C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Garfunkel]

but wouldn't it be the same code that allows to track 5 seconds by 5 seconds?.  I don't really understand how 1 sec is that different from 5 secs.

it's because currently beam weapons are not tracked at all. So when the target is inside the range of the beam weapon, it is aimed and fired and the hit chance is rolled for and the damage is calculated and applied all in that one 5-second pulse. So going to 1 second shortest time pulse means that either:
A) Steve does not code additional tracking for beam weapons, meaning that beam max range drops to ~300,000 km
OR
B) Steve codes a beam weapon object that the game will track and possibly display on the map

Others have already elaborated all the issues with option B and option A would nerf beam weaponry even further versus missiles.

I wouldn't mind going down to 1-sec pulses for more fidelity but the current system works "well enough" for its purposes.

[Whitecold]

Range of Beam-Weapons (all non-Missile): This is mostly a balance issue and to make a meaningful choice between Beam-Weapons and Missiles .
You can't stop Beam-Weapons and Beam-Weapons have a lower logistic overhead.
If Beam-Weapons have a range comparable to missiles there would be no use for missiles.
There is a convenient limit (Min time increment) x (Speed of Light) to give a reason for the range limitation.
FTL Beam-Weapons would remove this convinient limit without giving a new limit
[/li]
[/list]

Yes, this is exactly why the limit applies. If beam weapon range increases, they become too powerful and the 5-second limit is convenient technobabble. Currently, longer-range beams can be closed down by faster ships within a reasonable time. If the range noticeably increases, longer-range beams win regardless of speed.

Faster ships with longer-ranged beams win in either case.

The 5-second limit however does not apply for most of the game. That is 1.5M km, and early 4x range fire controls maybe use 10% of that. More to the point, nothing about the 5 second interval says that lasers/mesons/etc can only fire once per increment. Gauss cannons already do that, so there is no reason you can't have a 2, 3 or 4 second firing interval, which would result in more shots in some increments and less in others, as currently area Beam defense is rendered useless by 5 second increments. Similarly, there is a massive jump in beam damage output going from 10s to 5s fire rate, which happens at an arbitrary point in cap tech research, it would be much smoother to allow every upgrade in capacitors result in actually faster firing weapons.
Most missiles spend only a single 5 second in range, allowing only a single shot, which means you may as well use final defense.

The 5-second increment can be still kept, but instead each ship knows both its position last increment and the new position. The range for any shots fired can now be calculated by linear interpolation during that increment. So if you fire at 1st second and 4th second at a missile closing in at 30km/s, the first shot might be at 120kkm, the second at 30km/s.

[tobijon]

yeah but allowing beam weapons to fire more than once in a 5 second increment shouldn't be too hard, and will essentially be the same thing

You should try and program that and see, how many problems occour, when you change "one simple system" ;-)

don't put things in quotation marks when I haven't said them, there is a reason I'm not arguing for one-second increments but the much easier to code multiple firing per increment

[davidb86]

tobijon,

Go back and look at the posts for today.  Tmaekler post was an accurate quote of what you posted Today at 03:55:47 AM.  I am not sure why you are upset.

[Barkhorn]

I fail to see how it would increase the max range of beam weapons, let alone making it infinite.
You say Steve would have to code tracking second by second, but wouldn't it be the same code that allows to track 5 seconds by 5 seconds?.  I don't really understand how 1 sec is that different from 5 secs.  It's just an amount of time, only smaller, and therefore allows for more granularity in movement, reload rates, combat, etc, etc.  Yes, it would change the metagame, and that's precisely the point.

If Steve would keep the actual game mechanics and switch to 1 sec impulses, that would limit beam weapons to a max range of 300.000km (How far light could travel within 1 second). Through the 5 second impulse beam weapons can go up to a max range of 1.500.000km (5 seconds of lightspeed).

In order to change that, Steve would have to create beam-objects that the game can track through time. Basically missiles which can only go one speed (lightspeed), don't have a "follow-target-mechanism", have different patterns of damage and cannot be engaged by AMMs. It would also mean a rewrite of hit chances of the beam weapons. If you for example shoot at a target that is 25 light seconds away - a simple evasion of one ship length would lead to missing the target - and 25 seconds to react to such a shot is reasonable within a sci-fy setting. But how would you calculate that ingame?

Except you can't react to it because it travels at light speed.  You can't see the shot until it has already hit you.

[sloanjh (OP)]

tobijon,

Go back and look at the posts for today.  Tmaekler post was an accurate quote of what you posted Today at 03:55:47 AM.  I am not sure why you are upset.

Ummm actually I just went back and looked and I don't see the quoted string in tobijon's 04:55:47 AM post (I don't see one at all at 03:55:47), so the quote in question doesn't appear to reflect tobijon's posts.

That being said, let's all remember site rule #3 http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=966.0 and have fun - we don't want Erik to get out the trout!!!!

John

[QuakeIV]

Or as mentioned earlier you could just say that the TN beam weapons work faster than light just like the TN sensors and literally nothing else changes.

[TMaekler]

yeah but allowing beam weapons to fire more than once in a 5 second increment shouldn't be too hard, and will essentially be the same thing

You should try and program that and see, how many problems occour, when you change "one simple system" ;-)

don't put things in quotation marks when I haven't said them, there is a reason I'm not arguing for one-second increments but the much easier to code multiple firing per increment

Sorry for you feeling misquoted. I intended no harm.

[TMaekler]

Except you can't react to it because it travels at light speed.  You can't see the shot until it has already hit you.

Tell that the instant TN sensors 

[davidb86]

tobijon
Chief Petty Officer

T
Posts: 31
Thanked: 2 times

Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1927 on: Yesterday at 03:55:47 AM »
Say Thanks     Quote
yeah but allowing beam weapons to fire more than once in a 5 second increment shouldn't be too hard, and will essentially be the same thing
Report to moderator     Logged
The following users thanked this post: Agoelia

Above is a copy of post 1927 on page 129 of this thread. 
Sloanjh or Erik, 
I am concerned that apparently different users are seeing different posts, especially as it is causing hurt feelings.
Is there a way to determine why only some users see this post?

[tobijon]

I was referring to  "one simple system" (the bit in quotation marks), people don't get to tell me what I think, which is what he did. I understand how complicated coding is and the issues with significant changes like going from 5 to 1 second

[Whitecold]

Except you can't react to it because it travels at light speed.  You can't see the shot until it has already hit you.

Tell that the instant TN sensors 

Meaning you should be already be able to dodge, again there is nothing special about 5 seconds...

[QuakeIV]

If Steve wants to say that five light seconds is about the limit in terms of beams, then changing the minimum time increment size doesn't stop him from doing that...

[Peroox]

With a lot of micro managment is already very easy to evade shoot from projetile on larger range than 5s. Just need to change speed/movement path every 5s to be sure that enemy will hit nothing. In normal Aurora ships have infinite acceleration and also don't need to care about fly direction so there is no way to be sure that enemy will be in a given position after next increment.

[sloanjh (OP)]

tobijon
Chief Petty Officer

T
Posts: 31
Thanked: 2 times

Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1927 on: Yesterday at 03:55:47 AM »
Say Thanks     Quote
yeah but allowing beam weapons to fire more than once in a 5 second increment shouldn't be too hard, and will essentially be the same thing
Report to moderator     Logged
The following users thanked this post: Agoelia

Above is a copy of post 1927 on page 129 of this thread. 
Sloanjh or Erik, 
I am concerned that apparently different users are seeing different posts, especially as it is causing hurt feelings.
Is there a way to determine why only some users see this post?

That's the post to which I was referring in my previous response - I do see it.  On my machine it shows a timestamp of 04:55:47 AM, not 03:55:47 AM though.  I suspect this is a timezone thing - I'm on US eastern time; based on the discrepancy in timestamp I'd guess you're in central.  As tobijon just pointed out, the quoted string he was referring to is "one simple system".  I don't see those words in the post you copied; instead I see "shouldn't be too hard".  This is what I was trying to say in my previous response; apologies that I didn't make myself clear enough.

If you ARE seeing the words "one simple system" in a post by tobijon, then that means you're correct and there's a discrepancy in what different users are seeing, in which case please let us know.  Otherwise TMaekler has apologized for the misquote, so I think the issue can be put to bed.

Thanks,
John