Is it just me or is it a lot harder to push scavs around in 1.3 than it is in 1.2.
Because pushing scavs around can have such a massive affect on some maps, esp those with water, should the scavs odf files be fiddeled around with so that they at least emulate the ease of pushing them around in 1.2?
they are cause 1.3 respects mass or something
I like it the way it is, it makes you do a little work for your kill. :)
And it IS perfectly possible to push them, you just need to get full speed and try to push them either forward or backward, sideways doesn't work too well.
Quote from: Jwk the Hemp MonkeyIs it just me or is it a lot harder to push scavs around in 1.3 than it is in 1.2.
Because pushing scavs around can have such a massive affect on some maps, esp those with water, should the scavs odf files be fiddeled around with so that they at least emulate the ease of pushing them around in 1.2?
No its not just you.
in 1.3 odfs have a unit mass that u can adjust, if u want to push something heavier than ur current unit it takes alot effort to do so, i don't mind it as much but i can't remember if its easier for sabres/warriors to push scavs than it is for scouts/drones to...
imo sabres/warriors should push scavs easier
its *Ammo*ING annoying... I cant stand it... seriously, cons and other units are STILL dumb like a pencil and if you wanna get them to go somewhere you have to push them yourself ---> since 1.3 you cant...
and dont give me that bs that you can with full speed and all that, because you cant
not normaly! sure, you can push them in 1 m an hour (1m gamewise)
but thats not realy pushing
and as for sabres being able to push better, I disagree
because the scouts have more speed and lighter, therfor they could use that 'extra' speed(/power) to push the scav, while tanks dont have same speed as scout and dont have as much 'extra' power to push as the scout
but then you could argue that Assault Tanks should have no push whatsoever...
Basically the physics were changed....for most all of the treaded vehicles. I can't remember all the particulars of Kens logic in changing them(although I'm sure he had a good reason in his mind) the problem is those changes were made w/o clearly recognizing what a negative impact the change would have on "scav pushing" which is a important strategy in some human 3v3 or 4v4 strat games.
I have no idea what the current state of the "pushability" of the treaeded units is today in the beta, but, If it IS how it WAS in the PB, then I would agree w/ PE....that sucked.
It needed fixing 2 years ago, it probably still needs fixing now by the sounds of things.
It's VERY easy to push both treaded and walking units IF you do so properly.
As was stated, treaded have to be pushed WITH the treads, or lifted into the air slightly to turn them AGAINST the treads. I like this from a physics purist perspective but have no idea how this will effect MP players usual style. Personally I'd say take it as a challenge and develop new mad Scav shoving skillz...
Walkers (Cons) have to be lifted off the ground a bit to really get them going. I can get a Builder lofted on a bump and shove him halfway across the map (given a decent hill or two). The main problem there is getting them to stop once they get moving. The control you used to have is gone unless you're VERY careful.
I love tossing AssTanks around with Sonic in 1.3, you slowly rotate them to get them lined up and then ZING them off along the lines of their treads... :)
-Av-
when did this game suddenly become "real world"...
and i have to disagree with booby, imo a scout should not be able to push the scav because it has more "speed", imo a unit with more mass then another unit should not be able to be pushes easily, but then again, when did this game become "real world"...
Whu?
What?
Huh?
You mean it's NOT real world?????
Pffft.
-Av-
Heretic...
;)
Of course it's real world! cept now that you mention it, I wonder what you call that reality you trespass upon when nature calls?
That is when we alter our perception of the universe and create a small world of wood, brick, plastic and glass which is filled with things also made of wood, brick, plastic or glass which all seem to have a purpose be it intrusive or benign.
alas you should become a quantum theorist. for the sake of typing we will call this said reality the gee-too-gee reality, or maybe bee-are-bee, personally i like the former but a vote should probably be held :cool:
Quote from: PhoeniX-FlamEits ******* annoying... I cant stand it... seriously, cons and other units are STILL dumb like a pencil and if you wanna get them to go somewhere you have to push them yourself ---> since 1.3 you cant...
and dont give me that bs that you can with full speed and all that, because you cant
not normaly! sure, you can push them in 1 m an hour (1m gamewise)
but thats not realy pushing
and as for sabres being able to push better, I disagree
because the scouts have more speed and lighter, therfor they could use that 'extra' speed(/power) to push the scav, while tanks dont have same speed as scout and dont have as much 'extra' power to push as the scout
Sabres are way heavyer, therefor they have more powerful thrusters to push the extra wieght of the tank, or more power to push other objects. IMHO
RAMMING SPEED!!!
:lol:
-Av-
sabres have more mass, but scouts have greater aceleration so we have no way to tell really...
theres no point, its still much harder to push stuff (impossible to go against treads too)
Quote from: Spawnsabres have more mass, but scouts have greater aceleration so we have no way to tell really...
theres no point, its still much harder to push stuff (impossible to go against treads too)
So the way I see it is that the sabres actually have more of whatever you would equate to torque with an engine of whatever those hover craft use. Scouts are light and therefor don't need lots of low-end "torque", Sabres are a *bit* heavier and as a result need for more of that low-end "torque".
Does this make any sense to anyone?
Someone go get Mowerman already..
gave it abit more thought, anyways,
it all depends, and I dont think we can tell - what I thought at start was that scouts and tanks use the same engine, and because the tank is heavier its slower, and if they both have the same engine than scout should push better.... after replying I started thinking prephes the tank got more weight AND a more powerful engine, in that case - it should push faster...
so, it all depends and I dont think we realy tell
Quote from: Bull DogSo the way I see it is that the sabres actually have more of whatever you would equate to torque with an engine of whatever those hover craft use. Scouts are light and therefor don't need lots of low-end "torque", Sabres are a *bit* heavier and as a result need for more of that low-end "torque".
Does this make any sense to anyone?
It makes sense, many sports cars could probably out run (do I dare say a Hummer? they don't go that fast do they?), some bigger pickup trucks, easily, but do you think a ferrari could haul my camper around? no.
in short, I think scouts have much more speed, but tanks have more 'thrust'
so it's like comparing a light-weight sports car, to a heavy-weight pickup truck
and if they were any faster, Assult Tanks could be Semi-Rigs :lol:
Quote from: AvatarI love tossing AssTanks around with Sonic in 1.3, you slowly rotate them to get them lined up and then ZING them off along the lines of their treads...
you should see a mauler after it's hit with a fully charged MAG in 1.2, It actually flew untill it hit the map wall.
scav's had a similar effect, but they didn't seem to 'fly'
I've had better luck pushing stuff with Sabres/Warriors/heavierhovercraft in 1.3 due to said mass and wider frontal collision box area.
Quote from: Bob the Dinosuar
It makes sense, many sports cars could probably out run (do I dare say a Hummer? they don't go that fast do they?), some bigger pickup trucks, easily, but do you think a ferrari could haul my camper around? no.
A Ferrari *could* tow your camper around if it's chassy was strong enough, believe me its engine would in all likely hood be up to the job perfectly.
There's more to towing than a powerful engine and strong chassis.
That Ferrari probably has a differential ratio in the 1-2 range, trucks are 3-4 (mine is 3.74 to 1). The Ferrari has a tranny gear set that's optimized for high end speed, and the engine RPM probably doesn't hit its stride until 3-5K, where trucks max out on torque below 2K.
For BZ take a look at the thrusters, that's where the hovercraft action is. Since earlier Biometal ships didn't have forward thrusters I'd say the BZ2 thrusters are pure icing on the cake. The mass of the ships is probably handled by whatever accelerated the BZ1 ships, with the thrusters being all extra thrust.
-Av-
the bz1 ships didnt have the thrusters? hmm cause i was gonna say the tank probably has more push since there are two thrusters on the back.
Taking a run-up to push things would only be most effective for ships with large amounts of mass, low acceleration/'thrust' and high top-speed (Mauler anyone?... that thing pwns at pushing)
Simply pushing things would require a large amount of thrust AND mass, otherwise you could argue that most missiles should be able to make things.. uh.. fly...
imo, a scout should be ineffective at pushing scavs initially (this includes run-ups) as it has very little mass, although as it has a large amount of thrust it could, if done for a long enough time, slowly start to accelerate the scav until it got to the top speed of the scout.
But, seeing as there arn't any runways in BZ2, I doubt that'l be happening too often.
Sabres should be a lot more effective at pushing them initially, being that they have a lot more mass than a scout and still a relatively decent acceleration, but would also be able to take 'run ups' and ram the scavs a significant enough distance to make it remotely worth it. The only disadvantage is that you're still limited to the tanks maximum speed... not that anyone can control them enough to do that anyway.
Quote from: Bull DogA Ferrari *could* tow your camper around if it's chassy was strong enough, believe me its engine would in all likely hood be up to the job perfectly.
I'm no car expert, but my camper is very big, and weighs a couple of ton's
I assumed that a sport car could NOT pull my camper, but not because of the engine, it's the body
and that wasn't my point :lol:
and don't the hovercraft in BZII have Replusor Lifts? like ships in StarWars, they float automaticly , but to move the vehicle they use thrusters
a ship i'm making is going to use a 'Gravity Drive' heh heh heh
Quote from: ScarleTomatothe tank probably has more push since there are two thrusters on the back.
yes, but the scout's single thruster, is much bigger than one of the tanks thrusters, like 2.5X
Quote from: Bob the DinosuarQuote from: ScarleTomatothe tank probably has more push since there are two thrusters on the back.
yes, but the scout's single thruster, is much bigger than one of the tanks thrusters, like 2.5X
Size is irrelevent (to a point). Total thrust output is what matters.
The scout is much smaller and lighter than the tank so it can get away with using a "medium" thruster and still move fast. The tank, on the other hand uses 2 "small" thrusters to produce more thrust to help move the added weight. If they had used the "medium" thrusters, the tank would likely be faster but then it would also have to be a bit bigger.
Quote from: AvatarThere's more to towing than a powerful engine and strong chassis.
That Ferrari probably has a differential ratio in the 1-2 range, trucks are 3-4 (mine is 3.74 to 1). The Ferrari has a tranny gear set that's optimized for high end speed, and the engine RPM probably doesn't hit its stride until 3-5K, where trucks max out on torque below 2K.
-Av-
Bah I forgot to mention the tranny, lol.
Leave him, er, her, er, it out of this...
:shock:
-Av-
:? :? :?
Tranny as in transvestite. (I hope I spelled that right, this is the first time I've ever typed it :D)
Quote from: Bull DogQuote from: AvatarThere's more to towing than a powerful engine and strong chassis.
That Ferrari probably has a differential ratio in the 1-2 range, trucks are 3-4 (mine is 3.74 to 1). The Ferrari has a tranny gear set that's optimized for high end speed, and the engine RPM probably doesn't hit its stride until 3-5K, where trucks max out on torque below 2K.
-Av-
Bah I forgot to mention the tranny, lol.
a quote for everyone to see forever, even after bull dog edits his post :o
Forum blackmail?
:lol:
Getting back on track, it seems to me that there has to be SOME advantage to having treads over hovering. The bigger rigs should get MORE stability from having treads, not less as it seems BZ2 intends. Most treaded units in BZ2 slide around like they're on grease when shoved or float down from cliffs like balloons.
I hate that.
-Av-
and teleport to the floor when they rotate too much...
"It's a simple question of weight ratios!"
Quote from: Bull DogQuote from: Bob the Dinosuar
It makes sense, many sports cars could probably out run (do I dare say a Hummer? they don't go that fast do they?), some bigger pickup trucks, easily, but do you think a ferrari could haul my camper around? no.
A Ferrari *could* tow your camper around if it's chassy was strong enough, believe me its engine would in all likely hood be up to the job perfectly.
Quote from: APCs r evilTranny as in transvestite. (I hope I spelled that right, this is the first time I've ever typed it :D)
Talk to any mechanic say "tranny" to him and he'll know you are just abbreviating transmission.
Jerks.
Quote from: Bull DogJerks.
Huh? Us? What did we do? I was referring to Avatar's little joke about the whole tranny thing, not the transmission dude.... :s
Yup. My fault, I've been absolutely crushed at work and am now in a permanent fuzzy brain state... Things just strike me weirdly lately what with the crushing headaches and all...
:(
Fuggedaboudit, get back on tracks...
:)
-Av-
Quick, everybody jump Avatar while he's fuzzy-brained.
Quote from: Avatarback on tracks...
Heheh... that one took me a minute :)
Shhhh...
:lol:
-Av-
anyway, back onto the question of scavengers.
If it has been made so that its harder to push scavs against their tracks...then fine...but you rebalance that by making it easier than 1.2 to push them 'with' their tracks..
Bz2 shouldn't be about realism...fine....but it Realism isn't what makes a game good.
Its 'Believeablity'. ...you either have a totally wack game like mario or sonic, or a -to-some-extent-believeable one.
Believeabilty is the balance between FUN and Realism.
So your point JWK is that the Scavs are too heavy in 1.3pb1? In your opinion, Right?
id love to see a cheaper floating scav that couldn't deploy, just for the the loose scrap, it'd look something like natty's laser pods maybe, and only the treaded scavs deploy on pools. dunno what to call it yet..
Mad-Scavvie?
scrapscooper?
slagslurper?
Low-Profile, Battlefield ready, Just-add-water, Industrial Scavenger?
See, I want the exact opposite. I want a big, burly over-armed over-armored HeMan Scav that sucks up the loose, deploys on a pool and undeploys to kick your butt when you attack it.
Then it sucks up what's left of your ship and goes back to squatting on the pool. :)
That's what that big Black Dog Scavenger should have done...
:lol:
-Av-
:lol:
and using scrap for ammo too eh?
its possible with dll probablly...
Is possible by DLL, rather easily actually. If enemy is nearby and health is less then maxhealth, play whatever animation you want, second later convert to whatever odf to attack, when done, convert back...
We need an extractor that hits you with a giant boxing glove on the end of a spring, when you get to within a few hundred feet of it.
Oh that is an excellent idea Techie... Well, with a minor alteration..... :twisted:
Quote from: Spawn:lol:
and using scrap for ammo too eh?
its possible with dll probablly...
Lol yes, it could then 'heal' and 'reup' by sucking on a pool...
Maybe it could even be a psuedo-Recy, pumping out smaller versions of itself with excess scrap.
You're giving me evil ideas, and when I get evil ideas Natty gets evil toys... :)
-Av-
Hey, how is an extractor's color determined in the scrap gauge? The one I'm thinking about has.. 3 upgrades. EDIT: Oh wait.. Now it has 4.
red means highest upgrade
green is recycler class
yellow is a pool or something
i was thinking have dll upgrade it back into a scav, then it would redeploy on to the pool
that idea is completely possible with a tap dispensor type thing... :D
Quote from: Spawnyellow is a pool or something
Yellow is non-upgraded extractor/pool.
lol this post is so random...such a little different and everybody acts like a shuttle is about to crash...then we talk about evil scavs that kills people? so amusing.. :twisted:
yeah...great...random posts.
anyway, back on the topic.
If the scavs have been made harder to push sidewards (against the lines of the tracks...which is fair enough) they should be made so that they are easier to push along the tracks. thus making the changes sort of cancle eachother out. instead of just changing it and leaving it, which is akin to being in denial.
It seems that the large amount of turmoil in this topic is about the ability for scouts and sabres to move large objects (such as scavengers and constructors). Engine power is determined by TWO things in [hovercraftclass] units (the size of the unit's collision box, and the rate at which the unit can accelerate, not how fast it goes). In 1.3, the size of the unit actually determines how much mass it has (I'm pretty sure it's the size of the unit's hit box, not the actual size of the unit itself, but that may not be true). The mass and velocity of a unit determines how hard it can ram a unit. It occurs to me that through numerous tests, the unit's ram power is somewhat proportional to it's mass, perhaps meaning that, if a unit were traveling at 20 m/s, it would ram twice as hard at twice its size, 25 times harder at 25 times its size, and 100 times harder at 100 times its size.
Excellent post.
Which although it sounds like wonderful phyisics, it has the problem with densitiy. If the sabre has more compact armour, a cannon, and othersuch things, its going to have a more weight per area of space than the object being pushed (e.g. a scav). So just cause its bigger don't mean its heavier.
Perhaps a solution can be found in the jump thrusters...
My guess is that it uses mass*velocity^2 since that is the formula for kinetic energy or energy in motion. Velocity plays a more dramatic role than mass as you can see by the formula.
Since everyone is adding opinions here ill help out :P
I think its pretty good like it is. If youre worried about believability, tracked units were waay to easy to push in 1.2 IMO
If youre worried about balance, err everyone has the same disadvantage, so... i guess it pretty balanced :)
Even so, from what i can tell from gameplay (and the number of slightly OT posts here) its not really the biggest of issues. If you do this to get them in water, well, most ST maps have little to no water anyways. and why dont you just kill them urself? more score for you, and with cannon,gun,mortar comboing it wont take you more than a couple seconds and half a pods worth. If its the start of the level and you're in a scout, well, sucks to be you. The start of the game should really depend more on the cmdrs ability to expand fast anyways IMO.
'sides i think scouts are too powerful. They should start out with lasers IMO. (where do they hold all those mini rounds?)
ooh! new 1.3 feature! Can it be made so the weapons themselves are tagged rechargable? Instead of the craft?
edit: oo page 4 :)
Ammo is stored as Biometal (or at least some form of biometal-based compound) and, as a result, can be used to supply ammunition for various weapons systems. It'd also take up a hell of a lot less space than actual ammunition racks, at least I would have thought so...
yes but I think energy weapons should at least recharge faster than particle based weapons. Lasers should run on cells, maybe refueled by sunlight or air or moisture in the air or something in abundance. Balance-wise, I think it would help cut down on recy rushing too. But another thing is the actual mass. how does it refill its biometal stores? has the ISDF mastered energy to matter conversion? Oh wait I bet they transfer metal to the craft like extractors to the recy.
another ?, How do they transfer scrap? The same way HW makes use of recource controllers or refineries? I think that had something to do with rubbing two quantum plates together and creating a wormhole.
(http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/8735/noholes4td.png) (http://www.bobandgeorge.com/Archive/Oct01.php?date=19)
Just one of those "unexplained' things I guess, neccessary for gameplay but not very realistic. Yeah, it was kinda weird in HW that the Resource Controllers magically sent RU back to you the second it'd been collected, but it allowed remote mining operations on some of the larger maps (though I personally preferred using carriers)
As for BZ2, I figure some form of biometal energy-matter converter might be in place, either that or the service bay 'sprays' units with biometal vapour which are collected by the units to supply their ammunition reserves, or simply applied to the hull structure of the unit to repair it.
An interesting feature you could have here is to be unable to fully repair units you're unable to build, as you don't have the proper specifications for them and would be unable to determine what exactly needs repairing.
(i'm not even going to begin to try to figure out how service pods work...)
As for the extractor thing, I always thought that the time taken for the extractor to 'deploy' was a proper link being established with the recycler, probably in the form of an underground pipeline being constructed which, knowing the capabilities of biometal, shouldn't be TOO far-fetched a possibility...
its a teleportation system, thats whyt scavs cant hover no more, they too heavy
yeah, OT posts. Great.
Anyway. Saying that '' oh its not important lets just leave it as is'' is a sure fire way of having losts of small changes in the stratigical and tactical balance of the game all comming to gether and making gameplay less enjoyable.
If you make the scavs harder to push for whatever reason. You make them easier to push. Not being pushable against their tracks, but being really easily pushable *along* their tracks is an excellent solution that restorts balence, keeps realism/believeabilty and also fixes one of those annoying bugs.
If you say so :s. If it's as important as you assume, I'd say keep realism, if a enemy scavvie doesn't want to be plopped in the nearest pool, he'd probably put on his brakes. Therefore making it as hard to push parallel to the tracks as it would be perpendicular. I think a cool feature would be the ability to topple things. wanna knock off a scav? Topple it over on its side and let it sit there. :) Itd work for walkers too :P you could use battlefield tugs to upright em. Hovercrafts are OK i guess since they use jets or whatever.
That... sounds, excellently realistic. Although inconvenient.
yes well maybe its not very good for THIS particular game. Maulers struggling to upright themselves would really mess up their current 'death befalls you' feel.
" the problem is those changes were made w/o clearly recognizing what a negative impact the change would have on "scav pushing" which is a important strategy in some human 3v3 or 4v4 strat games."
nah i bet ken knew what his changes would imply, but you see.. he is the maker not the player so stop shedding those tears feeble effort. what a name..
Quote from: Scout on October 24, 2005, 01:23:24 PM
" the problem is those changes were made w/o clearly recognizing what a negative impact the change would have on "scav pushing" which is a important strategy in some human 3v3 or 4v4 strat games."
nah i bet ken knew what his changes would imply, but you see.. he is the maker not the player so stop shedding those tears feeble effort. what a name..
Someone did it again...
While I do have problems with dear 'ol Scouty from time to time, I don't have a problem with him resurrecting this thread because I have a certain amount of respect for him.
Back down squirrel, he's too l33t for you. :-P