need help with adding new propulsion component.

Discuss the future of Warzone 2100 with us.
User avatar
lav_coyote25
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3434
Joined: 08 Aug 2006, 23:18

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by lav_coyote25 » 18 Nov 2006, 04:29

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.

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by Watermelon » 18 Nov 2006, 07:59

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.
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.

User avatar
DevUrandom
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1690
Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 23:14

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by DevUrandom » 18 Nov 2006, 13:17

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.

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by Watermelon » 19 Nov 2006, 11:06

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.
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.
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.

themousemaster
Regular
Regular
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by themousemaster » 20 Nov 2006, 19:33

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.
Vindicator-Scourge-Hellstorm on a Dragon body does, indeed, sound like a problem  :P.

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:
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.
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.

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by Watermelon » 20 Nov 2006, 22:42

themousemaster wrote: Vindicator-Scourge-Hellstorm on a Dragon body does, indeed, sound like a problem  :P.

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?
maybe it will screw up the rearm checking and other function if the numRound of different weapons on a VTOL differs

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.
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.

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.

themousemaster
Regular
Regular
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by themousemaster » 20 Nov 2006, 23:18

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  :P.


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 :)

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by Watermelon » 21 Nov 2006, 09:11

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  :P.


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 :)
No they use medium and heavy bodies in the tests,this is a brief explanation of how multiple weapon droids work:

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.

themousemaster
Regular
Regular
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by themousemaster » 21 Nov 2006, 16:22

Watermelon wrote: there are both underpowered and overpowered feedback,so I take it as it's 'balanced' for now ;)
You 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)

User avatar
DevUrandom
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1690
Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 23:14

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by DevUrandom » 21 Nov 2006, 18:10

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.

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by Watermelon » 21 Nov 2006, 19:58

You 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)
yes if adding multiple turrets to wz does count as 'game development'.  ;D
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.
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.
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.

themousemaster
Regular
Regular
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by themousemaster » 21 Nov 2006, 23:56

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

User avatar
DevUrandom
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1690
Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 23:14

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by DevUrandom » 22 Nov 2006, 00:49

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?

User avatar
C01eMaN
Trained
Trained
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 07:17
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by C01eMaN » 22 Nov 2006, 12:15

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
Im Addicted To Warzone!!!!!!!

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: need help with adding new propulsion component.

Post by Watermelon » 22 Nov 2006, 13:24

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?
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
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.
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.

Post Reply