Fps off Checkbox?
Moderator: Moderators
yeah and no, because they can change the angle they can supercede the range limit of a unit... personally I am cool with it and while some people may think that adding a check box is a good idea at the moment I would prefer if spring would have other things worked on before some extra unecessary thing.
Ha ha. Very funny. Of course experienced players know more about the game and are therefore going to win, but theres a big difference in having your 2 AKs get splatted by the opponents 6 AKs and him then obliterating your base, or having your 2 laser towers shot up by his 2 laser towers and you wondering why you cant attack his.Dragon45 wrote: Well gee, how EVER could experienced players know more about the game than newer players? That's not right!
Oh and for all the people that kept on stating: "it doesnt make a difference" watch this replay.
Really sorry if we've already visited this point, but seven pages is a lot to read over this issue.
As far as it being an exploit... I don't think so. Someone mentioned that it didn't make any sense, suggesting that if they (any unit in question, presumably an LLT in this case) could always fire that far, why don't they automaticly?
The answer is simple.
They don't blind-fire.
From an "In Character" (or if you like, "storyline") perspective, they have a limit on their automated tracking. We can assume that an LLT has only the very basic kind of artificial intelligence which can only take a limited number of things into consideration. This is where the FPS control comes into play. The Commander himself "uplinks" with that unit and controls it directly. The Commander himself knows that there is something over there, and knows that he just might be able to hit it with a little luck. But the LLT's AI isn't based on luck. It isn't sentient. It can't make that kind of judgment call.
The Commander can.
Of course, the trade off is that the Commander stops focusing on the macromanagment of the war as a whole for a moment while he takes direct control of that one unit.
This is completely realistic and acceptable.
As far as it being an exploit... I don't think so. Someone mentioned that it didn't make any sense, suggesting that if they (any unit in question, presumably an LLT in this case) could always fire that far, why don't they automaticly?
The answer is simple.
They don't blind-fire.
From an "In Character" (or if you like, "storyline") perspective, they have a limit on their automated tracking. We can assume that an LLT has only the very basic kind of artificial intelligence which can only take a limited number of things into consideration. This is where the FPS control comes into play. The Commander himself "uplinks" with that unit and controls it directly. The Commander himself knows that there is something over there, and knows that he just might be able to hit it with a little luck. But the LLT's AI isn't based on luck. It isn't sentient. It can't make that kind of judgment call.
The Commander can.
Of course, the trade off is that the Commander stops focusing on the macromanagment of the war as a whole for a moment while he takes direct control of that one unit.
This is completely realistic and acceptable.
its possible to lessen the blow to your macro with clever buildqueues and patrol orders as well as spamming units to rally points instead of extra cons (which u cannot use)
anyway kix is asking for it as a OPTIONAL OPTION which you must CHECK before it takes effect. imagine what would happen if he asked to remove it entirely ~,~ this community is sooo great ~,~
anyway kix is asking for it as a OPTIONAL OPTION which you must CHECK before it takes effect. imagine what would happen if he asked to remove it entirely ~,~ this community is sooo great ~,~
Not if the LLT's AI simply can't handle the transversal velocity beyond a certain distance, or if the target's signature radius drops below the LLT's signature resolution. Or if the LLT's hard wired parameters for acceptable accuracy fall-off and optimal range suggest that the target is not "valid."bamb wrote:Cronyx, your analogy breaks down.
I think all units shoot "blind" if they have other units doing sighting for them.
So this argument is irrelevant.
No reason to program a turret to fire constantly on a target if it only has a 20% chance to hit, for example. Your enemy could exploit this to waste your energy resources, or use endlessly renewable distractionary methods to sneak primary objectives beyond the perimeter.
Processors, automotive engines, and even lasers have "acceptable tolerances" that it is recomended, for whatever reason, the user not exceed. But in many cases you can "overclock" or "redline" the equipment and be just fine.
If the Commander chooses to directly uplink with the LLT, thus circumventing it's own AI with his much greater degree of personal experience, and take first hand control of the mechanical resources to achive a goal it could not do on it's own... I don't see how the annology "breaks down" under the established circumstances.
I just personally disagree. *shrug*
-
el_muchacho
- Posts: 201
- Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:06
Your analogy is a good one, but it doesn't apply to this case. The LLT can shoot accurately to that place, and as I said, units shoot "blind" if other units are doing targeting and sighting for them. It's not a case of "the LLT is not capable or smart enough to shoot there".Cronyx wrote:...bamb wrote:Cronyx, your analogy breaks down.
I think all units shoot "blind" if they have other units doing sighting for them.
So this argument is irrelevant.
No reason to program a turret to fire constantly on a target if it only has a 20% chance to hit, for example. Your enemy could exploit this to waste your energy resources, or use endlessly renewable distractionary methods to sneak primary objectives beyond the perimeter.
..
If the Commander chooses to directly uplink with the LLT, thus circumventing it's own AI with his much greater degree of personal experience, and take first hand control of the mechanical resources to achive a goal it could not do on it's own... I don't see how the annology "breaks down" under the established circumstances.
I just personally disagree. *shrug*
It's just a bug that it uses a 2D function for firing threshold, when it should use distance. It's a slight problem that you can't do the shooting in any way from the top view but it can be done from the fps view. Even by forcing it to shoot blindly from external view. Though it's a control system problem - how to make the user to give a 3d point target.
It isn't an annology, it is a direct explination. In that, it offers an answer to "why" a given observable phenomenon occurs.bamb wrote:Your analogy is a good one, but it doesn't apply to this case.
bamb wrote:The LLT can shoot accurately to that place
So, which is it? The LLT... CAN, or CAN NOT fire upon the theoretical target in our thought experiment? You seem to imply both. Very well, I will address both.bamb wrote:It's a slight problem that you can't do the shooting in any way from the top view but it can be done from the fps view. Even by forcing it to shoot blindly from external view.
1. The LLT can not hit a target X distance away.
This is simply untrue. We've already established that it IS possible for the LLT to hit said target, otherwise this thread (which is referencing that very phenomenon) would not exist.
The projectile fired by the LLT (in this case, a laser blast) does not termanate before a distance of X. This means it does have the required range to actually hit a target at a range of -X. Ranges do not change between FPS or Top Down views for any unit (I have tested this). Additionally, if this was the case, TA Spring would be updating the other clients with real time information pertaining its current view setting. Given that this does not happen, games would become desynced far more frequently than they do now, which is also not happening.
We must then conclude that something else is responsible for this "variable range discrepancy" phenomenon, other than that the range mysteriously changes between view settings attributed to some nebulous "bug."
2. The LLT can hit a target X distance away.
Having established now that the LLT can in fact a target at X distance -- in that, it is physically possible, we should explore why it seems unable to do this on its own, un assisted.
My experiments have shown that, when attempting to fire beyond the radial range termanator (heretofore referred to as the "red circle") while using the various top-down views, the laser impacts the ground near the border.
However, when taking manual control of the LLT via FPS view, it is possible to hit targets beyond this range simply by elevating your aim on the magnitude of 10 - 20 degrees.
A real-life pilot in a fighter/bomber might attempt to engage an objective beyond the targeting range of his systems. This will mean he is unable to acquire a "lock" on that objective. However, it may still be possible to "dumb-fire" his missile, unguided, and still execute his objective.
This scenario is analogous to the original explination, e.g., the Commander taking personal and direct control of the LLT. The Commander forces it to "dumb fire" in an attempt to engage an objective, one that which the LLT's own targeting apparatus has has invalidated for what ever reason.
You attempt to invalidate this explination, citing the fact that the LLT will not fire on these "out of range" targets, even when other friendly units are calling them for the LLT. While this phenomenon is in fact true, in and of itself, it does not invalidate the outlined explination because it makes too many unfounded assumptions.
Friendly units may in fact be calling targets for the LLT, beyond its stand-alone standard range. However, we must keep in mind that it is still[/i] the LLT which is making decisions over which targets are valid and which are not. Simply being made aware of the targets by other friendly units does not mean that the LLT will decide that they are out of range. In fact, we can observe this is exactly the decisions that the LLT is making, because it is not firing upon them.
When the LLT's own decision making apparatus is circumvented by a "higher will" (such as the Commander for an "In Character" explination, or if you will, the Player for an "Out of Character" explination), any former restrictions hard coded into the LLT become merely ceremonial, as well they should.
There is no "bug exploitation" involved. If the LLT could make better judgments than the player, why would there be any need to take direct control of it? The answer is simple. There would not be.
Taking direct control improves accurace and/or performance, but at a price; the player is not focusing on the war a a whole.
I will continue to use, or not use, FPS view as I see fit under this spirit of understanding.
There is not enough harm by FPS mode to take it away.
I saw just a game where HLT killed another HLT by FPS style. I think it gives deepness to the game and makes the players think how to use their units. I see no proof that its a bad thing in anyway.
i love how noize just but it:
I saw just a game where HLT killed another HLT by FPS style. I think it gives deepness to the game and makes the players think how to use their units. I see no proof that its a bad thing in anyway.
i love how noize just but it:
[21:28:43] <[WarC]NOiZE[KoXTA]> so.. program a checkbox
[21:28:46] <[WarC]NOiZE[KoXTA]> or shutup
[21:28:56] <[WarC]NOiZE[KoXTA]> i choose shut up
Correct. But I see no evidence that this is the case, as I outlined in the above post.Egarwaen wrote:Unless the LLT can only hit the target because of an engine bug.Cronyx wrote:This is simply untrue. We've already established that it IS possible for the LLT to hit said target, otherwise this thread (which is referencing that very phenomenon) would not exist.
To paraphrase, the Scientific Method dictates that if you are unable to offer a better explination than my own, suplimented with falsifiable, you must accept my explination.
I did this very thing in my next paragraph which accompanied the portion you took out of context for ad hoc "sound byte" analysis.
Simply suggesting that "it might be a bug" is insufficient.Cronyx wrote:The projectile fired by the LLT (in this case, a laser blast) does not termanate before a distance of X. This means it does have the required range to actually hit a target at a range of -X. Ranges do not change between FPS or Top Down views for any unit (I have tested this). Additionally, if this was the case, TA Spring would be updating the other clients with real time information pertaining its current view setting. Given that this does not happen, games would become desynced far more frequently than they do now, which is also not happening.
Last edited by Cronyx on 16 Apr 2006, 20:48, edited 1 time in total.
I understand your viewpoint, but I'm not sure you get mine. Pressing A and clicking a target is forcing too. With a direct-fire unit, it's practically just like FPS mode. And stuff in Spring has automatic targeting anyway.....
When the LLT's own decision making apparatus is circumvented by a "higher will" (such as the Commander for an "In Character" explination, or if you will, the Player for an "Out of Character" explination), any former restrictions hard coded into the LLT become merely ceremonial, as well they should. ...
But I then thought a while and this is what the stuff that bothers me boils down to (if it really is so):
In short:
It's strange that the laser range is a sphere but it shoots only stuff inside a smaller-radius cylinder? (And I'm not talking about LOS here, it's even when forced or it has sighters/radar.)
To me, it's just an oversight, probably not major and doesn't bother me much but I don't approve of all the explaining going on in here why it's now as it ever should be.
There are other 2D-isms / anachronisms in spring like some water units having trouble going over/under each other/wrecks, airplanes hitting mountains, aircons having very long vertical yet small lateral nanolathe distance etc.
I'm not very serious about this, maybe we can stop here. No hard feelings, maybe we just disagree.
You're right, I didn't. I do now though.bamb wrote: I understand your viewpoint, but I'm not sure you get mine. [...]
In short:
It's strange that the laser range is a sphere but it shoots only stuff inside a smaller-radius cylinder? (And I'm not talking about LOS here, it's even when forced or it has sighters/radar.)
I wasn't aware it handled things in this "cylindrical" fashion. But now knowing that, I think that using an LLT in FPS mode simply unlocks its "true potential" so to speak; allowing it to fire at anything within a spherical range instead. It would seem that they just need to fix the auto-targeting to accurately reflect the distance that it can "actually" hit.
The odd nanolathing distances you mentioned also fall into this; they should be able to lathe as far on one axis as they do an other.
In light of this (not to reiterate too much), I don't think FPS needs to be "nerfed", but rather, the autotargeting needs to be updated and enhanced to accurately reflect what the unit CAN do.
So you could say I agree with you that it's "broken" at this point (if I'm reading you correctly), we just differ on how it should be "fixed".
You're suggesting that the firing range in FPS (spherical) should be lowered to match the non-FPS (literal top-down cylender) range, where as I feel instead, that the non-FPS settings should be adjusted to match those of the FPS.
If I'm not mistaken in understanding you.
I do. It's quite simple. The engine uses the ground co-ordinate of a target as the "aim point", but uses a sphere for range. This is a bug. The engine should either use a sphere for both, or the ground co-ordinate for both. Arguing that this is "realistic" based on mod-specific information is nonsense.Cronyx wrote:Correct. But I see no evidence that this is the case, as I outlined in the above post.