An opinion

An opinion

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
BlackLiger
Posts: 1371
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58

An opinion

Post by BlackLiger »

Not sure if this is 100% a good idea, but it seems to me that the projectiles are slow. It looks like the units are just lobbing them at each other, not actually fighting. Could we possibly try doubling all values of speeds, so that units move faster, shells fly faster etc? as a test to see what results are produced.

I accept that this may not be 100% perfect, but Spring just seems SLOOOOOW to me (when I can play it, I needs a new graphics card right now or I'd do this myself)
User avatar
clericvash
Posts: 1394
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 01:05

Post by clericvash »

Is it me or do you seem like the type that would always have +10 in TA because you hate long games + quit long games, cant actually play at normal speed etc...
IMSabbel
Posts: 747
Joined: 30 Jul 2005, 13:29

Post by IMSabbel »

Dont be an ass.

Obviously he means the ratio units speed vs bullet speed.

As its possible to dodge many bullets from a 5 unit lenght distance, this could be understandable.
User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Post by NOiZE »

indeed i also think the blobs move too slow... in my next TLL version i'll give the blobs higher velocity's
User avatar
Zenka
Posts: 1235
Joined: 05 Oct 2005, 15:29

Post by Zenka »

NOiZE wrote:indeed i also think the blobs move too slow... in my next TLL version i'll give the blobs higher velocity's
hurray!

(This means I agree with the staement, bullets should go faster. Really, a guardion can fire a shot. The tank, on whitch it is targeted, can give gas and dodge the attack from standstil. I only thought Neo could do that.)
User avatar
jcnossen
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 2440
Joined: 05 Jun 2005, 19:13

Post by jcnossen »

This is coupled with gravity though... if artillery gives a bullet a vertical speed of 50 m/s, with a gravity of 10 m/s^2, it takes 100/10=10 seconds before the bullet hits the ground again...
That probably means that you can dodge artillery fire in reality too, problem is you can't see it coming ;)
User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Post by NOiZE »

i think that calculation is too simple zaphod..

first second it goes up 50 m second second it goes up 40 m third goes up 30 m etc..
User avatar
GrOuNd_ZeRo
Posts: 1370
Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:10

Post by GrOuNd_ZeRo »

I agree, a tankshot should be fast and furious, atleast as fast as the Guass gun.
User avatar
jcnossen
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 2440
Joined: 05 Jun 2005, 19:13

Post by jcnossen »

First second it goes up 50 m second second it goes up 40 m third goes up 30 m etc..
In 5 seconds, it will have a vertical speed of zero. In another 5 seconds, it will have a downward vertical speed of 50. At that point it will reach the ground.
Or to be a bit more mathematical:

speed = initialSpeed - gravity * t
position = initialSpeed * t - 0.5 * gravity * t^2 = 0
initialSpeed * t = 0.5 * gravity * t^2
initialSpeed = 0.5 * gravity * t
t = initialSpeed / (0.5 * gravity)
t = 2 * initialSpeed / gravity
t = 2 * 50 / 10 = 10 s

tada!
somehow highschool math get's more fun once you go further into academic math ;)
Gus
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Oct 2005, 13:12

Post by Gus »

Yup using SUVATS;

S= ut +1/2 at^2

=50t -10t^2

= t(50-5t)

so is at ground at t = 0 (unsurprisingly) and at 50-5t=0, t=10.
Sean Mirrsen
Posts: 578
Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 17:38

Post by Sean Mirrsen »

That is, if it's flying vertically upward.

The distance it traverses in those 10 seconds is quite large (I don't think a Bertha shot ever fell more than 5 seconds after the shot), so in reality, when in direct vision range, it shouldn't be possible to dodge anything.

The actual thing is, that if we make it this realistic, the maximum range of the weapon will be off-map. Even for medium cannons.

And, as long as we're on the subject of weapons. Zaphod, can you please make it so in the next version, that missiles actually respect their flighttime? I did this for me, but rather clumsily, since I once again fail to understand what goes on in the code. I'll point you to the location - in the MissileLauncher.cpp, in the Fire procedure, the new projectile is called with a calculated ttl (time to live), depending on range and speed of the projectile. It needs to be set to the flighttime parameter of the weapon, which, in turn, needs to be recognized in the WeaponDefHandler.
User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Post by Caydr »

In fact, it appears that almost no weapons use weapontimer. This pisses me off. I want EMGs to automatically disappear after three quarters of a second as they ought to, not be possible for use on top of a hill to attack an enemy across the map...
User avatar
Zoombie
Posts: 6149
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 07:08

Post by Zoombie »

I think that SOME projectiles should go fast (like pewe shot and tankshot) but some should remain at teh same pace, like artillery and sutch.
User avatar
PauloMorfeo
Posts: 2004
Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53

Re: An opinion

Post by PauloMorfeo »

BlackLiger wrote:... it seems to me that the projectiles are slow. It looks like the units are just lobbing them at each other, not actually fighting. Could we possibly try ... so that ... shells fly faster etc? ...
And i think that in oTA the projectiles moved even slower.

The problem with increasing the projectiles speed is that, when they get to be fast enough, in order to reach they're target they will only need a minor inclination meaning they won't arc much anymore, meaning they won't fire from behind other units. Unless all gravity in the maps goes up just as well.
Hoping to have all maps be repackaged with new gravities is not viable.
Maybe if the engine was made to use multiplied gravity but that would also mean that all mods would have to increase all firing speeds acordingly (still better than hoping on seeing all maps updated).

Of course this would also bring balance problems since balistic weapons will get more usefull.
But having the balistic projectiles move faster would be nice to see.
User avatar
diggz2k
Posts: 208
Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 06:34

Post by diggz2k »

If the projectile speeds are increased damage will need to be decreased a for some units, unless you want peewees to own. T

he slower artillery rounds should do more aoe damage because I want them to and because it will make dodging a little more real. If you saw a big ball of plasma falling down at you, you'd book it, but you wouldn't and shouldn't be able to get far enough away to avoid the blast.

The extreme range that we will get with the increased projectile speeds are a problem and need to be fixed, I haven't had time to think a lot, but what if plasma disapated a little past the range line like how lasers have a limited range. Feel free to post other range ideas.

Does plasma disapate like that in real life?
User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Post by Caydr »

No, I'm pretty sure all the modern-day plasma weapons I've seen remain cohesive pretty much until they impact the starships they were fired at. >_>
User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7052
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Post by zwzsg »

From a gameplay point of view, I like slow shots, because it means that plasma shots have trouble hitting moving target. So a goliath may shoot super-heavy round, he still couldn't hit a jeffy circling around it at full speed. That way, each kind of weapon got its use. Plasma against heavily armored slow moving targets, laser against mediumly armored faster target, and homing missile against lightest fastest target. If plasma shots were fast, then every kind of weapons would be more similar to each other, and that'd be bad.

Artillery supposed to pound heavily what is slow and armored. Artillery not supposed to take down planes and weasels. What made old TA so great is that instead of coding "artillery shell cannot damage plane and fast unit", they made is so the shell are so slow by the time they reach destination, plane and fast unit have moved away, but not slow tanks. So instead of arbritary "unit Y is immune to shot X", you have everything flowing down naturally from a couple simple rule "You can see how fast is unit Y, right? You can see how slow is shot X, right? Then you intuitively understand that shot X will miss unit Y most of the time".

Oh and please stop talking "realism" at once. It doesn't belong here. What's important is that it makes good gameplay and feel intuitive. Tanks slowly lobbing orange ball at each other is good for gameplay, look, and feel. Tanks firing shell at supersonic speed because it's like that with today's tank is bad for gameplay, bad for looks, bad for feelings.

IMO Doom1&2 still have usurpassed gameplay because they had big slow bright shots you could dodge.

Eh, Zenka, what do you think made the first Matrix movie so cool? Realism or dodgeable bullets?
User avatar
Zoombie
Posts: 6149
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 07:08

Post by Zoombie »

I agree with Zwzg. But in Spring the explosions seem to lack...the omphf factor of the original game. Mabey the expolosions need more base. Mabey the need to shake the screen. Mabey they need to look like explosions rather then flash's of faintly reddish light.
User avatar
FoeOfTheBee
Posts: 557
Joined: 12 May 2005, 18:26

Post by FoeOfTheBee »

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... apons.html

I'm in danger of losing the suspension of disbelief, unless plasma weapons change names.
User avatar
BlackLiger
Posts: 1371
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58

Post by BlackLiger »

Look, guys, why do you think I said as an experiment. Its not something I'd want to just be done at random, I was hoping someone who had the code and knew how to edit it, like sean mirrsen or alantai, would see about editing it for a test, seeing how it ran, seeing how the game reacted, etc. Perhaps taking a video. Then telling us what they thought of it.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”