How do anti's really work?

[Floris]

When I specced a game I saw a nuke pointed outside anti coverage, but anti still fired (like about 2 or 3 adv fus spaces between anti border)

Why is this possible?
Is it because anti's work with hitsphere borders that takes down any nuke that flies through?
Is it because (like some said) that anti's shoot down any nuke that flies over their area of effect? (never really noticed this before)
Is it bugged?
Is it desired? I mean this might be too confusing and unclear.

so many questions!

[Wombat]

u can aim nuke milimeters outside anti range and it will hit, tested like 2-3 days ago.

didnt notice extra anti ?

[Floris]

I just saw replay again and all i can conclude that it's a bug.

Nuker first aims for spot with anti coverage, then decides just before launching to change the spot (about 2secs before launch) then nuke fires to new direction i suppose, attack mark dissapears and anti fires too.


Check replay:
Wahoodra has nuke, west north's techers anti gets empeed and west north front anti fires. Time to skip to would be 22:22 then it's at 55 % loaded (stockpile already is one @ that point) nuke luanches at stockpile 2.
http://floris.ruwhof.net/20111109_20282 ... 0.82.7.rar

[very_bad_soldier]

Interesting point. But stuff like that should be easy to test by starting spring.exe manually and fiddling around without the need of running through real replays?

[Niobium]

Check replay:

Guy launches nuke inside anti range, anti fires, amazing.

[AF]

Antis fire at nukes within their range, not nukes targetted within their range.

Would you consider it perfectly fine if your base was surrounded with a wall of fully stocked anti nukes yet your enemy managed to nuke you because the centre of your base didnt have an anti?

[Kloot]

Antis fire at nukes within their range, not nukes targetted within their range.

Bzzzt, wrong! It is the exact other way around.

Would you consider it perfectly fine if your base was surrounded with a wall of fully stocked anti nukes yet your enemy managed to nuke you because the centre of your base didnt have an anti?

You might not, but Spring does (at least until 84.0 is released).

[Google_Frog]

Would you consider it perfectly fine if your base was surrounded with a wall of fully stocked anti nukes yet your enemy managed to nuke you because the centre of your base didnt have an anti?

That should be expected behaviour. Antinukes shouldn't stop players in a FFA nuking each other though your territory.

Antinukes have 2 ranges. Normal weapon range and coverage. They fire when the missile enters their range if the missile will hit within the coverage. There are some multi-anti situations where they won't fire.

[AF]

I disagree, that is not how it should work at all. Antinukes should fire at nukes within their range. Would you find a shield effective if it turned itself off because the target of the enemy weapon was just outside the shield radius on the opposite side? It isn't how it works in real life either, and it isn't how other RTS games have set the convention. e.g. antinukes in supcom intercept nukes entransit regardless of target so long as they stray within range.


@google: the consequences of that line of logic mean that in a 12 vs 12 you would need clusters of 12 rows of antinukes from top to the bottom of the map to ensure no nuke would get through, this assumes the optimum logic I originally thought was being used, not the one kloots revelation revealed which makes things worse.

[Blackdutchie]

You shouldn't even be playing 12v12.
And there are no maps where you need rows of 12 antinukes to cover a line of the map. Nor should you have pushed a base over the entire map to warrant this.

[CarRepairer]

Would you consider it perfectly fine if your base was surrounded with a wall of fully stocked anti nukes yet your enemy managed to nuke you because the centre of your base didnt have an anti?

That should be expected behaviour. Antinukes shouldn't stop players in a FFA nuking each other though your territory.

Played ZK? Ceasefire system allows you to do this. Ceasefires will only break if the nuke is targeting within the range of the anti.

[wahoo]

I just saw replay again and all i can conclude that it's a bug.

Nuker first aims for spot with anti coverage, then decides just before launching to change the spot (about 2secs before launch) then nuke fires to new direction i suppose, attack mark dissapears and anti fires too.

The truth is much simpler. The intent was to stockpile 2 nukes, then emp anti and launch 2 nukes in succession. So what you've interpreted as changing nuke target, was in fact adding 2nd target enqued after the 1st. However after noticing the 1st nuke failed, I cancelled the 2nd. I shot it at front instead. It just all happened too quick.

BTW, Chartered is even more of a douchebag than I already thought he was.

[Floris]

Yeh that made it quitte confusing wahoo, especially the quick canceling of the 2nd queued nuke attack order. But yep, seems like all is normal.


But a suprise that a change in its behaviour is planned for future version. Although in ffa it's hard to implement. But ffa sucks anyway.

[aegis]

Nor should you have pushed a base over the entire map to warrant this.

centralized base system is only one valid school of thought. also happens to be more susceptible to nukes/bombing