Asteroids

Starkey

Starkey

Avenging Rooster
What´s the deal with enemy AI and asteroids in the Vision engine? Those bugs seem not to notice those rocks on their way.

Is there a way to bring back in Standoff those small and destructive asteroids from WC1/WC2/Priv? Because if everything that can be done is just leaving those big scattered rock chunks floating around for stupid enemy AI to try flying through them, wouldn´t it be better if there were no asteroids at all?
 
Asteroids are a good ambient element. I dont think its good to remove them entirely from Standoff. Maybe HCI can throw something together that makes them more deadly...

And the bugs do not noticing the rocks in their AI...the entire WCP AI is horribly stupid. Better than the Freespace AI, but still horribly stupid. You may have noticed that WCP fighters are sometimes fond of crashing into things, especialy when they nail huge capships.
 
:) Wc1/Wc2/WcP asteroids were veryyyyy annoying ,but a lot more realistic than Wc3/WcP asteroids.I would like to see that in Standoff but I dont think its possible....Maybe HCl`s magic can help :p I dont know,Eder knows

I too prefer not to see at all Asteroids in Standoff if they are gonna be just like Prophecy`s and SO`s asteroids :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Lynx

...the entire WCP AI is horribly stupid... You may have noticed that WCP fighters are sometimes fond of crashing into things, especialy when they nail huge capships.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Lynx is right. The AI is horribly stupid, and there's probably nothing we can do about it since a) we know nothing about AI editing so far and b) there are already enough things on the "HCl-only" features list to keep HCl busy until Standoff's release :p (Mainly the scattergun patch variations: gun convergence, scattergun turrets, capship hull damage from AMG hits, and maybe, if possible, capship hull damage from missile hits - and I'm pretty sure I'm forgetting something :))

On the subject of asteroids... There won't be many asteroid fields in Standoff, at least not in the main campaign, due to the story itself - half of the time you're either attacking big fleets, defending big fleets, making way for big fleets, or trying to find big fleets - and big fleets don't like asteroid fields.

--Eder
 
I like biiiiiiig fleets.Its something we dont see a lot in Wc games ( in Prophecy only).Are the Standoff battles gonna be huge ?Star Wars like ?
 
You pointed it out nicely Eder. Bring on the big fleets!

As for the killer WC1 asteroids, I really liked them, but, as Eder said, there´s no room for them in Standoff, as we´re going to be among many capship formations.
 
good, no asteroids. i hate asteroids. they always provide an escape from my guns for the enemy. of course that escape is ramming straight into said asteroid and certain death, but it makes it so i don't get the kill credit, and that annoys me
 
Originally posted by Ghost
Nothing compares to Priv´s Asteroids, they chase you, pretty smart move!
Click to expand...

Hehehehe... On WC1 the asteroids are WAY more dangerous than the mines.
 
Originally posted by TCSTigersClaw
Wc1/Wc2/WcP asteroids were veryyyyy annoying ,but a lot more realistic than Wc3/WcP asteroids.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you want to talk about realism (though realism is never an issue in a space-sim), then WC3-WCP asteroids are far, far more realistic than the WC1-Priv ones.
 
Well, in the Prologue there are actually some asteroid fields, in just about every other mission... but they really fit into the storyline (there was actually no way we could leave them out).

In the Main Campaign there won't be many asteroids... because of the big fleets, which will be as big as I can make them without making the game unplayable - a test Killerwave ran for us once showed that up to 8 CVEs didn't slow the game down noticeably on his (below average) computer... but that was without any fighters around.

I'm guessing that we can use up to 5 capships per navpoint without risking making the framerate drop too much... this way we shouldn't have to cut down on the fighters either... and we can always place capships on different navpoints in the same mission, since it's kind of hard to believe that half a dozen 2km long carriers would operate only 10km away from each other :p The Kilrathi fleet was probably spread out so they could cover as much space as possible without risking letting anything get near their carriers.

--Eder
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Actually, if you want to talk about realism (though realism is never an issue in a space-sim), then WC3-WCP asteroids are far, far more realistic than the WC1-Priv ones.
Click to expand...
I was going to say something on that too. Asteroids come in all sorts of sizes, not necessarily all the same.
 
Yeah, the issue in WCP is much more the troubles the AI has with the asteroids than the asteroids themselves. A very large concentration of WCP asteroids could be as dangerous as WC1 asteroids, and more realistic - but the AI would never be able to deal with that.

--Eder
 
Well, no... that's actually one of the reasons why WCP asteroids are more realistic than WC1 asteroids - because they're less concentrated. Of course, we don't know what the situation is in other systems, but here in the solar system at least, the asteroid belt is fairly sparse. There's a hell of a lot of asteroids there, but it's a hell of a big belt, too.
 
Yeah, I meant more realistic only in that they'd be different sizes, shapes, and in more varied arrangements (a reply to Wedge's comment). The WC1 asteroids looked pretty much uniformly spread around the area they covered, and they all looked the same size as well.

--Eder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top