View Full Version: Pseudo 3D

Unofficial Transcendence Forum > Suggestions and Feature Requests > Pseudo 3D

Title: Pseudo 3D

Apemant - March 3, 2006 10:25 PM (GMT)
What do you guys think about adding pseudo 3D realism by making it possible that a bullet or non-homing missile/mine just flies 'over' or 'under' the target? Basically the same thing we already have now, to some extent. I mean, it's possible to fly 'over' planets and stations, so this idea comes naturally.

The main reason for suggesting this is basically the problem of friendly fire. I love having wingmen and autons but it pains me to be forced to care so much about not hitting them accidentally. Or take escort missions for example. Is it realistic to care more about navigating around the freighter under your protection than the actual threat, ie enemy ships? I think friendly fire is the main reason why I tend to prefer omni weapons: I'm not so lazy to target, but I hate to hit friendly ships and stations which even need not be on the same screen.

With pseudo 3D it would be possible to make you hit enemies at x% (depending on ship, weapon or whatever) while at the same time hitting friends at 100-x% (inverse probability). So, if you have 95% chance to hit (enemies), you would only have 5% chance to hit a friend even if the bullet heads straight toward it (it should just pass through, err, I mean 'over' it). Of course, it would be possible to circumvent this by explicitly targeting a 'friend' if need may be.

So what do you think? It seems 'realistic' to me, although I'm not sure if its easy/possible to code...

dvlenk6 - March 3, 2006 11:08 PM (GMT)
just an opinion:

I like it the way it is now. Sometimes I end up blowing up a friendly.
Maybe I shouldn't have been firing that heavy ion blaster in their direction :lol: .

I can't keep wingman alive very long either, but probably almost half the time it's enemies that kill them. I'd much rather blow them apart than hold my fire while a ranx dreadnought is unloading kiloton rounds at me.

cmhbob - March 4, 2006 03:44 PM (GMT)
It's already there, to some extent. Watch what happens during a dogfight; ships fly over each other, even though weapons fire does not. If there's an object in the way, it gets hit with the weapons fire.

But it you destroy a ship, and it leaves a wreck which coasts into another wreck, they collide, and bounce off each other.

Guest - March 6, 2006 01:50 AM (GMT)
I can somewhat agree with apemant, however, I disagree with the
formula he presented. I would also like to propose that most destroyed
structures *not* protect the PC when on top of them(a tactic with
luminous assemblers comes to mind), although I would like planets to
still block shots provided that with some effort you can still shoot
planet/destroyed structure bound ship(-wreak)(s).

Aegeus - March 6, 2006 09:52 PM (GMT)
I wouldn't like stations to let shots pass. Luminous are not only deadly fighters, their base is also a continuous supply. This means that you can't slowly skim off the defenses like on other bases. Unless you have ion resistance or a really massive shield, hiding on their base is the only way I've found to bust assemblers. My view is that you're flying so clos that they don't want to shoot for fear of hitting their base.

As for psuedo-3D, I'm not that much of a fan either. With some gunships it's hard enough to hit them without having a chance that your bullets will harmlessly pass overhead. Also, it might not work graphically. Instead of looking like a near miss, it might just look like the shot passed through the ship and leave the player going "What the...!"

Ghengis - March 7, 2006 02:52 AM (GMT)
I agree about the friendly fire thing. Bullets passing through your Autons would make up for their being pig-ignorant. They choose to fly through what is obviously your firing path! Maybe we could give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they're flying just over or under your shots? If they didn't veer all over the place, it would be another matter, but they do, so...

SparcMan - March 7, 2006 08:05 AM (GMT)
I partly agree, but only concerning Autons and Wingmen. Anything else is fair game. This would be implemented something like the Sung fortresses that can fire through the defense barriers that ring around them.

the_holy_thom - March 7, 2006 09:40 AM (GMT)
wingmen and autons should still be hit occasionally, to represent an unlucky shot

Guest - March 7, 2006 07:19 PM (GMT)
btw, I was only meaning *dead* stations, not live ones. I usually
blast assemblers from afar. I usually have a fusionfire howitzer by
then, but I would still be willing to do so with a Hanzo Blaster.

SparcMan - March 8, 2006 03:43 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (the_holy_thom @ Mar 7 2006, 12:40 AM)
wingmen and autons should still be hit occasionally, to represent an unlucky shot

Why is that? Autons and wingmen are weak enough as it is. If there were immune to your attacks, it would make them a bit more usefull. The defective auton being an exception to the immunity. I know it's less realistic, but as we know, some sacrifices of realism must be made for the sake of gameplay.

the_holy_thom - March 8, 2006 04:39 PM (GMT)
you can displace your pet into a fire trap in nethack - you can hit your auton in Transcendence. There shouldnt really be anything given away too easily

Ghengis - March 8, 2006 05:52 PM (GMT)
Yes, but in Nethack everything is turn-based, so you can be as careful as you like. Also, fire traps etc. are far less common than gunfights in Transcendence. The analogy doesn't really hold. If in Nethack you could attack east and hit your pet standing north of you, I could see the parallel, but you can't so I don't. My contention is that the autons should either be a *little* bit more intelligent (auton A tries to stay to the right of your line of fire, auton B tries to stay to the left, etc.) or you should at least have a pretty good chance of not hitting them. Notice I'm not saying that this should be true for e.g. station guards or other friendly units, only the autons whose control systems are directly linked to yours. They move in lockstep with you when you're flying and turning, but when battle breaks out they're all over the place and mostly in the way. I'm just saying that a *little* slack would be a good thing.

the_holy_thom - March 8, 2006 07:40 PM (GMT)
im not arguing. my point is that the unexpected/unwanted can and should happen in a game. if everything went the players way it would get boring, but as they are autons are more a nuisance than anything else. I dont want them to become unusable, but they shouldnt be made invincible to friendly fire.

Ghengis - March 8, 2006 08:03 PM (GMT)
I think we're talking at cross purposes -- you don't want them invincible, we both don't want them useless... the only question then is where in the middle should they fall? I suggest that they have a 10-40% chance of "intercepting" one of your shots (only testing will narrow that down; maybe better models get better at staying out of your way?), whereas from what I can tell that number is now 100%. It wouldn't be "going the player's way", as they can still get hit sometimes, but I think it would be an easier way of making them somewhat more useful than actually going to the trouble of figuring out how to make them *smarter*.

F50 - March 8, 2006 08:16 PM (GMT)
Perhaps, instead of shots passing through
your auton/companion, which I agree would
be unbalanced, autons and wingmen be smarter
about your shots. If they see you turning,
in a way that might get them fried they should
get significantly out of the way in a matter
of a seccond(currently they seem to be content
to stay in the crossfire and fry). This is
especially annoying for me when the only
formation that removes wingmen from my movement
space removes them right in front of my turret.
Another (unrelated) thing that bothers me about
wingmen, is that unlike autons, they won't
bother to rotate to shoot down my enemies unless
they "break and attack" which is quite capable of
frying them when they "break and attack" a sung
citadel instead of the steel slaver in my visual

Apemant - May 14, 2006 09:25 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (the_holy_thom @ Mar 8 2006, 07:39 AM)
you can displace your pet into a fire trap in nethack - you can hit your auton in Transcendence. There shouldnt really be anything given away too easily

If you check my post, I never suggested autons or wingmen should be 'invincible' to friendly fire. That would indeed seem very unrealistic. So i proposed there was a chance you still hit them, and that this chance should in some way depend on the firing accuracy of your ship/weapons. It could be something like 100-x% or even (100-x)*2%, or any other factor, depending on the type of a 'friend' that crosses your line of fire. To see what I mean, I'll give an example:

Let's say your firing accuracy is 95% (all ships already have this attribute in the xml). That could mean that any bullet or non-homing missile should hit an enemy ship 95% of the time it 'touches' it in 2D space. The remaining 5% could mean that you just 'missed' it by shooting 'over' or 'under' your enemy.

But for friends, it could use the same firing accuracy in an inverse way. For example, you would HIT an auton or wingman only 5% (or say, 10%) of the time, taking into account that you would not fire in their way intentionaly, except if they are way 'over' or 'under' your line of fire. For other friendly ships it could be, for example, a little less biased, so you would hit them 10% (or 20%) of the time, or something like that.

If your accuracy was like 80%, then you would hit autons 20% of the time, and other friendly ship 40%. The formula might actually be completely different, it doesn't actually matter, as long as there IS some difference between friends and enemies. I'm not suggesting a binary approach: always hit enemies, never hit friends, but something more realistic. I don't think its realistic to hit your friends as often as you do now (or to worry more about hitting them than anything else).

* Hosted for free by InvisionFree