Warzone 2100 Forums

I suspect that dodging is irrelevant as an argument here, either way. Have anyone actually tried it? Maybe I'm all thumbs, but I have never been able to make a droid intentionally dodge anything. Even driving in circles rather than standing still does not really seem to have much effect on the hit/miss ratio.

the closest that you can see dodging is when a super cannon shoots a bullet from 1/2 mile away and you units keeps on moving and is a light body with hovercraft and... repair turret or something like it, other than that.... it pretty much hits all the time.

Zarel wrote: 1. Because our netcode makes it really buggy.
2. Because our projectile code makes it really buggy.
3. Because this is an RTS, not an FPS.
4. Because you're supposed to win by having better strategy, not only by having better clicking skills.
5. Because when a weapon says "DPS 60", I want it to have a DPS of 60.
6. Because it's the equivalent of giving a skilled player more armor. Skilled players already have the advantage of skill, they don't need to take less damage as well.
7. Because it's the kind of thing a computer can do well. Cheaters will have bots to do the dodging for them, and there's nothing we can do about it.
8. Because we invented computers to do boring repetitive things like dodging for us. Why should we do the dodging for them?
9. Because, if we do let the computer do the dodging for us, we can just save ourselves the performance penalty and just have the computer roll the dice, which will also be more reliable and not have the eight flaws mentioned above.

1. then its the net code not the targeting
2. see 1
3. really, didnt now that, never heard of evasive tactics/manouvers on the battle field irl either.
4. part of that stratagy is evading long range arty with fast mobile units designed for with good CBDR or general evasion.
a tactink you want to eliminate completly. in favour of the absolute stupidity of units taking direct hit damage from a projectile that landed half a screen away, turning thet end-game into a 'spam of the heaviest things you can build' stratagy. which is an all-rounder failure.
5. use proper tactics/stratagy to pin down the enemy so your longrange can hit effectivly, again, something you seem to mant to strip from the game.
6. moot point, as bullet said.
7. so make the computer do it then? its perfectly normal for units on the field to evade fire/take cover.
8. see 7.

all that meaning its the netcodeis at fault.
and a tinge of your desire to make swarming the only viable tactic for anyone who doesnt just turtle behind masses of long range arty.

Per wrote:Have anyone actually tried it? Maybe I'm all thumbs, but I have never been able to make a droid intentionally dodge anything. Even driving in circles rather than standing still does not really seem to have much effect on the hit/miss ratio.

it doesnt really, direct fire could be dodged to an extent due to the target prediction doesnt seem to compensate for height changes.
arty & mortars should be dodge-able due to the time of travel.
the stupidity of taking direct hit damage from a mortar or howie round that missed by 6 to 16 tiles is not fun or interesting.

psychopompos wrote:1. then its the net code not the targeting
2. see 1
3. really, didnt now that, never heard of evasive tactics/manouvers on the battle field irl either.
4. part of that stratagy is evading long range arty with fast mobile units designed for with good CBDR or general evasion.
a tactink you want to eliminate completly. in favour of the absolute stupidity of units taking direct hit damage from a projectile that landed half a screen away, turning thet end-game into a 'spam of the heaviest things you can build' stratagy. which is an all-rounder failure.
5. use proper tactics/stratagy to pin down the enemy so your longrange can hit effectivly, again, something you seem to mant to strip from the game.
6. moot point, as bullet said.
7. so make the computer do it then? its perfectly normal for units on the field to evade fire/take cover.
8. see 7.

1. It's both.
2. This one is the one about projectile code i.e. targeting. By saying "See #1", you're saying "It's the targeting, not the targeting?" o_O
3. Yes, well, the commander generally says "Be evasive", not "Okay, now move three feet that way... NOW!" The commander doesn't telepathically control each soldier on the battlefield at the same time, and soldiers know how to dodge without being told.
4. Well, it'd be more like projectiles wouldn't land half a screen away, so it wouldn't be an issue, and hovercraft would get reduced damage because they "dodge" the bulk of the shot.
5. What do you mean by "pin down the enemy"?
6. Some level of microing is fine. We have microing, too. You can micro to avoid flamers. You pretty much have to micro research, design, and manufacture. You can micro hit-and-run units like lancers. Microing dodging, however, just isn't fun. And games are designed to be fun.
7-9. Yes, that's what I'm proposing. Make the computer do it automatically, by rolling a die. What's wrong with that?

zoid wrote:I mean, collision comparison being done on an FPS level??

Here I meant frames per second, not first person shooter.

Per wrote:I suspect that dodging is irrelevant as an argument here, either way. Have anyone actually tried it? Maybe I'm all thumbs, but I have never been able to make a droid intentionally dodge anything. Even driving in circles rather than standing still does not really seem to have much effect on the hit/miss ratio.

Yeah, it is very difficult. But I have been able to dodge before. You won't survive long trying to dodge everything. But it gives me a rush when I pull one off.

Another thing (although relatively minor) I recalled about projectile speeds is the anticipation of watching a "slow-moving" Lancer or TK overtake one of my tanks.
"Oh no, he just fired! Here it comes! Closer.... No! NO!! NOOOOO!!!"
With fast moving projectiles it all happens so quickly you don't have time for that.

Zarel wrote: 1. It's both.
2. This one is the one about projectile code i.e. targeting. By saying "See #1", you're saying "It's the targeting, not the targeting?" o_O
3. Yes, well, the commander generally says "Be evasive", not "Okay, now move three feet that way... NOW!" The commander doesn't telepathically control each soldier on the battlefield at the same time, and soldiers know how to dodge without being told.
4. Well, it'd be more like projectiles wouldn't land half a screen away, so it wouldn't be an issue, and hovercraft would get reduced damage because they "dodge" the bulk of the shot.
5. What do you mean by "pin down the enemy"?
6. Some level of microing is fine. We have microing, too. You can micro to avoid flamers. You pretty much have to micro research, design, and manufacture. You can micro hit-and-run units like lancers. Microing dodging, however, just isn't fun. And games are designed to be fun.
7-9. Yes, that's what I'm proposing. Make the computer do it automatically, by rolling a die. What's wrong with that?

1. even if both, that does not validate the use of antiquated techniques that do nothing for force the use of the heavies unit possible.
2. targeting/hit, you are advocating that it hit or miss determined simple by probability rather then realistic factors.
im saying the targeting is fine, as the targeting is fine, the problems come about when the net code is added to the situation, making the net code at fault
3. if you know the enemy rate of fire, you kinda can, if you saw muzzle flash, you can tell the distance + travel time, thus get out of the way. being 3 feet or 30 feet or continuous evasion is a moot point. jack up the splash damage if small movements bug you.
4. i remember wz on psx, i remember getting sick of mortars clearly missing & still doing direct hit damage.
its stupid as a concept, stupid as a solution and looks completely stupid when it happens, i accepted it then as i thought it was a machine limitation, no way i would accept it now.
5. O_O what?... no, what to pin down, means to use your own mobile units to slow/trap enemy units so you can pick them off in areas you can use as kill zones, for the purpose of this, that would be to allow for long range arty to be used without the enemy simply... moving away.
6. + rest. there is a difference between dodging and using die for dodging & using die for hits.
using a die to have units evade as they would irl if able removes micro-managing
using die to determine hits makes it a game of spam teh biggest hover unitz rather then use any kind of thought when designing your unit.
a lancer bug wheels should have the full advantage of its agility to evade, rather then reduced to a poker game where the winner is the guy with the biggest stack.

if you can have all units auto dodge, excellent.
another rare rts feature for rts gameplay.
make it dependant on there being a cb turret in proximity and its a perfectly understandable function

psychopompos wrote:1. even if both, that does not validate the use of antiquated techniques that do nothing for force the use of the heavies unit possible.
2. targeting/hit, you are advocating that it hit or miss determined simple by probability rather then realistic factors.
im saying the targeting is fine, as the targeting is fine, the problems come about when the net code is added to the situation, making the net code at fault
3. if you know the enemy rate of fire, you kinda can, if you saw muzzle flash, you can tell the distance + travel time, thus get out of the way. being 3 feet or 30 feet or continuous evasion is a moot point. jack up the splash damage if small movements bug you.
4. i remember wz on psx, i remember getting sick of mortars clearly missing & still doing direct hit damage.
its stupid as a concept, stupid as a solution and looks completely stupid when it happens, i accepted it then as i thought it was a machine limitation, no way i would accept it now.
5. O_O what?... no, what to pin down, means to use your own mobile units to slow/trap enemy units so you can pick them off in areas you can use as kill zones, for the purpose of this, that would be to allow for long range arty to be used without the enemy simply... moving away.
6. + rest. there is a difference between dodging and using die for dodging & using die for hits.
using a die to have units evade as they would irl if able removes micro-managing
using die to determine hits makes it a game of spam teh biggest hover unitz rather then use any kind of thought when designing your unit.
a lancer bug wheels should have the full advantage of its agility to evade, rather then reduced to a poker game where the winner is the guy with the biggest stack.

if you can have all units auto dodge, excellent.
another rare rts feature for rts gameplay.
make it dependant on there being a cb turret in proximity and its a perfectly understandable function

1. How would it be antiquated techniques that force heaviest unit possible? Heavy units are slow, and more vulnerable to artillery weapons, and very vulnerable to hit-and-run attacks.
2. The projectile system doesn't detect collisions properly, so a shot can go straight through a unit and still miss. It's pretty buggy.
3. The point is that this is an RTS, not an FPS. The commander shouldn't be treating all his units like babies, and have to tell them to dodge for them to dodge.
4. Well, obviously we would fix that, so the mortars would be clearly hitting.
5. ...does anyone actually use that technique? Your own units would take so much friendly fire splash damage it wouldn't be worth it...
6-9. Erm, no there isn't. How does it change the thought processes when designing units, at all?

You still haven't provided any refutations of any of these points, and we've gone back and forth several times. I don't have the time to continue with this, so, well, first off, stop using "stupid" in your posts, it makes you sound stupid. And after that, I dunno, find someone who can express your points more eloquently or something.

Zarel wrote:1. How would it be antiquated techniques that force heaviest unit possible? Heavy units are slow, and more vulnerable to artillery weapons, and very vulnerable to hit-and-run attacks.
2. The projectile system doesn't detect collisions properly, so a shot can go straight through a unit and still miss. It's pretty buggy.
3. The point is that this is an RTS, not an FPS. The commander shouldn't be treating all his units like babies, and have to tell them to dodge for them to dodge.
4. Well, obviously we would fix that, so the mortars would be clearly hitting.
5. ...does anyone actually use that technique? Your own units would take so much friendly fire splash damage it wouldn't be worth it...
6-9. Erm, no there isn't. How does it change the thought processes when designing units, at all?

You still haven't provided any refutations of any of these points, and we've gone back and forth several times. I don't have the time to continue with this, so, well, first off, stop using "stupid" in your posts, it makes you sound stupid. And after that, I dunno, find someone who can express your points more eloquently or something.

1. by having units get hit simply because it is their turn to be hit, regardless of mobility, the lighter units loose any use except cannon fodder.
2. im aware of that, though you seemed to think it was a good thing that projectiles went through the walls & ground.
3 im not gonna argue that, go make then dodge for themselves.
4. so everything would be homing... yea, not liking the sound of that.
5. i do, works well when done properly. even if some units do take some friendly splash damage, its my kill-zone, all their units die in it. the technique is taken & sketchily applied from irl military tactics where small arms fire is used to keep a group of enemy in one place while you get some heavy weapons ready to level the place.
6~. as i have said, your dice idea removes any benefit of unit mobility. as any benefit is arbitrarily removed in favor of russian roulette.
meaning they just dont survive, reducing light units to fodder there only to take the first volleys.

problem here isnt that im not providing refutation, its that you dont want to see the point i am making.

psychopompos wrote:1. by having units get hit simply because it is their turn to be hit, regardless of mobility, the lighter units loose any use except cannon fodder.
2. im aware of that, though you seemed to think it was a good thing that projectiles went through the walls & ground.
3 im not gonna argue that, go make then dodge for themselves.
4. so everything would be homing... yea, not liking the sound of that.
5. i do, works well when done properly. even if some units do take some friendly splash damage, its my kill-zone, all their units die in it. the technique is taken & sketchily applied from irl military tactics where small arms fire is used to keep a group of enemy in one place while you get some heavy weapons ready to level the place.
6~. as i have said, your dice idea removes any benefit of unit mobility. as any benefit is arbitrarily removed in favor of russian roulette.
meaning they just dont survive, reducing light units to fodder there only to take the first volleys.

problem here isnt that im not providing refutation, its that you dont want to see the point i am making.

1. No, the lighter units autododge better.
2. No, I think projectiles should not go through walls/ground.
3. That's what I'm planning on doing.
4. They wouldn't really be homing. Just kinda-homing.
5. Fine, I'll give this point to you.
6-9. How does that remove the benefit? The benefit is simply abstracted.

Zarel wrote:1. No, the lighter units autododge better.
2. No, I think projectiles should not go through walls/ground.
3. That's what I'm planning on doing.
4. They wouldn't really be homing. Just kinda-homing.
5. Fine, I'll give this point to you.
6-9. How does that remove the benefit? The benefit is simply abstracted.

1. which is pointless if them being hit is decided by die that make the projectiles 'sorta-homing
2. yet you still stated it as a preference to a unit not being able to hit the thing it was firing at.
3.
4. :rolleyes: lol no contradiction there
5.
6. define your 'abstracted', as it stands you want accuracy decided by dice,
and having the accuracy decided by dice is the problem, it removes the ability to have units that would otherwise survive, die because the die said 'this time direct hit'.
them being manually or automatically moved out of the way under these conditions changes nothing, as they still get hit by a round that should have missed without interference.

psychopompos wrote:1. which is pointless if them being hit is decided by die that make the projectiles 'sorta-homing
2. yet you still stated it as a preference to a unit not being able to hit the thing it was firing at.
3.
4. :rolleyes: lol no contradiction there
5.
6. define your 'abstracted', as it stands you want accuracy decided by dice,
and having the accuracy decided by dice is the problem, it removes the ability to have units that would otherwise survive, die because the die said 'this time direct hit'.
them being manually or automatically moved out of the way under these conditions changes nothing, as they still get hit by a round that should have missed without interference.

1. Yes, accuracy by dice. The dice accuracy for hitting "fast/light" units is less than the dice accuracy for hitting "heavy/slow" units. Hence "sorta homing", since trying to hit a fast-moving unit will still miss a lot.
2. As a preference to a unit constantly firing at something it can't hit, and refusing to go somewhere it can hit it.
6. See #1. The only difference is that instead of having your luck decide whether or not the unit survives, it's your luck deciding. Such a huge difference. :rolleyes:

On dodging, in VTOLs, I think there should be at least some basic evasive maneuver code. Contrary to ground-based units, air-based units, especially IRL, HAVE to dodge. I've never heard of a plane flying right through flak without some small amount of evasive maneuvers. Especially today, when bombers just as fast, and almost as maneuverable as the fighters. Jinking VTOLs would increase survivability.

Zarel wrote: 1. Yes, accuracy by dice. The dice accuracy for hitting "fast/light" units is less than the dice accuracy for hitting "heavy/slow" units. Hence "sorta homing", since trying to hit a fast-moving unit will still miss a lot.
2. As a preference to a unit constantly firing at something it can't hit, and refusing to go somewhere it can hit it.
6. See #1. The only difference is that instead of having your luck decide whether or not the unit survives, it's your luck deciding. Such a huge difference. :rolleyes:

1. still excludes the ability to take evasive action or the use of course changes.
2. you know my opinion on that
#. there is a bit of difference between guiding a unit to safety using course corrections to evade, and luck of the draw.
what will you do when direct control actually gets back in & all the other code problems havnt been dealt with?
accurate simulation of hits & targeting is not something to be dumped because of issues elsewhere.

NaxShaleChan wrote:On dodging, in VTOLs, I think there should be at least some basic evasive maneuver code. Contrary to ground-based units, air-based units, especially IRL, HAVE to dodge. I've never heard of a plane flying right through flak without some small amount of evasive maneuvers. Especially today, when bombers just as fast, and almost as maneuverable as the fighters. Jinking VTOLs would increase survivability.

hahaha would make masses vtol unstoppable xD
pre-missile vtol vs aa is a nightmare for balancing

psychopompos wrote: 1. still excludes the ability to take evasive action or the use of course changes.
2. you know my opinion on that
#. there is a bit of difference between guiding a unit to safety using course corrections to evade, and luck of the draw.
what will you do when direct control actually gets back in & all the other code problems havnt been dealt with?
accurate simulation of hits & targeting is not something to be dumped because of issues elsewhere.

1. Taking evasive action and course changes would be inferior to autododge anyway, so it's moot.
6. There's no difference between autododge guiding a unit to safety using course corrections to evade, and luck of the draw. Regardless of what other issues we have, we don't need more.

(Why do you always type something different for that last number than I do? o_O)

Zarel wrote: 1. Taking evasive action and course changes would be inferior to autododge anyway, so it's moot.
6. There's no difference between autododge guiding a unit to safety using course corrections to evade, and luck of the draw. Regardless of what other issues we have, we don't need more.

B. yes, having to micro the dodge is inferior to an auto-dodge mechanic, but both are pointless if the unit is going to be hit regardless, by decision of dice.
%&+. now you are talkin only about the dodging, not the targeting/hits, its the latter is at issue.
hit by luck of draw negates any kind of evasive moment be that command from micro or auto management.

Zarel wrote:(Why do you always type something different for that last one than I do? o_O)

they seemed to be merging into an indistinct mass, that was not dominantly one point or another.
thought id make fun of it a bit this time