Not if it's played well.Now if you're talking about AA for example, I would agree it plays very defensivly,
Friendly Fire
Moderator: Moderators
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Because of the short range of flamers, we may get away with keeping them to not fire through units, seeing as it is unlikely that many units will be standing inbetween them and their target. Gametesting will tell.
I haven't given E&E more then a cursory glance, but I suspect that it would be more aggressively played 1) because it was originally designed around the Spring engine, while our game was originally designed around the OTA engine, and 2) Because the metabalance game design probably flows better with regards to the spring engine then our design, because we have to conform our balance to a Universe expectation (ie: massed infantry, etc).
I haven't given E&E more then a cursory glance, but I suspect that it would be more aggressively played 1) because it was originally designed around the Spring engine, while our game was originally designed around the OTA engine, and 2) Because the metabalance game design probably flows better with regards to the spring engine then our design, because we have to conform our balance to a Universe expectation (ie: massed infantry, etc).
Wooohooo!
XTA and EE aren't as badly affected by the friendly fire because the defences aren't that powerful. And the people playing those mods tend to be more experienced and don't pick choke point maps.
AA would be a thousand times better with friendly fire. It'll be interesting to see if Cadyr impliments it as an option, and if the variant becomes popular.
XTA and EE aren't as badly affected by the friendly fire because the defences aren't that powerful. And the people playing those mods tend to be more experienced and don't pick choke point maps.
AA would be a thousand times better with friendly fire. It'll be interesting to see if Cadyr impliments it as an option, and if the variant becomes popular.
-
Hunter0000
- Posts: 197
- Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 00:33
yay.Guessmyname wrote:Yeha rules. That is allyeha 7 hours Added AvoidFriendly and CollideFriendly tags to weapon.
Don't get me wrong Gnome and Warlord. FF is fine for SWS if it makes it work. I was just countering the blanket statment =P
So do you think we can look forward to stormtrooper legions of doom by the next spring release then?
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Not a direct response to you gnome, just quoted for congruancy...Gnome wrote:I've not played E&E, so forgive any immediate ignorance, but I imagine it's because the defensive turrets are much weaker than "normal" (work with me here, don't pick on that word). That's fine, no one has any objections to a mod being balanced that way. The objections start when other mods have to rebalance just because, as Zsinj put it, we had to take one step forward and two back.
It would be more reasonable for them to say no if this wasn't so trivial--if it took a significant rewrite of how units work, then we would understand and accept that. While that is partially the case, a simple and very effective stop-gap does the job well enough for now to suit most needs.
You're right, it's not something balance DEPENDS on; however, you shouldn't force people to completely rethink the way their balance is set up, when the original way would be entirely effective with just a few lines added to the engine.
@gnome, you should try EE. THe playstyle is completely different from any other mod. The turrets are actually quite strong, however, in EE you must use lines to be effective, so when attacking a turret players almost always have their forces lined up, making the turret appear to be weaker than it actually is.
If players in AA took more time to line up their units then the turrets in AA would fall much more quickly.
@ warlord... did it ever occur to you that your tank models might not be high enough? If the tank is the same height as infantry, then that should be a glaring alarm that something is not quite right.
WHile I could care less whether this feature makes it in or not, I think that if you're having horrible horrible issues then that points towards a design flaw rather than an engine flaw.
Look, like we've said, we personally plan on using it on infantry at the moment, and *maybe* a few other smaller units where it'd work better. It might not look as good as people in real life taking cover and lining up shots and not shooting their buddies in the back, but hey, when Spring has that feature instead of retardospherecollisionandpathfinding we'll be more than happy to switch over.
We don't plan on having walkers firing straight through other walkers.
However, I am currently poking at a more proper OTA mod, which will have all units capable of firing through all friendlies. Yeah, maybe not realistic, but no one's forcing you to use it or play it, so why care?
Basically, I think your should re-think what you're talking about when you say "horrible" at the moment
We don't plan on having walkers firing straight through other walkers.
However, I am currently poking at a more proper OTA mod, which will have all units capable of firing through all friendlies. Yeah, maybe not realistic, but no one's forcing you to use it or play it, so why care?
Basically, I think your should re-think what you're talking about when you say "horrible" at the moment
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Forboding, currently you have to use lines with basically any attack in SWSpring to make it succesful. Any other attack is currently even more suicide, because the vast majority of your units won't fire.
While we do intend on raising tank firing heights, it is not so much them that the problem, because on the whole you have less of them, they are more widely spread, and they don't get completely trampled in the few seconds where they are exposed to enemy fire but unable to fire themselves. In short, the issues are far less noticeable with vehicles. Really, it is the infantry that are the problem. Also, because infantry are smaller, you are less likely to see the weapons going through things.
While we do intend on raising tank firing heights, it is not so much them that the problem, because on the whole you have less of them, they are more widely spread, and they don't get completely trampled in the few seconds where they are exposed to enemy fire but unable to fire themselves. In short, the issues are far less noticeable with vehicles. Really, it is the infantry that are the problem. Also, because infantry are smaller, you are less likely to see the weapons going through things.
Hm, this talk about flamers made me think. How about a tag that tells other units to clear the field of fire when this weapon starts aiming? clearlof=[angle]; would mean it orders all units to clear a slice with the given angle. This shouldn't be applied to all weapons so if a group of riflemen attacks something they won't scramble frantically trying to not obstruct anyone's field of fire but they'd clear the field of fire for a unit wielding a flamer, minigun or rocket launcher.
The angle is necessary so e.g. a minigun would have a clear field of fire to all enemy units after the first clearing, not having units barely clear the line of fire and forcing them to do it again when a new target is selected (of course they'd still be ordered to clear when the weapon picks a new target and the clearing area moves but they won't be in the way for the weapon). The weapon wouldn't check if all units have cleared that area, it'd just check if it has a clear line of fire to its one target.
The angle is necessary so e.g. a minigun would have a clear field of fire to all enemy units after the first clearing, not having units barely clear the line of fire and forcing them to do it again when a new target is selected (of course they'd still be ordered to clear when the weapon picks a new target and the clearing area moves but they won't be in the way for the weapon). The weapon wouldn't check if all units have cleared that area, it'd just check if it has a clear line of fire to its one target.
That's not what this topic is about, Emmanuel. I don't blame you for the confusion, though, since the term is very misleading.
This topic is about units firing through friendly units as if they were not in the way. The projectiles physically move through the friendly units. Yeha has implemented this as an optional weapon TDF tag.
If you want units to consider the effects of their large blast radius before firing, please post in a new topic.
This topic is about units firing through friendly units as if they were not in the way. The projectiles physically move through the friendly units. Yeha has implemented this as an optional weapon TDF tag.
If you want units to consider the effects of their large blast radius before firing, please post in a new topic.
-
GrOuNd_ZeRo
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:10
FF could be made a checkbox meaning "a player cannot damage units belonging to an ally" although that would still see heavy abuse. Perimeter has no friendly fire damage and you can fire a nuke in midst of a battle and it will only hurt the enemies.
Such a global option simply wouldn't make sense, we're talking about per-weapon FF anyway.
Hm, ally friendly fire could be handled by making a weapon not do damage if no enemy unit is in blast range... Still not optimal but it would reduce the likelyness of an ally being an asshole and firing a nuke into your base.
But anyway, that's off-topic.
More on topic: There's a tag that can prevent a weapon from damaging the unit that fired it, right? In OTA it was possible to make a ground unit drop bombs that didn't hurt itself in order to simulate a shockwave weapon. That and a tag preventing damage to friendly units even within the blast range would allow weapons like the LC shockwave generator from Earth 2150.
Such a global option simply wouldn't make sense, we're talking about per-weapon FF anyway.
Hm, ally friendly fire could be handled by making a weapon not do damage if no enemy unit is in blast range... Still not optimal but it would reduce the likelyness of an ally being an asshole and firing a nuke into your base.
But anyway, that's off-topic.
More on topic: There's a tag that can prevent a weapon from damaging the unit that fired it, right? In OTA it was possible to make a ground unit drop bombs that didn't hurt itself in order to simulate a shockwave weapon. That and a tag preventing damage to friendly units even within the blast range would allow weapons like the LC shockwave generator from Earth 2150.