Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: Zacam on June 01, 2011, 07:25:15 pm
-
As you know (or not), we (the FSU) have been working through quite a lot of stuff. It's taking its time and there is a lot of it, but rest assured, it's going to be worth it.
While you all have been waiting, you'll have noticed (or not) that I put screenshots up of both the Medusa and Boanerges. (Yay!) What wasn't covered though, were some changes made in the POF, which is what I'd like to discuss now.
In the Image I pasted together below, you can see the arrangement of the old "Retail" Secondary firing points and the proposed (and current) New Secondary firing points.
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m634/Zacam/Public/Loadout.png)
This was done in order to visually match each model, to their respective Capacity allotments in the Retail Tables. In the case of the Boanerges, the first "Bank" in the table has less capacity than the remaining two banks. But the retail model put the firing point for the third bank (the same capacity as the second bank) above the cockpit, making the visual representation of the loadout awkward to try and explain.
Same with the Medusa. Bank 1 has less capacity than either Banks 2 and 3 (which are evenly matched) but the bank firing slots suggested (to me at any rate) that they were identical. And rather than mucking about the tables to re-oder, or cause imbalance by altering capacities more evenly, it was decided to re-orrder the firing points and their bank assignments.
The capacities are still identical, so balance wise nothing has changed. Merely the representation of where they come from is altered slightly to make for a more visually balanced Loadout selection screen.
But rather than just spring this on people and have lot's of hair pulling and name calling, I figured I'd just get that out of the way now if there is to be any -before- we get close to tightening up the ship for the stormy waters of Release. (Relax, that's still quite a ways away still, sadly. We just have too much awesome to work with!)
Discuss, but politely please. If you're only comment can be summed up as "This is a stupid issue to have", I'll point out that this is not GenDisc and you can go there instead.
-
so long as it can pew pew then it werks fer me
-
Not complaining, as long as it makes functional sense then I see no issue with it.
-
The Boa's firing points should at least match up with the holes on the texture. I like how the Medusa's banks have been balanced so that one is no longer exclusively on one side. Good work though :yes:
-
Woah there. This is definitely balance changing, albeit not by much. Perhaps release as a separate pack, a la the table "fix" project a while back?
-
I'm a bit worried about the Medua's change in particular. Although I have no idea why [V] would put the 1st and 2nd banks on their sides (laziness or design [perhaps they figured that a bomb wouldn't look fit when split into 2 smaller chunks.]), splitting the first firing point in two would affect gameplay and balance. Although the mediavps is a mod, many campaigns are dependent on it and will continue to be because it acts as an upgrade to retail. For these reasons, I wouldn't want the firing points in the mediavps to be changed. However, I would encourage an optional vp that includes these changes just like the 'No Animated' vp.
But if the firing points do change without it being optional, I won't complain. It might take a bit longer to familiarize myself with it, but it looks like it'll be easier to use and, perhaps, less frustrating.
EDIT: ninja'd :(
-
I would like to know exactly how much of a gameplay and balance change we are talking about.
-
Cool, Not sure why this would have all that big of an effect on balancing and question the whole make it a separate VP thing.
The capacities are still identical, so balance wise nothing has changed. Merely the representation of where they come from is altered slightly to make for a more visually balanced Loadout selection screen.
-
I don't really think this is necessary. After all, the missiles are huge anyway and some don't even through in the holes (you have a dirty mind). Linking the number of firepoints to the capacity seems a little pointless.
-
The only balance issue comes down to symmetrical fire. For example, when you're flying something like a Valkyrie, and you pump some Furies out in twin-fire mode, they shoot out of both sides, making it a bit easier to aim, and hit fighters. The Athena on the other hand has completely segregated banks, so each weapon bank will only fire from one side or the other, but never both at the same time. The changes to the 2 ships in question result in fire-point mirroring, so that in twin-fire mode, you'll get symmetrical fire. That's all it comes down to.
-
Yep. Though after checking the wiki, it's not so bad since neither ship can carry Tempests.
-
I have to say those used to bug me a little. The Artemis(es) had the small 'self-defense' bank fire from the little holes on the outside of the 'intakes', but the Boa didn't do that with the overhead bay(another reason to subconsciously dislike it? :P).
I think I just handwaved the Medusa's issue away by supposing there might be some large internal component on the right 'pod' taking up space where extra missile capacity was on the left 'pod'.
-
Seems like a lot of research was made in this matter, from what I can see in the images the new changes make a lot of sence, so I'm kinda supporting this.
-
Supporting too. Like mentioned above, neither of those ships can carry tempests in retail, so balance alteration is virtually non-existent. Mods that would give em dumbfires are that, mods, and hence they have the power to alter the firing points back to retail config if they wish so.
-
Any chance of getting them to match up with the actual missile ports?
-
Yeah, if this is just for aspect-types, especially bombs, moving the points a foot or two shouldn't really affect anything.
-
I support this. Zacam clearly put some thought into the banks, and changing the banks doesn't change important variables like how many missiles you can fire at one time, etc. They're for aspect-seeking bombs, so bank placement matters less than it would for dumbfires. Finally, the bank shuffling makes logical sense and doesn't affect gameplay the way it would if, for example, you shuffled around the firing points for the Ursa's two primary banks.
Finally, it is A-1 SUPAR that Zacam posted a thread about this before release. :yes:
-
I'm a big fan of this change and definitely support it.
-
I like this because of tempests, but if the bomb/missile is a seeker, it really doesn't make much difference imho.
-
I like this because of tempests, but if the bomb/missile is a seeker, it really doesn't make much difference imho.
that's the idea, that it makes no difference is a key factor to being an aceptable change.
-
Any chance of getting them to match up with the actual missile ports?
Just spamming this until it's at least acknowledged. Missiles coming out of blank spaces in the Boa's hull is more noticeable than bank placement, and as long as you're moving stuff around you might as well have a firing point per hole in the texture.
-
At least when looking at the front of the ship it is. But if that's to be done then every fighter and bomber would need to have this done, and I think there's a 25 point limit to the number of secondary ports a ship can have, the
Myrmidon and Perseus (28) I can think of right off the bat would exceed that number.
Actually the Myrmidon has 24 points so it could be done.
As far as I can tell only the Perseus exceeds 25 points... :wtf:
-
This really only affects people who are observant enough to notice the inconsistency between bank capacity and the number missile slots per bank and be annoyed by it. A "Sure, why not?" change if you will.
-
Potential balance implication:
Weapon placement greatly influences how easy it is to hit targets with dumbfire weapons; particularly when linked.
Example situation:
The player wants to destroy a turret with a pair of Trebuchets at close range, without waiting for a lock.
The following secondaries, compatible with these bombers, can be dumbfired:
EMP Adv, Hornet, Tornado, Trebuchet, Piranha, Infyrno
(EDIT: Corrected list.)
-
Rockeye and Stiletto II can't be dumbfired, they'll look for a target upon firing.
Tornado and Hornet are completely useless when dumbfired, especially the former.
Neither Piranha nor Infyrno need to actually hit anything to cause damage.
Using Trebs at close range isn't ussualy an usefull tactic, since you should rather move away and then fire from long range.
EMP Adv. has a short lock time and dumbfiring it is a great way to get EMPed yourself.
-
Eh Trebuchets at point-blank have helped me out once in a while.
-
I agree, that's one tactic that could be usefull in a tight situation, but it shouldn't be difficult to adapt to a new layout.
-
I think the problem is that it may be too easy to adapt to. Make a ship slightly more useful can cause larger changes in balance overall.
-
If you're firing Trebs at close range without lock, you have to be really close, where bank placement stops to matter.
-
I think it matters more at close range, since bombers are so wide.
-
Thank you for the lively and polite conversation on the issue. I appreciate both the encouragements and the concerns. I'll attempt to address some of them here.
... and I think there's a 25 point limit to the number of secondary ports a ship can have...
Correct, to a point. That's 25 points -per bank-. Maximum of 3 Primary Banks and 4 Secondary Banks. (Currently, as of the time of this message)
Example situation:
The player wants to destroy a turret with a pair of Trebuchets at close range, without waiting for a lock.
Which the player already could do anyway. In the case of the Boanerges, one could dumb-fire from the top above-canopy fire points, but they would end up sacrificing carrying more Helios/Cyclops/whatever because that was Bank 3 (one of the larger banks load-out wise) instead of Bank 1. And again, it's mostly a question of visual aesthetic.
Point is, that each of the banks in question still carry exactly the same amount of weapons as they did before. The order of how the banks are associated to displaying on the model, and from where the weapons come out from, was altered a -slightly- as possible to allow for correcting that and provided a balanced, operational and sensible aesthetic.
There are (afaik) no other ships where this issue needs to be addressed, save for perhaps one of the Shivan bombers, because all the rest are either already adequately balanced firing point wise, or the firing points are balanced but the capacities are not, which cannot be addressed without breaking balance.
So yes, in terms of being able to (in the case of Boanerges) load-out the above-canopy with some point-fire Trebs and use your two larger banks to better effective capacity -might- be considered balance altering...BUT only if you consider the load-out from the AESTHETIC perspective. Again, you still have a 40/100/100 arrangement. Most people will put their bigger bombs (especially on a cap ships run) on the larger capacity banks. It just now visually lines up better, is all.
I did think long and hard, and engage in several arguments and discussions with Quantum Delta, MatthTheGeek and General Battuta, to name just a few. And there was plenty and plenty of play testing done as well. And the general feel is that, while it could still be a contested issues, it's not a game breaking issue, and also, since it doesn't rely on table edits to achieve, any hard-core purists can open PCS2, re-point the firing points to their original bank configurations, and be happy without invalidating their data. (afaik)
I just figured that it would be a good idea (for a change) to present the "issue" before hand, rather than have an explosive flame fest from people discovering it and not expecting it. I still intend for these changes to go through into the next MediaVPs unless a clear, decisive and concrete reason why NOT to manages to present itself.
Any chance of getting them to match up with the actual missile ports?
And yeah, I can probably fiddle the Boanerges to line up to firing points a bit better. My only concern is that having some of them too close on a linked fire may lead to a bomb-in-a-bomb issue. I'll post updates on that when they happen.
-
Since we're only concerned about the retail FS2 campaign(as said, mod-makers can always revert the firing points for their mods if needed), how many missions is the Boa really available in? Slaying Ravana, the 64th Raptors missions, and possibly the last few missions with the Blue Lions. The Trebuchet doesn't even become available until you're with the Vasudans(first mentioned in Bearbaiting's briefing), so that just leaves the very last missions of the FS2 campaign as possible concerns(I don't remember for sure, which, if any, let you fly bombers at all).
EDIT: I'm sure there are MP missions where it could come into play, but as mentioned above, it's not letting you do anything you couldn't do in some form or another, anyway.
-
Correct, to a point. That's 25 points -per bank-. Maximum of 3 Primary Banks and 4 Secondary Banks. (Currently, as of the time of this message)
Works for me.
-
I just figured that it would be a good idea (for a change) to present the "issue" beforehand, rather than have an explosive flame fest from people discovering it and not expecting it.
Much appreciated. Thanks. :yes:
-
Thanks Zacam for the polite heads up on this!
To me, it's guys like him who are thoughtfull about engaging the community in something like this in a civil manner about a change they feel needs to be brought forth.
Thumbs up!
-
For what it's worth, I don't really have a problem with this, though i also don't see why it was neccesarry to change it. I guess it's more logical this way, but maybe there was a reason for the placement we don't know about? It's possible.
Anyway, the baance changes will, I expect, be minimal, and if it makes people happy... support, I suppose.
-
(if I weren't lazy I would do the following myself)
We should probably rig up some missions testing bomb intercept rates with the new firepoints vs. the old ones. Two bombs coming from different sides of the ship are meaningfully harder to shoot down than two bombs from the same bank.
-
Changing secondary firepoints would definitely be an issue with tempests, since it would have a fairly major effect on dogfighting ability, but in this case that isn't an issue. That dumbfired trebs might originate in a slightly different location will only really matter against capships, and since mediaVPs already alter the locations of many turrets from their retail positions (which is a whole different issue, but never mind that here), that's hardly going to make a difference. So as far as I'm concerned, go ahead with this - no harm done :)
[Edit] Battuta does bring up a good point. At least for the Medusa, the altered firepoints would mean significantly greater spacing between bombs on a double launch, and it might make them harder to deal with.
-
We should probably rig up some missions testing bomb intercept rates with the new firepoints vs. the old ones. Two bombs coming from different sides of the ship are meaningfully harder to shoot down than two bombs from the same bank.
[Edit] Battuta does bring up a good point. At least for the Medusa, the altered firepoints would mean significantly greater spacing between bombs on a double launch, and it might make them harder to deal with.
Already done, in addition to testing all (albeit FS2) missions where Medusa's are present, either by player choice or by AI control.
And while they are spaced out more in terms of a double-fire, not significantly so. In fact, while they are both able to be shot, you no longer have the fact that shooting one pretty much automagically guarantees that you've shot the other. But, unless you have aggressive logging turned on, it's also REALLY damn hard to actually SPOT the difference, depending on your shooting style. AI also has no issue with doing bomb intercepts from either deployment configuration either.
Changing secondary firepoints would definitely be an issue with tempests, since it would have a fairly major effect on dogfighting ability, but in this case that isn't an issue. That dumbfired trebs might originate in a slightly different location will only really matter against capships, and since mediaVPs already alter the locations of many turrets from their retail positions (which is a whole different issue, but never mind that here), that's hardly going to make a difference. So as far as I'm concerned, go ahead with this - no harm done :)
Quantum Delta's first question in regards to the Medusa change was to ask if it could carry Tempests. :D So that was something I was very much aware of when I considered this change. It's mostly the splitting of the firing points for banks 1 and 2 that make the most difference for the Medusa as Bank 3 was already split. And granted, it doesn't even need to happen, it -is- just a nitpick on my part, but it has so far turned out to being a really un-noticeable in terms of balance impact, even with the Boanerges. (Though admittedly, I never really flew the Boanerges much before). Especially in the case of the Boanerges, the layout is still the same. It's just the order of them is now different, so dual firing from any of the banks still depends on what exactly is loaded into those banks, period.
In any case, again, I like that we're having this conversation, and if there becomes a serious and strenuous case to be made, or a concrete reason, then it just won't happen. And since it's not a table based edit, if anybody individually -really- has a serious objection, I will be -more- than happy to link to "Retail" configured firing point models.
-
All these changes look fine to me, you have my blessing to proceed
-
I have an alternate idea, which I already discussed with Zacam who told me to post it here. Basically, instead of each bank having separate firing slots, all three banks would use every single firing slot on the model. Basically, Duplicate all the firing points into each "bank" so that they are all used equally and interchangeably.
-
Hmm. I'm not sure I like that idea. On the Medusa, random fire pointing makes tempest spam a lot harder, since you can't predict where the missiles will come from. On the boanerges, firing bombs would look weird if you shot a dual with one from the dorsal bank and one from a side bank.
-
I agree with Kolgena, the concept would absolutely murder times where you rely on a certian bank for certain firepoints, such as tempests on the Madusa's inner firepoints for better accuracy vs bombs on the outside to reduce the odds of both being shot down. While I both understand and like the bank/firepoint rearrangement, I don't think having all banks fireing from everywhere would work.
-
Except neither the Boa nor Medusa use Tempest, everything it uses is homing, be it by heat or aspect, as already said by the OP.
All missiles, including bombs, also converge on their target, effectively bunching up anyway, and considering the outside missile points on the Medusa tend to get used by bombs anyway, I really don't see the argument there.
-
It would look fine for the Medusa, since one of its banks comes out of both sides anyway. For the Boa, the top bank needs to come from the top only, because as Kolgena said it will be weird otherwise. The side banks can be combined though.
-
I'd rather the changes Zacam was showing on the OP be used instead of having every bank use every port.
-
Personally I would prefer the layouts in the OP if change is going to be made. All banks using all firepoints would suggest that the missiles were loaded at random rather than in any kind of order, which you would normally expect.
Also how are firing points handled when bank switching, will the game revert to firepoint 1 each time the player switches banks? if so that would look really odd
-
I don't understand the reason for making banks share firing points.