Warzone 2100 Forums

Iluvalar wrote:Here is my fix : https://github.com/Iluvalar/warzone2100 ... e5dc6e5161
Need to be merged...

thank you Iluvalar, if your fix do what you said then i recommend merge it into game

Giani wrote:

Iluvalar wrote:...
Changelog
Fix : Stop trying to miss through the target in the 90° behind. Missing through the target is what we call a hit.
...

What does it mean?

Exactly what it said : The game engine is actually trying to miss behind the target. but the 3d engine when drawing the projectile conclude that it must be a hit.

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but I have to agree that the balance is way off now, possibly due to the way accuracy calculation has been changed.
A single "190 dps" ripple rocket platform should not be able to one-shot a heavy chassis anything from 85 squares away.

I think the problem is that it considers each missile to be doing the base damage, so you wind up with something like 16x190dps instead of 190dps/16 (for each rocket). Now, when you couple that with 100% accuracy, you wind up with the aforementioned balance issue.

I'm playing the 3.1 RC2 version. Anyway, I hope that helps. I could be wrong in my theory, but there's definitely something wrong with the end result of whatever's going on with ripple rockets.

I suppose the alternative could be to rename "ripple rockets" to "guided-tachyon gravi-photon warp torpedoes" or something.

A single "190 dps" ripple rocket platform should not be able to one-shot a heavy chassis anything from 85 squares away.

Never seen anything like that. Can anybody reproduce it? Are you sure it's not a missile fortress?

NoQ wrote:

A single "190 dps" ripple rocket platform should not be able to one-shot a heavy chassis anything from 85 squares away.

Never seen anything like that. Can anybody reproduce it? Are you sure it's not a missile fortress?

It happens in the Beta campaign. It usually takes 1 or 2 ripple rocket platforms to one-shot any of my veteran or elite tanks. I even made a commander with 4500hp/50 armor to see if I could soak the damage and then counter-attack and it one-shotted my commander...
This isn't the first time I had this problem, either. In the last level that had this problem, I resorted to cheating because there was no other way to beat the mission. It's always like 1 or 2 platforms. If they had like 8 or so, I could understand, but it's not.

P.S. I'm not entirely convinced I can dodge them, either. My units have 98 speed (50 short of hovercraft) and spamming vtols in maps full of AA batteries is just a plain terrible idea.

There is no such thing as balance in campaign.
Sure this problem affects campaign as well.

Also, the stats in the guide have nothing to do with campaign.
Also, i don't see where did you take this "190 dps" thing.

Also, in 2.3 those ripples are pretty hard-hitting too, takes a lot of micro to make those HC python tracks tanks survive. So, based on your report, there is no other bug apart from accuracy issue.

NoQ wrote:There is no such thing as balance in campaign.
Also, i don't see where did you take this "190 dps" thing.
there is no other bug apart from accuracy issue.

190dps according to the unit editor (either that or I don't understand how damage is calculated in this game).
It was a multi-tier bug report. I didn't say they were obligated to fix the damage calculation, but when coupled with the 100% accuracy, it's completely game-breaking.

The best way to balance a game is to look at it from multiple angles. I attempted to provide those multiple angles. Ignoring dmg calculation is like chopping off half of an equation and then trying to solve it.

P.S. I disagree about "campaigns not needing balance". If the maps were filled with hundreds of enemy gauss cannon towers surrounding the LZ, would you still say it didn't need balance?

P.P.S HC python tracks don't do 98 speed, so they wouldn't stand a chance. Like I said, not even a commander with 4500hp/50 armor was able to survive the one-shot B.S. Might be a corrupted save, might be a balance issue, but it's definitely worth taking a look at.

Again, i don't see anything wrong with damage calculation from your report. If we start fixing damage calculation, we will get too far from the original campaign, which is something we need to avoid. Are you saying ripples had a different dps in the original campaign?

If the maps were filled with hundreds of enemy gauss cannon towers surrounding the LZ, would you still say it didn't need balance?

That's exactly why i say there's no such thing as "balance in campaign". You can talk about stats balance only on a completely symmetric map with all forces controlled by some human player, then define the balance as availability of different equally effective strategies. I keep repeating that but some people still keep misunderstanding the title of this forum section and using absurd expressions like "campaign balance" or "skirmish balance".

Other word should be used here, like "campaign difficulty" or "closeness to the original campaign". And i never said we didn't need those.

Btw, maybe you post a savegame? Cause i srsly want to see those deadly ripples.

NoQ wrote:Again, i don't see anything wrong with damage calculation from your report.

If the unit editor states that it does 190dps and, in actuality, it's doing 16x190dps (3040dp/s), that's a severe misrepresentation.
It seems like it's built into the actual unit itself. So, it also falls into your narrow-minded definition of what "balance is". I really doubt the programmers of this game decided to make a separate unit design engine for single vs multi-player, so it would affect mp, too.

It is
something
to take a look at
from multiple angles
without bias
full stop.

NoQ wrote:Btw, maybe you post a savegame? Cause i srsly want to see those deadly ripples.

I'd love to, but there'd be about a couple dozen .ini files that you'd be missing which could be part of the issue. In fact, I don't even know if the game would load with out them and if it did, whether it would load properly or not.
I suppose I could .zip them, but I'd rather go through the motions for a dev that can actually do something about it.

It's normal to post a savegame as a .zip archive containing a file and a folder.
If you want dev's attention, better make a bug report ("campaign ripples suddenly got overpowered in recent versions").

separate unit design engine for single vs multi-player

Stats are different though.

so it would affect mp, too.

But it doesn't. I'm having enough skirmish/mp testing to see that no that much noticable damage calculation changes were introduced in recent 3.1 releases, including rc2, and when compared to 2.3 as well.

NoQ wrote:It's normal to post a savegame as a .zip archive containing a file and a folder.
If you want dev's attention, better make a bug report ("campaign ripples suddenly got overpowered in recent versions").

separate unit design engine for single vs multi-player

Stats are different though.

so it would affect mp, too.

But it doesn't. I'm having enough skirmish/mp testing to see that no that much noticable damage calculation changes were introduced in recent 3.1 releases, including rc2, and when compared to 2.3 as well.

Good to know the stats are different.
Anyway, it doesn't matter, the campaign is flawed and that's all I was pointing out.
As for this irritatingly inane and insipid argument about "balance", what would you call single player balancing? Unit stat calculation adjustments? Simulation parameter adjustments? Rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it?
I look forward to 3.1's campaign BALANCE fixes.

The devs read this, so it doesn't matter where I post this as long as it's not something completely irrelevant like "general" or "off-topic". In fact, flooding this thread with stupid debates over a single word is probably more detracting than anything, because they have to scroll through that garbage.

I would appreciate if you didn't reply anymore. You obviously haven't had anything of value to contribute to my original post this entire time and I have doubts you ever will.

Cordially and with no offense, bye.

What NoQ is essentially saying is: Campaign is what it is, a legacy from the original game. If the campaign is ever changed, it will be through a mod, out of respect for the original developers. Also, new campaigns are in the making, using the new units & balance.
It's the same thing in games like supreme commander, tiberian sun or red alert.

Jorzi wrote:What NoQ is essentially saying is: Campaign is what it is, a legacy from the original game. If the campaign is ever changed, it will be through a mod, out of respect for the original developers. Also, new campaigns are in the making, using the new units & balance.
It's the same thing in games like supreme commander, tiberian sun or red alert.

So none of that stats are changed? I could have sworn that when they did the 2.x update, stats were changed, namely, the Lancer missile (I haven't really ever gotten past campaign 2, so my memory is a bit flimsy about the changes with the ripple rockets). Anyway, I think a few things should be changed. There's no reason any T2 unit should be able to one-shot a heavy tank of any kind in or out of the campaign.

If someone nerfed the gunships in supcom 1, I really wouldn't call it "sacrilege". No dev would mind a couple of number changes that were certain to improve the game-- not even Peter Molneux's team.
(The joke being that Peter Molneux always exaggerates his team's accomplishments.)

P.S. Some of the engine changes have affected the campaign, so are they "detracting" from the experience? They used to fire all their weapons at once, because that's what the A.I. originally did. In fact, I don't think this game was originally intended to be run in 1920x1200, either, nor was it even designed to run on x64 Windows 7. I think that after 13 years, we can take a couple of liberties if we KNOW they will improve player experience. Even in 1999 games were all about the user-end.