caspa wrote:I was under the impression that our posts fell out of the topic of the last thread, which was why you wanted to move them?
yes, that's right.
caspa wrote:Not to continue the discussion about whether a rail should pass through a fence, but rather to air all the concerns that I have.
Theres no need to delete the thread, we can leave it as it is for now and I'll start a new one?
Ah, ok. There are many places where you can place your points, you can even do continue it here.
If you prefer to have the thread title renamed I'll do it. After all you're discussing with me, it is not a monolog of either of us.
But of course you're free to start a totally new thread, even a "competence of the moderators" if you think it needs to be discussed.
caspa wrote:I'm also wondering why you didn't refer to the first paragraph of my previous post.
Sorry, do you mean this one?
caspa wrote:Seriously? Whats realistic about shooting lasers and rockets out of your arm? Whats realistic about your corpse disappearing into thin air the moment that you die? The very term sci-fi has the word fiction in it - (taken from wikipedia): Fiction is the form of any work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not real, but rather, imaginary and theoretical—that is, invented by the author.
Actually I fully agree to what you wrote. It is the same with TrackMania btw. Although with a relatively realistic look, some tracks are crazy, no one could drive on most of them in reality, crashing the car that much that one is not able to recognize what it was before, but still being able to drive straight and at full speed, as if it was new and undamaged. Only as examples, the respawn, the boosters, the huge loopings, this is all fiction.
Also with SM we have the opportunity (and at the same time the problem) that the players can discuss and help to somehow develop the game. Everyone sees things totally differently, especially things which are not real, but fantastic - in terms of fiction.
The intended level of realism could be defined (I'm not writing "should"), unless the creators (whoever it is, Nadeo or other genious users) leave it up to the users' own fantasy.
But if there is no definition, no description of the "physics" of e.g. a weapon, and if there is mostly random effect, it is not reproducible, and then perhaps not suitable for tournaments with serious ambitions and cash prize.
Just remember the discussion around walljump. At the time they were new, not many people managed to use them.
Those who were able to walljump were soon treated as cheaters, and then people started claiming to make the walljumps more easy.
Then Nadeo did it, and since walljumps are more easy, they are not such an advantage anymore.
Or players who were able to climb the trees, etc.
I'm not sure if there is the intention to have too much random effects, as surprises for both attackers and defenders.
But the many discussions gave me the impression that especially the pro gamers want clear defined and reproducible behavior. yes, exactly, you spoke of it as consistency issue.
caspa wrote:Yes, of course we can debate it and it is a refreshing to see such a notion suggested on these forums. (While as players we debate with each other, when the other side is the Nadeo team I've rarely ever seen a true debate.) What the real big problem was, is that as players we expect the game and all of its aspects to function consistently. Rockets going through the fence was not an example of that - and that is the real reason why it was a problem (and this is the reason why lasers passing through a fence should not be the case). At first it was hard to re-create, but it discovered that if the point of impact was on the players knee (or thereabouts), then generally the bug would occur. As far as I know, this was fixed - I haven't seen it happen in a very very long time. Which leads me to believe that rails/rockets were never intended to pass through a fence
Understood
caspa wrote:Don't you make the gameply too easy then?
Is having players visible through fences, but not reachable for any weapons, sufficient as tradeoff?
If this is the main agreement and also the intended purpose from Nadeo, I'm fine with that,
and if weapons still manage to pass through... most probably a bug, if the player (hitbox) is noticeably lower than the fence is.
Yes the game is too "easy" - I'd prefer to say "simple" at the risk of being targeted as some sort of elitist. (And anyway, regarding the game being easy -thats a whole different topic)
There is more to it than just being a simple tradeoff. Fences are primarily utilised by defenders (I'm speaking strictly about Elite), as an attacker cannot sit at a fence the entire round and win the round (as they must eliminate everyone or cap the pole). My point is that, by being an attacker you already have the advantage of having a singlehit-kill weapon. This is why I actually feel that fences are somewhat balanced - they are far more useful for a defender than an attacker. When you sit behind a fence as a defender you know that you can't be hit while the attacker is on the other side - that is something that you trust in, and is consistent. When a rail passes through randomly, that consistency is lost.
Yeah, you're absolutely right about it. Balance and consistency matter a lot (probably much more than realism) and help to have fair gaming.
caspa wrote:I did not forget it at all, but isn't that asking for too much realism suddenly?
Laser has a very small wavelength compared to the grid size of the typical fences that are placed in SM.
If players can see each other without difficulties, laser should pass it as well without being altered, causing clear hits then, but that is contrary to caspas interpretation
With this response I feel you've opened up another part of the conversation. Judging by your previous posts you want the game to still remain somewhat grounded in reality
yes, exactly! let's say as long as it has a realtively realistic look. I would not wonder if the game had a comic style look - then I would certainly not argue about realism.
But I'd still prefer as much as accurate realism, with and without with the science-fiction stuff. Look a the datapads in Startrek... pure fiction when they appeared back in the time, and now they are reality for everyone.
I recently read about investigations to make portable body x-ray or magentic resonance scanners, but they are still very far away from the "medical tricorder" thing, despite the modern life tracking stuff and apps we can have already.
In my opinion, Fiction should be almost plausible, although it might often be considered as unrealisable at the moment.
That's what I'd like to tell "realistic".
Rockets and lasers are existing nowadays, but not at the size used in SM.
Also the nucleous is not there as real weapon, still it has a rather realistic trajectory.
caspa wrote:- but when we get into deeper aspects of it its too much?
Of course not, I was only answering to The_Big_Boo, who made a joke of me, I think. I was talking too much of realism, he added some to it. You perhaps know that he was formerly working for Nadeo?
So my response if it was too much was only jokingly.
Perhaps he meant it sincerelly, and then we are three who like to discuss about such things.
caspa wrote:Where do you draw the line on realism?
This is a very good question, and that's what I would also like to ask to Nadeo.
Ideas there are many, but the realism they realize also depends a lot on the feasability of the features like weapons, floor materials, etc.
E.g. some asked for different gravity... How would SM or TM gameply be on the moon or on Mars?
What did Nadeo do? they added jump stations, and recently teleporters. A totally different approach.
caspa wrote:Talking about rails passing through fences counts to me as "too much realism". Isn't Nadeo's ethos about keeping things simple?
Agreed, Nadeo certainly wants to keep many things simple, also for the new and young players.
The gap to fill between them, and the more experienced and older players is big.
Gaming for everyone. Is that perhaps asking for too much?
caspa wrote:I feel like this whole discussion regarding the intricacies of laser/lightning is irrelevant.
But, lets entertain that idea: the laser is extremely thin and if it can fit through the gaps, then shouldn't it be happening all the time? If it really was the case then I'd imagine it would happen quite a lot.
Well, it depends. A very thin laser has a high chance to pass the fence, but also still a risk to hit the fence, if the fence material is larger than the laser.
If the fence is made of 50% material, the chance to hit or pass the fence would be 50%.
And to some %, we would see refraction or deviation effects, but with the current game engine, I guess this would be impossible to be implemented with realism. There could be a ingame effect of particules scattered, if the laser hits the fence, and no difference between hit and refraction / scattering.
Just take it as an example, but I feel exactly this could be a good place where we could draw the line between realism, fiction and feasibility.
The laser could hit or pass the fence, e.g. using the trilaser logic: three dots in the fence gap -> pass. Otherwise -> fence hit.
And then it could depend on the distance of the attacker to the fence.
The material of the fence could be defined: totally resistant to laser hits, or temporarily melting when hit several times (I know, the weapon needs time to recharge, and consecutive hits at exactly the same place are difficult).
But all this would be very difficult to realize, and the hitbox discussion shows that there are many other and perhaps much more important things to work on.
