[WMCoolmon]

Well, I prefer the mission flag idea, I think we have enough command lines as it is. Not to mention any missions where it mattered would need serious rebalancing.

[Anaz]

IIRC in FS1 the gunners shot at 'roids, but they don't in FS2.

[WMCoolmon]

IIRC they don't use flak, beams, or missiles. I'm not 100% sure about that though.

Asteroids are also lowest priority.

[TrashMan]

I think the issus is there were too few asteroids..and they weren't denagerous enough.

I have nothing againsta capship shooting down asteroids with it's turrets - it only makes sense. but for a fighter wing to be there it eihter has to a be a LOT of asteroids, fast ones (so that the turrets would be owervhelemed) or something else (shivans)

[taylor]

From the code comments for chosing weapons to fire at asteroids:

Code: [Select]

// don't use turrets that are better for other things:
// - no cap ship beams
// - no flak
// - no heat or aspect missiles
// - no spawn type missiles/bombs
// do use for sure:
// - lasers
// - dumbfire type missiles
// - AAA beams
Other than the obvious choice (no cap ship beams) the weapons that don't fire are ones which could generate a large amount of friendly kills, especially if you have fighters which are providing extra fire support.  As WMC said, asteroids are lowest priority (bombs->ships->asteroids) and asteroids are given priority by time-to-impact so that an asteroid that's moving faster will get priority over one that's physically closer but may not hit first.  The code was setup to try and match behavior observed from the original FS1 but I'm not sure if actually did all of that.   had removed part of the asteroid targetting code (the part that actually decides if it's a target or not) but it still tried to process asteroids as targets.

There was talk of making it a mission flag, but only if it turned out to have a negative impact on gameplay.  The original campaign has one mission which looks like it should have working code similar to this and that was a good point in not having it as a flag.

[Singh]

thing is.....if it upsets mission balance, then one simply has to re-open FRED and re-balance it. It's not as hard as one thinks, and changing it to the point that it isn't what it once was is not necessary either, especially if its just changing the numbers or something

[karajorma]

Thing is that rebalancing is fine if you assume that only the main campaign needs rebalancing but when you add every other campaign that uses asteroids it becomes a much bigger task.

And then once you've rebalanced the main campaign for one feature you have less excuse to stop a second feature someone likes because that needs rebalancing. So you add that feature and rebalance.

And then someone points out a third thing.... etc.

We all know how fast the code-monkeys turn out the SCP changes. It's much faster than the hosted campaigns can keep up with in many ways. Before long we'd end up with a huge number of new features implemented and not a single playable mission because everything that's ever been released needs rebalancing.

Far better to draw a line in the sand as the SCP have done and say "No Rebalancing. 100% backwards compatibility"

[Singh]

yeah, true. but if it were optional to have better AI, and have it backward-compatible (like having a seperate build or flag) then rebalancing the vanilla missions to finally not be so.....silly i guess, would be better....

[karajorma]

I have no problems with mission flags for this sort of stuff. Game flags is a bit pointless really for this sort of thing because then the mission designer has to issue advisories about whether to use them or not. (Thankfully Launcher v6.0 will sort that kind of nonsense out).

[Boomer]

Why not just release a mission pack with the rebalanced material?

If someone wants the rebalanced material, let them sit at their 56K connection and download it to replace the original missions.  If they don't want to, then they just don't need it.

Makes sense right?  I mean, I think that it would definitely be a good idea to improve turret AI especially in the first mission of the SOC loop.

[karajorma]

Didn't my long post explain exactly why forcing this so that mission rebalances are needed is a bad idea?

What did you find hard to understand about it?

[Cobra]

hmm... i've replaced the 3 TerSlashes with 2 SGreens (which do considerably less than TerSlashes), and narrowed the AAAf's to 2, and the rest of the weapons are Standard Flaks. All that's left is the name, which i don't know what to name it. All the good names are taken...

[pyro-manic]

www.pantheon.org

Take your pic...

[Cobra]

ok, how does GTLC Actaeon sound?

[pyro-manic]

Sounds good to me, though I think there was a space station called the Actaeon. Don't quote me on it though.

Either way, yours isn't a space station, so it doesn't matter.

[Cobra]

i just realized: the Actaeon has almost the same firepower as the Aeolus.

[EDIT] new version available with a better techroom description.  Clicky-pow! (C) Raa Tor'h

[Nuclear1]

That's what we've been telling you throughout the whole thread, IIRC. Anyway, downloading now...

[Cobra]

nah, you were just telling me that it was extremely overpowered for a cruiser of its size and class.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by taylor
From the code comments for chosing weapons to fire at asteroids:

Code: [Select]

// don't use turrets that are better for other things:
// - no cap ship beams
// - no flak
// - no heat or aspect missiles
// - no spawn type missiles/bombs
// do use for sure:
// - lasers
// - dumbfire type missiles
// - AAA beams [/B]

The irony is that despite its heavy armanment, the Plato would be essentially helpless against placid asteroids.

Something its enemies could easily exploit with its low speed.

[taylor]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
The irony is that despite its heavy armanment, the Plato would be essentially helpless against placid asteroids.

Something its enemies could easily exploit with its low speed.

That was intentional with the weapon choice though.  It allows for relatively safe escorts as buffers rather than an all out shooting match between typically anti-capship large vessels and asteroids.  As a fighter pilot you don't really want to be in the line of fire of a dozen flak guns or large beam weapons.  This gives the mission designers some more play with strategy where you could have large vessels escorted by a fighter wing or two and several small cruisers through a large asteroid field.

It also opens up the largely untapped class of small cruiser which would be ripped to shreds by a destroyer but would be perfectly suited to the escort role with it's weapons and size better designed for fighter and bomber suppression.  Rather than having a ship with a lot of flak guns and a couple of large beams you could have one with a good mix of anti-fighter beams, a few flak guns, and some rapid fire laser turrets.  In a bomber you can pretty much walk right up to most destroyer class vessels and have at it, but a ship like this would eat you alive.

EDIT: Just so this post will have something to do with the Plato ...  You probably wouldn't send a science vessel out on it's own, unless you actually want it taken out.  You would want fighters or some other light escort with it to provide support.  Giving the Plato weapons suited to defend itself against large ships is a good thing but it is a science vessel after all so haveing it armed to the hilt doesn't make much sense.