Friendly Fire - Page 3

Friendly Fire

Requests for features in the spring code.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
emmanuel
Posts: 952
Joined: 28 May 2005, 22:43

Post by emmanuel »

i agree for all
modder power =>
"
yourmod.sd7\gamedata\sidedata.tdf\
[side1]
{
enable_ff_switch=1;
}

yourmod.sd7\units\yourunit.fbi\
{
unitname=yourunit;
friendlyfirestandorders=1;
standingfriendlyfireorder=0;
}
"
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

No, makes no sense that way.
User avatar
emmanuel
Posts: 952
Joined: 28 May 2005, 22:43

Post by emmanuel »

someone must go buy a ps3 or a xbox4 or look 3000mangas(from nnorth corean sure)
before to talk about FF
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

I think I'm going to put that post into my dictionary, next to the caption "Non Sequitur".
User avatar
emmanuel
Posts: 952
Joined: 28 May 2005, 22:43

Post by emmanuel »

don t understand
not in google nor in my dictionary
is you write yourself your dictionary ?
or is a specal dialect famliliar ?
same the french canada for me
maybe humor i presume isn t?
it seems not fun and don t spam my thread please(b.s.a.d)
User avatar
Das Bruce
Posts: 3544
Joined: 23 Nov 2005, 06:16

Post by Das Bruce »

What the hell are you talking about emmanual? Its been resolved, lock this thread somebody. :roll:
User avatar
emmanuel
Posts: 952
Joined: 28 May 2005, 22:43

Post by emmanuel »

what is resolved?
where is noticed?
in your necronomicon maybe?
Hunter0000
Posts: 197
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 00:33

Post by Hunter0000 »

yeha 7 hours Added AvoidFriendly and CollideFriendly tags to weapon.
There. See? Resolved.

Unless somone wants to discusses some other feature aspect of FF this thread is over.
User avatar
emmanuel
Posts: 952
Joined: 28 May 2005, 22:43

Post by emmanuel »

(where hav you found this quote?)
not over
what is the tag syntax???
explain please!!!
Hunter0000
Posts: 197
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 00:33

Post by Hunter0000 »

Guessmyname wrote:
yeha 7 hours Added AvoidFriendly and CollideFriendly tags to weapon.
Yeha rules. That is all
Page two. Post made by Guessmyname.

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.
User avatar
emmanuel
Posts: 952
Joined: 28 May 2005, 22:43

Post by emmanuel »

is not here the toppics about FF?
sorry an error
erase my post
i will go write in FF thread
and don t spam my threads about english,google,bablefish =it s offtopic not a crusade
Warlord Zsinj
Imperial Winter Developer
Posts: 3742
Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59

Post by Warlord Zsinj »

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.
User avatar
emmanuel
Posts: 952
Joined: 28 May 2005, 22:43

Post by emmanuel »

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 ?
User avatar
Das Bruce
Posts: 3544
Joined: 23 Nov 2005, 06:16

Post by Das Bruce »

emmanuel wrote:i dont really understand
Exactly.
User avatar
emmanuel
Posts: 952
Joined: 28 May 2005, 22:43

Post by emmanuel »

and nohelp is possible again!
always...
User avatar
SwiftSpear
Classic Community Lead
Posts: 7287
Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29

Post by SwiftSpear »

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.
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.
Warlord Zsinj
Imperial Winter Developer
Posts: 3742
Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59

Post by Warlord Zsinj »

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)
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Post by Neddie »

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)
His description was inaccurate.

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.
Gnomre
Imperial Winter Developer
Posts: 1754
Joined: 06 Feb 2005, 13:42

Post by Gnomre »

And that's fine, if they want to balance that way without the friendly fire option that's their choice. Anyway, why is this topic still open, the option is there now...
User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Post by Caydr »

Stuff usually doesn't get locked just because it's resolved... sometimes people have something to add long after the fact, or would just like to add 1 to their postcount by making a largely useless post.

So how's your OTA mod coming along, Gnome? :-)
Post Reply

Return to “Feature Requests”