Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Galemp on October 01, 2005, 05:28:08 pm
-
So, I'm trying to get the AI to use forward-mounted anticap fighterbeams properly, that is, like they would use bombs. I'm having trouble because they seem to want to turn this massively powerful weapon on fighters as well. It's no fun being fricassee'd along with my wingmates with just a glance from the enemy.
Adding the 'Huge' and 'Big Ship' tags seems to help a little, but I want to make sure this weapon is used only against large vessels.
Has anyone managed to do this successfully? If so, can we have a copy of the table entry?
Or is it only possible to get this behavior with a forward mounted turret that has a beam weapon mounted on it? That kinda defeats the purpose of fighterbeams, doesn't it?
-
A way around it would be in FRED, where You could beam-protect the enemy fighters so that the beams dont fire on them. However, this will prevent friendly anti-fighter beams from attacking them.
-
I believe this may be a variation of Mantis bug #180 (http://lore.maxgaming.net/~scp/mantis/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000180), since I assume you've got the beams as primaries with the "Huge" flag. IIRC, there's a potential conflict between when you want a weapon to be useful against capships to a degree while still balanced for fighters (a-la FS1) and the scenario that you describe. It'd probably be worth making a note in that bug to show that more than one person has run in to this and wants it resolved.
-
Thanks StratComm. I've added a bugnote.
-
Originally posted by Galemp
Thanks StratComm. I've added a bugnote.
According to Phreak it would take a lot of work to get resolved though. :blah:
-
So despite all the work that's gone into making fighterbeams into primary weapons, to get the AI to use them properly we have to have to resort to the old turret-facing-forward technique?
-
As I understand it, I think the concern of a ship not firing at its assigned target due to not having any appropriate weapons isn't an issue - it should be up to the mission/ship designer to ensure this doesn't happen. (After all, you could configure a Fenris with all SGreens then send it into a fighter melee and it'd do nothing.)
The burden should be on the user to make use of this functionality rather than writing it to accommodate the stupid. For instance, Inferno has all its bombers with a backup primary weapon for use against smaller targets, so this (presumably) wouldn't affect us...
-
Realisticly speaking, I don't see why a bomber couldn't use it's forward fixed uber-death beam against fighters...
when needs to be taken care of it's the weapons precision and charge time and such...
-
Because that's a ***** to play against. Sure, if only allied bombers use beams you won't see the issues. But the moment you give them to any hostile craft, and then proceed to get vaporized by that craft, you've got a problem with mission balance.
-
That's why such weapons have to be vastly INPRECISE against smaller targets.
-
You'll still have the issue of 1-hit kills though. It can't be resolved just by changing properties of the beam.
-
How can it be imprecise when it is fixed and forward facing? The AI automatically faces at it's target.
-
It's like Medusa's Gaze of Death. The enemy just points at each of your wingmates and they're vaporized. We need a beam targeting system that acts like bombs, that is, it can only be used against large, slow-moving targets.
-
I think that's actually been discussed before too. Beam secondaries.
-
Originally posted by Singh
A way around it would be in FRED, where You could beam-protect the enemy fighters so that the beams dont fire on them. However, this will prevent friendly anti-fighter beams from attacking them.
Can't we add a 'beam-protect-small' type flag that protects only against beams mounted as primary weapons?
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
How can it be imprecise when it is fixed and forward facing? The AI automatically faces at it's target.
AI.. make fighter suck wit hheavy beam weapons...
-
That's actually more complicated than just making them not fire. What you're proposing is almost exactly the functionality we're asking for anyway with the added complication that istead of "fire" and "don't fire" we now have to accomodate "sometimes randomly miss" which is not only completely impossible to program but also doesn't address the problem in its entirety. Nevermind that instead of JUST editing the AI we now also have to designate what weapons aren't supposed to be fired at fighters independently of some other tag. Plus it's really relevant for other weapons as well, not just beams. There's no reason to overly complicate things though, since that would actually be better accomodated to mounting the weapon on a turret anyway.
Edited for civility
-
Chill out, man. Be civil. I know you and Trash have had your arguements but there's no reason to get snippy.
-
Sorry, the snippyness is a carryover from the ID thread. Hopefully I've made the tone less hostile now.
-
here is an idea, make the beams able to hit sheilds, give them a tiny sheild factor, it'll only kill you if your sheilds are out.
-
How does the AI prioritize its weapon selection anyway? Maybe there's a way to milk that for the desired functionality without having to mess with any code. Oh, and good call, Bob :)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Can't we add a 'beam-protect-small' type flag that protects only against beams mounted as primary weapons?
StratComm's right; that'd be just as hard, but coming at the problem from the wrong angle.Originally posted by StratComm
How does the AI prioritize its weapon selection anyway? Maybe there's a way to milk that for the desired functionality without having to mess with any code.
That's exactly where the code needs to be changed. And as phreak pointed out on Mantis, it's a bit of a mess.
As I've said many times before, if you're not a coder, don't assume anything about the code or about how much work a given feature is. You'll more than likely look like an idiot and annoy us in the process. ;)
(The "you" is a generic you to the entire forum, not anyone in particular.)
-
Strat: I figured. I just came from there too, and the last thing I wanted was for that hostility to spill out of that thread.
Bob: That won't stop the enemy from targeting fighters, though, which is the problem. And it would be even more ridiculous if mere fighter shields could stand up to a beam when collapsed molybdenum armor couldn't.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
That's exactly where the code needs to be changed. And as phreak pointed out on Mantis, it's a bit of a mess.
I know, that's why I wanted to know exactly what the priority is right now. If it's "no priority" then that's fine and my theory is useless. But if ships choose what to use based on its damage against shields or whatever, then my thoughts were that making the weapon worthless against whatever they select on would make it a low priority and the AI would use more appropriate weapons when they were available. And I'd look myself if I could get CVS to work.
And I actually do understand a lot more about the coding aspect of this than most people give me credit for. I just don't have the source in front of me to look at and I sure am not going to browse through CVS in html mode. :)
-
I really can not understand why people are against the beam turrets in bombers (i mean the forward facing turret). It is a fix that at least partially solves this problem and can very easily be dubbed as bombers having a gunner that controls the main weapons (quite common even today even with strike aircrafts). Additional bonus is that you could even use slashing beams with them ;)
-
But then they aren't under AI control, or at least not directly. And AI fighters without primaries tend to do odd things.
-
I rather meant that beam bombers main weapon (i.e. the beam) could be in fully AI (the gunner) controlled turret. Pilot would still have the rest of the weapons, like few primaries and secondaries in his 'command'. Mainly like stuff needed to disable the target or to disarm the target or even to defend itself. Nothing too heavy ofcourse.
Take a modern F-15 (strike version) or other similar aircraft (like Tornado or russian's SU-27s strike version), if i have understood correctly the sensors/weapons officer (AI) controls the LGBs (atleast their targetting) and stuff like that while the pilot controls among other weapons the AAMs (secondaries) and what ever gatling/autocannon (primaries) they have on the aircraft (ok, he should atleast also control the release of the LGBs, but that is not the issue).
Like what SadisticSid said about Inferno's beam bombers (if i understood what he ment)
-
What I would like to see (which in no way means it's going to get implemented, unless someone else likes the idea)...
1) Beams aren't totally accurate. They randomly fire slightly up, down, left, right, etc. So the only reliable way you'll hit a fighter with an anti-cap beam is at close range. This would be settable on a per-weapon basis.
2) "Get the hell out of the way" AI support. Instead of simply sitting there, the AI reacts to things like beam cannons powering up to fire straight at them. This would also be handy for the Inferno mission. ;)
3) Reprioritization for beam primaries. They're used if a ship is in immediate danger of being destroyed, and hasn't been ordered to attack its target too strongly.
4) Splash damage realization. The AI understands that if it fires a beam that's five meters wide, and there's a friendly ship inside that five meter diameter, it'll get hit.
-
Mmm, slashing beam bombers. I'll have to try that next time I hack my Colossus II (Fenris with 1478072482 BFReds) mission.