Bug Report:SMD missing target
-
For smaller projectiles I agree should miss sometimes or be random ect, but for something as impactful as a nuke, games are won and lost based on whether you load an anti fast enough, and then for it to not work is broken, that would be like making an megalith getting it half way across the map only for its legs to fall off or even if shields where to randomly just turn themselves off sometimes, its not a desired effect.
-
Do you think it would have hit the nuke given ~2 seconds? It looks like it was re-targeting fine.
Maybe a rework of the SMD firing logic could help this better?
(To be clear, I have no idea how much work this would take/how many people would be involved, or if people actually want it). -
Seems like Jip gave yall the answer already, take it up with the balance team.
-
I wonder if this problem has existed since the start or if some change at some point introduced this. I am not aware of this happening in base FA, but it could well be my ignorance
-
Pretty sure it's existed since the start, just increasingly more rare as FAF made changes. I especially remember multiple SMDs firing at a single nuke used to be fairly common until FAF made changes as Jip pointed out.
-
It makes no sense for there to be an argument to keep this "feature" of smd's missing. First of all, nukes are already incredibly strong (maybe there is a reason that nuke rushers get kicked from high rated lobbies?). Second of all, why does this not exist with other strategic things? Maybe add that a nuke is a dud or t3 shields randomly dont block things?
There is a difference between a projectile missing that doesnt cost anything and something not working that does cost quite a bit in time and ressources.
-
@snoog How should I go about that? Should I just ping them in the discord or is there a way to ping the team here?
(I'm not well versed in the ways of Forums lol)
-
@BlackYps I spoke with @Jip about this issue because it was also new to me and I had similarly assumed this to be the result of a recent change.
Jip told me this has been happening for years now, albeit fairly rarely and under specific circumstances.
@Nuggets said in Bug Report:SMD missing target:
It makes no sense for there to be an argument to keep this "feature" of smd's missing.
It's not a feature, it's a bug. Fixing it requires the balance team to make a change to the missile turn rate, as Jip explained.
"Design is an iterative process. The required number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time."
See all my projects:
-
Never heard of this being possible to fix. I always thought it was some unfixable bug
-
@IndexLibrorum My word usage of "feature" was because of jip saying:
@Jip said in Bug Report:SMD missing target:
That happens - and it's okay. Game is simulated, somethings things miss.
I know its a bug, but apparently its okay and also being ignored or thought to be not fixable = accepted over the years
This might not really have been a topic over the years because it appears to be happening quite frequently. Is it a coincidence the last time i saw this was over a year ago, and then suddenly after reading this it happened in a game yesterday to me? xd
-
@Nuggets said in Bug Report:SMD missing target:
I know its a bug, but apparently its okay and also being ignored or thought to be not fixable = accepted over the years
It is fundamentally not a bug however. It would be a bug in a game like Starcraft II or Wacraft 3 where projectiles are guaranteed to hit (on even terrain), even when they visually completely miss. That's a choice those games made.
A unique selling point of this game is the simulation. A simulation in which things can miss. That the SMD should not be one of those is understandable. Now, it is on top of the base of the target. Next time it is on the outer edge of the SMD. Can it still have a 100% accurate interception rate? No, it can't. Everything is simulated, things can miss or not be on time, that is what being a simulation means.
There's a few approaches to reduce the chance that the event happens:
-
- Make the hit box of the strategic missile larger. This does have the side effect that, without additional adjustments, the impact effects do not visually touch the strategic missile anymore.
-
- Make the anti-missile more maneuverable, by for example increasing its turn rate. This allows it to correct itself faster.
-
- Adjust the trajectory of strategic missiles so that they're more 'linear'. The curve when it navigates towards the terrain is quite significant, it is that curve that can make an anti-missile miss. This can have various, unexpected side effects (!).
-
Fire multiple anti-missiles when consuming an ammo. These projectiles can only hit the one strategic missile. This allows them to approach the strategic missile from multiple directions, especially if you randomize their initial trajectory.After testing, messes things up.
These suggestions only reduce the chance of missing. The game is a simulation, there's no guarantee. It already barely happens. And with these chances you reduce the chance even further when the strategic missile is aiming right on top of your SMD, like in the example.
At the end of the day, if you go closer and closer to the limit of the SMD the chance that it fails to intercept increases significantly. You'll still have wasted an anti missile because it can't reach in time. Or perhaps even fired two like in the example.
edit: finally found the word I was looking for. In game design land this is coined as emergent behavior. But in this particular example, the kind that you'd rather not have
. -
-
Well i agree that the game is simulated and these things can and should happens. But i definitly think this should be patched (as in use the examples you provided to "fix" this). As i said, there is a difference between losing a projectile that doesnt cost anything and losing an smd-missile that cost a lot of time and ressources
