reaperrr
18.07.2010, 02:57:04
Maybe I'm wrong, but I've got the impression some people don't really understand what #914 is about (not all that suprising since both the title and the explanation by the requester are rather confusing and complicated), so I'll try to explain it a bit clearer just in case.
It basically requests a tag to control "how easy am I to hit" for units, as opposed to "how inaccurate am I" for weapons.
This is a sensible request in my opinion, because with the current system an inaccurate weapon shows the same level of inaccuracy against every target (unless it's a building that's bigger than 1x1, of course).
If you think about it, that's totally unrealistic. let's say you have an inaccurate weapon that can miss the targeted point by up to two meters. Is that enough to miss a soldier? Sure. Is that enough to miss a terror drone? Yeah. Is that enough to miss a tank that measures 2x3x7 meters? Um, well yeah, but chances of missing it are much lower. Is that enough to miss a giant battle fortress 5 meters high, 10 meters wide and 20 meters long? Or an enormous Aircraft carrier? Uhh... not really.
But to the RA2/YR engine, they ARE all the same. The game only cares how far away from the center point of the unit/infantry the impact happened, aspects like size are not considered at all.
So the request is a tag like this:
HitChanceMultiplier=fp
This controls the probability of being hit by an inaccurate projectile. The BallisticScatter of the attacking inaccurate weapon is divided by that value, so 2.0 would cut the inaccuracy in half, 0.5 would double it.
This way, you could make huge units much easier to hit than infantry for example. This would allow for a more realistic and fine-grained "hitablility" control.
Mind you, it won't mean the end of the world to me if this issue dies, it's just that I don't like to see an issue die only because half of the voters didn't even fully understand the basic idea behind it.
It basically requests a tag to control "how easy am I to hit" for units, as opposed to "how inaccurate am I" for weapons.
This is a sensible request in my opinion, because with the current system an inaccurate weapon shows the same level of inaccuracy against every target (unless it's a building that's bigger than 1x1, of course).
If you think about it, that's totally unrealistic. let's say you have an inaccurate weapon that can miss the targeted point by up to two meters. Is that enough to miss a soldier? Sure. Is that enough to miss a terror drone? Yeah. Is that enough to miss a tank that measures 2x3x7 meters? Um, well yeah, but chances of missing it are much lower. Is that enough to miss a giant battle fortress 5 meters high, 10 meters wide and 20 meters long? Or an enormous Aircraft carrier? Uhh... not really.
But to the RA2/YR engine, they ARE all the same. The game only cares how far away from the center point of the unit/infantry the impact happened, aspects like size are not considered at all.
So the request is a tag like this:
HitChanceMultiplier=fp
This controls the probability of being hit by an inaccurate projectile. The BallisticScatter of the attacking inaccurate weapon is divided by that value, so 2.0 would cut the inaccuracy in half, 0.5 would double it.
This way, you could make huge units much easier to hit than infantry for example. This would allow for a more realistic and fine-grained "hitablility" control.
Mind you, it won't mean the end of the world to me if this issue dies, it's just that I don't like to see an issue die only because half of the voters didn't even fully understand the basic idea behind it.
Darkstorm Wrote:Which has its uses, just not enough uses, inaccurate=yes seems to be fine in making weapons inaccurate to the correct degree.I disagree, more fine-grained control over inaccuracy is incredibly useful in my eyes. The fact that BallisticScatter is a global value has been giving me headaches for ages, I'm really glad that one is already assigned. I only hope it won't take until 1.0, but I'm going off-topic here so I'll stop now.