|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
350
   |
Posted - 2013.05.07 19:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
What the title says. Stop nerfing weapon ranges the way you are doing it right now. It might do the job, but it also frustrates way too many people. Just add better falloff.
Lasers
For lasers, just decrease the amount of damage done outside of optimal range until it reaches 0, and have the laser become more faint and less visible the weaker it gets. Lasers shouldn't disappear in midair, people don't understand that. Other than that, give it a decent range.
Blasters
For blasters, decrease the amount of damage done the farther the shot travels like lasers to a lesser extent, and let each projectile travel a different distance past the optimal range (i.e, there is a chance an AR projectile will travel only 50m, but also a chance they will travel 100m). For blasters, disappearing in midair is somewhat more justified, but it shouldn't be routine.
Projectiles
For autocannon weaponry, decrease the damage very slightly the farther the shot travels, and also give it a "miniature ballistic arc" that isn't dependent on gravity. What I mean by that is that it goes in a straight line at first, but the farther it travels the more curved to trajectory becomes, and it curves in a random direction. This is possible with hitscan, as well. For artillery weaponry (once that comes), add a ballistic arc that IS dependent on gravity, as well as other conditions in the district.
Railguns
Ha, fooled you. But seriously, increase the range and projectile speeds for railguns. They are railguns after all. If you really want them to have less optimal range, I suppose you could give them a very slight bullet drop. Very slight. Keep in mind that sniper rifle shots already reach past their optimal range (around 500 meters) within a fifth of a second (they move around 2500m/s), which doesn't give much time for the bullet to drop anyway, and larger railguns fire projectiles even faster (forge gun projectiles move at 7000m/s).
Missiles
Past their optimal, missiles should NOT disappear, they should just have less thrust, and therefore a slower velocity. Under no circumstances should a missile the size of your arm just "disappear". Once they run out of fuel, have them simply fall back to the ground. Really, it is quite simple. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
357
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 02:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:It is more CPU intensive.
Barely. Computing-wise, it is actually quite simple. A vehicle physics engine, by comparison, is far, far more CPU intensive, yet we seem to handle it just fine. Besides, we already have falloff, I'm just suggesting that they stop nerfing maximum range and instead opt for improved falloff. |
Ulysses Knapse
DUST University
Ivy League
371
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 19:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
Negris Albedo wrote:*fist bump*
Yes.
Nice pun. |
Ulysses Knapse
Bojo's School of the Trades
416
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 19:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Herpn Derpidus wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Ulysses Knapse wrote:Missiles
Past their optimal, missiles should NOT disappear, they should just have less thrust, and therefore a slower velocity. Under no circumstances should a missile the size of your arm just "disappear". Once they run out of fuel, have them simply fall back to the ground. Really, it is quite simple. Better solution. No speed dropoff, when Missiles run out of fuel, BOOM! Like they did with the Flaylock. yes, this, we need this
Exploding missiles are okay, I guess... |
Ulysses Knapse
Bojo's School of the Trades
420
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 06:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
This thread was made before that post. |
|
|
| |
|