Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Discuss the future of Warzone 2100 with us.
Arcalane
Trained
Trained
Posts: 59
Joined: 10 Apr 2008, 23:09

Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by Arcalane »

As raised in this thread, some believe that the Scourge is not enough to compete with later tech level weapons, and that we need offspring of those launchers to bring them in line with the other weapons. Adding new weapons is inevitable in this case. Thus, we need names, some kinda of information, and models.

I have three new weapons to propose, in this case.

1. "Pilum" AT Rocket
The Pilum is a direct successor to the Scourge, firing four slightly stronger projectiles in total. Whilst it's shots are less accurate than the Scourge, this can be beneficial against large groups of enemies as stray shots may still hit a target, and the accuracy can, of course, be improved. The Pilum is a little heavier and obviously more expensive, but still worth it.

2. "Javelin" AT Rocket
The sucessor to the Pilum, the Javelin also fires four projectiles, although it's shots are far more powerful and even more accurate than the Scourge's. This should be enough to bring the AT tree up to speed with the others, more or less. The Javelin is heavy and expensive, so it is best used on heavier chassis, but it's firepower should make it well worth the pricetag.

3. "Pulsar" EMP Rocket
As I mentioned before, rockets could be used for much more interesting things than just dealing direct damage. The Pulsar is a slow firing and somewhat inaccurate EMP weapon that stuns for 1 second at default, and stun time can be increased up to 2.5 seconds (or base 2s, increase to 5s?) through research. It requires EMP and AT techs to be researched, and isn't particularly cheap, though it's worth it for the tactical advantage it can give to a force, as EMP is (as far as I know) unresistable.
Deus Siddis
Trained
Trained
Posts: 235
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 06:58

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by Deus Siddis »

Arcalane wrote:As raised in this thread, some believe that the Scourge is not enough to compete with later tech level weapons, and that we need offspring of those launchers to bring them in line with the other weapons.
Again, this discussion really belongs in that thread, you should really ask a mod to merge the two. Otherwise there will need to be alot of the same points being copied from one to the other as we get further into this.
Adding new weapons is inevitable in this case. Thus, we need names,
The names you gave below are not using the established naming convention. T3 technology like the Scourge missile these are in line with use Nexus' dark, menacing, powerful, vengeful sounding names whenever they don't have technically descriptive names (like pulse laser, railgun). Scourge, Archangel, Vengeance. retaliation, retribution, etc. are examples of Nexus names.

Possible Names: Tormentor, Menace, Punisher, Executioner, Seraph, Hellspawn, etc.
some kinda of information,
All of the T3 weapons are technologies that we only have warehouse-sized prototypes of today. They are usually low mass, high energy weapons (but more often than not not pure directed energy weapons that use no weapons with lasers and emp as the only exceptions). Conventional missiles should be considered no good. I recommend all T3 missiles be explained as ion/plasma thruster powerplants with a very small antimatter warhead or a similar but less powerful explanation for the warhead.
and models.
Those I can produce.
The Pilum is a direct successor to the Scourge, firing four slightly stronger projectiles in total. Whilst it's shots are less accurate than the Scourge, this can be beneficial against large groups of enemies as stray shots may still hit a target, and the accuracy can, of course, be improved. The Pilum is a little heavier and obviously more expensive, but still worth it.
Again, needs a new, fitting Nexus-style name. It should just be a Quad Scourge though, the limited accuracy makes it a step sideways rather than forward. It should however have about twice the mass of a Scourge though as a limitation, in addiont to being about twice the build cost and build time.
2. "Javelin" AT Rocket
The sucessor to the Pilum, the Javelin also fires four projectiles, although it's shots are far more powerful and even more accurate than the Scourge's. This should be enough to bring the AT tree up to speed with the others, more or less. The Javelin is heavy and expensive, so it is best used on heavier chassis, but it's firepower should make it well worth the pricetag.
This shouldn't be a quad it should be a double launcher like the Scourge, but it should introduce the final AT missile technology (assuming we really wanted and needed to go the route of adding a new AT missile, rather than boosting the Scourge and creating just a Quad Scourge launcher for the top of the tech tree canopy). A technology that is in each stat besides build power and build time as good as or better than the Scourge.
3. "Pulsar" EMP Rocket
As I mentioned before, rockets could be used for much more interesting things than just dealing direct damage. The Pulsar is a slow firing and somewhat inaccurate EMP weapon that stuns for 1 second at default, and stun time can be increased up to 2.5 seconds (or base 2s, increase to 5s?) through research. It requires EMP and AT techs to be researched, and isn't particularly cheap, though it's worth it for the tactical advantage it can give to a force, as EMP is (as far as I know) unresistable.
This is a separate technology and should not be in the same line. These are tank busting weapons, not tank stunning weapons. Instead I would make this a quad version of the previous missile type. If you matched this against a double gauss you would have twice the firepower in the first salvo, better range and lighter weight, but you would have much poorer hitpoints and less firepower in a sustained firefight, as the gauss would reload faster than this AT launcher's extra firepower could make up for.


But what I would really much prefer is to boost the good old Scourge up as a powerful later game weapon and introduce a Quad Scourge launcher as a skirmisher/support alternative to a dual gauss turret when it comes to AT.

So altogether you have 4 AT missile weapons for use against heavy propulsion droids and the counterpart 4 Pod missile weapons for use against light propulsion droids, that I suggested in the other thread (2 of which are accepted already for inclusion or were already in). Basically there are two missile techs for ATs and two missile techs for Pods and then a variant of each of those techs that has twice the tubes and about twice the weight.

That way it is symmetrical and symmetry makes balancing simpler and more effective in the end.
Chojun
Regular
Regular
Posts: 518
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49
Contact:

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by Chojun »

I disagree with the whole premise. You don't make things more powerful to compete with too-powerful weapons. It goes beyond all reason and sanity.

A while ago I extracted the data from the Microsoft Access Database that came with the 1.10 source release and ran a graph. The power-to-weapon level rides on an exponential curve, whereas most other things are linear in some fashion or another (a huge problem). Creating even more powerful weapons is only compounding the problem. Warzone already suffers from an arms-race and adding another weapon is only adding another item for players to rush for.

[/IMHO]
User avatar
Buginator
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3285
Joined: 04 Nov 2007, 02:20

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by Buginator »

Chojun wrote:I disagree with the whole premise. You don't make things more powerful to compete with too-powerful weapons. It goes beyond all reason and sanity.

A while ago I extracted the data from the Microsoft Access Database that came with the 1.10 source release and ran a graph. The power-to-weapon level rides on an exponential curve, whereas most other things are linear in some fashion or another (a huge problem). Creating even more powerful weapons is only compounding the problem. Warzone already suffers from an arms-race and adding another weapon is only adding another item for players to rush for.

[/IMHO]
Chojun, you still have that graph available? It would be interesting, how that one compares to the current one that is being worked on.
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by Zarel »

I like the idea in general, except the EMP rocket.

I agree with Deus Siddis that it would be better to have Scourge, then Javelin, no Pilum.

The Nexus naming thing was just silly, though. I mean, your examples were Scourge, Archangel, and the three Nexus bodies. The Nexus bodies are obviously subjected to Nexus naming, but why the rest of T3? "Scourge" just refers to how it's a homing missile, and "Archangel" is the logical name after Angel Missiles (and doesn't even seem that dark). And the other T3 weapons aren't like that at all - the lasers, the rail guns... Each weapon type pretty much has its own naming system, and "Javelin" fits in with "Lancer" well enough.
Chojun
Regular
Regular
Posts: 518
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49
Contact:

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by Chojun »

Buginator wrote:Chojun, you still have that graph available? It would be interesting, how that one compares to the current one that is being worked on.
No, but it wouldn't be too difficult to make one up again. I'll do it when I get a free moment, hopefully today.
atdsutm
Greenhorn
Posts: 15
Joined: 09 Aug 2008, 19:53

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by atdsutm »

i thought scourge was somewhere in the level of railgun etc.....

anyways maybe incendary rocket is a good alternate.
Deus Siddis
Trained
Trained
Posts: 235
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 06:58

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by Deus Siddis »

Chojun wrote:I disagree with the whole premise. You don't make things more powerful to compete with too-powerful weapons. It goes beyond all reason and sanity.
If you beat down that stats on the other late game weapons that would be fine too. What matters is that important weapon lines don't fall apart with no replacements in Tier 3, because of poor stats relative to the other late game weapons.
A while ago I extracted the data from the Microsoft Access Database that came with the 1.10 source release and ran a graph. The power-to-weapon level rides on an exponential curve, whereas most other things are linear in some fashion or another (a huge problem). Creating even more powerful weapons is only compounding the problem. Warzone already suffers from an arms-race and adding another weapon is only adding another item for players to rush for.
I agree with Buginator, that would be an interesting graph to see.

Zarel wrote:I like the idea in general, except the EMP rocket.
I agree with Deus Siddis that it would be better to have Scourge, then Javelin, no Pilum.
Actually what I was suggesting is there be none of those, but instead a Quad Scourge launcher is added and the Scourge line in general be made strong enough relative to other end game weapons that it is equally effective at what it does. Scourge would be equal to Gauss in its tank killing value, but used in a 'shoot and scoot' role rather than as a main battle tank weapon.
The Nexus naming thing was just silly, though. I mean, your examples were Scourge, Archangel, and the three Nexus bodies. The Nexus bodies are obviously subjected to Nexus naming, but why the rest of T3? "Scourge" just refers to how it's a homing missile, and "Archangel" is the logical name after Angel Missiles (and doesn't even seem that dark).
Together these weapons have a very apocalyptic naming theme, this cannot be ignored for a weapon that is in the same family, in the same Tier.

But it doesn't matter if the only weapon added is a Quad Scourge like I suggested. Look at what I said earlier about this, it is more than just a temporary patch, it is part of a greater plan to have a logical, simple, balanced series of lines and generations of direct fire missile weapons that compliment other weapon types with overlapping target focuses.
And the other T3 weapons aren't like that at all - the lasers, the rail guns... Each weapon type pretty much has its own naming system,
Re-read what I posted, I already mentioned that. Those weapons used their real-world names so that it would be clear what they were, but everyone knows what a missile is, so they have a non-technical naming convention. And a new missile weapon is what we are discussing here, railguns and lasers names are irrelevant.
and "Javelin" fits in with "Lancer" well enough.
Then you should create a separate topic about how the Tank Killer missile should be renamed "Javelin" because that is the next in line from the Lancer. What is being discussed here is a follow up to the Scourge, so if anything it should be named something similar to the Scourge.
Troman
Trained
Trained
Posts: 424
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 15:40
Contact:

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by Troman »

Chojun wrote:I disagree with the whole premise. You don't make things more powerful to compete with too-powerful weapons. It goes beyond all reason and sanity.
Nice one, Chojun. Although sometimes I really think you are being serious. :)
Chojun
Regular
Regular
Posts: 518
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49
Contact:

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by Chojun »

..eh.. I AM being serious xD

Seriously, it doesn't make sense to make things stronger when things are already too strong.
elio
Regular
Regular
Posts: 508
Joined: 09 Jun 2007, 22:11

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by elio »

just to encourage style suggestions, i don't want compete with you Deus Diddies, this is only an idea. soo, how is it? you want more impressive, bigger weapon? tell us..
Attachments
screen1.jpg
Deus Siddis
Trained
Trained
Posts: 235
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 06:58

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by Deus Siddis »

elio wrote:just to encourage style suggestions, i don't want compete with you Deus Diddies, this is only an idea. soo, how is it? you want more impressive, bigger weapon? tell us..
Personally I would do three things:

1) Makes it quad scourge lancher as (as it looks like you might already be doing), kind of like how a tank killer is a quad lancer, graphically speaking at least. I would set the missiles on each side either side-by-side or one-above-the-other, probably the later to make them look similar in layout to the advanced SAM launcher.

2) Build it from scratch up to 100 faces minimum. Death to low poly models! :twisted:

3) Create its own 512x512 (for future hardware specs) and a scaled down 256x256 texture made using blender's relatively new render, texture, ambient occlusion, and object-to-object normal map baking combined with bump mapping drawn in GIMP. If you haven't done all this before yet it might sound complicated at first, but I can walk you through the process. And it all combines to make a noticeable graphical difference on the finished texture and requires less brush work.


BTW, what tools and steps do you go through to get one of your models from blender into warzone? When I try to export PIEs, the PIE files have no information beneath where it says "POLYGONS" and then the number of polygons; they come out with no specific polygon or connector information.
elio
Regular
Regular
Posts: 508
Joined: 09 Jun 2007, 22:11

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by elio »

i export to wavefront (.obj) and use the obj2pie converter (i wrote it, so if you have questions how to use, ask me), which is also in the repository under tools/conversion i think. btw exporting teamcolors is another issue atm, since we don't really have a solution yet (do we?)

well, 512x512 for each weapon is just overkill, ambient occlusion?, object-to-object normal map? hmm, normal/bump mapping is a nice idea, but as i save all my work in a public repository, someone can add bump maps in future when it's implemented. i don't want to waste time for things we cannot use at the moment.

hmm, imagine you have 50 python units with two weapons (100 polys) mounted, so you have 100k polygons, and this only for weapons!
Deus Siddis
Trained
Trained
Posts: 235
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 06:58

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by Deus Siddis »

elio wrote:i export to wavefront (.obj) and use the obj2pie converter (i wrote it, so if you have questions how to use, ask me), which is also in the repository under tools/conversion i think. btw exporting teamcolors is another issue atm, since we don't really have a solution yet (do we?)
Thanks, I'll check that out.
well, 512x512 for each weapon is just overkill,
256x256 for 8 colors is what the WRP is asking for. If in the future there is a way to get this same team color effect using just 1 o 2 textures instead of 8, then no, it is not at all overkill.

But that is just your master texture file (a multilayer .xcf, .tiff or equivalent) the texture for a model the game would use now you would scale down to 256x256.
ambient occlusion?, object-to-object normal map? hmm, normal/bump mapping is a nice idea, but as i save all my work in a public repository, someone can add bump maps in future when it's implemented. i don't want to waste time for things we cannot use at the moment.
You store those maps for the future (which might also help motivate one of the coders to implement support for them), but you also use them today to make one texture (and variants with team colors) to be used immediately. See the attached image for an example of what a texture would look like (only maybe a little brighter on the dark areas and with team colors of course).
hmm, imagine you have 50 python units with two weapons (100 polys) mounted, so you have 100k polygons, and this only for weapons!
That really isn't that many anymore. What are computers supposed to be now, like 64 times the power of those of Warzone's day?

Anyway, don't take my word for it, that's what's on the wiki:
There is no etched in stone limit but I try for these:

Polygon limits
Bodies: under 100
Propulsion: under 256
Weapons: under 100
Texture resolution
One 256x256 texture map for each model.
http://wiki.wz2100.net/PIE_models

But if that turns out to be too much, LODs can always be made.
Attachments
missile_pod.png
missile_pod.png (39.25 KiB) Viewed 6219 times
elio
Regular
Regular
Posts: 508
Joined: 09 Jun 2007, 22:11

Re: Beyond the Scourge (New AT Launcher Discussion)

Post by elio »

ok, now is the point where the devs should appear
Anyway, don't take my word for it, that's what's on the wiki:
afaik these suggestions made an artist and i heard from the devs that these are a bit high

for teamcolors (manually made in gimp) I have a layer with simple colors, and the layer setting to 'mix fibres' (direct translation from german) it looks nice to me so that would be a very nice feature so it can draw selected tiles with teamcolours without much work for artists

i also mean you use 256x256 pixels for one tiny weapon, think of the top face of the weapon, say 200 pixels, you would have to have a very big screen to see every detail you made, it's an rts not fps imho.

(sorry for my english, had to hurry..)
Attachments
factory teamcolors
factory teamcolors
factory teamcolors
factory teamcolors
teamcolors.png (3.31 KiB) Viewed 6141 times
Post Reply