4
This topic is locked
XX Sulla XX, on 11 July 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:
You know I really do not have a problem with this. Were there other ways to do it yes. Were some of them possibly better at least on paper maybe. But this is not a terrible way to do it. And it is easy to tweak it to get to a balance that works.
You have got to be kidding me.
This pathetic attempt at balance doesn't even make sense within the game mechanics.
Cones of fire and convergence mechanics, while I'm generally opposed to them, would be a better solution than this arbitrary nonsense.
It was, literally, the worst idea suggested as a solution to high-alpha builds within about a dozen different suggestions that were common within the community.
What's even worse about it is that the fundamental problems remain the same. It doesn't discourage 'boating.' At best, it's an annoying issue to work around. The same builds will still be just as effective as they were before.
Their move to penalize overheating is, also, way too aggressive. Why does my mech shut down, again? Where's the option to disable shut-down, as it serves no actual purpose other than to seriously **** new players over by damaging their internals -and- making them nice and immobile so all of those staggered volleys may as well be a pinpoint alpha.
Since they are going to be running around in single heat sinks for a while...
And it's not a simple system. The fact that PPCs are not initially distinguished from each other (and that is planned) indicates that either the system is implemented in a far more convoluted way than I could have ever imagined... and/or that they've no idea what the hell they are doing.
The fact that they haven't narrowed down where hit-detection errors are coming from after months of the issue is rather telling. They should have debug logs that can at least point to the client or the server as the culprit. Though I suspect it's partially because they are using the cry engine for this game (honestly, they would have been better off to start by modding ARMA 2 and petitioning Bohemia Interactive for a license to use Real Virtuality 3 - which is just a better engine for this type of thing).
In fact... I would still say that they would be better off dropping all of their work with CryEngine3 and going that route. A lot of the resources can be ported and you've got a much easier system to work with for maps and game modes with powerful server-side script parsing available. Not to mention, the engine is designed to track ballistics, complex hitboxes, etc.
But it's probably a few years too late for that argument.
I still stand that they could probably do more in 1 month using that game engine (even as a 'mere' mod) than they have done in 1 year with CryEngine 3.
But I'm drifting off topic, here.
[Actually, after thinking about it for a second, it's a no-brainer. The problem is server-side. Missiles suffer from the same hit detection issues and are, to my understanding, calculated by the server and the server only - what we see is merely a graphical representation of what the server says is going on. Without having the source to look at - that is only an educated guess, but I see no reason why missiles should be having those difficulties if it's client-side HSR. Since the problems arose after the implementation of HSR regarding missile hit-detection, I would have to say that it is likely some change they made that allows HSR to redefine collision detection. I would imagine that the problem comes from deconflicting multiple "this is what I saw happen" reports - some weapons get completely dropped from consideration due to failure to adhere to naming conventions or architectural oversights.
Thinking back... it's been when my team is firing direct-fire weapons at an opponent constantly that I've had difficulty with LRM shots not registering.... Just a guess.]
subgenius, on 11 July 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:
You guys do realize that at anything over face humping range it's not exactly trivial to land 2 ppc and 1 gauss on the same location right? The projectiles travel at different speeds, so unless you're sitting still, it will be very very rare to get sniped by all 3 in the same hitbox.
Anyone with any sense is going to stagger-fire those, anyway. You lead with your slower projectile (gauss) and trail with your fast projectile (PPC).
It's only going to be a brief pause (something under a 200 milliseconds) - but it's not that difficult. It's what is known as a "Time on Target barrage" in artillery speak. You fire using varying powder loads and firing angles to drop several projectiles on the same spot at one time from a single gun.
Even then - the two projectiles are not so different in velocity that hits in the same box are
Quote
I know it's fashionable to bash and bash the devs, but as the OP proves, you guys are so damn excited to scream and moan that you even get basic facts wrong (or at least jump to conclusions with amazingly sad speed).
The fact is that PPCs and ERPPCs were not treated as the same weapon in how the code is, currently. That's supposed to be changed, later.
That was later updated in the command chair. Two hours afterward. This topic was started by the OP roughly and hour and a half before that clarification came.
Quote
Go have a cup of coffee, read a magazine and chill for a minute. How bout we actually give this a try before the wailing and gnashing of teeth begins?
Why don't we make ECM shut down text chat and force you out of IR/LA vision modes?
Why don't we all give it a try before hailing it as a bad idea?
.... Because it's a bad idea, won't accomplish what it sets out to do (unless it's to **** people off), and is simply bad enough that one doesn't need to see it in action to know it's going to be anything but enjoyable.
