need help with adding new propulsion component.
- lav_coyote25
- Professional
- Posts: 3434
- Joined: 08 Aug 2006, 23:18
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
scourge and a bomb bay? awesome !! ;D finally not just a single punch but a one , two TKO.
"to prepare for disaster is to invite it, to not prepare for disaster is a fools choice" -me (kim-lav_coyote25-metcalfe) - it used to be attributed to unknown - but adding the last bit , it now makes sense.
- Watermelon
- Code contributor
- Posts: 551
- Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
more than 1 'type' of weapon on VTOL is not possible i think,because the way it works at the moment.
Basically it reads the 'numRounds' from txt file then calucate 'numAttackRuns' needed to use up the rounds before rearm.
The VTOLH I added is just a flying tank,so it doesnt get affected by the 'numAttackRuns' calculations problems.
I think double ammo capacity for medium body VTOL and triple ammo capacity for heavy body VTOL might be a viable solution to the 'mass viper missile VTOL' problem.
Basically it reads the 'numRounds' from txt file then calucate 'numAttackRuns' needed to use up the rounds before rearm.
The VTOLH I added is just a flying tank,so it doesnt get affected by the 'numAttackRuns' calculations problems.
I think double ammo capacity for medium body VTOL and triple ammo capacity for heavy body VTOL might be a viable solution to the 'mass viper missile VTOL' problem.
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.
- DevUrandom
- Regular
- Posts: 1690
- Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 23:14
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
The general sense of my suggestion applies to all propulsions: Limited the choice of the wpns to something sensible and balanced.
For VTOLs this could be a light wpn (like chaingun or minipod) + bombs as you said.
For tanks this could be a light wpn (chaingun, flamer, minipod) + a heavy wpn (scourge, heavy canon,...)
What I don't think should be done is any combination which involves arty. That would very probably create an all distance-deadly vehicle.
For VTOLs this could be a light wpn (like chaingun or minipod) + bombs as you said.
For tanks this could be a light wpn (chaingun, flamer, minipod) + a heavy wpn (scourge, heavy canon,...)
What I don't think should be done is any combination which involves arty. That would very probably create an all distance-deadly vehicle.
- Watermelon
- Code contributor
- Posts: 551
- Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
chaingun + bomb is impossible,I didnt say anything about chain + bomb on VTOL in previous posts...because the calculate numAttackRuns function doesnt support more than 1 type of weapons.I am not planning to change this atm.DevUrandom wrote: The general sense of my suggestion applies to all propulsions: Limited the choice of the wpns to something sensible and balanced.
For VTOLs this could be a light wpn (like chaingun or minipod) + bombs as you said.
For tanks this could be a light wpn (chaingun, flamer, minipod) + a heavy wpn (scourge, heavy canon,...)
What I don't think should be done is any combination which involves arty. That would very probably create an all distance-deadly vehicle.
Also VTOL chaingun is useless,bang bang target health -1% then your ammo is depleted...
multiple weapons tanks are underpowered not overpowered,at least from the feedback I get,because weapons cost alot more than bodies and propulsion.
tank cost HP firepower speed buildtime
HC 1 1 1 1 1
tri-HC 2.5 2 3 1/3 2.5
you lose 1 firepower when you lose a 'normal' HC while you lose 3 firepower when you lose a tri-HC.
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 611
- Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
Vindicator-Scourge-Hellstorm on a Dragon body does, indeed, sound like a problem .DevUrandom wrote: The general sense of my suggestion applies to all propulsions: Limited the choice of the wpns to something sensible and balanced.
For VTOLs this could be a light wpn (like chaingun or minipod) + bombs as you said.
For tanks this could be a light wpn (chaingun, flamer, minipod) + a heavy wpn (scourge, heavy canon,...)
What I don't think should be done is any combination which involves arty. That would very probably create an all distance-deadly vehicle.
Watermelon: is it possible, in the numAttackRuns function, to just take the "maximum" value (of the ammunition count) of multiple-weapon vtols as the value for the calculation, rather than even attempting to rewrite the function to handle multiple weapon load vtols?
Oh, and:
Wouldn't that be the weak point to an otherwise insanely potent vehicle? I'd imagine a good strat would be a mix of lighter vehicles and heavy multi-turret. From the chart you've provided, I'd say the only thing to alter may be the speed of the vehicle (at 1/3 it screams "siting duck" to me).Watermelon wrote: multiple weapons tanks are underpowered not overpowered,at least from the feedback I get,because weapons cost alot more than bodies and propulsion.
tank cost HP firepower speed buildtime
HC 1 1 1 1 1
tri-HC 2.5 2 3 1/3 2.5
you lose 1 firepower when you lose a 'normal' HC while you lose 3 firepower when you lose a tri-HC.
For the feedback you are geting about the multi-turret vehicles, are the people testing them putting them on lighter, or heavier bodies? If they are using lighter bodies, then I'd almost venture a guess the problem lies in the implemented strategy, rather than in the vehicle cost and effect calculations; as putting a whole bunch of offense on a design with little defense is basically asking to lose resources.
- Watermelon
- Code contributor
- Posts: 551
- Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
maybe it will screw up the rearm checking and other function if the numRound of different weapons on a VTOL differsthemousemaster wrote: Vindicator-Scourge-Hellstorm on a Dragon body does, indeed, sound like a problem .
Watermelon: is it possible, in the numAttackRuns function, to just take the "maximum" value (of the ammunition count) of multiple-weapon vtols as the value for the calculation, rather than even attempting to rewrite the function to handle multiple weapon load vtols?
1/3 speed is due to a weird problem with wz original body stats,all heavy bodies have 'super-heavy' propulsion component,hence the greatly reduced speed with more weapons.Oh, and:
Wouldn't that be the weak point to an otherwise insanely potent vehicle? I'd imagine a good strat would be a mix of lighter vehicles and heavy multi-turret. From the chart you've provided, I'd say the only thing to alter may be the speed of the vehicle (at 1/3 it screams "siting duck" to me).
For the feedback you are geting about the multi-turret vehicles, are the people testing them putting them on lighter, or heavier bodies? If they are using lighter bodies, then I'd almost venture a guess the problem lies in the implemented strategy, rather than in the vehicle cost and effect calculations; as putting a whole bunch of offense on a design with little defense is basically asking to lose resources.
I think some weapons give great HP bonus while others only give 1 point? extra HP,this is a bit imbalanced/unrealistic imo.
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 611
- Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
I'm not sure about the imbalance of additional hp per turret, and as far as realism is concerned... you have a tank driving around with 3 gigantic tank cannons .
I was just curious as to the origin of the "underpowered" complaints. HP or not, if the "underpowered" report stems from the fact that, if a multi-turret droid is destroyed you lose 3X the firepower of a normal droid, BUT they are using very light bodies in their tests, then the testing is skewed. To truly beleive a "multiple turret droid is underepowed" argument, it must be tested with various body / propulsion / weapon configurations, in a variety of environments (for example, a tri-hellstorm droid in openfield combat would get slaughtered by light vechiles, but in a heavily mountainous map, could be a mobile platform of base-death with only minimal guards).
My guess is, not all variables of the multi-turret tanks are being tested when giving the "underpowered" feedback.
I will defer to your knowledge of VTOL program functions (reloading and such), as you are far more familair with these things than I
I was just curious as to the origin of the "underpowered" complaints. HP or not, if the "underpowered" report stems from the fact that, if a multi-turret droid is destroyed you lose 3X the firepower of a normal droid, BUT they are using very light bodies in their tests, then the testing is skewed. To truly beleive a "multiple turret droid is underepowed" argument, it must be tested with various body / propulsion / weapon configurations, in a variety of environments (for example, a tri-hellstorm droid in openfield combat would get slaughtered by light vechiles, but in a heavily mountainous map, could be a mobile platform of base-death with only minimal guards).
My guess is, not all variables of the multi-turret tanks are being tested when giving the "underpowered" feedback.
I will defer to your knowledge of VTOL program functions (reloading and such), as you are far more familair with these things than I
- Watermelon
- Code contributor
- Posts: 551
- Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
No they use medium and heavy bodies in the tests,this is a brief explanation of how multiple weapon droids work:themousemaster wrote: I'm not sure about the imbalance of additional hp per turret, and as far as realism is concerned... you have a tank driving around with 3 gigantic tank cannons .
I was just curious as to the origin of the "underpowered" complaints. HP or not, if the "underpowered" report stems from the fact that, if a multi-turret droid is destroyed you lose 3X the firepower of a normal droid, BUT they are using very light bodies in their tests, then the testing is skewed. To truly beleive a "multiple turret droid is underepowed" argument, it must be tested with various body / propulsion / weapon configurations, in a variety of environments (for example, a tri-hellstorm droid in openfield combat would get slaughtered by light vechiles, but in a heavily mountainous map, could be a mobile platform of base-death with only minimal guards).
My guess is, not all variables of the multi-turret tanks are being tested when giving the "underpowered" feedback.
I will defer to your knowledge of VTOL program functions (reloading and such), as you are far more familair with these things than I
bodysize max_weapons hitbox(in-game units,one map grid is 128 units,higher value = easier to hit)
LIGHT 1 16
MEDIUM 2 32
HEAVY 3 48
S.HEAVY 3 64
there are both underpowered and overpowered feedback,so I take it as it's 'balanced' for now
Last edited by Watermelon on 21 Nov 2006, 09:15, edited 1 time in total.
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 611
- Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
You must work in game development ;p.Watermelon wrote: there are both underpowered and overpowered feedback,so I take it as it's 'balanced' for now
(the previous post I had quoted made it sound like there were far more underpowered than overpowered comments... if they are about equal, than that's a good thing)
- DevUrandom
- Regular
- Posts: 1690
- Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 23:14
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
But what about limiting light+medium to 1 weapon and only give 2 and 3 weapons to heavy and superheavy? Would make it a bit more special.
I had some other idea to boost multiturrets (positively), but I forgot what it was.
I had some other idea to boost multiturrets (positively), but I forgot what it was.
- Watermelon
- Code contributor
- Posts: 551
- Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
yes if adding multiple turrets to wz does count as 'game development'. ;DYou must work in game development ;p.
(the previous post I had quoted made it sound like there were far more underpowered than overpowered comments... if they are about equal, than that's a good thing)
Actually I planned 4-6 for S.Heavy,but the design interface is too small to fit another 1-3 buttons after I added the 2nd and the 3rd 'turret icon button' and the body pies are too small too.DevUrandom wrote: But what about limiting light+medium to 1 weapon and only give 2 and 3 weapons to heavy and superheavy? Would make it a bit more special.
I had some other idea to boost multiturrets (positively), but I forgot what it was.
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 611
- Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
A 6-turret dragon. ouch.
That said, Dev, perhaps a middle ground can be established here, in terms of balance with turrets?
light bodies: 1 (any type)
Medium bodies: 1 (any type) + 1 ("light", can only be chosen from T1 research)
Heavy bodies: 1 (any type) + 2 ("light")
Super-heavy: 2 (any type) + 1 ("light")
As far as the game development statement, the theory "if all sides are complaining equally, it must be balanced", I saw was first coined by Mythic when describing the classes in Dark Age of Camelot. Hence the reference ;p
That said, Dev, perhaps a middle ground can be established here, in terms of balance with turrets?
light bodies: 1 (any type)
Medium bodies: 1 (any type) + 1 ("light", can only be chosen from T1 research)
Heavy bodies: 1 (any type) + 2 ("light")
Super-heavy: 2 (any type) + 1 ("light")
As far as the game development statement, the theory "if all sides are complaining equally, it must be balanced", I saw was first coined by Mythic when describing the classes in Dark Age of Camelot. Hence the reference ;p
- DevUrandom
- Regular
- Posts: 1690
- Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 23:14
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
Yes, the light-2nd-only idea was present, too. Maybe we should just try both (1,1+1L,1+2L,2+1L against 1,1,2,3) and see which one works best?
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
i think that u should try
light = 1
medium = 1
heavy = 2 (1mg + 1 med)
s.heavy = 3 (1 med + 2 heavy - afterall it is a "super" heavy)
i think it would be more balanced
light = 1
medium = 1
heavy = 2 (1mg + 1 med)
s.heavy = 3 (1 med + 2 heavy - afterall it is a "super" heavy)
i think it would be more balanced
Im Addicted To Warzone!!!!!!!
- Watermelon
- Code contributor
- Posts: 551
- Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37
Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.
themousemaster wrote: A 6-turret dragon. ouch.
That said, Dev, perhaps a middle ground can be established here, in terms of balance with turrets?
light bodies: 1 (any type)
Medium bodies: 1 (any type) + 1 ("light", can only be chosen from T1 research)
Heavy bodies: 1 (any type) + 2 ("light")
Super-heavy: 2 (any type) + 1 ("light")
As far as the game development statement, the theory "if all sides are complaining equally, it must be balanced", I saw was first coined by Mythic when describing the classes in Dark Age of Camelot. Hence the reference ;p
Yes, the light-2nd-only idea was present, too. Maybe we should just try both (1,1+1L,1+2L,2+1L against 1,1,2,3) and see which one works best?
not possible to filter out heavy weapon for certain 'weapon slot' unless you add another DROID_MAXWEAPS fields of data in body.txt or hack the component list function in design.c,neither of them is what I want to do.i think that u should try
light = 1
medium = 1
heavy = 2 (1mg + 1 med)
s.heavy = 3 (1 med + 2 heavy - afterall it is a "super" heavy)
i think it would be more balanced
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.