Physics-based Projectiles or RNG?


#1

Someone on reddit brought up the fact that HW1 had physics-based projectiles while HW2 had RNG.

Which system does HW:R use?

Reddit thread here.


(Ta Erog) #2

Unknown at this time, but assumed RNG as that is how the HW2 engine was made and all of the massive stat conversion is limited to the HW1 ships.
Now this is not ideal, but the RNG of HW2 was not a “pure” RNG can also be modified a bit so there is room to play around here.


(Cyan Leader) #3

Honestly what is the advantage of HW1’s system anyway? RNG seems easier to mod and balance, especially if it is pseudo.


(Ta Erog) #4

There are benefits for both. RNG is definitely balance, but I would say physics-based is much more interesting to MOD. Also games like total annihilation and SupCom make a very good use of physics-based model on a massive scale.


(Siber) #5

Dice is way easier to balance tweak for sure, but the HW1 system allowed fighters to be more or less survivable depending entirely on how they maneuvered and fought. It made for a unique and engaging battles to me, and that’s what I want out of homeworld, not something that aspires to starcraft style honed multiplayer balance.

HW2’s dice system would be a bit more palletable to me if it was a bit less simple. As it is, without complicating matters quite a bit more for every fighter, you can’t make a gun that hits scouts less often than bombers, or a gun that’s very accurate at close range but inaccurate at long ranges. Those sorts of things emerge naturally from a physics based ballistics system.


(Skie) #6

RNG produces some really frustrating situations though, especially when you have fast moving craft that would usually be impossible to hit with a traditional heavy cannon on a capital ship, but because the RNG diceroll decided that it should hit the projectiles does something magical and curves to make sure it hits the target.

Plus the always fun situation where two supercaps are duking it out almost point blank but the RNG decides one should miss and the thing just fires shots randomly into the ether.

And now I’m wondering how tactics will work in HW1R. They were one of the determining factors of the physics based system so if it’s RNG now its either not going to make a difference or there will need to be some form of modifier.


(Ta Erog) #7

Actually you can, there are weapon and ship groups, you can make some ships more vulnerable to some weapons then others. So all you need to do is to make allot more groups.
Also range is still doable as you can have the same mount fire different weapons, so you can put 2-3+ weapons on a single mount (nothing saying they need to by completely different as the difference could be just range or hit%) and then layer the hit % , fire rate and range. so as the range decreases you get more hits, or the hits you do, do more damage, or at some range bolth (same) weapons are freeing so 2x the fire ate and 2x the chance of hitting, etc ,etc - quite a few ways of doing this)
Though this can have some interesting side effects so you need to experiment.
Just need to think out-of-the-box a bit.


(Ta Erog) #8

So why is the heavy cannon firing at a strike craft? you can control what fires at what, and what priority, Also the how the damage scales more or less per ship (or really per group)
Again this is a workaround but still possible.


(Siber) #9

Well yes, you can brute force it in those ways, but it’s very cumbersome, especially if you have to do that for lots of different ships. Scouts are small and fast, defenders are small and slow, interceptors are large and fast, bombers are large and slow, now you’ve added four new categories to tune for with every single weapon that can shoot at fighters. And with your layered ranges idea, there’s no way out of the box to stop the short range weapons from firing at a different target than the long range ones, so that’s not really a great solution.


(Siber) #10

With the physics based you can have the heavy weapons fire in desperation and only score a hit if the target is unlucky enough to fly in front of the bullet. Which is fine, and you can see similar behavior in games like Supreme Commander. A similar accuracy level to that in the HW2 system will have rounds occasionally curve to hit a target they wouldn’t otherwise be able to, which is fairly unsightly when it happens.


(Saaa) #11

What I don’t get is why a RNG systems shouldn’t factor in things like ships size, distance and relative speed. So instead of having a fixed % for the attacks you use many factors that solve issues presented above:
small and fast ship? less likely to be hit; closer? more chance to hit, etc.
This way it’s as generic as the physics based system but without the whole computational cost (if there is any with current machines…) of a real physics based system.


(Sean) #12

There was a post about this specifically on the old Gearbox forums located here:
http://oldforums.gearboxsoftware.com/showthread.php?t=407390


(Ta Erog) #13

Um sure, not arguing the fact. (and no use to explain the craft to me :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: I have modded both games)
I am just saying it is not CAN’'T. You can if you want too and in a bunch of different ways. Oh and BTW it is not a “IDEA” :slight_smile: I have done it already.
There are ways, there are workarounds, there are alternates for just about anything.
Physics based model has its problems also. It also has work arounds and things to mess-around with.


(Ta Erog) #14

Actually it does or can do allot of that. The turret has to be able to tract the target (get it in its cone of attack), the size of the ship (really its class) can change the Accuracy and damage. the damage can be changed per armor type and in a range. What happens on hit and miss. Also if a missed shot that still physically hits a target still does damage (used for most weapons VS cap ships). Penetration of a defense shield, and if the hit would push the target (yes it exists IN HW2). etc allot of parameters to play with.

One big thing people are missing is that you can make NEW class groups, armor types, Vulnerability, turn on Damage on hit regardless of miss “roll”, Lead tracking, and use multiple weapons, etc
There is enough there to really come close and in alternate ways.
Another way was to turn on tracking (leading target), hit on miss, and then set to low or 0 hit chance. A projectile will always “miss” fire straight (where the turret is pointing and remember it is leading the target) and on miss but the projectile still hits you get a hit. Now this workaround was very heavy process wise 10 years ago and did not work for everything. But with newer computers that are not CPU bound in games, it should be just fine. not to mention any changes they made.
Again there are always ways. (I would still like to have more flexibility here, and even more control of the weapons,) but it is not as bad as people are making it out to be. If you have not Modded HW previously and extensively you may want to wait on comment and see what we get and what people can do with it before coming down too hard on it. As we will have to deal regardless.
(and yes a full featured all physics based would be great, but then again the ships are not using physics either?!? so . . .? whatever) :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


(Saaa) #15

What bothers me then is why this is CPU intensive at all when I can currently run Homeworld 1 with hundreds of ships firing ten times more bullets each and have no slowdown… really why the fuss for a few thousand entities, most with fixed trajectories too?
I hope they found the bottleneck in the original HW2 engine so we can use the solutions you mentioned without frame rate drops… some comments of the devs about no issue with large fleets makes me hope regarding this problem, we’ll see!


(Ta Erog) #16

I think you missed it,
It is not a bottleneck or too CPU intensive, too hard etc. One element here is that they built HW2 to be easier to balance and control. The physics based model they had in HW1 (note “they had”) was VERY finicky and very hard to control (and I say again just to make totally clear since people love going off on absolutes, the engine they made and had, and NOT all physics based engines are this way or need to be. it was what they made and it some some limitations simple as that, they made it work and that is what counts. but it does not make it a good engine to use and develop on either. - got it ??)
Some of the code they had in HW2 was not ready for prime time (this is normal), some was only used sparingly like some of the tracking and checking functions “shoot At Secondaries” “shoot At Surroundings” “Check Line Of Fire” etc where only made as good as needed and not expected to be used for every weapon.
So again no fault here, they made what they needed and optimized what they needed to and did not what they didn’t.
This also has no bearing on what CAN be made, what has been made, or what they currently have resources to remake.
So I think allot of people are missing the real world element here.
It was never IF it can be done, it was a host of reasons all meshed together and often having nothing to do with the actual coding, reality is often less then ideal or logical :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: .


(ratamaguru) #17

So does this mean no Supper Scouts?


(Ta Erog) #18

Funny :stuck_out_tongue: