@ GSH & KEN

[MowerMan]

Well by your estimation of Physics, we could never get a communications satellite into orbit.

What ever the force creating the hovering, you combine that with thrust, and the craft will go up.  If one could creat a anti-gravitational field, said field would have asymtotic behaviout when it came into close proximity with any matter.  The field would even push air molecules out of the way, making the ship have no atmospheric drag.  The field would also work against the center of mass/gravity to the mass it was working against.  For me to have to explain this over and over again is just silly.  People are forcing themselves to disregard Physics totally to make their arguements.

[aougli]

So how about Blink, Scion shields, Phantom VIR and Rocketeers not using parachutes?  Maybe remove them unless present day physics can produce an explanation?

[technoid]

Pilots/rocketeers use gravchutes. It's the same BZ physics (whatever that is), except you cannot maneuver your pilot the way you do with ships, i.e. tumbling in the air. Hmm, someone build an antigrav skateboard for the pilots.  

[wug]

I'm not arguing whether the physics are real or not... that's not the point.  Being about to launch into the air and coming down anywhere is not how the *game* was designed.

In any strategy game, you gotta have rules that apply to all units.  In a pure FP shooter, it wouldn't be a problem, but BZ is not a pure FP shooter.  In a FP shooter, it would be called a "power-up"; in a strategy game, it's an *exploit*.

Since BZ is a FP RTS, it has to conform to the stricter requirements of the two genres.

[Jwk the Hemp Monkey]

You know, maybe Jwk is right. Maybe we should add in realistic handling. Yeah, we can make it so that if a tank drops nose-down from a height of more then 40 meters, his entire front gets dented, the tank takes 50% damage and his weapons become inoperable because the cannon is dented. I mean, thats what would happen in real life, right?

Ey? I said that the Biometal tanks as is, ROCK(hense why i said 'sure'). They are increadibly powerful units (and i have my own explanation on how they can survive impacting into a solid rock at 80Kph and only lose *2%* of their overall structural integrity...long winded and has to do with how biometal reacts to its enviroment)

I think 'flying' is a pointless addition that just screws up the balence, does not make 'as much' sense as having proper hover tanks does, and TBH, I think 'arcing' across the sky is far more exilerhating now that it was to 'fly'.

Anyhow, when i first started playing BZII multiplayer, i decided to never learn to fly, and i had great fun. I won quite a few games and work fine with my team mates, i dont see the need for it personally.

In responce to mower mans good point, yeah...i can comprehend that any technology will be pushed beyond its orginal abilities, however...A submarine isnt going to be able to start riding along the shore of a beach... and a Harly isnt going to learn how to fly (despite some rather brave inderviduals attempts involving 'rings of fire' )

BZ2 demo had flying? yeah...and....it wasnt completed.

BZI didnt , nailed.

And with reguards to physics? Hover tanks 'hover' above the ground, i.e. they push against it with thrusters and possiably electromagnetics.

If the ground is too far away, then the thrusters /whatever have nothing to push against but air...which is only enough to 'slow down' the fall.

[MowerMan]

Jwk...  You really need to take Physics 101 (and pay attention to Newton's third law of Physics).

So what if BZ1 didn't have flying?  So what!!!  BZ1 craft are less advanced, heavier.  Not all BZ2 craft can fly either.

BZ2 tanks were absolutly were designed to be livelier and catch morte air than BZ1 tanks.

Jwk, I BETA tested BZ1, and BZ2.  All the way through the development of BZ2, I was talking to George Collins and wiL Stahl on almost a daily basis (the designers of the game).  Quit talking hoot...  you don't have a clue (not trying to be mean, just factual).

[AcneVulgaris]

Actually, BZ1 did have flying tanks...with rave guns...after it got hacked up.

Physics schmisics....the guys that built the game came out and said hovering was never intended, and is a bug that unbalances the game according to their vision.   Being as the community is pretty much divided on the issue, who better to make the call than the people that DESIGNED THE FRIGGIN GAME!!  

Trying to argue real world physics in a game based on units built out of 'BioMetal' is ridiculous.  It's a game set in an IMAGINARY world.  The physics is designed to serve the gameplay...not serve as a demonstration of Newtonian physics.

Even if they were to miraculously reverse their decision and put hover back, the other half of the community would be screaming like napalmed monkies about it.  They would gain nothing by reversing the design decision...and lose the original vision.

Hover isn't coming back...no matter how the other batch of napalmed monkies hollers.  We've heard the arguments...and I think they're somewhat valid, but we've HEARD them all.  Again.  And again.  And again.  AND AGAIN.  The decision is made.  The arguments are meaningless.

I never really cared one way or another about hovering...and I find 1.3 to be MUCH MUCH better in SO many ways than 1.2.  I won't be playing 1.2 anymore...1.3 is just that much better.

The decent thing for everyone to do is THANK Ken and Nathan for the TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars worth of programming time they have donated on our behalf.  If you don't like 1.3, play 1.2...but fer Chrissakes, be a man and say THANK YOU to the guys that worked their butts of for no pay in an effort to make our favorite game better.

[MowerMan]

AV if it is all the same to you, I have thanked them both personally many times.  I was thanked by them for putting thousands of hours of MY time into the game.  Nathan knows that when BZ2 first came out, I personally took tons of heat for the BZ2 design team (to the point where wiL Stahl sent me a personal email to thank me for doing so).

Ken and Nathan did not design the game.  wiL Stahl was responsible for game design, and he answered to George Collins.  Don't believe me?  Check the credits (you'll find my name in there too)

I have said over and over flying doesn't mean that much to me.  What means a lot to me is truth.  The truth is  that flying is fun to many people.  What kind of nazi hoot is this to dictate to everyone how to have fun with the game.  A simple shell switch would have made EVERYBODY happy.  I just can't get over how some people want to ruin other people's fun, even when it has zero effect on themselves.

Don't tell me about the "designers vision".  When BZ1 came out and then when BZ2 came out, the "designers" of the game were advocating spawn killing, power-up mining, and base rushing.

[Jwk the Hemp Monkey]

Well, i hear what your saying mower man, and im not saying your wrong, but 'Fighting' flying isnt fun. Its extremly difficult, and late-game stratergies are rarely imployed in a game where flyers attack.

Anyway, Battlezone  I was my first *ever* game...so its like a holy grail to me. And when i first saw all these scouts hovering above my base tearing it to pieces becasue the turrets could not aim high enough....i was a little disheartened. Its also why i never learnt to fly.

using exploits is disrespectful to the other play, it is rude, rudeness is unacceptable, dont use exploits. Thats how i think.

I think 1.3 rocks. Its more fun playing normal BZII than ever.

[Zero Angel]

I have said over and over flying doesn't mean that much to me. What means a lot to me is truth. The truth is that flying is fun to many people. What kind of nazi hoot is this to dictate to everyone how to have fun with the game. A simple shell switch would have made EVERYBODY happy. I just can't get over how some people want to ruin other people's fun, even when it has zero effect on themselves.

Don't tell me about the "designers vision". When BZ1 came out and then when BZ2 came out, the "designers" of the game were advocating spawn killing, power-up mining, and base rushing.

Amen, MM! Disable hovering by default sounds OK to me, but why stop it from being put back in as a separate recy varient?  What is the point of ruining a good portion of the true communities fun for the sake of 'squashing a bug' and nothing more?

Flying doesnt mean that much to me either, as long as the rest of the physics remain as fun as they were in 1.2, but squashing it completely, for its own sake, and deliberately standing in peoples way who get around that "fix"... That sounds spiteful to me...

[Jwk the Hemp Monkey]

And GSH is known for being spitefull apprently....

but still, i think that people should at least play without flying for a few months.

And really...how can you disagree that nailing a really good arc in 1.3 is less fun than pressing a few buttons in 1.2 to get a fairly similar affect.
in 1.3 it is a challenge to arc above their base, and it is rewarded, and really diffcult

[almechist]

We have heard the arguments against flying and I think the majority of BZ2 players can learn to live without it. But what is the argument for making the units less agile? There was no agility bug! For the most part I love 1.3, there are so many improvements over 1.2, it's a great patch. Flying is gone, so be it, who cares... But I have yet to hear any explanation of why the vehicles needed to become more sluggish. If this result was strictly a side effect of the crusade to eliminate flying, well then... All I can say is: surely there was a better way?

[AcneVulgaris]

Don't tell me about the "designers vision".  When BZ1 came out and then when BZ2 came out, the "designers" of the game were advocating spawn killing, power-up mining, and base rushing.

Were they advocating hovering?  That's what the discussion is about.

If you're down with George and Wil, what have they told you about the original vision?  D'you think that Ken and Nathan would go against that?  They were long gone by the time anybody figured out how to hover....or there was a chance at another patch.

Who's better aquainted with them and what they were trying to build...you, who corresponded with them on message boards, or Ken and Nathan, who worked with them every day?

Somebody has to have the authority to make the decision.  The community is pretty much split on it, so 'Democracy' is out (even allowing for the ridiculous idea that democracy applies to game development).  Who does that leave?

Nobody's trying to wreck anybody's fun.  Ken and Nathan didn't spend hundreds of hours writing code so they could make a bunch of crybabies go boo hoo.  They did it to improve the game for everybody.  If they were out to wreck people's fun, they could damn well write code to crash every 1.2 game listed on gamespy, forever,  in an afternoon.

1.3 doesn't take 1.2 away from anybody.  If people must hover, they can play 1.2, just like they've happily been doing for years.  Life is full of tradeoffs...this is one.

Nathan could have been more tactful about all this, but he reached this conclusion over a year ago, and is understandably testy at having to explain it for the 900th time to people that just aren't GETTING it.

1.3 is gathering steam...I see more people on every time I play.  I suspect for the majority of players, the pro's outweigh the cons.  We'll see in a few months.

[MowerMan]

AV I was flying before the game was released, and the "designers" of the game knew it.  I was shown how to fly in the demo by someone on the old Pandi board.  I was flying the very first week the game was out (as I was through the whole BETA testing time).  I was BETA testing BZ2 about three months before Nathan was hired.  I have never once indicated that I did not appreciate all their efforts.

No the designers did not advocate flying, they advocated much cheaper, skilless tactics.  A guy as smart as you I would have expected to correctly get the point.

Av I hate to tell you this, but the designers of the BZ2 looked to the community a great deal for design specifics of the game.  And yes AV, George Collins talked to me an aweful lot about design specifics of BZ2.  I also played BZ1 with him.

[AcneVulgaris]

No the designers did not advocate flying

There we have it....from a reputable source.

The discussion is not about cheaper, skill-less tactics.  The discussion is about hovering.  I'm bright enough not to accept a flawed inferential argument.  You wouldn't go for it either, if it wasn't your own.