Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

[Berg]

No you don't understand.

Actually I don't care about arguing with you. As long as you waste own your time in your project and you solve the accuracy bug before the 3.1 release.

It will not be a pure waste of time since you will be force to implement the multiplicative logic upgrade system that dont exist yet..

You do realise that the dev's give their time freely and put effort into where they think needs effort.
I suggest iluvala that you show more patience and allow the dev's to do what they see fit not abuse them for not bowing to your demands.
So suggest things dont demand things and you might get more done ...put in patches that actualy benifit the source not just your way of thinking ...warzone is a game not real life ...sure get things acturate if can but perfection is not needed in many places ..
Seeing all these abusive posts on the forum lately has made most people that submit things toward the game stop submiting for fear some low life will belittle their efforts again and again..
Have a nice day

[Iluvalar]

...put in patches that actualy benifit the source not just your way of thinking

Now that you found my secret, I confess...

I fixed that obvious bug in a way that the game now work as expected. Not for the sack of fixing the damn bug. No more for the glorious merit of being a warzone volunteer. But only to selfishly promote the Buddha's teaching of right mindfulness unto the players. Which was my only evil plot from the start BTW...

Man... WT* are you talking about ? If only the remaining of your post was making any sens...

[Andrie]

You do realise that the dev's give their time freely and put effort into where they think needs effort.

True, that is how open source works.

I suggest iluvala that you show more patience and allow the dev's to do what they see fit not abuse them for not bowing to your demands.

Berg, some of his demands is stuff that I also demand but some can wait.

So suggest things dont demand things and you might get more done ...put in patches that actualy benifit the source not just your way of thinking ...warzone is a game not real life ...sure get things acturate if can but perfection is not needed in many places ..



Seeing all these abusive posts on the forum lately has made most people that submit things toward the game stop submiting for fear some low life will belittle their efforts again and again..

Yes I agree Berg some people might go for example: lav_coyote25 viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7795

Have a nice day

Have a nice day gentlemen.

[iap]

It's not true that accuracy is meaningless, just look at the first research of mini rocket, most of the times it's missing. Seeing a missed shot is very visual, surly more then understanding how much damage the unit has taken.
So it's good to keep it, in my opinion.

There where a lot of arguments against physical calculation of the shot in real time, but I still think it's best.

[Per]

I fixed that obvious bug in a way that the game now work as expected.

Since you did not care to link to it yourself, the patch is in #3559. I think that this patch is both insufficient (for long term) and too much (for short term) at the same time. As vexed said in that ticket thread, it may be a cure that is worse than the disease.

Let's discuss short term fixes such as that patch in the ticket referenced above, or in the other forum topic you started, and discuss long term changes instead in this thread.

[Per]

I sat down to make a quick test. The results are up at https://github.com/perim/warzone2100/commits/accuracy for those who want to test -- and know how to checkout from git and compile the code for themselves, obviously. Making appropriate changes to the line/box intersection system still remains to be done. Also I apparently need to take a closer look at why droids still move closer to shoot than they need to.

I've compensated for the loss of accuracy by increasing reload time and fire pause. The compensation changes are included as an attachment to this post. I think the result should be very similar, if not identical, balance-wise.

[Iluvalar]

Rocket-Pod (accuracy 45) : fire pause 1550 -> 2402

This is an increase of reload time of 55% while 45%=>100% is an increase of 122%.

Not missing would not be equivalent to shooting twice if the droid were not prophetic.

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

So what I would propose instead, is that the old dice accuracy system is removed along with the short/medium/far buttons, and the new line/box intersection hit system is used for indirect fire weapons, while direct fire weapons always hit. Any tech that changes accuracy, instead changes reload speed. This neatly solves all existing problems with accuracy, and makes both the user interface and the game rules simpler.

The dice rolling system can go in favor of a more simulated accuracy system (like what Supreme Commander uses), though perhaps we should keep the long/short/optimal range buttons around since they'd be useful for telling units' AI either to keep their distance, or to close in for optimal accuracy and/or for assaulting an enemy target with masses of units.

[Per]

Rocket-Pod (accuracy 45) : fire pause 1550 -> 2402

This is an increase of reload time of 55% while 45%=>100% is an increase of 122%.

Not missing would not be equivalent to shooting twice if the droid were not prophetic.

Right. Correct compensation values attached.

[JJjopando]

I apparently need to take a closer look at why droids still move closer to shoot than they need to.

I'd imagine that this is so the ones behind them can get in range.

Also, some of us like the dice system... maybe take a poll...

[Giani]

... maybe take a poll...

That's a good idea.

[Stratadrake]

I like having weapons miss, but I don't like a HIT OR MISS dichotomy. I would rather see a d20 roll, and how far off the shot is depends on the saving throw.

That's an interesting suggestion - keeps the hit-or-miss dice roll but when the result is a "miss" use the original roll value to determine how far the miss is by.

By the way, how exactly does the game calculate a projectile's "miss" trajectory?

As per the whole discussion of dice-roll versus hitbox collision, compared to using a dice-roll by itself (which is how it was in original retail 1.x):

If physical collision with the hitbox overrides the original diceroll, then:
- Hitbox "hit" overrides diceroll "miss" = increased effective accuracy
- Hitbox "miss" overrides diceroll "hit" = decreased effective accuracy

The idea is not to have one check override the other, but make physical collision and the diceroll sync with each other as much as possible. The patch for bug ticket #3559 looks conceptually sound - if the current diceroll says "miss", then do not aim the projectile at an area behind the target (because that might cause a hitbox "hit").

[Iluvalar]

right now it target at 2 ticks per inaccuracy in a 360° circle around the enemy. a 70% accuracy weapon have 30% of innacuracy so the projectile will lend 60 ticks away from the CENTER of the target.

In my patch, a 50% accuracy weapon can fall in a wide area up to 2/3 of the distance out of the BORDER of the target. However the major part of the projectile will have a tendency to fall much more closer to the target in such a way that only 1/8 of the projectile will fall outside of the center 1/8 of the missing area. The game will also miss in a 270° around the target (not trying to miss behind it).


Edit :
Oh yeah, of course, I strongly support that poll if necessary.

Do you want the lancer to be about twice as long to reload ? (Ps: it should not affect balance so dont worry).

I'm still very doubtful it's a good idea Per

[Emdek]

So what I would propose instead, is that the old dice accuracy system is removed along with the short/medium/far buttons[...]

By they way, what exactly those buttons did?
I've not seen any real difference when experimenting with them (campaign)...

And I would like to see ability to show turret range (calculated including terrain and other obstacles) without using cheat codes (also with nice visualization like semi transparent gradient or strips with three colors for different possibilities to hit, not recycling other things), as it would be really useful to for example avoid stupid unit movements when we target something close to it but it starts to move anyway (because there might be some not always obvious obstacles) and often die from enemy fire. To let to use current way by default it could be made into research item and available for mods and mutators (such small thing should be a mutator ).

[Per]

Do you want the lancer to be about twice as long to reload ?

That's nothing. Did you see baba rockets?

Reload times can be adjusted. I did some playtesting (with speed increased...), and it felt more right to me since I knew that each hit would cause damage, and I did not watch rockets hitting everything else but the target all the time, which I used to find really annoying, especially since it is sometimes hard to know visually whether something is a hit with really poor damage or a miss.