Missles are capable of Friendly Fire, why not other weapons?

[Intruder]

Very dissappointed. I do not see where the arguement about it being unfriendly to newbies comes from. All over the board I have seen suggestions that would make it easier for newbies, exp. a new save system, more money, ect. However all of these ideas have been passed on by saying you will get used to it. Anyways, if you want WS to be more realistic then FF for all weapons will be added, minus CC weapons because when in a melee the Titans are locked in combat so closely together that FF would be difficult. However if you do not want to add this realism that is your call, I only ask one thing. It seems that Larkin puts alot of weight into the "veterans" of ToS. That is fine. I'm sorry if this comes off as whineing. I just feel terribly strong about this. No weapons system is 100% safe from FF. and to say one weapons system is capable of it, and the others are not is simply crazy. Sorry again, I don't mean to offend. Does anyone at least see where I am coming from or am I totally out of whack??

[tarendelcymir]

Very dissappointed. I do not see where the arguement about it being unfriendly to newbies comes from. All over the board I have seen suggestions that would make it easier for newbies, exp. a new save system, more money, ect. However all of these ideas have been passed on by saying you will get used to it. Anyways, if you want WS to be more realistic then FF for all weapons will be added, minus CC weapons because when in a melee the Titans are locked in combat so closely together that FF would be difficult. However if you do not want to add this realism that is your call, I only ask one thing. It seems that Larkin puts alot of weight into the "veterans" of ToS. That is fine. I'm sorry if this comes off as whineing. I just feel terribly strong about this. No weapons system is 100% safe from FF. and to say one weapons system is capable of it, and the others are not is simply crazy. Sorry again, I don't mean to offend. Does anyone at least see where I am coming from or am I totally out of whack??

I definitely see where you are coming from. I'm just not sure we really need more ways to screw ourselves up. I agree that it would add a lot of realism, and I also agree that I personally would like it a lot. I'm trying to think about other people, though, especially those just starting the game.

[Thorgrim]

Well, I see you talking about realism, but I don't think you realise the scope of what you're saying. If you want to go for realism, you'd have to go for total realism. Now think of all the variables involved in firing a weapon into a group of titans. Think about height differences. Think about distance and firing angles. Think about intervening terrain. Think about target trajectories. Think about speeds. Think about how bad a miss it was. Think about wind speed and direction.

I also see that CC weapons after all seem to not be weapons at all. If *no* weapon is free from FF, then why would CC be left out? Think about 5 recons swarming an assault. It's a realistic scenario. Tell me a miss with a PX couldn't hit a team mate.

You know why Larkin turns to veterans? Because vets know some of these issues, and recall past rulings. Because they know how Larkin thinks and what level of detail he wants. Because they have an idea of what is worth implementing for some kind of return in game terms.

This is a *game*. Like Larkin said, realism is a major part of it, but playability is too. And ultimately, it's *him* who decides the rules, not the players. We can make suggestions, but we cannot force him to do whatever he doesn't like. Don't confuse listening to the players with letting them run the show.

[Intruder]

Well, I see you talking about realism, but I don't think you realise the scope of what you're saying. If you want to go for realism, you'd have to go for total realism. Now think of all the variables involved in firing a weapon into a group of titans. Think about height differences. Think about distance and firing angles. Think about intervening terrain. Think about target trajectories. Think about speeds. Think about how bad a miss it was. Think about wind speed and direction.

All of these sound great! Though I never said go for total realism, just a feature that would add an exciting and realistic addition to the game.

I understand, and I am a bit spoiled by WS. If you go to pretty much any other game site, the devs hardly listen to the concerns of the customers. At least here some of the suggestions are looked at and applied, just look at the upcoming patch. As for the CC weapons I personally would like the rules to apply for them as well, but I thought that I would be making a compromise that some would accept. Hey, I like idea of having to decide if taking a poor shot is worth it. As it is now, a titan with a tohit of 23 with beam weapons might as well take it if heat is not a factor. However if they had to worry about hitting one of their own, they might think twice. If adding this caused a few errant kills of my jocks, then I only have myself to blame for putting them in this situation. As for the vets, I hope that some of you will think about this and realise the potential fun and excitement that it could add, since Larkin does put stock in what you think. I look at all of the similar type mech games and most have this and it works just fine. Since the decision has been made I guess that there is no point worrying about it unless more people express interest in it. So I will now sit back, play some great WS games, enjoy the netgames, and think fondly on what might have been
No hard feelings to anyone I hope. I didn't mean to be pushy or anything. Just some suggestions.

[LarkinVB]

Maybe the base chance of hitting another titan in the same hex should be dependant on how many titans are in the hex. Each hex can hold 9 titans (IIRC) so if there are 9 titans in a hex and one of them is missed by a missle volley then there would be a 100% chance of hitting one of the 8 others. where if there were only 2 titans in the hex it would only be a 1 in 9 or 1 in 8 chance of hitting the other one.

Thats already in with a slightly different formula.

[LarkinVB]

Since the decision has been made I guess that there is no point worrying about it unless more people express interest in it. So I will now sit back, play some great WS games, enjoy the netgames, and think fondly on what might have been

Decisions can be changed. Start a poll. If the votes for FF are very strong I will reconsider. I don't do rules neither to please veterans nor to
mistreat newbies. I just do them if I'm sure they will make the game a better one. I do see the fun factor in FF, I also see the frustration. FF for missiles is relativly harmless as a maximum of 50% of projectiles will hit. FF with a tesla is a different matter. Total FF will change weapon balance, are you aware of this ?

[LarkinVB]

Very dissappointed. I do not see where the arguement about it being unfriendly to newbies comes from.

I'm dissappointed too. Instead of being happy that the developers do listen many new players call it unfriendly when their suggestions are rejected.

[Thorgrim]

All of these sound great! Though I never said go for total realism, just a feature that would add an exciting and realistic addition to the game.

I look at all of the similar type mech games and most have this and it works just fine.

Well, you have to make up your mind. The game already has lots of realism, you wanted more, but not total. A limit has to be drawn. Imagine every person tying to get his own version of realism implemented

If you're comparing this game to mech simulations, you're way off.

[Intruder]

I'm dissappointed too. Instead of being happy that the developers do listen many new players call it unfriendly when their suggestions are rejected.

Larkin you are way off base here. Read what I said. Someone else insinuated that I was compaining about the lack of support. Instead I was PRAISING you guys about how well you take suggestions and run with them. I never said that you were unfriendly to newbies. Please read them more carefully next time. I do not want people to get the wrong impression about me. I have nothing but respect for small devs groups like yourself. Please don't quote me out of context.

[Intruder]

If you're comparing this game to mech simulations, you're way off.

No way I am doing that. I am comparing WS to other board esque mech games. The Original Battletech, CAV, and BT ClickTech.
These are games that have heavily influenced WS. Sorry I should have been more specific. As for the realism issue, there is no point in fighting about it. You want it one way, I want it another. I am not going to change your mind Just take my interest in this issue as an example of how great this game truely is. If I didn't love this game then I would not waste my time bringing up ideas like this. I like to bring up ideas and see what the reactions are to them. Some are good or some are bad. One never knows until they try.

[LarkinVB]

Larkin you are way off base here. Read what I said. Someone else insinuated that I was compaining about the lack of support. Instead I was PRAISING you guys about how well you take suggestions and run with them. I never said that you were unfriendly to newbies. Please read them more carefully next time. I do not want people to get the wrong impression about me. I have nothing but respect for small devs groups like yourself. Please don't quote me out of context.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post. German is my native tongue

[Intruder]

I figured that it was simple miscommunication. No offence taken, I just wanted to let you know that you have done an OUTSTANDING job with WS. I only wish that big name compaines would show the kind of support that you at VB show us. Keep up the good work!

[Sleeping_Dragon]

I'm sorta torn on this debate...

but am sorta leaning toward liking the idea of FF for all weapons with some constraints..

1) FF from direct fire should be very uncommon, less then the chance from missle fire

2) CC friendly fire even less likely or not at all

3) and here's the trickly one (as I don't think it applies even now) The chance to do FF should NEVER be more likely then the chance to hit the intended target.. this one could be VERY limiting since the min 'to hit' is 2%

some other things to think about... would a hex lock run the chance of FF? Would it substancially add to the game? and for Larkin.. would it add enough for the amount of work it would take, at some point a huge rewrite of code may not be worth it there is little return where as a small rewrite for a small change may be? How big of a rewrite would this be compaired to how much of a 'fun' increase? Personally.. I'm thinking this probably would slightly increase my 'fun level', but only slightly, but I'm one person, I guess it could decrease 'fun levels' for some or moderatly increase them for others. I guess thats sorta what this thread is for... and for what amount of work Larkin is willing to put into a 'slight increase', that's up to him; I'll support him either way, he has a history of making pretty good calls.




while I'm at it... a little more on point 3 as it pertains to FF with missles as it currently stands in WS. (please ignore the reduced missle hits for FF for this argument, for now) Is there a point where the to hit is soo low, that you would have a better chance to hit the intended target, if you actually targeted another target in the same hex (with the same to hit mods) and hoped that it missed and the 'real' target got FFed? I hope someone followed that.....

If so... this REALLY irrattes me as a matter of princaple (In the game, the chance of this to be taken advantage of fairly slim, so no big deal, the 'fun' of friendly fire happening definatly outweights the 'mathmatical' drawbacks at very low 'to hit' ... its just a principle thing)

Larkin, can you confirm the point#3 thing can happen in WS, or does FF happen alot more to me then others

[Intruder]

I agree w/Bblue. Even if it FF for all weapons was made to happen very rarely, as long as it was possible, it would add an amount of fun to my games, by just knowing that it was indeed possible.

[LarkinVB]

3) and here's the trickly one (as I don't think it applies even now) The chance to do FF should NEVER be more likely then the chance to hit the intended target.. this one could be VERY limiting since the min 'to hit' is 2%

Larkin, can you confirm the point#3 thing can happen in WS, or does FF happen alot more to me then others

Yes it can happen ... but not for long ...

[LarkinVB]

So come on. Give me a good solid easy formula for FF with various weapon systems. YOU want it so YOU should do the work.

[Intruder]

So come on. Give me a good solid easy formula for FF with various weapon systems. YOU want it so YOU should do the work.

I take it you are talking me? If so, that isn't my job. You are the programmer, I am the consumer. Geez, I am a frequent forum poster over at ESPN Hockey's website. We are constantly requesting things to be added to the game. Never once have we said, "Hey Bish, we want real puck physics!!!" and then get a reply of "Okay, you want puck physics, do the calculations yourself." I hope this is another case of miscommunication, because if not your reply is severlely disappointing.

[LarkinVB]

No communication problem here. And I didn't talked to anyone specific. According to my understanding there should be no FF for non missile or single projectile weapons. Since players strongly ask for it and I don't have a good, reasonable and well balanced formula at hand I find it valid to ask for one.

I know at least two candidates with a good knowledge of the game mechanics who might want to give some input.

[Intruder]

No communication problem here. And I didn't talked to anyone specific. According to my understanding there should be no FF for non missile or single projectile weapons. Since players strongly ask for it and I don't have a good, reasonable and well balanced formula at hand I find it valid to ask for one.

I know at least two candidates with a good knowledge of the game mechanics who might want to give some input.

I must thank you once again Larkin. I am continually amazed at the openess of you guys. You take suggestions and run them by others and make judgements based on that. I must say that no matter what you choose to decide now, I comend you for being open minded to new ideas and questions. By the way, did I mention that WS is eating up massive amounts of my free time. My fiance` hates you.

[Sleeping_Dragon]

Yes it can happen ... but not for long ...

Would you mind walking through the new formula(s) you have that address this? If you already have I think I missed it.