Bolt speeds
- Thread starter fyodor
- Start date
dan_w said:
that's exactly what i'm doing. it takes a very light touch, but it's doable. abuse afterburners and the shelton slide to get distance, then autotracking won't matter. (in fact thanks to that corkscrew move, autotracking hurts at distance. fortunately it can be turned off.)
Wow dan_w, that was officially a Tiraid. I haven't seen one of those in a while. But yeah, I agree with you some things really need to be fixed.
That being said however, in the last week I've put about 40 hours in to this game and I have to force myself to not play it or I'll burn out on it. However I can forsee it getting to the point where it is unplayable. Like when every mission I can find has me trying to kill about 25 to 30 dralthis. At this rate, it won't be more then two weeks.
That being said however, in the last week I've put about 40 hours in to this game and I have to force myself to not play it or I'll burn out on it. However I can forsee it getting to the point where it is unplayable. Like when every mission I can find has me trying to kill about 25 to 30 dralthis. At this rate, it won't be more then two weeks.
thehawk said:
Look, it's not "practise". Right now I'm flying a Tarsus, and I'm oscillating around all the time. I know once I get a Cent I'll oscillate much less. With the demon, I tried it a few days ago, I can even aim straight. It's a matter of unresponsiveness of the ship that is programmed by the angular acceleration and speed parameters. So you'll say the solution is buying a demon. Well, the AI knows I don't have one, so why make most of my missions impossible to do? What's the point of it?
Mind you, the AI should know how many times I'm dying and having to reload!!!
Now, I may start sounding like I want the game to adjust difficulty to the ship I'm flying. No I don't. It would be super lame, if upgrading ship and weapons were to be self-defeating. What I want is for most missions, and normal, non-mission flying around to be doable in a Tarsus, and EASY in anything better. For me, most of the enjoyment in the game is not fighting in space, but rather the trading, the immersion, the story, the art, the music. I DON'T WANT to be outnumbered on every mission. I DON'T WANT to have to quit and reload. A bit of challenge is fun, but developing sub-milisecond eye-hand coordination is not my life's first priority.
Dan_W- It -is- practice. I too use an optical mouse, I am flying a galaxy, and I oscillate hardly at all. Yes, the slugishness is a factor, but if you have never needed to have that fine a control over your mouse, with the reaction times required, what makes you think you can do it on the first tries here? Like Warlock said, a 'light touch'.
No, I would -not- say buying a demon is the answer. I happen to despise the things. I am saying you need more practice with your controller and your ship. Can you test drive cars where you are? Do me a favor. Go out and test drive several different types. A van, a SUV, a sports car, a pickup, and a truck (no, 'pickup' is not synonymouse with 'truck') and then you come back and tell me what the differences are. For grins (and if you know how- they are not the easiest things to learn) try a motorcycle too (nothing big, just like a 600 CC or something) Differences in braking, steering, handling, overall responsiveness. Then we can compare differences in road vehicles to differences in 'space vehicles'.
-thehawk
No, I would -not- say buying a demon is the answer. I happen to despise the things. I am saying you need more practice with your controller and your ship. Can you test drive cars where you are? Do me a favor. Go out and test drive several different types. A van, a SUV, a sports car, a pickup, and a truck (no, 'pickup' is not synonymouse with 'truck') and then you come back and tell me what the differences are. For grins (and if you know how- they are not the easiest things to learn) try a motorcycle too (nothing big, just like a 600 CC or something) Differences in braking, steering, handling, overall responsiveness. Then we can compare differences in road vehicles to differences in 'space vehicles'.
-thehawk
I've already driven trucks, cars, AND motorcycles (owned a Virago 500, rare model, and later a Kawasaki LTD750). In the virtual world, I've piloted all kinds of military aircraft.
Let me tell you: Landing a fighter aircraft on an aircraft carrier manually, and using a realistic physics model, is probably one of the most skill-demanding maneuvers in any game genre. And I got pretty good at it.
I have NEVER experinced, however, such bad handling in ships as in the remake. The second worst ship-handling I ever experienced in any game was in the original Privateer. Looks like instead of improving we're going backwards; and one can't even get a point across because a bunch of people will jump and say "it's too easy", so no chance of progress...
Let me tell you: Landing a fighter aircraft on an aircraft carrier manually, and using a realistic physics model, is probably one of the most skill-demanding maneuvers in any game genre. And I got pretty good at it.
I have NEVER experinced, however, such bad handling in ships as in the remake. The second worst ship-handling I ever experienced in any game was in the original Privateer. Looks like instead of improving we're going backwards; and one can't even get a point across because a bunch of people will jump and say "it's too easy", so no chance of progress...
Okay, so you already know what I am talking about, how they all have the same controls (except not much in the way of double-clutching on anything but trucks anymore), yet they react -very- differently on the road.
How much of your piloting have you done with this optical mouse?
It is one of the most skill-demanding manuvers in real life too.
I really do not see the problem with how the ships handle in this. Maybe you need more experience with the WC stuff in general to make a comparison? I do not remember the original acting a whole lot different from the other WC games of the time, except for the obvious of fighters handle better than freighters.
Yes, it -is- easier with a joystick, tho I could not tell you exactly -how- since it is not something my conscious thought does.
I do not think that all of the points you are talking about a couple of posts back necessarily belong in the same 'discussion'. We have one discussion on ships and physics, we have one on numbers of opposition, and we have one on opposition intelligence. They are three seperate things, and should be treated that way, othewise it is just a big unsolvable problem, instead of several little ones that are no big deal.
Part of what you said I agree with. Well, partially. I agree that -some- areas should most certainly be doable in a Tarsus and easy for everything else. However, space being what it is, there should be a number of areas that if you wander in to in a Tarsus (or any other freighter, for that matter) that you are not friendly with the occupants, you lose your ship. Confed is a war machine, and -they- have problems in some areas with pirates and Kilrathi.
As I said, this discussion is becoming too disjointed to be able to continue it effectively.
-thehawk
How much of your piloting have you done with this optical mouse?
It is one of the most skill-demanding manuvers in real life too.
I really do not see the problem with how the ships handle in this. Maybe you need more experience with the WC stuff in general to make a comparison? I do not remember the original acting a whole lot different from the other WC games of the time, except for the obvious of fighters handle better than freighters.
Yes, it -is- easier with a joystick, tho I could not tell you exactly -how- since it is not something my conscious thought does.
I do not think that all of the points you are talking about a couple of posts back necessarily belong in the same 'discussion'. We have one discussion on ships and physics, we have one on numbers of opposition, and we have one on opposition intelligence. They are three seperate things, and should be treated that way, othewise it is just a big unsolvable problem, instead of several little ones that are no big deal.
Part of what you said I agree with. Well, partially. I agree that -some- areas should most certainly be doable in a Tarsus and easy for everything else. However, space being what it is, there should be a number of areas that if you wander in to in a Tarsus (or any other freighter, for that matter) that you are not friendly with the occupants, you lose your ship. Confed is a war machine, and -they- have problems in some areas with pirates and Kilrathi.
As I said, this discussion is becoming too disjointed to be able to continue it effectively.
-thehawk
responding to the post about too many enemies happening later...I think we cap the difficulty too high...
if you folks wish to change it try editing:
line 113 of modules/dynamic_mission.py
change 8 to 1.5
line 114 of modules/dynamic_mission.py
change 8 to 1.5
line 96 of modules/difficulty.py
change .9999 to .5999
line 97 of modules/difficulty.py
change .9999 to .5999
this should reduce the difficulty a lot
play with various values other than .5999 and 1.5 for the two files--see if you can come up with something where there are more reasonable missions and no 10 unit versus 1 man missions--to make it much more like the original and remain doable
these are the values that will be put into 1.01 unless we get objections
if you folks wish to change it try editing:
line 113 of modules/dynamic_mission.py
change 8 to 1.5
line 114 of modules/dynamic_mission.py
change 8 to 1.5
line 96 of modules/difficulty.py
change .9999 to .5999
line 97 of modules/difficulty.py
change .9999 to .5999
this should reduce the difficulty a lot
play with various values other than .5999 and 1.5 for the two files--see if you can come up with something where there are more reasonable missions and no 10 unit versus 1 man missions--to make it much more like the original and remain doable
these are the values that will be put into 1.01 unless we get objections
Thank you, Hellcat !!!
Indeed, INDEED. I tackeled this very subject in some other thread, and that's the ONLY solution I was able to find to the traditional problem of balancing a game throughout the evolution of the player's skills and capabilities, without resorting to cheating against the player (which is what the original did, making enemies stronger as you upgraded your guns). And that is to make difficulty "geographically mapped". This solution has the added benefit of being more realistic and intuitive.
The game presently does implement geography based difficulty to some extent. There is a "safe zone" between Troy and Constantinople, with another branch of safety going up through Nexus to Tingerhoff and Perry. There are Pirates to the North West, Kilrathi to the North East, and Retro to the South East. This is good! What isn't so good is the amount of enemies of all 3 kinds in Detroit. Detroit being the "Industrial Capital" of the sector, and having huge amounts of trade, and being situated right between the political capital and the miltary capital, it should be well secured.
Additionally, if there are kilrathi incursions into New Detroit (or any system for that matter), it should be possible for the player to identify, after a while, where they are coming from. I understand the original game opted for pure randomness, as those were the days of DOS and floppies; but it wouldn't take too much programming, I don't think, or contradict too much canon, to have them jump into system through some jump point and TRAVEL to where they are going to harrass the player and other MPC's.
But I'm digressing.
Yeah, so, I was saying the game already partially implements a geography based difficulty system; but then fails it in two respects:
1) Profits do not reflect fully the geographical difficulty: A mission to Tri-Pak should pay a lot more than a mission to Troy. Missions between Troy and New Detroit are too well paid: In the order of 12 or 13K. So I load up in Uranium and Plutonium, exit and restart the game enough times to catch 3 missions to New Detroit, and I make 60K in one trip with hardly any harrassment. THAT I can say is almost "too easy".
2) Missions going to more dangerous places aren't only not paid appropriately, but in fact often don't make good trade routes. Additionally, as a player I may not remember what each of the bases in each of the systems sells and for how much, so rather than take a chance by going to Padre or New Caledonia, I might as well just reload the game until I have missions going back to Troy, and load up on fuels, medical and holographics. Sure thing! But the simplest way the game could break this viscious circle is not to somehow prevent reload randomization, or any such hacks, but simply to make the random mission generators make sense. Currently it does not make any sense: It might produce a mission carrying food dispensers from Troy to New Detroit; it might generate a mission carrying Plutonium from New Detroit to Troy. Not only is this incomprehensible, but it wastes a precious opportunity to hint to the player what alternative trade routes there may be, and what kinds of goods would be good to take where. If the mission generator did the right thing, I could take a mission or two from New Detroid to McAbee, then find that there's a chance of making a quick buck transporting ore from there to nearby Tingerhoff's refinery, and so on.
So, for geography based difficulty, the difficulty has to be well mapped out, trade trips have to be priced accordingly, and the mission generator should help the player get a taste of where the big money is, which should NOT be in following along the safe corridors.
With respect to the difficulty in using joystick vs. mouse, perhaps the game should partly compensate by reducing aiming accuracy of the enemy AI? Not fully compensating, though, just half-ways. Why half-way? Because there would not be an incentive for the player to buy a joystick, otherwise. But why compensate at all? Because some players in poorer parts of the world may just be unable to afford a joystick, and some in the richer parts of the world may be using someone else's computer and not be allowed or expected to install a joystick. So, if the game is twice as hard with a mouse, say, I'd make a 1.4142 compensation adjustment of difficulty, as lowered AI aiming accuracy, the standard for players using a mouse.
Going back in time through this thread, yes, demons are too maneuverable, and the enemy AI is too infallible, both in terms of how they evade shots, as well as the accuracy of their shots. Too much so to have them outnumber you on top of it.
Getting back to the first topic in this thread: Indeed bolts seem slower than in the original game. They seem as slow as in Privateer 2. Frankly I don't care much one way or the other, except when coming out of a jump point, or after Auto-ing, and finding myself, not only surrounded, but with bolts arriving at my ship at the instant I get there. Whether bolts are slow or fast, they aren't supposed to be instantaneous... Are they?
EDIT:
Another way the game could encourage the player to get out of the safety zone by hinting at money opportunities, would be a "convoys" computer, or screen as part of the missions computer. Bandit LOAF was suggesting in another thread, that perhaps a better way of addressing the lack of firepower in Draymans could be for Draymans to travel in convoys with hired escorts. This would be useful not only to players who own Draymans, though; it would have at least three added benefits:
1) It would allow a player with a Tarsus, say, to experience and get a taste of the profits to be made by taking dangerous trade routes, presently in the safety of a convoy.
2) It would provide an opportunity to take escort missions to players who own a fighter with little cargo space.
3) It would provide hints that a player willing to risk making the route alone could use to make quick bucks: If I have a Centurion with cargo expansion, and I see in the computer that a convoy of 4 Draymans loaded with pets are leaving for New Caledonia, I might guess that Caledonia is in a life or death dire need of pets right now; and I might load my ship with pets to the brim and beat the convoy to it (being first).
thehawk said:
Indeed, INDEED. I tackeled this very subject in some other thread, and that's the ONLY solution I was able to find to the traditional problem of balancing a game throughout the evolution of the player's skills and capabilities, without resorting to cheating against the player (which is what the original did, making enemies stronger as you upgraded your guns). And that is to make difficulty "geographically mapped". This solution has the added benefit of being more realistic and intuitive.
The game presently does implement geography based difficulty to some extent. There is a "safe zone" between Troy and Constantinople, with another branch of safety going up through Nexus to Tingerhoff and Perry. There are Pirates to the North West, Kilrathi to the North East, and Retro to the South East. This is good! What isn't so good is the amount of enemies of all 3 kinds in Detroit. Detroit being the "Industrial Capital" of the sector, and having huge amounts of trade, and being situated right between the political capital and the miltary capital, it should be well secured.
Additionally, if there are kilrathi incursions into New Detroit (or any system for that matter), it should be possible for the player to identify, after a while, where they are coming from. I understand the original game opted for pure randomness, as those were the days of DOS and floppies; but it wouldn't take too much programming, I don't think, or contradict too much canon, to have them jump into system through some jump point and TRAVEL to where they are going to harrass the player and other MPC's.
But I'm digressing.
Yeah, so, I was saying the game already partially implements a geography based difficulty system; but then fails it in two respects:
1) Profits do not reflect fully the geographical difficulty: A mission to Tri-Pak should pay a lot more than a mission to Troy. Missions between Troy and New Detroit are too well paid: In the order of 12 or 13K. So I load up in Uranium and Plutonium, exit and restart the game enough times to catch 3 missions to New Detroit, and I make 60K in one trip with hardly any harrassment. THAT I can say is almost "too easy".
2) Missions going to more dangerous places aren't only not paid appropriately, but in fact often don't make good trade routes. Additionally, as a player I may not remember what each of the bases in each of the systems sells and for how much, so rather than take a chance by going to Padre or New Caledonia, I might as well just reload the game until I have missions going back to Troy, and load up on fuels, medical and holographics. Sure thing! But the simplest way the game could break this viscious circle is not to somehow prevent reload randomization, or any such hacks, but simply to make the random mission generators make sense. Currently it does not make any sense: It might produce a mission carrying food dispensers from Troy to New Detroit; it might generate a mission carrying Plutonium from New Detroit to Troy. Not only is this incomprehensible, but it wastes a precious opportunity to hint to the player what alternative trade routes there may be, and what kinds of goods would be good to take where. If the mission generator did the right thing, I could take a mission or two from New Detroid to McAbee, then find that there's a chance of making a quick buck transporting ore from there to nearby Tingerhoff's refinery, and so on.
So, for geography based difficulty, the difficulty has to be well mapped out, trade trips have to be priced accordingly, and the mission generator should help the player get a taste of where the big money is, which should NOT be in following along the safe corridors.
With respect to the difficulty in using joystick vs. mouse, perhaps the game should partly compensate by reducing aiming accuracy of the enemy AI? Not fully compensating, though, just half-ways. Why half-way? Because there would not be an incentive for the player to buy a joystick, otherwise. But why compensate at all? Because some players in poorer parts of the world may just be unable to afford a joystick, and some in the richer parts of the world may be using someone else's computer and not be allowed or expected to install a joystick. So, if the game is twice as hard with a mouse, say, I'd make a 1.4142 compensation adjustment of difficulty, as lowered AI aiming accuracy, the standard for players using a mouse.
Going back in time through this thread, yes, demons are too maneuverable, and the enemy AI is too infallible, both in terms of how they evade shots, as well as the accuracy of their shots. Too much so to have them outnumber you on top of it.
Getting back to the first topic in this thread: Indeed bolts seem slower than in the original game. They seem as slow as in Privateer 2. Frankly I don't care much one way or the other, except when coming out of a jump point, or after Auto-ing, and finding myself, not only surrounded, but with bolts arriving at my ship at the instant I get there. Whether bolts are slow or fast, they aren't supposed to be instantaneous... Are they?
EDIT:
Another way the game could encourage the player to get out of the safety zone by hinting at money opportunities, would be a "convoys" computer, or screen as part of the missions computer. Bandit LOAF was suggesting in another thread, that perhaps a better way of addressing the lack of firepower in Draymans could be for Draymans to travel in convoys with hired escorts. This would be useful not only to players who own Draymans, though; it would have at least three added benefits:
1) It would allow a player with a Tarsus, say, to experience and get a taste of the profits to be made by taking dangerous trade routes, presently in the safety of a convoy.
2) It would provide an opportunity to take escort missions to players who own a fighter with little cargo space.
3) It would provide hints that a player willing to risk making the route alone could use to make quick bucks: If I have a Centurion with cargo expansion, and I see in the computer that a convoy of 4 Draymans loaded with pets are leaving for New Caledonia, I might guess that Caledonia is in a life or death dire need of pets right now; and I might load my ship with pets to the brim and beat the convoy to it (being first).
) for those of us who like a challenge.Hellcat, the changes don't seem to make a difference.
I just took a *cargo* mission to New Detroit. This must be a bug: I checked the objectives once I got into new detroit, and said I must visit the jump point to ND-57. I go there and there are about 10 kilrathi insys. As usual: flying in ways that it is absolutely impossible for me to aim. There's never a time when the ship stays in front of me for more than a quarter of a second. Meanwhile all the other ships are hitting me with unfailing accuracy: BANG! BANG! BA-BANG! BANG! ... at an average of like 2 or 3 hits per second. Lasted about 10 seconds. IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!!
And I'm playing at Easy level. What do I change to get them to stop flying in physically impossible ways and having such unerring accuracy?
By the way, in the original Privateer, only 2 ships at a time actually fought with you. If you had 10 ships, it was just more work to do, but not necessarily harder work than 5. With this remake they are ALL targeting me.
I just took a *cargo* mission to New Detroit. This must be a bug: I checked the objectives once I got into new detroit, and said I must visit the jump point to ND-57. I go there and there are about 10 kilrathi insys. As usual: flying in ways that it is absolutely impossible for me to aim. There's never a time when the ship stays in front of me for more than a quarter of a second. Meanwhile all the other ships are hitting me with unfailing accuracy: BANG! BANG! BA-BANG! BANG! ... at an average of like 2 or 3 hits per second. Lasted about 10 seconds. IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!!
And I'm playing at Easy level. What do I change to get them to stop flying in physically impossible ways and having such unerring accuracy?
By the way, in the original Privateer, only 2 ships at a time actually fought with you. If you had 10 ships, it was just more work to do, but not necessarily harder work than 5. With this remake they are ALL targeting me.
bizzare.... make sure the 31337ness in your savegame file is set to .5999
maybe .5999 is too high...
maybe the 1.5 value is too high...
check those out and report back...
also perhaps you by mistake clicked on a bounty mission or it was that ancient "I clicked on one mission, got another" bug rearing its ugly head again--but I swear I haven't seen that for months
maybe .5999 is too high...
maybe the 1.5 value is too high...
check those out and report back...
also perhaps you by mistake clicked on a bounty mission or it was that ancient "I clicked on one mission, got another" bug rearing its ugly head again--but I swear I haven't seen that for months
AKAImBatman
Spaceman
dan_w said:
Am I the only one who envisions GB picking up his CB and having the following conversation?
"Breaker, breaker, this is Little Hauler on approach to New Motor City, and I'm looking to take a nap. Over."
"Roger Little Hauler, this is Daddy Dray. Looks like we have some extra space in the crib. You are clear to mosey on in. Over."
"Mighty kind of you Daddy Dray. This baby is moving into the cradle. Over."
"Roger that, little hauler. We are rocking the cradle. Enjoy the trip. Over and out."
LOL
AKAImBatman
Spaceman
thehawk said:
If they don't know, then we should make them go watch Smokey and the Bandit until they get it! ;-)
For those who *don't* actually get it, "Rocking the Cradle" is trucker's lingo for tucking a truck safely inside a convoy. The idea is that the lead truck and the trailing truck watch out for "smokeys" (cops), while the entire convoy violates the speed limit.