Higher Nuke altitude.

Moderators: Zock, JaggedAppliance

Higher Nuke altitude.

Postby Endranii » 06 Mar 2018, 01:33

Just make nukes fly on higher altitude so it's harder to block with air as at the moment seton's air slot it's really easy to block nukes when they are flying over the hill. Be it t3 or t4 nuke. If necessary I can provide rep with 4 consecutive blocks on t4 nuke with air scouts.
Endranii
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Feb 2017, 18:07
Has liked: 42 times
Been liked: 31 times
FAF User Name: Empty_Spot

Re: Higher Nuke altitude.

Postby Strogo » 06 Mar 2018, 19:49

Yes, it is a bug, I think. Because in code we have these parts: comments " -- Turn ~90 degrees towards target/ -- Now set turn rate to zero so nuke flies straight/ -- Get the nuke as close to 90 deg as possible/ --Freeze the turn rate as to prevent steep angles at long distance targets". But there is a mistake in numbers (or it has been changed on purpose in faf, idk). Fix is simple:



Also my suggestion is - SetCollision(false) in the final part of trajectory (won't affect SMD) and then return it to "true" state right before nuke hits the ground, so you can't block nuke with air anymore. Blocking nuke with t1 air (and even with t3) is broken mechanics, as for me, and it should be fixed. All up to balance team.
Strogo
Crusader
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 25 Oct 2017, 00:51
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 8 times
FAF User Name: Strogo

Re: Higher Nuke altitude.

Postby Sprouto » 06 Mar 2018, 23:57

Actually - it might be more effective to set a DoNotCollideList = { 'AIR' ) on the weapon. That should prevent the projectile from colliding with any kind of air unit, but still leave it possible to collide with other entities - such as shields. There are some mods out there that enable that kind of collision for various reasons.
Sprouto
Priest
 
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2012, 05:40
Has liked: 53 times
Been liked: 67 times
FAF User Name: Sprouto

Re: Higher Nuke altitude.

Postby Strogo » 07 Mar 2018, 00:22

Yeah, didn't know about that.

Also one more addition to "collision" suggestion, for those, who like aesthetic solutions: as you know, in real life nuclear warheads move really fast in the final part of trajectory and also make antimissile maneuvers. SupCom nuke is simpler ofc, but we can still immitate some movements.



So yes, warhead is fast, warhead is small, it maneuvers and that's why it doesn't hit planes => SetCollision(false)/DoNotCollideList :D
Strogo
Crusader
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 25 Oct 2017, 00:51
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 8 times
FAF User Name: Strogo

Re: Higher Nuke altitude.

Postby Plasma_Wolf » 07 Mar 2018, 02:10

About the bug part: I posted an issue on the FAF github: https://github.com/FAForever/fa/issues/2382.

Nukes are already flying at the highest altitude of all units. On their way up they first have to pass air units, then the novax satellites. And then on the way back down they pass the satellites and air units again. At least, if there were no bug that's what they would have done.

As for changing the trajectory in fancy ways, I don't think that's a good idea. The bug needs to be fixed and then the nuke will go straight up at the start, and straight down at the end. Changing trajectories will not change this goal and will only make them take longer to travel, which gives the SMD more time to build the counter.

Increasing the speed for this new trajectory is also not a good idea. The longer the total distance, the more that will change stuff. At this point you're working on a change for the sake of a change and you'll be looking at nuke behaviour from scratch. This is unnecessary. To add to this, if nukes go faster, anti-nukes will potentially have more trouble shooting them down. The physics in this game is still a thing that can ruin your day with that sort of stuff (think of PDs missing units because the units are moving in a particular direction at a particular speed. Different units but the same concept). I'm very reluctant to a change in the trajectory of the nukes to something more fancy of what we originally had.

Strogo, since you have the fix to the original behaviour of the nuke, could you post that as a reply on the issue I posted in the FAF github? Then everything can come together nicely and this issue will be fixed :)
User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1222
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 11:28
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 64 times
FAF User Name: Plasma_Wolf

Re: Higher Nuke altitude.

Postby Strogo » 07 Mar 2018, 13:15

Plasma_Wolf wrote:About the bug part: I posted an issue on the FAF github: https://github.com/FAForever/fa/issues/2382.
Strogo, since you have the fix to the original behaviour of the nuke, could you post that as a reply on the issue I posted in the FAF github? Then everything can come together nicely and this issue will be fixed :)


Made a pr=)

And as for trajectory, yes, all your arguments are valid. I remember discussion about nukes and one of the arguments against Collision(false) was "It is SupCom feature, any object can collide with any object and if you turn off collision for nuke, then SupCom won't be SupCom anymore" (not exactly, but smth like that). Personaly, I don't care. But I'm not a balance counselor ;) So I tried to find the way how to make it harder to block nuke with air and left Collision(true) at the same time. Ofcourse, my example won't change anything (that was just some sort of testing), as nuke still has same model and pretty obvious trajectory so no problem to block it.

But what we can do is slow down nuke above target (so new travel time will be same as current one) and then create new shell which has collision model of arty shell (or even smaller) and which can't be hitted by SMD (as we gave it enough time to do it by slowing down the nuke). You still be able to block it with air, but it will be much much harder. This is basically how it works in real life (except that irl nuclear warheads separated from carrier rocket somewhere at highest point of trajectory). Current supcom nuke is just a joke: "I'm a nuke, I'm big and slow, I don't want to actually hit my target so put all your trash t1 air above it and block me pls" =))
Strogo
Crusader
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 25 Oct 2017, 00:51
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 8 times
FAF User Name: Strogo

Re: Higher Nuke altitude.

Postby Strogo » 07 Mar 2018, 14:51

Forget what I said. Nuke aoe is big enough to damage the target even if you blocked nuke with planes (after trajectory fix, ofc). Yeah, now I remember how it worked before bug. Can blame me for arguing about smth without proper testing =)
Strogo
Crusader
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 25 Oct 2017, 00:51
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 8 times
FAF User Name: Strogo

Re: Higher Nuke altitude.

Postby Plasma_Wolf » 07 Mar 2018, 19:35

I think we should just remove the collision detection so that the only ways to kill nukes are to kill the nuke with an anti-nuke or kill the SML before the nukes launch. It's the dimples solution.

As for people complaining "supcom isn't supcom anymore", we can safely ignore them. We should focus on changing stuff that's broken or that should be changed for good reasons. This is one of those things. There are changes in the game that were not necessary, or went too far, stuff that didn't need to change and those things have a bigger impact on the game than removing collision detection for nukes.
User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1222
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 11:28
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 64 times
FAF User Name: Plasma_Wolf

Re: Higher Nuke altitude.

Postby biass » 08 Mar 2018, 09:07

Plasma_Wolf wrote:As for people complaining "supcom isn't supcom anymore", we can safely ignore them.


letting changes happen with no backlash because you like those changes sets a bad standard, especially when you complain about changes happening with no backlash that you don't like in the very next sentence

small nuke dodges or movements are cool, and you can vary them per faction, blocking a nuke was this really cool luck move in the past but right now it's clear its becoming too common
Morax wrote:Questioning what i am doing is like you are trolling me

My map thread: http://bit.ly/2qubD3l

Whiteheart wrote:biass on his campaign to cleanse and remake every single map of FAF because he is an untolerating reincarnation of mapping hitler
User avatar
biass
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1841
Joined: 03 Dec 2015, 07:54
Location: Sexy sexy dual gap v4
Has liked: 564 times
Been liked: 475 times
FAF User Name: biass

Re: Higher Nuke altitude.

Postby Golol » 09 Mar 2018, 13:01

Would it be possible to let the nuke simply survive the collision and kill the airplane?
You technically cant complain that collision was removed then and supcom "is still supcom".
User avatar
Golol
Contributor
 
Posts: 700
Joined: 07 May 2012, 15:56
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 21 times
FAF User Name: Golol


Return to Balance Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest