Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 114

How do fighters and corvettes get fixed?

  1. #1

    How do fighters and corvettes get fixed?

    So, homeworld 2 engine means that fighters can't dodge, they can't be evasive, they can't survive longer because they're moving fast or far away or just plain small. The design space is narrowed.

    So what should be done? How do fighters get to feel like homeworld fighters without being useless? If weapon accuracy is reduced vs them but damage is left alone, then fighters have attrition problems still because when something like an assault frigate gets a lucky hit it's murderous. Even micro'd hard enough it takes so long for a fighter to leave an engagement envelope that they're very very vulnerable. Perhaps all anti-fighter guns should have lowered accuracy and increased rate of fire, so it's gradual damage? But that just means that sudden death syndrome gets pushed back to larger fights. And flak is right out. Squadrons help HW2 fighters be more relevant because of their ability to dock and get rebuilt, but I at least find it a distasteful solution. Is there another one I'm not thinking of?
    A.K.A EatThePath
    Co-founder of Homeworld:@
    Stories

  2. General Discussions Senior Member The Studio Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #2
    Player Hater Langy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    CA
    If weapon accuracy is reduced vs them but damage is left alone, then fighters have attrition problems still because when something like an assault frigate gets a lucky hit it's murderous.
    That doesn't sound like a problem; it sounds like exactly a good thing.

    That said, I haven't booted up the game yet. That's coming later, after I finish cooling down from working.

  3. #3
    well, I'm not firmly for or against either the steady damage or spikey damage approach, that's one reason for casting about for people's opinions.

  4. #4
    OVERSEER NovaBurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Just from playing the single player campaign alone, fighters and corvettes are utterly useless. The only exception is the Salvage Corvette because of its super speed ability to catch anything and salvage it.

    So far I have had numerical advantage in every fighter or corvette engagement throw at me and every single time its a giant mess. Fighter/Corv wings cannot keep formation, they go all over the place and miss their targets most of the time. combat encounters that should last not very long drag on for an absurd amount of time. The instant I throw an Assault Frigate or two into the mix, its game over really quick.

  5. #5
    Lost in the code... Mikali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    %HW2_ROOT%
    LOL, nobody said anything about this in reviews!
    Download my Homeworld mods, maps & tools. link
    Username|SF on Gamespy/Xfire/Hamachi/Gameranger

  6. Gamers Lounge Senior Member General Discussions Senior Member Homeworld Senior Member  #6
    Legendary JAL-18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Twin Cities
    Gearbox did a great job of getting copies to people who have zero experience with the franchise... /tinfoil hat time

  7. Homeworld Senior Member  #7
    Hiding out on LM-27 Norsehound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Space.
    I dunno, I found it very startling to see my Taiidan Attack bombers wiped out by Hiigaran Destroyers. Wasn't there something about small ships evading large ones? "Can crush a house but can't hurt a fly" and all that?

    It's kind of looking like HW1 did not take well to being adapted to HW2's engine without the need for some interpretation.

  8. #8
    Bored Inquisitor Exsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    A ship, in space.
    The problem is Homeworld 2's weapons are a static chance to hit. Their fire animation has nothing to do with the damage or actual tracking. Just chance to hit Vs ship type. So ships can't actually dodge anything.

  9. #9
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    What exus said.

    In HW2 the higgaran destroyers can actually hit fighters fairly often, corvette's too, (roughly 1 hit per 2 salvos, 6.5 seconds between salvos), but because HW2 corvettes have more health with health upgrades and because both come in squadrons the actual kill rate is poor. Throw that against HW1 fighters however and even their extra health can't handle one hit and the corvette's are even worse off.

    That's assuming they kept the health values as is obviously. HW1 heavy corvette's where 700 and bomber 110 as i recall. HW2 all Higgy/Vaygr fighters are 30 a pop and all corvette;s start at 400 go to 600 at first health upgrade, and 800 at second.

    HW2 DD guns are 535 damage a shell. BC's 650, (and the later have a 5 second as apposed to 6.5 second cycle time).

    Here's the, (non-remastered obviously), Higgy BC code, DD guns are same but shorter max range and longer cycle time.

    Code:
    StartWeaponConfig(NewWeaponType, "AnimatedTurret", "Bullet", "Kinetic_Large", "Normal", 5500, 6000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 5, 0, 0, 1, 1, 40, 25, 0.1, "Normal", 1, 0, 0)AddWeaponResult(NewWeaponType, "Hit", "DamageHealth", "Target", 650, 650, "")
    setPenetration(NewWeaponType, 50, 1, {PlanetKillerArmour = 0,}, {SubSystemArmour = 0.3,})
    setAccuracy(NewWeaponType, 1, {Fighter = 0.1,}, {Corvette = 0.05,}, {munition = 0.05,}, {Frigate = 0.8, damage = 1,}, {SmallCapitalShip = 0.6, damage = 1,}, {BigCapitalShip = 0.6, damage = 1,}, {ResourceLarge = 0.6, damage = 1,})
    setAngles(NewWeaponType, 0, -160, 160, 0, 60)
    setMiscValues(NewWeaponType, 4, 0.6)
    addAnimTurretSound(NewWeaponType, "Data:Sound/SFX/ETG/SPECIAL/SPECIAL_ABILITIES_TURRET_ON")
    I don't know what i'm talking about, ignore me.

    Thousands of years ago, Egyptians worshipped what would become our ordinary housecat. The cats have never forgotten this.

  10. #10
    The missile corvettes turn Kushan and Taidan frigates into confetti....

  11. #11
    Member ratamaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NOLA
    What Carl said. The HW2 engine is RNG. All of our HW1 experience and tactics where in a physics universe. Fortunate this means that it can be tweaked. Destroyers need to have their odds of rolling a hit adjusted like a 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 chance at hitting a fighter. Pretty much everything needs its odds of hitting HW1 strike craft adjusted. And strike craft shout dame near never miss. Would be nice if the engine could calculate something to the effect of 90% chance from behind, 70% chance head on, 50% chance obtuse angled vector and 30% chance acute angled vector for strike craft vs strike craft and left the damage and RoF take it from there.

    But the very first thing they need to do is fix the formations. My little 9 light vet wall looked like flies buzzing shit instead of the discipline pilots that could work together in formation and concentrate fire as a unit like I remember. Did no one from the dev team know how much of a staple vet walls were to us? And grouping swarms into little claws is beyond pointless atm.

  12. #12
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    It's not the hit rate. It's the fact that Heavy capital KE cannon are a one or two shot kill on any strikcraft from either game because they do so much damage and the squadrons thing means the HW2 races have more strikecraft. Honestly short of squadrons for MP there ain't no fixing it because you'd have to buff HW1 strikecraft to insane levels of health, (3300 for a fighter, 5200 for a corvette), to match HW2 squadrons and that would just break them vs everything else. You can modify the damage vs fighters for the fighter issue as the capital guns are huge overkill on HW2 fighters, but that's still a partial fix at best, (and again you've got to re-balance everything else). But with corvette's you can't drop them bellow 400 and a bit damage without breaking the HW2 strike-craft balance.

  13. Homeworld Senior Member  #13
    Hiding out on LM-27 Norsehound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Space.
    I knew it would be weird to run HW1 fighters as single-ships instead of squadrons in a Homeworld 2 environment. Even when all those mods were trying to do just that :\

    At least HW2 ships are susceptible to gravity wells. Not gonna help in Kadesh though :\

  14. General Discussions Senior Member The Studio Senior Member  #14
    I haz nori, u want? Nurizeko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    It's sad to hear there's some kinks in the Remastered version, but since the multiplayer is specifically in a beta--and I hate to say it because my trust could be proven wrong or right--there's hope that these issues will get dealt with.


    Eventually...

  15. #15
    Member Dragon93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland, Wet.
    I found the HW1 corvettes pretty beefy in a group vs HW2 fighter and corvettes (backed by assault frigates). Somewhat different focus considering multi-gun and heavy corvettes; they churn out lots of fire while HW2 corvettes are busy dancing. I skipped fighters considering the lack of squadrons (you weird HW1 people...).
    As a HW2 player I find the extent to which the HW1 races are similar a touch depressing; no substantial difference in tech or ships - at least in comparison to HW2 (V vs H hyperspace for example).

  16. Homeworld Senior Member  #16
    Hiding out on LM-27 Norsehound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Space.
    I don't mind it. The aesthetics are enough for me.

    But I would have expected Homeworld 1 ships to be a bit more resilient by comparison. Memories of playing Homeworld 1, capitals (even frigates) were not easy to kill.

  17. #17
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    Norse. A Khadesh MBF in HW1 puts out just 45 DPS. A HW2 ion beam frigate puts out 314DPS. The HW2 and HW1 Ion frig are both 15K health. Note all data taken from HW shipyards, ( i cna't give DD/HC comparisons as i don't have beam time and wait times for those, shipyards has HW1 values for MBF).

    A HW2 BC is 5.2K DPS, (the Ion turest do 30K damage a cycle each, 20 second cycle 7 second beam duration), for reference and a DD is 1.1K.

  18. #18
    But I would have expected Homeworld 1 ships to be a bit more resilient by comparison. Memories of playing Homeworld 1, capitals (even frigates) were not easy to kill.
    I took 2 Missile destroyers and 3 regular destroyers into the fold on the supernova mission, they all got pasted by a single Taiidani cruiser. I ragequit at that point, honestly. I like the difficulty but maybe I've got rose tinted shades on about how difficult the game used to be.

  19. #19
    Member Busby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Death Star
    You really need to outnumber the Taiidan cruisers and you will suffer losses. They are ridiculously overpowered and will spank any and all ships that come into range, even your own cruisers, in very short order. When you eventually get them in the campaign you will have an easier time but until then just spam out as many frigates and destroyers as possible while having repair corvettes on repair duties. Again, you will lose ships but there isn't any way to prevent it, cruisers just kill way, waaay too fast. Oh, and don't bother with strike craft. Cruisers have no trouble killing them either.

  20. #20
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    Again look at my post furthar up. A BC outguns a DD 5 to 1 and has 5 times the health to boot. t can pretty much go 5 on one and win, and for MP balance i figure the HC's are similar to the BC's.

  21. #21
    Yeah I'll revisit the mission tonight with probably triple the repair corvettes, and I'll let the carrier with stacks of bombers catch up before engaging.

  22. General Discussions Senior Member  #22
    terrible, terrible damage Starfisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Budd Lake, NJ
    The counter to Heavy Cruisers is Salvage Corvettes. Have everything else you own attack other stuff and then have your 14 salvettes go for the cruiser. More than enough will make it. And now you have a cruiser!

    For Supernova station the counter to the cruiser and 2 DDs, unfortunately, is to have at least four destroyers and a maxed out swarm of frigates backing them up. You will lose most of your frigates.

    The balance of the super-caps is trending towards the ridiculous. I suspect Carls' theory is right. In HW1 I don't recall any one ship being insanely awesome omgwtfbbq the way the HW2 Battlecruiser was, so in order to balance HW1 vs HW2 they had to massively buff the HW1 heavies.

  23. #23
    Member FriendlyFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    On the imaginary axis.
    The HW1 campaign shouldn't be using the Remastered MP ruleset though, so the balancing should be completely different (and much closer to the original). There's a reason they're still calling the MP beta: that ruleset isn't balanced yet.

  24. #24
    I would say that the SP ruleset isn't balanced yet either, but you are right that they need to be balanced separately

    I smell a number of incoming SP patches

  25. General Discussions Senior Member  #25
    terrible, terrible damage Starfisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Budd Lake, NJ
    Yeah I don't like the way it is either. But as guesses go as to why it is the way it is, I think it's not bad.

    I've noticed a few other things that seem bugged:

    1) Prox sensors can't "guard" anymore, and don't seem to auto-follow
    2) Support ships don't seem to be able to "guard" correctly either. If I bandbox guard my frigate wall, they'll pick a random frigate and follow that one around. They appear to ignore damage to the other frigates.

  26. #26
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    I suspect Carls' theory is right. In HW1 I don't recall any one ship being insanely awesome omgwtfbbq the way the HW2 Battlecruiser was, so in order to balance HW1 vs HW2 they had to massively buff the HW1 heavies.
    Recollections can and are faulty however. Whilst HW2 really buffed the ever living hell out of the BC's anti-capital firepower, (seriously HC's are only shredding your strike wings because you have so few individual strikcraft, nothing more, nothing less), HW1 DD's and HC weren't as weak as your remembering. Specifically HW shipyards has actuate numbers for calculating missile destroyer DPS. It out guns a multi-beam frigate almost 4 to one and has roughly the same health (i think there's a 1K differences total), as the HW2 DD.

    In other words a HW1 standard DD will outgun a multi-beam by over 4 to one and the later allready outguns the standard ion frig by a fair bit more. A HW2 DD on the other hand has about 3 and a half times the firepower of an Ion frigate, and both the frigates and DD's have similar health in both games. So in practice a HW1 DD WILL beat frigates more effectively than their HW2 counterparts. The difference is that even a HW1 missile DD needs around a minute-fifteen per frigate compared to the 13 and a half seconds, (roughly), of a HW2 DD. DPS was lower all round making the fights physically longer. (Not to mention lack of health bars). There's no easy way to do a similar comparision for HW1 HC's but they do have over twice the KE firepower and if we assume identical beam duration their ion beams will outgun the DD's by 2.8 to 1 so in practice the HW1 HC probably has around 2.5 times the firepower of the DD. Which easily makes it better vs frigs in DPS than the HW2 BC as well, as the HW2 BC only has about 8 times the firepower of the Frig's as apposed to the HW1 having over 10 times the firepower of a Multi-Beam frigate. Though the health differences is less by quite a margin so the actual real world difference will be much less. Minimum of approx 4 fold, which is half HW2 before the Multi-Beam vs standard Ion difference is accounted for.

    The real difference aside from the time ting is that A) we can see health bars now so we can see the scale of the difference effectively. B) DD's have probably taken a hefty beating with the nerfstick, (relatively speaking) to bring them into line with their HW2 counterparts.

  27. #27
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    P.s the UI should on the ships stat have a number next to the health and speed values, that's the DPS without accuracy or damage multipliers, (both are always 1.0 or less btw), factored in. For anti-capital work those numbers should = the actual DPS. Use that to determine the DPS differences between the various things..

  28. #28
    OVERSEER NovaBurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas

    Homeworld

    From what I have read here and experienced in game, I think I have an idea on what the fundamental problem is with the HW1R strike craft problems. The issue is two fold, being both how Homeworld2 and HWR weapons are handled, and the manner in which HW2 originally handled strike craft such as fighters and corvettes. Please let me know if I am incorrect in my initial assumptions.

    TL;DR

    Individual Homeworld 1 ships are being treated as HW2 squadrons as far as combat & flight AI is concerned. Formations and strike craft grouping for HW1R ships serve no purpose beyond logical grouping of ship types. The weapon system in HWR compounds the problem because of the difference.

    HW2 squadons == single "ship" with multiple weapon hard points. Can cover larger firing cone and angles of attack negating the negatives of not having ballistic weapon hitscan
    HW1 ships == single ship with mostly one weapon hard point; limited firing cone and angle of attack; formations useless due to usage of HW2 strike craft flight AI rendering weapon hit chances extremely low.
    The original HW1 strike craft were created individually and were grouped together through the formations that we all know and loved from the original. The original HW1 engine calculated hit chances based on an cone of attack and simulated ballistics of the projectiles fired. Formations for strike craft played a big part in making this paramount to the usage of strike craft. Different formations had varying effectiveness against enemy ships. Some allowed fighter craft to have better or worse survivability and others would grant better/worse attack angle on vessels depending on the formation used and what said fighters/corvettes were put up against. So when you would see a ship fire, it had a line of fire against the target and would only do so if it had a reasonable probability to actually connect.

    Example of this would be say the usage of the Sphere Formation with Attack Bombers against Frigate-class and higher vessels. The formation grants every single ship a direct cone of attack for their weapons to hit the vessel, this in turn limited their mobility and evasiveness against retaliatory fire. Another example would be the Claw or X formations. This was the staple of fighter/corvette formations as it granted the group a sweeping attack angle as they passed by doing noticeable damage, but allowed for manoeuvrability against returned fire.

    In conjunction with the above, the ability for the craft to quickly change formation depending on the tactical situation gave the ships a much longer life span and sometimes a tactical advantage in dogfights against other strike craft or frigate class vessels.


    That brings us to the Homeworld 2 and Homeworld Remastered situation. Neither game uses the method that Homeworld 1 did of simulation of ballistics to determine if a weapon successfully hits or not. Instead they use a simple RNG (Random Number Generator) and/or a probability model for determining whether or not the ships would attack.

    Each ship has various weapons on them and those weapons hard points have various statistics regarding accuracy, penetration, DPS, angle of attack, firing cone, etc. These settings are what determines how often the weapon hard point fires, how accurate it will be to hitting a ship, and various other details related to the weapon. Depending on how each weapon was configured, the settings on said weapon makes the probability of attacking, and then from there figures out the probability of it hitting and so forth.

    Homeworld 2 made usage of strike craft in squadrons of typical 3 or higher. So you can almost think of it as a single unit with multiple weapons firing at similar or slightly different firing cones and angles. Against another single target or a squadron the weapons would be mostly effective. Occasionally you would see that weapons effects would fire out at goofy angles contrary to the direction the ship or turret was firing. This is a symptom of how the weapon system wasn't quite perfect since it was based on percentages of accuracy, firing cones, and numerous other factors.

    The formations in Homeworld2 were very limited as the weapon system did away with needing to have formations augment the weapons to gain greater effectiveness in combat as you now no longer needed to have a formation to ensure survival, just have more numbers and you'd "out gun probability" the other group since they were under the same designed weapon systems. The HW2 formations were oriented around squadrons of multiple ships, not individual ships grouped together and so the flight AI assumes that the "squadron" had multiple guns and thus multiple weapons to attack with negating the discrepancy of the weapons missing with more guns firing to compensate.

    This now brings us to where we are at with Homeworld 1 Remastered. With the original ballistics system gone, and using the statistics of weapon probability hits, and ships now being single vessels with effectively a single weapon it throws a wrench in the entire situation. We are now able to see the weakness or at the very least the significant differences in the weapon and hitscan systems between HW1 and HW2.

    Formations and strike craft flight AI are still oriented as assuming squadrons of strike craft; not individual ships. Because of this formations are immediately ignored once combat begins and each individual ship for the most part acts like a unique individual "squadron" (despite the ships being in a group) trying to attack enemy strike craft who are doing the exact same thing. This results in the much longer engagements people are seeing with Fighters and Corvettes and how most of them are missing their shots. Typically the only way the engagements win in your favor is by throwing overwhelming numbers to saturate the field of attack.

    So what do we do about this?

    1) Ship Flight AI (specifically a focus on Fighters and Corvettes). They need to keep formation before, during and after combat. I believe that if this is done, it will alleviate a lot of the headaches we are currently seeing with necessarily lengthy combat encounters. In addition, combat flight AI needs to either be designed for the individual HW1 ships NOT acting as individual squadrons. The group itself needs to be the "squadron" and that group needs to act together. The problem currently is that the formation and group designation serves zero purpose beyond logical groupings.

    2) Strike Craft Weapon Systems - Once the flight AI and formation issue is resolved, at this point it would be a matter of re-balancing the weapon systems on each strike craft as to maximize their effectiveness to render it closer to what we would expect from the original HW1 system both using and not using formations.

    Both of the above resolutions could be applied to both the HW1 and HW2 races to facilitate balance between the two systems for multiplayer.
    Last edited by NovaBurn; 26th Feb 15 at 12:35 PM.

  29. #29
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    1) Ship Flight AI (specifically a focus on Fighters and Corvettes). They need to keep formation before, during and after combat. I believe that if this is done, it will alleviate a lot of the headaches we are currently seeing with necessarily lengthy combat encounters. In addition, combat flight AI needs to either be designed for the individual HW1 ships NOT acting as individual squadrons. The group itself needs to be the "squadron" and that group needs to act together. The problem currently is that the formation and group designation serves zero purpose beyond logical groupings.
    Ship flight AI, (on it's own), has bugger all to do with this. The likely issue is that they've probably balanced the weapons system against HW2 strikcraft , and again the fact that HW2 are in squadrons totally fucks shit up when you try to use it with single Strikecraft setups.


    Let my try and explain.

    What a HW2 AI model system will do is tell each squadron to pick a target according to a few factors. If you don;t give an order it's type first, then closest of that type in range.


    At that point it will close to attack range and fire. Assuming it's similar in speed to it's opponent it will stay there unless the enemy maneuvers out of the way, (say because their chasing their own target). Up-time is easily 70% or more unless the target is turning a lot. And this is down to how fast they can turn. 2.05 seconds for a complete 180. Which is 0.05 seconds less than the total cycle time of their guns. In addition the way the damage per burst and burst time and projectile velocity are set up for HW2 fighters, if even one shot from one strikecraft of the initial volley of the burst it can re-target another strikecraft because the first is dead. Leading to 2 kills per salvo. If they get sufficiently close they can achieve 3.

    In fact the only things in HW2 that don;t OHK a HW2 fighter are scout guns and Flak frigate Flak bursts.


    I suspect what's happening here is two fold.

    1. The HW1 strikecraft don't appear in video's to turn as tight as HW2 vessels. I suspect that what's happening is their radically overrunning the programed flight AI's maximum distance to go from target, (it's actually setup such that they start the turn back at that distance, for HW2 strikecraft that isn't an issue to do in an eye blink). This means their spending most of their time out of range of their targets. This isn't going to be fixed by letting them go newtonian, (which the HW 2 engine does not support and so i assume RM doesn't either), nor is it going to be solved by fancy formations. They need their maneuvering stats buffed.

    2. They probably received a major firepower buff to boost up their capabilities. But since they allready ovrkill HW2 stuff it's not having the desired effect, especially if the projectiles are as slow as the videoes as that gives less opportunities for re-targeting individual craft. (Also in HW1 on HW1 fights they're probably taking each other out fairly fast then not being able to re target without manuvering which comes back to point 1).


    Point 1 can be fixed by upping turn stats. 2 is virtually un-fixable because it's down to a fundamental hard limit.

  30. Gamers Lounge Senior Member General Discussions Senior Member  #30
    Do You Even Lift? Mantaray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    20 IS like 30 if Manta Lifts
    the homeworld 2 flight ai has a HUGE part to do with the corvettes. as it is, corvettes spend literally no time in arc because HW2 thinks broadside is good. when its not.

  31. #31
    drunken1
    Guest
    Other big problem (in 1v1 mp at least) is needing to build a research ship, then research fighter chassis, then research ints before even being able to build any. Hiigs/vaygr in comparison only need to build fighter modules and can immediately start spamming. By the time the first individual INT comes out, HW2 factions will have 3-4+ squads. I really don't know how a HW1 faction is supposed to defend against an early int rush of 4-6 squads against his collectors without giving up expanding to a 2nd resource patch and turtling on the starting patch, in which case they get out-economied 3 patches to 1. Also haven't tested it but if torp frigs can 1 shot corvettes as they do in HW2, that could also be a significant problem since that was balanced by corvettes coming in squads which could be retreated and docked/repaired. A torp being able to 1 shot a heavy corvette makes building corvettes pretty pointless in a HW1 vs HW2 matchup.
    Last edited by drunken1; 26th Feb 15 at 2:31 PM. Reason: Holy shit starfisher theres a name i remember

  32. #32
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    @Drunken; Torp frigs only do 380 a shot, even un-upgraded HW2 corvettes are 400, and now I've double checked Heay Corvette's from HW1 if they kept the values are 1700 each.

  33. #33
    Hm, but they cluster. I'm not sure how the damage numbers on that work off the top of my head, do the four submunitions split damage evenly? Or do they all do the full damage? Seeing as the missile files contain references to weapon files too, I suspect that it's the latter, in which case they do four times that damage.

  34. #34
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    Nope, it's the total damage split between the 4 as far as i remember. If they did full damage the anti-capital torps wouldn't be the huge upgrade they are, and movers and keeper drones would die in 1 to 2 shots depending on exact mission.

    The way it works, (in original anyway), is that the on hit effect determines what happens and the missile files determine what the missile looks like, (including the splitting behavior).

    Gonna write up what i noticed from a couple of quick skirmishes then post it, so give me half hour or so.

  35. General Discussions Senior Member Dawn of War Senior Member  #35
    Oppressive Forces of Titty n0z3k1ll3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    So, got to ask... is there a stated reason why Remastered uses the RNG instead of the physics model? Is it something that Gearbox could potentially change, given they have access to HW1?

    Because I mean that sounds like a good step toward fixing things.
    Let's Play Europa Universalis 3: Divine Wind
    Let's Play Master of Magic: Abandoned
    In the beginning there was nothing. Then Steam crashed.

  36. #36
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    Okay the first and most major piece of info to dump is that i'm pretty sure i was right about the HW1 strikecraft just not having good enough maneuvering stat's. Though Khushan light corvette's are hurt by their turret having no aft firing arc. That lets attacking fighters sit on their arse leaving them helpless.

    Also they nerfed the ever living hell out of HW1 strikcraft health, their fighters are still tougher than HW2 ones but nowhere near the same as they where. Corvette's are between un-upgraded HW2 corvette's and fully upgraded HW2 Corvette's. That said ship for ship they very clearly have more halth and more firepower whilst cosing a tenth as much so on paper at least HW1 strikcraft can beat the tar out of HW2 squadrons on a cost for cost basis. However i'm pretty sure most of that firepower is beign wasted on overkill, and there's no way you can outproduce the Higgaran's on a ship for ship basis, not even close.

    Understanding exactly what was going on there was hard though. The new Kinetic Cannon FX are crap compared to HW2 being much harder to see when zoomed in and invisible when zoomed out. It's mostly a size issue. The HW2 fighter FX where much larger, representing a half a dozen shots with a single FX and mechanics "shot". They Replaced these with single KE projectiles for remastered copying the HW1 fighters and they're too small and faint to be very visible. May be my settingas thoughm, can anyoen with ability to run top settings confirm either way for me?

    When i played Khushan's i seemed to need a LOT less collectors to get the same income as higgaran's. Think it's down to the more frequent trips back for docking the higgaran's have to make. They waste more time in transit and more time docking and un-docking from ships and roids.

    Because the AI loved rushing assault frigs and building few strikcraft i couldn't really get any meaningful corvette data though i noticed the heavy's fire flak bursts which means they're much more effective vs squadrons than single ships.

    I also noticed the HW1 factions can rush DD's much faster than the HW2 ones. HW1 DD's have less DPS, but more health however, (assuming HW2 DD health is unchanged, haven't checked).

    Missile DD's are really solid vs frigs, but their crap vs strikecraft, the missiles aren't fast enough, don't turn tight enough and don't have long enough lifetimes to work.

    HW1 HC's aren't as good as HW2 BC's. Having marginally less health base, (still a lot more than original HW1 however), and losing about 10% firepower, some of this is offset by some of the HW2 BC weapons being dedicated point defense guns but their still behind a fair bit percentage wise.

    So, got to ask... is there a stated reason why Remastered uses the RNG instead of the physics model? Is it something that Gearbox could potentially change, given they have access to HW1?
    because their using an updated HW2 engine, and that just doesn't support the physics setup. Period. More importantly with a degree of effort you can stat gather on the HW1 setup and actually get numbers to plug into the RNg that would exactly mirror it, you don;t need physics to get the same result. However since their doing com,bined MP the factions really do need to folow similar setups balancing wise so they chose to create numbers from scratch for the HW1 factions to fit them in.

  37. General Discussions Senior Member The Studio Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #37
    Player Hater Langy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    CA
    because their using an updated HW2 engine, and that just doesn't support the physics setup. Period. More importantly with a degree of effort you can stat gather on the HW1 setup and actually get numbers to plug into the RNg that would exactly mirror it, you don;t need physics to get the same result. However since their doing com,bined MP the factions really do need to folow similar setups balancing wise so they chose to create numbers from scratch for the HW1 factions to fit them in.
    Just because the engine as-is doesn't support the physics setup doesn't mean it can't. Source code changes mean anything is possible.

    But RNG does make it easier to balance (though they haven't done so) and it's easier to just use the code that they've got than to replace it all.

  38. #38
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    Langy: the games at release, implementing it would be a huge, huge, huge, gutting and re-write of a pretty big piece of the engine. Could it be done? Sure. Is it reasonable in the slightest to actually expect it. No.

  39. #39
    Member FriendlyFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    On the imaginary axis.
    It'd require work and take time, sure, but it wouldn't be a "huge" time commitment. It'd make balancing far harder though, because you have far less control over effective damage output.

  40. #40
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    @FF: Again assuming they're using the HW2 engine as their base, (as they've stated), it does not in any way, shape, form , or anything approximating that, support Newtonian movement. To implement it they would have to re-write from scratch the entire section of the engine that deals with movement, because based on what we know there's not a remote shred of support for it allready. They can't just update existing engine segments. They've got to rip out and replace wholesale. That's not remotely quick to do. In fact given their working in 3D it's probably the second most complicated bit of the engine after the graphics side of things and is integrated with so much else that they'd certainly have to modify, and possibly re-write quite a bit else in the engine. And that's just the movements. Admittedly the weapons side of things does have some bits that make me think it could be re-purposed without a total from the ground up re-write, but there's not much point to it without the movement side of things because HW2 attack profiles and movement doesn't create the same degree of differentiation between target aspects and tracking rates required. The attack AI is deliberately set up to put the attackers in roughly the same place relative to the defender every time, which reduces the whole thing down to a fixed percentage chance to hit that's determined by fire cone rather than a fixed easy to change number.

  41. #41
    Member FriendlyFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    On the imaginary axis.
    Whoever talked about Newtonian motion? Making the projectiles physical instead of simple dice rolls is entirely possible without rebuilding the engine from scratch as you seem to imply.

    Plus, the engine most likely uses Newtonian motion anyway.

  42. #42
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    Whoever talked about Newtonian motion? Making the projectiles physical instead of simple dice rolls is entirely possible without rebuilding the engine from scratch as you seem to imply.

    Plus, the engine most likely uses Newtonian motion anyway.
    Sure it is, as i said it's simpler to do that, but without the Newtonian motion, (by which i mean the ability of HW1 ships to turn in place whilst continuing to move in a single direction), there's no advantage to doing so. It ends up being identical to the RNG in all circumstances, because unless you can force wildly altering closing velocities, and make the target aspect fully random your not going to see any difference from it.

    Cone of Fire has a hit percentage same as an RNG system, but it's based on the area of target aspect at the time of fire vs. the area of the cone of fire at the engagement range. HW1's movement system made both the range and target aspect vary wildly.

    Because of the Way HW2 insists stuff has to fly, (on rails basically), your always going to see the same aspects being presented at similar ranges which adds up to the same ting as the RNG. Their would be some variation, but it won;t be even close to the HW1 model and in the process of that you lose the single good reason to use the physics system in the first place.

    That, (hit rates varying with range, reletive target movement, and target aspect), are the only consequence of the HW1 system that isn't modeled in HW2, but since HW2's movement system inherently dampens the extreme's of all 3 out it's not really worth it to use such a system.

  43. #43
    Member FriendlyFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    On the imaginary axis.
    Having ships drift in place really doesn't require what you seem to think it does. It's called fudging it, and most devs will do it at some point. That sort of thing really ain't hard once you have the rest of the stuff out of the way, which they do. It'd require some restructuring in the code, yes, but nowhere near what you imply.

    It's more likely that they either thought they wouldn't need it, or preferred the HW2 system (which, as I said, is easier to balance because there are fewer variables and less reliance on complex interacting systems), rather than a question of complexity.

  44. General Discussions Senior Member The Studio Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #44
    Player Hater Langy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    @FF: Again assuming they're using the HW2 engine as their base, (as they've stated), it does not in any way, shape, form , or anything approximating that, support Newtonian movement. To implement it they would have to re-write from scratch the entire section of the engine that deals with movement, because based on what we know there's not a remote shred of support for it allready. They can't just update existing engine segments. They've got to rip out and replace wholesale. That's not remotely quick to do. In fact given their working in 3D it's probably the second most complicated bit of the engine after the graphics side of things and is integrated with so much else that they'd certainly have to modify, and possibly re-write quite a bit else in the engine. And that's just the movements. Admittedly the weapons side of things does have some bits that make me think it could be re-purposed without a total from the ground up re-write, but there's not much point to it without the movement side of things because HW2 attack profiles and movement doesn't create the same degree of differentiation between target aspects and tracking rates required. The attack AI is deliberately set up to put the attackers in roughly the same place relative to the defender every time, which reduces the whole thing down to a fixed percentage chance to hit that's determined by fire cone rather than a fixed easy to change number.
    Carl, there's no way that the movement code is as complicated as you seem to think it is. Adding in Newtonian movement would be child's play compared to, say, altering the way the user interacts with the game, or changing the AI, and all of that pales in comparison with horribly technical stuff that has to go on under the hood.

    I've programmed movement simulations, including full newtonian movement, before. It's not that difficult.

    But yeah, it's unlikely they'll change it, and honestly there's no big need to do so. What they need to do is perform a balance pass, make it so formations/tactics alter the accuracy and evasion variables, alter the AI a bit, and say 'done'.

  45. #45
    Strafing ships is entirely possible with the right attack style in old HW2, and HW1's movement was never purely Newtonian.

  46. #46
    Member FriendlyFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    On the imaginary axis.
    @Langy: This is what I expect they'll do. Attach an accuracy buff/debuff to ships in certain formations, perhaps make HW1 ships more durable or have an innate accuracy debuff if targeting them, something along those lines.

    As far as I know we're not even sure how HW2's aiming works, so perhaps they have more flexibility than we give the engine credit. If it uses ray casting to determine hit/miss (and it looks like it does), it's already far more advanced than "RNG". People are just way too stuck up on that acronym.

  47. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Slovakia
    I would not be suprised if they decided to put HW1 fighters/vettes into squadrons as well eventually. Easiest way to fix.

  48. #48
    That's actually the solution I'm most looking forward to seeing/modding.

  49. #49
    Member FriendlyFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    On the imaginary axis.
    The outcry for that would be massive though I feel, and it'd make the HW1 races strange because the SP/HW1MP would keep individual units.

  50. #50
    Member Busby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Death Star
    It would be the easiest and most effective fix though. I am sure given enough time you could balance individual strike craft against squadrons, but the amount of time and effort required would be completely out of proportion of what anyone could reasonably put in.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •