A_vehicle wrote:
You don't understand. When I said it isn't a bone problem, I meant the units are targeting the bones perfectly. The problem is that if there is no hitbox there, the unit won't get hit.

Also, not only is the bone a legal target, it is the default target. If on the other hand a unit has a list of target bones listed exluding that bone, it will not target that bone unless it is firing on its intel blip (say on sonar or if it is cloaked).

IceDreamer wrote:

A_vehicle wrote:Units don't fire at the hitbox, they fire at the '0' bone, which is a catch-all name for the bone of the unit named after the unit ID (unless of course another target bone is specified in the AI table).

Go and try it out. The 0 bone is, in this case, at the 0,0,0 mark on the surface of the water, clearly visible, and the Riptide will not aim, or fire, anywhere near it. It can't, the bone is an illegal target. You'll see when you try it. I was as shocked as you will be when I first saw it, what's happening is totally bizarre. Even resizing the hitbox to tremendous proportions didn't help, the tank simply kept firing at the top corner of the hitbox and nowhere near any bone (No targetbones declared). Extremely odd.

A_vehicle wrote:
The reason frigates miss amphibious tanks is not because of bone problems.

Again, go try it, it is absolutely a bone problem. The only way you'll accept it is by seeing it for yourself, I can do no more here. The ultimate proof that I'm right is the way I've fixed it. Just by moving the Torpedo Launcher 0.1 units in the Y direction on completion, the bones shift just enough for the 0 bone to become a legitimate target for AboveWaterTargetsOnly. I know because as soon as I did this, weapons aim at it properly and everything works smoothly.

A_vehicle wrote:
Units don't fire at the hitbox, they fire at the '0' bone, which is a catch-all name for the bone of the unit named after the unit ID (unless of course another target bone is specified in the AI table).

A_vehicle wrote:
AboveWaterTargetsOnly = true causes the explosions from air crashes to not damage submerged units (see for yourself, not all aircraft have this field and WILL damage subs when they crash in the water, others with the field true don't) so I don't know what you're talking about.

A_vehicle wrote:
Isn't it past your bedtime?

IceDreamer wrote:
OK that's it, time to rip you a new one because I've had enough of this crap.

This proves how utterly ignorant and incompetent you are. You have not even the first clue what that blueprint value does. For the record, that value tells a unit's weapon if a particular bone is a legal target at the present moment. The weapon's first restriction is on the layers it is able to target, found lower down in the LayerCaps area of the blueprint. In the case of Navy, most ships dwell in the 'Water' layer, but have bones throughout their mesh, some above the waterline, some below it. Some of each must be set up as targetbones, so that submerged weapons such as torpedoes can target the unit as well as surface ones.

The problem with the Torpedo Launchers, which I have fixed for the next patch, is that they were in the 'Water' layer but had no above water bones available as targets, so any weapon which correctly selected the target based on layer was then confused as to where ON that target it needed to aim.

I've said it before, but you're clearly blind so I'll say it again: It's not a bug. The sheer number of things which come together to make ground-firing possible mean it's 100% not a bug, not to mention I was there when they raised the ruddy things up. Can't you read?

The hitboxes on all submerged units combined with their elevation means that all the battleships can hit them just the same. The UEF's extra AOE gives it a bit more leeway, but the real advantage is that it fires more bullets. More bullets + greater spread + greater AOE = Far greater effective area of cover => Higher micro cost. On the other hand, the Summit is also the toughest to micro with its much slower rate of fire, and the way the shells can arc long or short extremely easily.

This is the most idiotic, baseless, stupid thing I have ever read on these forums. The icon is simply the Destroyer's icon, used because it was designed to be a primarily surface combatant (Oh yes, I'll get to that in a minute). The fact that current balance means Destroyers mostly have awesome Torpedoes does not mean their original purpose was to kill subs. I even wrote a new unit description for people like you to read ingame, so you can see the ACTUAL use of the unit.

UEF Battlecruiser: Neptune
Surface DPS = 626.9 (313.4 per gun - Yes, the database is wrong, go see ingame if you don't believe my maths)
Torpedo DPS = 20

Yeah, it's always been like that. This ship was designed, from concept to model to code, to be an anti-Destroyer assassin to complement the UEF's much weaker T2 Navy, with good intel equipment and limited self-defence against subs. You know why it's always been crap against subs? It is MEANT to be crap against subs.
Fact number one: There was not a single fact in your entire tirade. It takes a lot to really piss me off, but your baseless ranting has managed it. Congratulations, you've won the solid gold cupie doll.

Fact number two: Things which make sense in real life are irrelevant. Torpedoes and Depth Charges were never given AOE for a reason: It's not necessary. AOE has the potential to cause sudden, massive upswings in DPS, so it's not used lightly. We didn't just give SAMs AOE for the hell of it, we gave them it because it was necessary for gameplay. In my opinion, and the opinion of many other players, some far better than either of us, groundfire + AOE is good for gameplay. It introduces ways and means that an attentive, clever, or knowledgeable player may gain an advantage over someone who is not so attentive, clever, or knowledgeable. GPG did this for a reason; It flows well with what make SupCom SupCom, and not some random RTS clone like all the others.

A_vehicle wrote:P.S. Let's all focus on real problems and stop ******** about each other. No offence, nothing personal, with all due respect.
:D

Come back with some actual facts, you know, the kind based on evidence, and I may listen to you. If you try coming in here with the kind of crap you posted last time, I'll just obliterate your post again, and again, and again. Do some research.

rockoe10 wrote:
Fourth post of this thread.... Called it! Haha :p

P.S. I'm a firm believer that if you want change, action is the best way to get it. Words only get you so far. Personally I like it the way it is, but again, I suggest to those who desire change to make change rather than simply wish it. Discussion can bring like minded people together, but those people need to take the next step and do something about it. Mods are a nice feature about this game. Make one or salvage one from an old mod

A_vehicle wrote:
Regardless of that, I argue that this is a bug because subs were given the ability to dive/surface in order to defeat naval guns. You can't ground fire a sub in real life. Finally it poses a balance issue because it allows the UEF battleship to one-volley superior numbers of Seraphim subs, especially in the hands of a skilled player. This makes it IBMA, overpowered, blah blah blah, especially since the UEF has a blast radius of 3 instead of 2 like the other battleships. This is significant because most subs have a normal operating depth of 1.5 units (except for the nuke subs, which I think sit at 2) so it can effect more subs than the other battleships. This also makes the UEF battlecruiser useful only for killing small ships, when its original purpose was to hunt subs (see the icon). Not cool bro.