Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Stunaep on March 22, 2003, 06:56:15 am
-
For pete's sake, make it an option, or turn it down entirely (preferably an option, since LM3 is balanced for beams not piercing shields), but
beams
must
pierce
shields.
It's cool. It makes FS2 main campaign actually challenging. it's logical (why not make a frickkin' big laser blob instead of beams? because beams can pierce shields - therefore bye-bye lucy).
Put the beams back the way they were. Puhleaaase?
*makes cute puppy face*
-
I know it seems like a gameplay issue, but I'm curious - with what we know about FS2-style shields and the various types of beams (do Terrans/Vasudans/Shivans all actually have beams which work fundamentally the same way?) - would it make sense for beams to puncture shields or not?
If you're desperate to get your shield-puncturing beams back, maybe you could open up a new technology into the GTVA universe... you could make conventional beams puncture shields and then have Akheton or someone develop lower-energy beams which are vastly more energy-efficient on raw hulls but are stopped by shields. Or, conventional beams could be the ones which are stopped by shields, and the same guys develop a new type of beam which is has some sort of [insert techno-jargon] which enables it to bypass the GTVA shield system (and, by extension, the Shivan shield system) altogether. That, or you could just go back to the old way ;)
-
Was this changed in the latest fs2_open? I didn't notice it yet, but if it was it should definitely be changed back. I think that any of these modifications that affect the actual gameplay need at least an option to revert to the original for backward-compatibility. (perhaps a flag in the mission files or something)
-
While I prefer shields to be able to stop beams, I think it is best to leave it disabled by default.
We have gotten used to it, and mission (both official and unofficial) balance might change, most likely to easier.
I think I read somewhere that SCP is changing it in the next release, if it is not already in. Shield piercing flag is the way to go.
-
You *could* simply change the damage multipliers on beams to make them drain the shields almost instantly. Then it would be even more challenging then before because not only will the beams punch through your shields, but then afterwards flak and fighters will have free access to your hull.
-Krom
-
I made a shield peirceing flag, so all one needs to do is make a small change in the tables and include it in the next relese
-
Suppose a command-line option, instead of a weapon or mission flag.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Suppose a command-line option, instead of a weapon or mission flag.
I think mission designers need to know how the mission will be played. What if you make a mission where a ship has no flack but lots of AAA. The outcome would be different depending on the flag and that just doesn`t seem right to me.
-
Put it back the way it was!!!
AAA beams are now worse than useless. I've taken all three hits from an anti-fighter beam and suffered a grand total of zero damage. It's terrible! Back in the old days, you couldn't get a lock on something like a Deimos because the AAAs would smack you all over the place. Now you can cruise straight up to a corvette and get off a few volleys of torpedoes before you even start to take damage. It's far too easy, as you can ignore beams as much as laser turrets, because they won't hurt you at all.
PLEASE make them good again.
-
I think it should be personal preference whether beams pierce shields or not. It should be up to the pilot, not the mission designer. That's why I suggested a command line flag - everyone would be able to play it however they wanted.
The only reason beams penetrated shields in the first place was because of a bug. And there's still a challenge in that you have to do your work quickly around the beams before your shields drop.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
I think it should be personal preference whether beams pierce shields or not. It should be up to the pilot, not the mission designer.
what? of course not! otherwise it's up to the pilot to choose the range of the maxim and the strengh of the prometheus?
the pilot plays with what we give him, period.
I think this should be a general SCP rule:
ALL MODIFICATION THAT WOULD CHANGE THE GAMEPLAY BALANCE IN ANY WAY MUST BE DISABLED BY DEFAULT.
No exception.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
I think it should be personal preference whether beams pierce shields or not. It should be up to the pilot, not the mission designer. That's why I suggested a command line flag - everyone would be able to play it however they wanted.
I disagree very strongly there. If the mission designer has designed a mission to be hard because of the presence of AAA then the mission will be a lot easier for someone who has switched it so that beams don`t penetrate shields. Now every mission designer has to test the difficult of the mission under both conditions adding to the amount of work that has to be done when it comes to play-balancing.
Secondly even if you make it a player option the first thing any mission designer who cares about this will do is edit the weapons table so that all beams have the Pierce flag on them thereby negating the players choice.
-
Originally posted by Krom
You *could* simply change the damage multipliers on beams to make them drain the shields almost instantly. Then it would be even more challenging then before because not only will the beams punch through your shields, but then afterwards flak and fighters will have free access to your hull.
I agree with what people say here, beams not piercing the shields makes it a lot easier. So Krom's idea of draining the shields at an accelerated rate might make for a more thrilling ride. It would be even more realistic than piercing the shields as the amount of power the beams generate would (In my opinion) cause shields to either overload or sustain so much damage quickly that they should drop out at a fairly quick pace.
EDIT: I was originally going to agree with Goober on the command flag, but I see venom and karajoma's point.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Now every mission designer has to test the difficult of the mission under both conditions adding to the amount of work that has to be done when it comes to play-balancing.
:wtf: No they don't. Mission designers generally don't test their work on all five levels of difficulty, do they?
Secondly even if you make it a player option the first thing any mission designer who cares about this will do is edit the weapons table so that all beams have the Pierce flag on them thereby negating the players choice.
More than likely they won't bother. And anyway the source can be designed to prevent this.
Originally posted by venom2506
what? of course not! otherwise it's up to the pilot to choose the range of the maxim and the strengh of the prometheus?
No, the purpose of this is to correct a bug in the original, but leave people the option to circumvent it if they choose (or vice versa; see below).
I think this should be a general SCP rule:
ALL MODIFICATION THAT WOULD CHANGE THE GAMEPLAY BALANCE IN ANY WAY MUST BE DISABLED BY DEFAULT.
But this is a valid point.
Howabout this. Put the beams back to shield-piercing by default, but make a command-line flag that will cause the beams not to pierce shields.
This is as convoluted an example of "it's not a bug, it's a feature" I've ever seen. ;)
-
Bad, bad idea. :ick.
Don't change anything by default that screws with gameplay balance. Otherwise you change everything from the earliest [V] mission. If it was, as you said, a bug, then Volition would have fixed it. I'd say any gameplay affecting bugs, if they were adopted and worked into mission balance for the entire [V] campaign then they leave the realm of bughood and reach into featureness.
[edit] Goob beat me too it. Definitely do something like that. (I think though, that there will be an extra line in all future campaign readmes (I know there will be one for TI) "This campaign is balanced for shield piercing beams. Taking this out makes the campaign easier and will probably take away from the overall experience. We strongly advise against it" - or something to that effect).
-
I'd rather go with the weapon tag thinguy, that way, you can have both shield piercing and non piercing beams in the same mission.
-
definately a command line option would be in order. LM3 is balanced for beams not piercing shields
-
I said this on the other thread too but what we need is a no-pierce shield flag.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
definately a command line option would be in order. LM3 is balanced for beams not piercing shields
well OTT uses shield piercing beams. what would give any campaign the hand over another, I ask you?
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
definately a command line option would be in order. LM3 is balanced for beams not piercing shields
Yes but the problem is that almost every other campaign isn`t. So everyone else has to tell all their users exactly how to disable shields not piercing shields for everyone who downloads their campaign.
This is why I say that we need a flag for this. You could alter the weapons table in 5 minutes to work for all people playing your campaign.
-
weapon flag is goooood. A no-pierce flag would solve all of the problems very quickly, with default piercing beams.
-
Table-mods aren't flexible enough. I believe it should be a mission-tag, with no tag defaulting to beams piercing, so as to keep backwards compatability
-
or you could readjust the weapons beams to have higher shield piercing power. It is a little work but is worth it believe me. I love the new sheild effects. Also maybe a emp effect in beams would be kinda interesting. such as when you approach a ship and get hit by a beam your weapons system goes whack:losing its target lock.
-
ALL MODIFICATION THAT WOULD CHANGE THE GAMEPLAY BALANCE IN ANY WAY MUST BE DISABLED BY DEFAULT.
This pretty much sums up my take on these issues. The beams are now far, far less effective than they used to be since they do not actually do all that much damage in comparison to other things; their key strength earlier was that they could hit the hull directly. Perhaps it was a bug, but almost all of the missions out there (including those of the main FS2 campaign) have been designed with shield-piercing beams taken into account for balance, so changing this by default would create a total mess. Put in the table flag or mission flag instead.
I made a shield peirceing flag, so all one needs to do is make a small change in the tables and include it in the next relese
What is this flag? is it implemented in 3.51?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Yes but the problem is that almost every other campaign isn`t. So everyone else has to tell all their users exactly how to disable shields not piercing shields for everyone who downloads their campaign.
This is why I say that we need a flag for this. You could alter the weapons table in 5 minutes to work for all people playing your campaign.
why not just have a command-line option that would make beams not pierce shields, when turned on?
-
Just to make it clear to you all.
Beams Should Pierce Sheilds Unless They Really Must Not For Gameplay And Balance Reasons. It Should Be On A Per-Mission Basis, With A Flag In FRED.
-
why not just have a command-line option that would make beams not pierce shields, when turned on?
For the same reasons stated earlier; the mission designer decides how the gameplay works, not the player, or else the balance would be completely thrown off (see what venom said earlier). Besides, if your campaign uses shield-damaging beams, it shouldn't take you more than a minute to set whatever flag they put in on the beams in weapons.tbl.
Beams Should Not Pierce Sheilds Unless They Really Must For Gameplay And Balance Reasons. It Shold Be On A Per-Mission Basis, With A Flag In FRED.
Which is the case in almost all of the missions. :p The issue here is whether or not they should have to punch through shields by default when no setting is specified, and this is where many of us are giving an emphatic "no," because it needs to remain compatible with the existing missions that are not going to have further revisions (e.g. the FS2 campaign).
Besides, the beams totally suck now; you have to make them like three times as powerful to be of any use. :p
-
Originally posted by Fry_Day
Table-mods aren't flexible enough. I believe it should be a mission-tag, with no tag defaulting to beams piercing, so as to keep backwards compatability
Have both. That give the FREDder much more control. It goes like this
Default - beams pierce shields
Table - No Pierce flag - Any beam with this flag set will not pierce shields regardless of the mission Tag (i.e it's a pretty weak beam)
Table - Pierce - Any Beam with this flag will always pierce shields.
Mission Tag - all beams (except those with the No Pierce flag) will now pierce shields.
Best of both worlds really.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Just to make it clear to you all.
Beams Should Not Pierce Sheilds Unless They Really Must For Gameplay And Balance Reasons. It Shold Be On A Per-Mission Basis, With A Flag In FRED.
no, that's the exact opposite, and you can write it as big as you want I don't care. if nobody notices, that is creating a serious fuss, and most people are not happy with the change. so it has to come back the original way, PERIOD.
-
ALL MODIFICATION THAT WOULD CHANGE THE GAMEPLAY BALANCE IN ANY WAY MUST BE DISABLED BY DEFAULT.
I very much agree with that. Especially on this issue. Though rather than a command line option I'd prefer a little box to tick in FRED under mission properties that would then determine if beams pierce shields or not for that mission. Mission designer definitely would need some control over it in order to properly balance his mission.
-
What kind of pathetic beam is it that you last long enough to notice whether it's hitting your shields or not, anyway?
-
Anti Fighter beams (AAA). They're utterly pathetic vs shields, so unless all of them are altered they might as well not exist if they are blocked by shields. Beams are so bad vs shields, in fact, that I imagine you could even survive direct hits from heavy beams like BGreens and the like (you're actually not automatically killed if hit by one of those, they just kill you really, really fast due to insane hull damage. Even without shields blocking beams, it's actually possible, just barely, to live through a hit from an LTerSlash in an Ares, though you'll come out at 20% hull or so).
-
Mission designers choice, i don't liek command lines i just rather tick a box in fred to enable/disable it. Allthough it should be turned off by default as i made some insane fast firing AAF beams with prety high damage ad it took ages to kill a Taurvi bomber with almost constant fire! I kill stuff faster then a beam can do:)
-
I think it would be best to have a flag in the .tbl file
That way all would be happy. You can have a shield piercing and a standard version of all beams.
-
there is a table flag,
jeese, if you can't be bothered to add it to the origonal tables, wich is the only place were this is an issue, I just spent five seconds and did it for you here (http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/shield_pierce_weapons.zip)
now assuming that I commited the change corectly that should solve the problem :)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
there is a table flag,
jeese, if you can't be bothered to add it to the origonal tables, wich is the only place were this is an issue, I just spent five seconds and did it for you here (http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/shield_pierce_weapons.zip)
now assuming that I commited the change corectly that should solve the problem :)
"gives Bob a... hermmmm...a HLP Awards ( :D )!!!"
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
there is a table flag,
jeese, if you can't be bothered to add it to the origonal tables, wich is the only place were this is an issue, I just spent five seconds and did it for you here (http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/shield_pierce_weapons.zip)
now assuming that I commited the change corectly that should solve the problem :)
What did you do?
I just ran a CVS update and didn't notice anything different.
-
that's becase I did it weeks ago, seeing as nobody seems to have tryed the flag I was worried that maybe they did and it didn't work becase there version of FSO was from before I commited the change or I didn't commit it like i thought I had
look in you're copy for WIF2_PIERCE it should show up in the weapons damage code the beam colision code and the weapons parseing code at the least
-
Hmm.
I think we should still make an optional command-line flag to override that, at the user's option, because I see it as more a difficulty thing rather than a balance thing.
Perhaps we could do it this way:
--beams ignore shields by default
--there can be a "no pierce" flag in the table
--there can also be a command-line option that makes all beams non-piercing regardless of their table entry
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Hmm.
I think we should still make an optional command-line flag to override that, at the user's option, because I see it as more a difficulty thing rather than a balance thing.
Perhaps we could do it this way:
--beams ignore shields by default
--there can be a "no pierce" flag in the table
--there can also be a command-line option that makes all beams non-piercing regardless of their table entry
sure, all I want is the shield piercing by default, so tha's fine with me. and as there's all the options there, well, that should be fine with everybody :).
-
I really don't think a command line option is the way to go. As your poll thread in GenFS indicates, Goober, people want this in the control of the mission designer if it is going to be a toggleable thing, or else their mission design process goes into the toilet.
However, if I may repeat my suggestion from that thread, I would point out that the problem is not that we don't want beams to damage shields, but that we don't want the hull not to be damaged. Therefore:
Have beams damage the hull directly and damage shields, simultaneously.
We get what we want, shields damaged by beams, without giving up anything we want to keep insofar as hull damage is concerned. And I don't think this will have a major effect on play balance: sure it will make things a bit harder, but not that much, especially if the beam effect on shields is currently so weak as to cause this issue to come into existence in the first place.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
no, that's the exact opposite, and you can write it as big as you want I don't care. if nobody notices, that is creating a serious fuss, and most people are not happy with the change. so it has to come back the original way, PERIOD.
I actually meant that they should. I was very tired last night.
I will edit the post to prove this.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian in the GenFS thread on this issue
Okay, since I am quite serious about my proposal, I've done the math for it to see how it would pan out. Here are my results:
All AAA beams apply damage to hull and shields at an equal rate, so the difference in how powerful an AAA is against a fighter with or without shield piercing is dependent on the shields of the fighter. So I took a sample set of ships from the table to see how they would be affected by my proposal.
Seth:
580 shields
280 HP
860 Total
Therefore, the beam is 1.32 times as powerful against a Seth as before.
Myrmidon:
390 shields
290 HP
680 Total
Therefore, the beam is 1.42 times as powerful against the Myrmidon as before.
Boanerges:
850 shields
325 HP
1175 Total
Therefore, the beam is 1.27 times as powerful against the Boanerges as before.
Mara:
620 shields
200 HP
820 Total
Therefore, the beam is 1.24 times as powerful against the Mara as before.
Seraphim:
1600 shields
500 HP
2100 Total
Therefore, the beam is 1.31 times as powerful against the Seraphim as before.
By the above sample set, my proposal will increase the brute effectiveness of AAA beams to an average of 131% of their original level.
HOWEVER, that number is somewhat misleading. An AAA will kill the fighter no more quickly or slowly than before. It means only that for a short time after being hit by the beam, the fighter will be more open to fighter fire from others. But since all fighters are affected in this way, in exact proportion to their individual number of shield hit points, the overall play balance remains UNCHANGED.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
I actually meant that they should. I was very tired last night.
I will edit the post to prove this.
hehe, sorry, then :p
-
It seems most logical that we go for a TBL solution, then. A command line option is far less flexible and not conducive to the already excellent TBL system. And having an anti-shield tag on beams allows old campaigns and the original campaign to retain their balancing, meaning that it only affects new campaigns. Makes perfect sense.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
hehe, sorry, then :p
Fear not, oh venomous one, 'twas my fault really.
-
The problem is fixed, correct? There is a tag to make beams pierce, and there is Bobbau's table with the tag on all the basic beams. Hence, problem solved.
If you still wish to argue the point until you manage to piss off everyone, TAKE A SEDATIVE AND CALM DOWN. Thank you, and have a nice day.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The problem is fixed, correct? There is a tag to make beams pierce, and there is Bobbau's table with the tag on all the basic beams. Hence, problem solved.
If you still wish to argue the point until you manage to piss off everyone, TAKE A SEDATIVE AND CALM DOWN. Thank you, and have a nice day.
You haven`t thought this through. Bobboau may have done a table for standard FS2 but suppose I download Deralict. I`ll have to go through and edit the table myself.
Suppose I then download the Aeos Affair. I`ll have to edit the table myself. (assuming that both these campaigns don`t use default weapons)
Unless we get a central repository for these edited tables EVERYONE who downloads a campaign that wasn`t written with this in mind will have to edit the tables.
Are you volenteering Bobboau (or yourself) to make a table for every single campaign that doesn`t use default weapons?
-
This is annoying. :doubt: Patience, everyone. I'll do a switch soon as I finish posting. Should take me all of five minutes. :rolleyes:
-
tell you what, if you give me all the tables you are worried about I'll fix them and upload them to my VW FTP and you can link to it, it is realy a five second fix, and five seconds X 20 major campains = less than two minutes
I implemented the shield pierceing flag the way I did to make it easy for future moders makeing weapons. rather than haveing a flag for shield peirceing, and the lack there of, for diferen't types of weapons I simply had one flag determine the state the same way for all weapons,
:sigh:
so how about a mission flag that if is there will enable beams to hit shields, by defalt in new fred3.5.1+ editions will generate this flag by defalt (as in you can turn it off if you want to) so older mission files will not have the flag and thus beams won't hit shields, newer ones will...
:rolleyes:
I can already hear people asking "why won't my beams hit shields, I thought you fixed that!?!"
-
Here, I fixed it just now. It's back to the way it was, by default, but I hardly changed anything.
For the laymen, any weaon whose table entry includes "pierce shields" will pierce shields, just like the classical beams. Beams themselves pierce shields by default now, unless their table entry includes a "no pierce shields" flag. On the other hand, using the command-line argument -nobeampierce overrides the entire thing and beams will not ever pierce shields. This is for those who will use it as a difficulty setting.
For coders (Bobboau in particular), the way I did that was to add the pierce flag at the same time as the beam flag. If "beam" was found in the flag list, not only was WIF_BEAM added but WIF2_PIERCE was added as well. Where you added the test for "pierce shields" I added a test for "no pierce shields", and if that came true, I unset the pierce flag. Then at the end of all that, I had the command line thing override it if necessary.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Here, I fixed it just now. It's back to the way it was, by default, but I hardly changed anything.
For the laymen, any weaon whose table entry includes "pierce shields" will pierce shields, just like the classical beams. Beams themselves pierce shields by default now, unless their table entry includes a "no pierce shields" flag. On the other hand, using the command-line argument -nobeampierce overrides the entire thing and beams will not ever pierce shields. This is for those who will use it as a difficulty setting.
Looks like you covered all the bases to me. :yes:
-
You know what folks.
Not EVERYTHING will be backwards compatible, in all areas. Goober was able to make it so here (presuming you have no other complaints) but you cannot have you cake and eat it too.
Some things, especially user made campaigns, will NOT be backwards compatible and will be up to the mod authors to make them useable with fs2_open. Also, as new technology is emplyed, EXPECT system requirements to increase. You cannot have you cake and eat it too.
Existing campaigns might want to use the released fs2 exe. In development projects (like TBP), are fluid enough (and have coders on staff here) to be able to adjust themselves or us.
Every effort is being made to ensure backwards compatibility with the MAIN FS2 campaign, and, we DO rely on you to tell us when something goes kablooey, but, we are not your *****es, please be nicer about it. We're in this together.
No, this is not directed at anyone in particular.
-
Well said!
By the way, for people who intend to use the "no pierce shields" like I am for SA:
Given my above mathematical calculations,
Change for all beams:
$Shield Factor: 1.0 to $Shield Factor: 3.0
Change for AAA beams:
$Armor Factor 1.0 to $Armor Factor: 1.3
in order to produce a difficulty level comparable to the original set-up.
It doesn't function just the same way (it still takes an AAA longer to kill a fighter by itself), but wreaking such damage on the shields makes it very vulnerable to other forms of weaponry, so that the total effect is just as scary as the original.
-
Ummm, this may seem like a stupid question, but why was it ever changed in the first place?:confused:
-
I'm sure I'm part of the root cause - I'm using a LOT of fighter beams in The Swarm War (cuz they look better and are more realistic) and they needed to hit shields to prevent you getting vapourised in a nanosecond.
I was also the one to ask Bobboau to change the code so that a fighter doesn't vapourise when destroyed. :)
-
There is another thing to consider.
fs2_open doesn't HAVE to be one size fits all. If something like this is positively required for a campaign, but optional or even undesireable for everyone else, well, that's why we have the source. It is conceivable (though perhaps not the greatest idea) that REALLY custom campaigns will have their own exe's.
Food for thought.
-
Well, so far we've been able to get it to work both ways. Look at ballistic primaries, for example. I'm optimistic that we can continue to do so in the future. :) (At the same time, I'm aware of the possibility that this eventually may not be the case.)
-
That's all I want people to think about. Some things may be mutually exclusive. And we have the code, so, that could even be "OK" :)
-
Originally posted by Inquisitor
It is conceivable that REALLY custom campaigns will have their own exe's.
:yes:
Sounds like Half-Life or UT Mods.
Like it.