Warzone 2100 Forums

Is that all you meant by "physic-based" ? An always hit with a tiny chance to dodge the slowest projectiles ?

I think everybody here tough of "physic based" as more realistic not that. Nobody never asked for that. I think you should be more specific and explain to everyone.

By "physic based" did you really meant drawing the projectile straight at the dead center of the target ?

Iluvalar wrote:Is that all you meant by "physic-based" ? An always hit with a tiny chance to dodge the slowest projectiles ?

I think everybody here tough of "physic based" as more realistic not that. Nobody never asked for that. I think you should be more specific and explain to everyone.

By "physic based" did you really meant drawing the projectile straight at the dead center of the target ?

Yes, that is exactly what we've been trying to tell you the last few pages of this thread. The proposed solution, to repeat: Removing the hit roll for direct fire, no changes to indirect fire. I tested it, the result is that very few direct fire projectiles actually miss.

Again, if you want to know exactly what the change means in terms of code, read the patch I posted. It is just one line of actual code change.

Rman Virgil wrote:.
...
There have been quite a number of quality contributors, 1st rate by any metric, who are no longer here and left under something of a cloud. Are they all childish, fracked-up, 3rd rate individuals, who left in an unwarranted fit of immaturity ? As long as you believe that, nothing will change and quality contributors will always be scarce.
.

Absolutely not. These are feelings I reserve for those who attempt to delete their contributions, and hurt the entire community because it's all they can do to have the last-word (ie, deleting posts, then bumping the thread).

It's understandable that people come and go, and while it's unfortunate it's commonly acceptable, and respectable. In my time here I've only seen one willingly leave in anger/frustration who left their content in tact. I can count three who've taken the saboteur's route.

Obviously, I posted emotionally, which is rarely rational, however these facts remain.

I do realize criticizing people and their choices is not really lending a helping hand to anything. I apologize for that. My intention was to discourage others from deleting their content when/if they exit.

Per wrote: I tested it, the result is that very few direct fire projectiles actually miss.

Sure, I already said somewhere you need a light body on hover going perpendicular to the shot and suddenly stop to avoid anything slower than a medium cannon round.

But the main point here is that everybody was arguing between linear or gaussian angular distribution in the previous post. Everybody expected that linear angular deviation to be part of the poll. While very few people talked about "always hitting" as an option. It's very surprising you proposed that twice in this poll.

I say this poll was totally misleading. And unless I'm totally out, people were asking for a linear angular deviation as their favorite pick. Not this.

If you meant "always hit" by "physic based" I guess I'm not the only one here that voted for the wrong option.

Per wrote: @zydonk - Your post above is completely out of line. I do not want to see one other post like this from you. Consider yourself warned.

Pardon? I simply wanted to know who Staff was complaining about. No answer so far. Do you also agree with SW slagging off Iluvalar?

And you will see posts like this in future if there is occasion to write them. Pity about raycast's little pet. Would he return if I said I was only teasing?

And why is the dev so defensive? You're the only game in town now - show a little more confidence, will you.

Iluvalar wrote: But the main point here is that everybody was arguing between linear or gaussian angular distribution in the previous post. Everybody expected that linear angular deviation to be part of the poll. While very few people talked about "always hitting" as an option. It's very surprising you proposed that twice in this poll.

I say this poll was totally misleading. And unless I'm totally out, people were asking for a linear angular deviation as their favorite pick. Not this.

Umm... the poll option people voted for is called "Physics-based only, no random roll". It says nothing about linear (or gaussian) distribution, so why would you assume that?

Also haven't you spent pages arguing against physical distribution? You said something about how one or two tiles would make all the difference for accuracy and been unbalance-able... but now you are in favor of that?

Why would I have argued against it if it was not the favourite choice of much people ? I can be against something but at the same time recognize it's the majority opinion. "Always hit" is certainly not a better option anyway.

zydonk wrote:And you will see posts like this in future if there is occasion to write them.

Not from that account, you won't.

zydonk wrote:show a little more confidence, will you.

Thanks for reminding me.

Personally, I wish that there was a "Supreme Commander" option in the poll, where while the accuracy system is physics-based, there are random rolls for how far the shots can deviate from the center of the intended target. In such a system, projectiles would usually have a greater chance of hitting their intended targets at close range than they would at long range.

Shadow Wolf TJC wrote:Personally, I wish that there was a "Supreme Commander" option in the poll, where while the accuracy system is physics-based, there are random rolls for how far the shots can deviate from the center of the intended target. In such a system, projectiles would usually have a greater chance of hitting their intended targets at close range than they would at long range.

Perhaps I misremember, but I thought the indirect fire weapons in WZ were using a system like you describe already.

Trouble is WZ's direct fire weapons have such limited range that it makes trajectory deviation seem very strange.

No, the actual mechanism is a fixed accuracy hit ratio. It does improve with distance, but once at a fixed distance. Not gradually, and not in a realistic angular deviation rate. As they ask for.