis
Trained
Trained
Posts: 235
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 06:58

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Deus Siddis » 18 Mar 2013, 18:47

Per wrote: I think the biggest problem is that we now have two accuracy systems. One based on physics, and one based on accuracy rolls.

This game just ain't big enough for the both of them. One night they will meet in dark alley, and only one of them will walk out alive... :ninja:
Go with physics based, it's transparent, believable and intuitive. Dice rolls are for board games and '90s era CPUs.

User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1802
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Iluvalar » 19 Mar 2013, 23:21

Deus Siddis wrote:
Per wrote: I think the biggest problem is that we now have two accuracy systems. One based on physics, and one based on accuracy rolls.

This game just ain't big enough for the both of them. One night they will meet in dark alley, and only one of them will walk out alive... :ninja:
Go with physics based, it's transparent, believable and intuitive. Dice rolls are for board games and '90s era CPUs.

Here Reg312, that's probably why my patch is still not implemented. Each time the discussion end, there is a new guy who didn't read what was said before that doesn't understand the consequences of his request and come ask for more realism instead. :annoyed:
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Deus Siddis
Trained
Trained
Posts: 235
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 06:58

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Deus Siddis » 20 Mar 2013, 01:18

Iluvalar wrote:
Here Reg312, that's probably why my patch is still not implemented. Each time the discussion end, there is a new guy who didn't read what was said before that doesn't understand the consequences of his request and come ask for more realism instead. :annoyed:
I've been around here three years longer than you, Iluvalar the mighty-tongued, contributor of contrived and unloved balance patches. :roll:

A degree of simulated ballistic physics similar to that used by Spring would set this game on the course to ultimately eliminate this endless debate (and tangibly improve it). There would be no more misinterpretation of what is happening "under the hood" because it would be naturally reflected in the game visually.

User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1802
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Iluvalar » 20 Mar 2013, 05:02

Do you understand that positioning your unit one tile away would become of greater importance than to research or change your design ?
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Deus Siddis
Trained
Trained
Posts: 235
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 06:58

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Deus Siddis » 20 Mar 2013, 05:42

Iluvalar wrote:Do you understand that positioning your unit one tile away would become of greater importance than to research or change your design ?
What is it with you and making grand but thoughtless statements?

Putting your unit at point blank would nullify your accuracy and evasion advantages as much as your opponent. And since to close the distance you have to be faster than him, you will also have to have less armor and thus lose to armor attrition. Not exactly a winning strategy.

User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1802
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Iluvalar » 20 Mar 2013, 06:33

By "1 tile away" I meant I tiny variation from your natural position. Not from the enemy unit.

It's not about being both point blank, it's about one of the opponent being point blank.

And it's not much about being faster or slower, but much more about moving or not moving. In a mean scenario sadly, one opponent will be 2 tile away from being 50-100% stronger. If one of the opponent stop moving, the other will enter/exit the sweat spot and it gonna be an instant lose. The main front generally holding most of your defence, not stop at the lab or the design screen will worth the instant 50% buff that your opponent get from a split second of inattention.

I'm not kidding, the balance would NEED to assume that none of the opponent can move one tile aside. The one that do it would win.

Sure there are ways to design a new game such as this can be avoided or weighted as being a part of the game. But WZ is not a new game (more a 90's one lol) and the design certainly can't support such heavy change lightly.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

Deus Siddis
Trained
Trained
Posts: 235
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 06:58

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Deus Siddis » 20 Mar 2013, 08:47

Iluvalar wrote: And it's not much about being faster or slower, but much more about moving or not moving.
...
I'm not kidding, the balance would NEED to assume that none of the opponent can move one tile aside. The one that do it would win.
Maybe this feature was disabled, but in the original warzone the units would drive around evasively when fired upon. Having the AI do some simple, semi-random movement to evade fire, would not be a big deal. Then the player could put his attention elsewhere (if he truly needs to).

Though it is recommended that you attend to and manage your units during the heat of battle, not be looking at all your research options or whatever.

Originway
Trained
Trained
Posts: 412
Joined: 08 Aug 2012, 06:22

Re: Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

Post by Originway » 20 Mar 2013, 19:37

Deus Siddis wrote:
Iluvalar wrote:Do you understand that positioning your unit one tile away would become of greater importance than to research or change your design ?
What is it with you and making grand but thoughtless statements?

Putting your unit at point blank would nullify your accuracy and evasion advantages as much as your opponent. And since to close the distance you have to be faster than him, you will also have to have less armor and thus lose to armor attrition. Not exactly a winning strategy.
+1
it is like talking to a wall

Post Reply