Friendly Fire
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Posts: 197
- Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 00:33
-
- Posts: 197
- Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 00:33
Page two. Post made by Guessmyname.Guessmyname wrote:Yeha rules. That is allyeha 7 hours Added AvoidFriendly and CollideFriendly tags to weapon.
I assume he is quoting a log, ask him if you want to know.
But since you have a crusade agaisnt people going offtopic (what you call offtopic.. which half the time is on topic) in threads, I suggest you stop your offtopic posts doubting Yeha's awesomeness and either raise a new FF issue or stop posting.
-
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Just for the record, the FF differences it make a big change in SWS, and you can't see it at all. Most of the time, what the eye would consider 'perfect' collision, Spring wouldn't so the weapons don't appear to be going anywhere near friendly units. When it does actually go through, the weapons are so small and fast moving that you really can't see it.
I highly recommend it for other mods to implement, it makes assaulting far more effective, and takes some of the edge off a defender.
I highly recommend it for other mods to implement, it makes assaulting far more effective, and takes some of the edge off a defender.
i dont really understand
i make balistic weapon
i see unit want not fire in friendly sphere but dont care for explod radius
nor for weapon falling(gravity effect for ballistic)when sight a vtol
they care only for sight seems
i see unit sphere in "b"key view and supose weapon are only a pixel...
your patch permit to unit to sight a ennemy behind a friend and it s all ?
or the friend are not affected by the friendly fire?(that i totally disagree !!!)
related to noexplod(or pass trought) tag in weapon.tdf ?
i make balistic weapon
i see unit want not fire in friendly sphere but dont care for explod radius
nor for weapon falling(gravity effect for ballistic)when sight a vtol
they care only for sight seems
i see unit sphere in "b"key view and supose weapon are only a pixel...
your patch permit to unit to sight a ennemy behind a friend and it s all ?
or the friend are not affected by the friendly fire?(that i totally disagree !!!)
related to noexplod(or pass trought) tag in weapon.tdf ?
- SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
The EE turrets are weaker then average TA turrets, but they are also about half the cost and the build time is quite low. In practice what this means is that your static defence lines are moving alot more actively if you're a good player, you can try to make an impervious turret line, but you will need a strong active military to support it if you want it to succeed in it's job, especially after L2 start coming out, and most likely it will only be a short time before your opponent is setting up a line just a trenchwalk away from your primary defense line if you pick a spot too far back that gives them the majority of the map's resources.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.
-
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
But you see, even that is still regressing to the "trenchbased" WWI combat, where each side has dug in lines, and is trying to break through the opponent (usually with some artillery or other). This is the sort of combat that Spring seems to encourage, rather then a more military-based combat, where the best defence is a good offense, as it was in OTA.
(Which is not to say that TA didn't have it's huge encampments of defences; but they weren't nearly as powerful or difficult to crack as in Spring)
(Which is not to say that TA didn't have it's huge encampments of defences; but they weren't nearly as powerful or difficult to crack as in Spring)
His description was inaccurate.Warlord Zsinj wrote:But you see, even that is still regressing to the "trenchbased" WWI combat, where each side has dug in lines, and is trying to break through the opponent (usually with some artillery or other). This is the sort of combat that Spring seems to encourage, rather then a more military-based combat, where the best defence is a good offense, as it was in OTA.
(Which is not to say that TA didn't have it's huge encampments of defences; but they weren't nearly as powerful or difficult to crack as in Spring)
In E&E and Gundam for that matter, trenching is simply not an effective option. Defensive structures require support and still just aren't as effective as a rolling assault line.