New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix SAM shapes & targetable offsets in RA/TD #13738

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Aug 7, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@reaperrr
Contributor

reaperrr commented Jul 27, 2017

TD:
tdsam

RA:
rasam

Closes #13713.

@reaperrr reaperrr added this to the Next Release milestone Jul 27, 2017

@ltem

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ltem

ltem Jul 28, 2017

Contributor

👍 works as displayed

Contributor

ltem commented Jul 28, 2017

👍 works as displayed

@ltem

ltem approved these changes Jul 28, 2017

@reaperrr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reaperrr

reaperrr Aug 4, 2017

Contributor

Edit: Nevermind.

Contributor

reaperrr commented Aug 4, 2017

Edit: Nevermind.

@SoScared

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@SoScared

SoScared Aug 5, 2017

Member

Damage wise the issue is resolved but the reduced hitshape (2-cells-rectangle to 1-cell-square that's centered between cells) has resulted in units' weapon range to drop 1 cell range vs the SAM.

It might be regarded as awkward as units will move and target it last if the SAM is lined up along with other targets, especially with medium/heavy/mammoth tanks' weapons with their range being 4c768 as this discrepancy will be noticeable from more angles compared to "whole" numbered range values (4c0, 5c0, 6c0...).

I don't fully understand how the hitshape mechanism work still but is it possible to retain the 2-cell rectangle hitshape but still only 1 hitpoint? I guess that's sort of how it works in the release.

Member

SoScared commented Aug 5, 2017

Damage wise the issue is resolved but the reduced hitshape (2-cells-rectangle to 1-cell-square that's centered between cells) has resulted in units' weapon range to drop 1 cell range vs the SAM.

It might be regarded as awkward as units will move and target it last if the SAM is lined up along with other targets, especially with medium/heavy/mammoth tanks' weapons with their range being 4c768 as this discrepancy will be noticeable from more angles compared to "whole" numbered range values (4c0, 5c0, 6c0...).

I don't fully understand how the hitshape mechanism work still but is it possible to retain the 2-cell rectangle hitshape but still only 1 hitpoint? I guess that's sort of how it works in the release.

@reaperrr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reaperrr

reaperrr Aug 5, 2017

Contributor

I don't fully understand how the hitshape mechanism work still but is it possible to retain the 2-cell rectangle hitshape but still only 1 hitpoint? I guess that's sort of how it works in the release.

That's technically possible, but range is now calculated from the closest hitpoint, whereas it was calculated from closest cell center in previous releases, so it wouldn't fix the range problem.

What I could try - instead of just a single hitpoint and 1-cell shape - would be compressing the shape and side-hitpoints to match the visual size of the sam site.
That would still make it a bit larger than other defenses, but not nearly as much as on the playtest, and maybe reduce the difference enough that it doesn't matter anymore, balancing-wise.

Contributor

reaperrr commented Aug 5, 2017

I don't fully understand how the hitshape mechanism work still but is it possible to retain the 2-cell rectangle hitshape but still only 1 hitpoint? I guess that's sort of how it works in the release.

That's technically possible, but range is now calculated from the closest hitpoint, whereas it was calculated from closest cell center in previous releases, so it wouldn't fix the range problem.

What I could try - instead of just a single hitpoint and 1-cell shape - would be compressing the shape and side-hitpoints to match the visual size of the sam site.
That would still make it a bit larger than other defenses, but not nearly as much as on the playtest, and maybe reduce the difference enough that it doesn't matter anymore, balancing-wise.

@reaperrr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reaperrr
Contributor

reaperrr commented Aug 5, 2017

@SoScared

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@SoScared

SoScared Aug 5, 2017

Member

Hmm. Same results. I'm guessing the weapons range only recognizes the hitshape border when it fills up the targeted cell 100%. Pretty tough to explain but visualized in the image below it's compared to the hitshape of a "fully celled" Gun Turret hitshape.

uten navn

Member

SoScared commented Aug 5, 2017

Hmm. Same results. I'm guessing the weapons range only recognizes the hitshape border when it fills up the targeted cell 100%. Pretty tough to explain but visualized in the image below it's compared to the hitshape of a "fully celled" Gun Turret hitshape.

uten navn

@reaperrr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reaperrr

reaperrr Aug 5, 2017

Contributor

I see what you mean, but the only way to avoid that is to leave the target positions like they are on bleed/playtest, and just make the hitshape rectangle a little less wide vs. bleed/pt. Note that in this case we can't shrink the shape as much vs. bleed as in the above example, though, since slightly inaccurate weapons like most missiles could then occasionally land outside the shape and deal less than full damage.

Contributor

reaperrr commented Aug 5, 2017

I see what you mean, but the only way to avoid that is to leave the target positions like they are on bleed/playtest, and just make the hitshape rectangle a little less wide vs. bleed/pt. Note that in this case we can't shrink the shape as much vs. bleed as in the above example, though, since slightly inaccurate weapons like most missiles could then occasionally land outside the shape and deal less than full damage.

@SoScared

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@SoScared

SoScared Aug 6, 2017

Member

I can't say I understand it but it looks to me then you have a choice between a balance change and a design flaw. In case of the former the SAM would be weaker vs AoE damage but I feel like that's more preferable vs players experiencing inconsistent unit behavior around it.

For what it's worth, if I get my way on the latest balance patch the SAM will have a +1 vision upgrade and $50 price reduction.

Just out of curiosity, what would happen if, or is it possible, the hitshape rectangle stayed as per playtest but with only one target position in the middle?

Member

SoScared commented Aug 6, 2017

I can't say I understand it but it looks to me then you have a choice between a balance change and a design flaw. In case of the former the SAM would be weaker vs AoE damage but I feel like that's more preferable vs players experiencing inconsistent unit behavior around it.

For what it's worth, if I get my way on the latest balance patch the SAM will have a +1 vision upgrade and $50 price reduction.

Just out of curiosity, what would happen if, or is it possible, the hitshape rectangle stayed as per playtest but with only one target position in the middle?

@reaperrr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reaperrr

reaperrr Aug 6, 2017

Contributor

Just out of curiosity, what would happen if, or is it possible, the hitshape rectangle stayed as per playtest but with only one target position in the middle?

Then the range issue would persist, and the higher AoE vulnerability would stay, too.

The target positions are responsible for weapon range calculations, not the shape (if distance between attacking actor and closest target point is more than weapon range, the attacker will move one cell closer).
The shape is only responsible for damage calculations.
The closer the impact is to the closest shape edge/corner, the higher the damage will be, an impact inside the shape will deal 'full' damage (max damage the warhead can deal vs this armor type).

I can't say I understand it but it looks to me then you have a choice between a balance change and a design flaw. In case of the former the SAM would be weaker vs AoE damage but I feel like that's more preferable vs players experiencing inconsistent unit behavior around it.

In short: yes, and I agree. Though the question is how much of a difference that slightly higher AoE damage will even make. A minor bump in HP might be enough to work around that.

Contributor

reaperrr commented Aug 6, 2017

Just out of curiosity, what would happen if, or is it possible, the hitshape rectangle stayed as per playtest but with only one target position in the middle?

Then the range issue would persist, and the higher AoE vulnerability would stay, too.

The target positions are responsible for weapon range calculations, not the shape (if distance between attacking actor and closest target point is more than weapon range, the attacker will move one cell closer).
The shape is only responsible for damage calculations.
The closer the impact is to the closest shape edge/corner, the higher the damage will be, an impact inside the shape will deal 'full' damage (max damage the warhead can deal vs this armor type).

I can't say I understand it but it looks to me then you have a choice between a balance change and a design flaw. In case of the former the SAM would be weaker vs AoE damage but I feel like that's more preferable vs players experiencing inconsistent unit behavior around it.

In short: yes, and I agree. Though the question is how much of a difference that slightly higher AoE damage will even make. A minor bump in HP might be enough to work around that.

reaperrr added some commits Jul 27, 2017

Shrink shape of RA SAM
To adress balancing concerns.
Also tweaked sprite offsets to make it more centered.
@reaperrr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reaperrr

reaperrr Aug 6, 2017

Contributor

Updated PR.

Now the targeted points don't change, only the shape is shrinked by 1/4 cell on each horizontal side.
That should bring AoE vulnerability closer to other defenses without affecting the distance from which they can be attacked.

I also bumped the RA SAM HP up from 400 to 420, but I'll leave it to @SoScared to decide whether than change should go in or not.

Contributor

reaperrr commented Aug 6, 2017

Updated PR.

Now the targeted points don't change, only the shape is shrinked by 1/4 cell on each horizontal side.
That should bring AoE vulnerability closer to other defenses without affecting the distance from which they can be attacked.

I also bumped the RA SAM HP up from 400 to 420, but I'll leave it to @SoScared to decide whether than change should go in or not.

@SoScared

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@SoScared

SoScared Aug 6, 2017

Member

Ah ok nice, I understand how it works now, thanks.

I think it better to keep the HP at 400. My approach has always to keep values whole and relateable to a certain class as much as possible, in this case the SAM, AAGun, Pillboxes, Gun Turret , Tesla Coil and Flame Tower all have 400HP (Also why I dropped C.Pillbox back down to 400HP from 450).

The SAM being a slightly less popular structure to build in-game makes the balance implications less apparent. Should be safe. If necessary the SAM could be buffed in other ways at a later time.

Member

SoScared commented Aug 6, 2017

Ah ok nice, I understand how it works now, thanks.

I think it better to keep the HP at 400. My approach has always to keep values whole and relateable to a certain class as much as possible, in this case the SAM, AAGun, Pillboxes, Gun Turret , Tesla Coil and Flame Tower all have 400HP (Also why I dropped C.Pillbox back down to 400HP from 450).

The SAM being a slightly less popular structure to build in-game makes the balance implications less apparent. Should be safe. If necessary the SAM could be buffed in other ways at a later time.

@reaperrr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reaperrr

reaperrr Aug 6, 2017

Contributor

Ok, dropped the HP change.

Contributor

reaperrr commented Aug 6, 2017

Ok, dropped the HP change.

@SoScared

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@SoScared

SoScared Aug 6, 2017

Member

👍 Decent improvement on the playtest RA SAM.

Just for future reference I noticed the latest commit target points positions moved a few pixels towards the edges compared to the playtest, which suggest there are room to fiddle with these in the future.

Member

SoScared commented Aug 6, 2017

👍 Decent improvement on the playtest RA SAM.

Just for future reference I noticed the latest commit target points positions moved a few pixels towards the edges compared to the playtest, which suggest there are room to fiddle with these in the future.

@abcdefg30

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@abcdefg30

abcdefg30 Aug 7, 2017

Member

@AoAGeneral any comment on the TD SAM Site change here?

Member

abcdefg30 commented Aug 7, 2017

@AoAGeneral any comment on the TD SAM Site change here?

@AoAGeneral

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@AoAGeneral

AoAGeneral Aug 7, 2017

Contributor

No comment here. Changes work in favor of TD and don't have any range issues in regards to ground units.

Nice buff vs the airstrikes as well. ^^

Contributor

AoAGeneral commented Aug 7, 2017

No comment here. Changes work in favor of TD and don't have any range issues in regards to ground units.

Nice buff vs the airstrikes as well. ^^

@abcdefg30 abcdefg30 merged commit b388c61 into OpenRA:bleed Aug 7, 2017

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@abcdefg30

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@abcdefg30
Member

abcdefg30 commented Aug 7, 2017

@reaperrr reaperrr deleted the reaperrr:fix-sam-shapes branch Nov 11, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment