simonmaxhill Posted Feb 10, 2014, 12:32 am	I'd change the to-hit penalties massively in favor of moving vehicles vs stationary ones. Nearly stationary cars should have a very difficult time hitting moving ones - even if their target is headed straight at them, or away, the speed difference should count. Vehicles moving under 15 mph should suffer the wrath of the dogfighting gods.
*Bastille* Posted Feb 10, 2014, 3:24 am	Lets implement that into 1
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 10, 2014, 9:22 am	Do you even understand how vectors and speed work? Stationary shooters can achieve more accurate aim. Try running and shooting a gun at the same time. This is about as silly as holding a gun sideways and expecting the same ballistics path.
*goat starer* Posted Feb 10, 2014, 10:47 am	Grimm Sykes said: Do you even understand how vectors and speed work? Stationary shooters can achieve more accurate aim. Try running and shooting a gun at the same time. This is about as silly as holding a gun sideways and expecting the same ballistics path. once again you miss the point completely. Simon is looking to make the game more dynamic and interesting... not to make it more realistic. try to keep up
*Jagged Monkey* Posted Feb 10, 2014, 3:13 pm	goat starer said: Grimm Sykes said: Do you even understand how vectors and speed work? Stationary shooters can achieve more accurate aim. Try running and shooting a gun at the same time. This is about as silly as holding a gun sideways and expecting the same ballistics path. once again you miss the point completely. Simon is looking to make the game more dynamic and interesting... not to make it more realistic. try to keep up It is a lot easier to have a steady aim if you hold still.  So why not have a bonus to hitting stationary vehicles?  You're a much better target if you don't move.  While on the move it is much more difficult to lay down effective fire.  There are things to consider like bumps on the road, inertia, and how much you should lead your target.  Modern war machines use stable platforms and computers to quickly and accurately calculate the firecontrol solution.  I don't think we have that stuff in DW. I think the game already take these things into consideration.  There's a to hit penalty for drivers in motion.  Defensive Driver seems to work better when the car is moving.  Ballistics are much more accurate if you hold still.  If you don't like the defensive line tactic then maybe consider a muscle scout.  Hell you can even move that defensive line into the fray!  That would counter the recoil have high caliber weapons (bonus).  There are a lot of different ways to play Dark Wind.  This is what makes it so damned addictive.  I don't think we should change it in this regard.
*goat starer* Posted Feb 10, 2014, 4:09 pm	Jagged Monkey said: It is a lot easier to have a steady aim if you hold still.  So why not have a bonus to hitting stationary vehicles?  You're a much better target if you don't move.      there already is one and im not saying we should change it... just that following what someone is saying is necessary to conduct sensible debate.. if Grimm can't do that he should keep q ui6et+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++:Pxz{ that was dippi walking over the keyboard lol
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 10, 2014, 4:33 pm	no, I got it, the point was to change a fundamental part of the game in some silly and senseless way.
Bolt Thrower Posted Feb 10, 2014, 4:45 pm	Not sure how easy this would be to fix, but I think one of the big problems is there are only two types of AI behavior. Engage and dogfight or run. Not sure how hard the coding would be, but if some of the AI's flanked lines and some set up a line of their own and advanced slowly (slower), might be helpful. Or, you know, the rocket boosted suicide tanker.
*goat starer* Posted Feb 10, 2014, 5:04 pm	Grimm Sykes said: no, I got it, the point was to change a fundamental part of the game in some silly and senseless way. no you didnt.. as your reply shows.. you seem completely unaware that the rest of us can read
*Snipe* Posted Feb 10, 2014, 5:22 pm	Looks like Bast has been here..........
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 10, 2014, 6:14 pm	goat starer said: Grimm Sykes said: no, I got it, the point was to change a fundamental part of the game in some silly and senseless way. no you didnt.. as your reply shows.. you seem completely unaware that the rest of us can read Considering how many, especially yourself, go off on only part of whats said and seem to miss most of what I have said, I really have to wonder about your ability to read. I never said it was like a gun being held sideways, I said it was as silly as. Which, if you could read, you would know. DW 2 will be playing with dw1 players, so any rules change like this would have to be made to both games. The AI behavior isnt attack or flee. the runners run because they have rear weapons and try to keep targets in arc. They only "flee" when stress gets too high.  Most people who have scouted with me have noticed the AI turn and run at some point. Not for long though, eventually they get brave and engage again.
*goat starer* Posted Feb 10, 2014, 7:15 pm	Grimm Sykes said: I never said it was like a gun being held sideways, I said it was as silly as. Which, if you could read, you would know. erm? nobody said you said that dude... you are imagining stuff again. its getting really worrying.
*Jagged Monkey* Posted Feb 10, 2014, 7:20 pm	Grimm Sykes said: This is about as silly as holding a gun sideways and expecting the same ballistics path. Um
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 10, 2014, 8:33 pm	Jagged Monkey said: Um http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66883-why-does-holding-a-pistol-sideways-like-in-the-movies-not-really-work/ Quote: Suffice to say that holding a gun sideways is a billboard that says, "I'm an idiot!" to anyone who has even a small amount of weapons training.
*The X Man* Posted Feb 11, 2014, 12:37 am	simonmaxhill said: I'd change the to-hit penalties massively in favor of moving vehicles vs stationary ones. I get the concept, but I would lean differently towards a different way to implement your idea. Eliminate the penalty aspect. What should really be rewarded is for game play that is more difficult and dangerous. Muscle scouts should get a better bonus and/or increase to their gunnery skills. Driving around at 40 to 70 mph and shooting a weapon is hard and deserves better rewards. Line fighting is easy. It doesn't take a lot of skill to put on the Ebrake and shoot, so skill training should be at a minimum. Anytime you go over your starting speed (30 mph), you would should get an increase in skill training. Now, that does mean after 50 turns of line fighting you start to drive and get 2 shots in over 30 mph before the scout ends that you should get a bonus. The bonus should apply only if more than half of the turns in your encounter were at + 30mph. Implementing ways to reward players who choose to play with higher difficulty and higher risk should always be made available. That being said, Flame Thrower Ram scouts should probably get a triple bonus!
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 11, 2014, 12:55 am	goat starer said: Grimm Sykes said: Do you even understand how vectors and speed work? Stationary shooters can achieve more accurate aim. Try running and shooting a gun at the same time. This is about as silly as holding a gun sideways and expecting the same ballistics path. once again you miss the point completely. Simon is looking to make the game more dynamic and interesting... not to make it more realistic. try to keep up So we want it to be LESS realistic and more unbelievable? Personally I prefer believability
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 11, 2014, 1:03 am	goat starer said: Grimm Sykes said: no, I got it, the point was to change a fundamental part of the game in some silly and senseless way. no you didnt.. as your reply shows.. you seem completely unaware that the rest of us can read I hate to say this...  But Grimm's reply made more sense than Goat's If anything, a stationary vehicle should TAKE more damage from multi-projectile weapons like LMG, MG, MMG, HMG due to more steel on target rather than the few hits they catch while the cone of fire is on them.  OR as an alternative, multi-projectile weapons should do reduced damage to moving cars.  However, single projectile weapons would be unchanged in thier effect.  This is realisticly plausable.
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 11, 2014, 1:21 am	*The X Man* said: Anytime you go over your starting speed (30 mph), you would should get an increase in skill training. Now, that does mean after 50 turns of line fighting you start to drive and get 2 shots in over 30 mph before the scout ends that you should get a bonus. The bonus should apply only if more than half of the turns in your encounter were at + 30mph. gee that would make it very easy and rewarding to use rear guns and just kite them along. Sure get this implimented so i can get better gains with mortars, 3 or 4 points a scout isnt enough for SS.
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 11, 2014, 1:36 am	StCrispin said: multi-projectile weapons should do reduced damage to moving cars.  However, single projectile weapons would be unchanged in thier effect.  This is realisticly plausable. One problem with this crisp... armor is a vague idea as far as applying damage. as all the shots aren't going to hit the exact same spot. one could hit the rear quarter panel, one could hit the door, and if it had weird hit boxes like the BPU, one could hit the back window. I had always thought of it as a relative value and assumed that's why metal fatigue didn't weigh in by the second. In the long term scheme, that's what perma damage amounts to. OOPS Crisp, I misread that... but there's still a problem.. 5 human targets spaced in a 20 foot wide area, and your standing there with a machine gun at 20 feet away. you can empty the whole clip and odds are you will only hit 1 target. automatic fire is anything but accurate. It was designed so unskilled soldiers could throw a lot of lead and maybe get lucky. A skilled marksman could use single shot, and take down all 5 targets  with 1 shot each in under 7 seconds. There's actually a video of this exact scenario.
Bolt Thrower Posted Feb 11, 2014, 1:43 am	That is sort of what I mean.  Except for cargo vehicles, they all attack the same way.  Sam wrote a paper on teaching the AI to drive better based on player pathing actions.  It would be nice if he was able to teach the AI to fight better based on player weapons use and strategies.  For the most part, all the AI vehicles follow the same attack pattern: charge! Grimm Sykes said: The AI behavior isnt attack or flee. the runners run because they have rear weapons and try to keep targets in arc. They only "flee" when stress gets too high.  Most people who have scouted with me have noticed the AI turn and run at some point. Not for long though, eventually they get brave and engage again.
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 11, 2014, 1:51 am	Bolt Thrower said: That is sort of what I mean.  Except for cargo vehicles, they all attack the same way.  Sam wrote a paper on teaching the AI to drive better based on player pathing actions.  It would be nice if he was able to teach the AI to fight better based on player weapons use and strategies.  For the most part, all the AI vehicles follow the same attack pattern: charge! I've actually found it easier to win since the pheromone pathing, because now it's easier to manipulate them.
*The X Man* Posted Feb 11, 2014, 1:51 am	Grimm Sykes said: gee that would make it very easy and rewarding to use rear guns and just kite them along. Sure get this implemented so i can get better gains with mortars, 3 or 4 points a scout isn't enough for SS.  Well, there are 2 variables to consider. Rear guns are not as accurate as front guns and ballistic weapons are less accurate in a moving vehicle. The point I was making is giving better bonuses to players who play at a "harder" level. Mortar tossing at opponents 200+ meters away is a easy low risk tactic. And easy no risk play gets no bonuses. Just remember, I am only tossing out ideas here.... not mortars
Bolt Thrower Posted Feb 11, 2014, 1:54 am	Oh.    Maybe that is why they keep falling in the pool on the Oil Slick map. Grimm Sykes said: Bolt Thrower said: That is sort of what I mean.  Except for cargo vehicles, they all attack the same way.  Sam wrote a paper on teaching the AI to drive better based on player pathing actions.  It would be nice if he was able to teach the AI to fight better based on player weapons use and strategies.  For the most part, all the AI vehicles follow the same attack pattern: charge! I've actually found it easier to win since the pheromone pathing, because now it's easier to manipulate them.
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 11, 2014, 2:08 am	*The X Man* said: Grimm Sykes said: gee that would make it very easy and rewarding to use rear guns and just kite them along. Sure get this implemented so i can get better gains with mortars, 3 or 4 points a scout isn't enough for SS.  Well, there are 2 variables to consider. Rear guns are not as accurate as front guns and ballistic weapons are less accurate in a moving vehicle. The point I was making is giving better bonuses to players who play at a "harder" level. Mortar tossing at opponents 200+ meters away is a easy low risk tactic. And easy no risk play gets no bonuses. Just remember, I am only tossing out ideas here.... not mortars fine, rear HMG's same story
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 11, 2014, 2:10 am	Bolt Thrower said: Oh.    Maybe that is why they keep falling in the pool on the Oil Slick map. Grimm Sykes said: Bolt Thrower said: That is sort of what I mean.  Except for cargo vehicles, they all attack the same way.  Sam wrote a paper on teaching the AI to drive better based on player pathing actions.  It would be nice if he was able to teach the AI to fight better based on player weapons use and strategies.  For the most part, all the AI vehicles follow the same attack pattern: charge! I've actually found it easier to win since the pheromone pathing, because now it's easier to manipulate them.   Actually getting them to fall in any sort of depression used to be much easier, just keep driving around it in circles and they would try to shortcut through it.
*Bastille* Posted Feb 11, 2014, 9:04 am	This conversation started off really well, I miss the days when there were serious talks about game mechanics.
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 11, 2014, 9:31 am	I tried
*goat starer* Posted Feb 11, 2014, 12:59 pm	really? when?
*goat starer* Posted Feb 11, 2014, 2:39 pm	StCrispin said: goat starer said: Grimm Sykes said: Do you even understand how vectors and speed work? Stationary shooters can achieve more accurate aim. Try running and shooting a gun at the same time. This is about as silly as holding a gun sideways and expecting the same ballistics path. once again you miss the point completely. Simon is looking to make the game more dynamic and interesting... not to make it more realistic. try to keep up So we want it to be LESS realistic and more unbelievable? Personally I prefer believability it takes a very strange view to prioritise realism over game play.... in a game. especially where the AI is constrained to behave in an unrealistic way when you play 'realistically' with 'believable' physics... one bit of believability simply creates an unbelievable outcome of the AI gangs dashing themselves against impossible walls of firepower over and over and over again. . That is why most games... indeed all successful games... start from gameplay... as all successful films start from watchability...
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 11, 2014, 5:01 pm	so instead of advocating a better AI, you advocate unbelievability and lack of realism... sounds more like an excuse, which is a form of denial
Bolt Thrower Posted Feb 11, 2014, 5:26 pm	I kind of think that whenever you do straight penalties to a specific action like Simon is advocating, players will find a way to break it. Unless the penalties are so overwhelming for players with no concurrent penalties to AI, any difficulty in gameplay gets quickly overcome by shifts in strategy. So for a short time it would be exciting, and then some people would quickly find a routine again. It is probably hard to code, but making AI attack patterns unpredictable, would make the game harder. If they learned to flank or circle to higher ground before attacking, line fighting would be more difficult. Or if ballistics car stopped moving once they were in range, and just bombarded the line.
Bolt Thrower Posted Feb 11, 2014, 5:36 pm	This is an interesting concept.  But to minimize abuse you could give each chassis a training modifier.  And give each weapon a training modifier.  Training skill gain modified by chassis and the weapon with lowest modifier. Apache with HMG, lower skill gain. Pho with MMG, normal skill gain Racoon with FT (should you live), higher skill gain. *The X Man* said: simonmaxhill said: I'd change the to-hit penalties massively in favor of moving vehicles vs stationary ones. I get the concept, but I would lean differently towards a different way to implement your idea. Eliminate the penalty aspect. What should really be rewarded is for game play that is more difficult and dangerous. Muscle scouts should get a better bonus and/or increase to their gunnery skills. Driving around at 40 to 70 mph and shooting a weapon is hard and deserves better rewards. Line fighting is easy. It doesn't take a lot of skill to put on the Ebrake and shoot, so skill training should be at a minimum. Anytime you go over your starting speed (30 mph), you would should get an increase in skill training. Now, that does mean after 50 turns of line fighting you start to drive and get 2 shots in over 30 mph before the scout ends that you should get a bonus. The bonus should apply only if more than half of the turns in your encounter were at + 30mph. Implementing ways to reward players who choose to play with higher difficulty and higher risk should always be made available. That being said, Flame Thrower Ram scouts should probably get a triple bonus!
*goat starer* Posted Feb 11, 2014, 6:49 pm	Grimm Sykes said: so instead of advocating a better AI, you advocate unbelievability and lack of realism... sounds more like an excuse, which is a form of denial instead of advocating something that is incredibly complicated and time consuming and might not be possible i advocate something that is a simple database change and has the same effect? that would seem sensible.. not that im advocating anything... just reminding you that you have missed the point... again... and again... and again
*Rev. V* Posted Feb 14, 2014, 9:55 pm	" It would be nice if he was able to teach the AI to fight better based on player weapons use and strategies." I have seen some AI behavior in the past few weeks that makes me believe this may already be in effect.
*Bastille* Posted Feb 15, 2014, 12:55 am	yeah definitely I do wonder though if the pheromone thing has overcome some of this behaviour as I see less of it now than I used to. Snipe tactics (search high ground on flanks) used to be a common thing to see, especially when scouting in Texan. I also socut a lot less than I used to, that could play a big part also.
simonmaxhill Posted Feb 25, 2014, 9:01 pm	Copy that. You want a realistic, believable post apocalypse game in which people scrape together armored vehicles using the remnants of civilization. I love games that achieve willing suspension of disbelief by being believable while at the same time appealingly fantastic and dynamic. Difference of styles! StCrispin said: goat starer said: Grimm Sykes said: Do you even understand how vectors and speed work? Stationary shooters can achieve more accurate aim. Try running and shooting a gun at the same time. This is about as silly as holding a gun sideways and expecting the same ballistics path. once again you miss the point completely. Simon is looking to make the game more dynamic and interesting... not to make it more realistic. try to keep up So we want it to be LESS realistic and more unbelievable? Personally I prefer believability
Groovelle Posted Feb 26, 2014, 12:26 am	Quote: I have seen some AI behavior in the past few weeks that makes me believe this may already be in effect. In Morgan... I saw some things. Was disturbing.