New misle with Aoe efect

Catch-all for all development not having a specific forum.
Ramaglor
Posts: 687
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:00 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Ramaglor »

Gothmog makes a good point madpeople, especially since missiles have to accelerate.....

I suspect a simple code fix would be that if the first couple times the missile measures a change in distance to target, it would not explode and would continue to not explode until it had reached the end of its range unless the target got closer, or for those people who like suicide, if the target is less then 10m away it would explode.
Last edited by Ramaglor on Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Spidey's tactical advice on TS during Tourny game
QUOTE We don't need to save our thingy.[/quote]
asheron2k
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Texas

Post by asheron2k »

Goths point is good... but mad's response handles it nicely.
No need to add any extra complexity... just make sure it obeys friendly fire rules
Clay_Pigeon wrote:QUOTE(Clay_Pigeon @ May 13 2008, 08:24 PM) can i post a story about my cat flying an elf?
Gothmog
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Olympia, WA, USA

Post by Gothmog »

I don't know that much about missile AoE via code, but ICE says some have AoE.
Image
Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ Oct 29 2009, 01:24 PM) I feel a great disturbance in the Force. As if hundreds of voobs cried out for nerfs, and were suddenly silenced.
madpeople
Posts: 4787
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:00 am
Location: England

Post by madpeople »

i was told that only works for aleph reses AOE, not normal AOE.

i did sudggest changing the code so that can be used for normal AOE too, so you don't have to change core format to add this.
Gothmog
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Olympia, WA, USA

Post by Gothmog »

That would be neato, just don't give qf AoE; I love dodging a whole rack spammed by overzealous voobs.
Image
Xeretov wrote:QUOTE (Xeretov @ Oct 29 2009, 01:24 PM) I feel a great disturbance in the Force. As if hundreds of voobs cried out for nerfs, and were suddenly silenced.
Ramaglor
Posts: 687
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:00 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Ramaglor »

Mad, to implement your code would remove much of the tactics available with missiles. A look at ICE shows that the launch speed for most missiles is 25, with a few at 50. Say youre in a destroyer, stopped, and theres an enemy scout 1000m away from you and travelling away from you at 100..... guess what... the hunter killers launch speed is 50, and the acceleration is 40.... which means that even though you would EASILY be able to hit the scout with the missile, the first time the missile registers a change in distance to target, it blows up.
Last edited by Ramaglor on Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Spidey's tactical advice on TS during Tourny game
QUOTE We don't need to save our thingy.[/quote]
madpeople
Posts: 4787
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:00 am
Location: England

Post by madpeople »

Ramaglor wrote:QUOTE (Ramaglor @ Jan 17 2007, 09:14 PM) Mad, to implement your code would remove much of the tactics available with missiles. A look at ICE shows that the launch speed for most missiles is 25, with a few at 50. Say youre in a destroyer, stopped, and theres an enemy scout 1000m away from you and travelling away from you at 100..... guess what... the hunter killers launch speed is 50, and the acceleration is 40.... which means that even though you would EASILY be able to hit the scout with the missile, the first time the missile registers a change in distance to target, it blows up.
only if the enemy is in range of the aoe and getting further away. and it wont effect any of the current missiles since their AOE is 0

the only time this is the case is as they pass you, in which case no missile will hit them, hunter killer with 0 lock = df tracking.

i'm not really expecting any missiles with really big AOE, except ab nukes perhaps, but bases tend not to pass you.

shooting a missile with 0 lock at somethnig thats flying past you to behind you isn't a tactic, its just silly and a waste of missile
Last edited by madpeople on Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ramaglor
Posts: 687
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:00 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Ramaglor »

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Jan 18 2007, 08:24 AM) only if the enemy is in range of the aoe and getting further away. and it wont effect any of the current missiles since their AOE is 0

the only time this is the case is as they pass you, in which case no missile will hit them, hunter killer with 0 lock = df tracking.

i'm not really expecting any missiles with really big AOE, except ab nukes perhaps, but bases tend not to pass you.

shooting a missile with 0 lock at somethnig thats flying past you to behind you isn't a tactic, its just silly and a waste of missile

Ahhhh sorry, i should have read your original post over again.

Does this mean that a self-destruct bomb could be implemented?
Spidey's tactical advice on TS during Tourny game
QUOTE We don't need to save our thingy.[/quote]
fermi
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:45 am
Location: Europe

Post by fermi »

I'd preferably do not allow aoe missiles that way, but rockets. Make them straightforward (not aiming) with a distance of ~2km, then they are 'some kind of artillery' to shoot with. Since bbr's are pretty slow, that would get them into big trouble. Maybe bbr would not have any chance at all, so this might get this game out of balance... and reduce bombruns. Even if it does not even kill bbr, i would be afraid of the area effect for all the poor scouts.
The price for that rockets must be proportional to that power it carries out.
Last edited by fermi on Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
madpeople
Posts: 4787
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:00 am
Location: England

Post by madpeople »

we already have rockets, they are missiles that cant turn.

the rest of your post is about balance issues - something for core developers to worry about if they choose to add AOE to any missiles atall.
Post Reply