turretAI
-
- Mercenary
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:44 pm
turretAI
is there ANY way I can adjust the turret AI to not shoot unless the turret is pointed at least in the general direction of it's target?
On the galaxy, it's only mildly annoying, but yesterday I took a bounty mission against a kamek with 4 wingmen :DDD and well, I didn't have to kill them. I just had to stay close enough that the turrets fired, and they wittled themselves away with just a bit of help from my own guns :p
If theres a way I can change it... would be awesome
On the galaxy, it's only mildly annoying, but yesterday I took a bounty mission against a kamek with 4 wingmen :DDD and well, I didn't have to kill them. I just had to stay close enough that the turrets fired, and they wittled themselves away with just a bit of help from my own guns :p
If theres a way I can change it... would be awesome
-
- Confed Special Operative
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:43 am
- Location: /stray/
- Contact:
-
- Confed Special Operative
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:43 am
- Location: /stray/
- Contact:
-
- Merchant
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
Re: turretAI
Especially the turrets should not shoot if there is a danger to hit friendly ships. They already have shot down a militia ship, because it was between the enemy and my turret.JonathanD wrote:is there ANY way I can adjust the turret AI to not shoot unless the turret is pointed at least in the general direction of it's target?
Then you always have to silence the witnesses...
Shade and sweet water!
Stephan
If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.
-
- Mercenary
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:44 pm
A good point, and more or less why the kilrathi blew themselves to bits. It's a combination of them being behind each other and trying to shoot through each other, and them shooting even if they are 180 degrees off from the target :p
The answer, in my mind, is to require a clear line of sight and line of fire to the target before allowing a turret to fire. There should be NO friendlys within say, 5 degrees of the current orientation as well, or don't fire.
I think this is important enough that I'd be willing to hack at it, if it's in python. if not, I might STILL be willing to hack at it but after reading some of chucks posts about the condition of the code... well... not sure I even want to look.
The answer, in my mind, is to require a clear line of sight and line of fire to the target before allowing a turret to fire. There should be NO friendlys within say, 5 degrees of the current orientation as well, or don't fire.
I think this is important enough that I'd be willing to hack at it, if it's in python. if not, I might STILL be willing to hack at it but after reading some of chucks posts about the condition of the code... well... not sure I even want to look.
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 11:51 am
i sort of agree with the minimizing of friendly fire with turrets, if anyone's faced 2 or more capships they'll know what i mean.
it actually gets easier the more there are (best off in a Demon or a Stiletto for this one) because you can just fly inbetween them and the stray turret fire just shoots the other ships...
it actually gets easier the more there are (best off in a Demon or a Stiletto for this one) because you can just fly inbetween them and the stray turret fire just shoots the other ships...
-
- Confed Special Operative
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:43 am
- Location: /stray/
- Contact:
Don't make that 5˚ hard and fast; it may be realistic that as gunners become more excited to get a kill; or desperate not to die that such lapses in judgement may happen;
I think that Cave (2D, late 90's, Apple II?) used a fot/fov formula that dictated that gunners would attack their target based on how much of their sky it filled; this would mean that AI gunners would fire at a capship even if 'friendly' fighters were caught inbetween, if the capship were large (or near) enough to out weigh the risk/certainty of destroying a 'friendly'; and also that this balance could be shifted simulating psycosis (coward/bezerker);
This (other) approach could introduce a more dynamic (unstable) element in dogfighting.
I think that Cave (2D, late 90's, Apple II?) used a fot/fov formula that dictated that gunners would attack their target based on how much of their sky it filled; this would mean that AI gunners would fire at a capship even if 'friendly' fighters were caught inbetween, if the capship were large (or near) enough to out weigh the risk/certainty of destroying a 'friendly'; and also that this balance could be shifted simulating psycosis (coward/bezerker);
This (other) approach could introduce a more dynamic (unstable) element in dogfighting.
-
- Developer
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:53 am
- Location: Stanford, CA
- Contact:
with the new collision system it shouldn't be too hard to check for things "in between"
Vega Strike Lead Developer
http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/
http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/
-
- Hunter
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:42 am
Alt-W tells the turret AI to shoot anything that it can get in its crosshairs that's within range of your guns. However, you might want to use Ctrl-T, which tells the turret AI to shoot only at the target that is currently selected by your radar. This means that the turrets will not be shooting ships that come up on your tail, though, but it does mean that the turret fire will get focused upon your current target, letting you kill it faster.
He who lives by the sword . . . gets shot by he who lives by the gun.
-
- Confed Special Operative
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:43 am
- Location: /stray/
- Contact:
-
- Mercenary
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:44 pm
-
- Merchant
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
The question is now: Are the turrets controled by human gunners or by a computer?snow_Cat wrote:Don't make that 5˚ hard and fast; it may be realistic that as gunners become more excited to get a kill; or desperate not to die that such lapses in judgement may happen;
In the latter case there should be no "excitement difference". In the former case the game should be expanded with some RPG features. You get a list of gunners with certain characters and abilities and have to chose. Some don't want to be part of pirate missions, other only want to make fast money. As longer a gunner stays with you as better will be his abilities, etc.
But for now I'm assuming my turrets are controled by computer.
Shade and sweet water!
Stephan
If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.
-
- Confed Special Operative
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:43 am
- Location: /stray/
- Contact:
I also mean that the closer ship A is to total destruction, the more excited the gunners of B will become.
All turret master systems may not necessairly have the same 'safe spot' setting, and may also only check at interval wether or not a friendly ship may be hit as a result of firing.
This could lead to situations where a small friendly craft has entered the area of fire between checks and is damaged; or where a small enemy craft has moved the area of fire to envelop friendly craft.
(though the later suggests a squadron-to-squadron strategy AI...)
'Dead stoping' (preventing ship-to-self) damage is pratical however, and should be implemented, to avoid situations where capships cap themselves.
All turret master systems may not necessairly have the same 'safe spot' setting, and may also only check at interval wether or not a friendly ship may be hit as a result of firing.
This could lead to situations where a small friendly craft has entered the area of fire between checks and is damaged; or where a small enemy craft has moved the area of fire to envelop friendly craft.
(though the later suggests a squadron-to-squadron strategy AI...)
'Dead stoping' (preventing ship-to-self) damage is pratical however, and should be implemented, to avoid situations where capships cap themselves.