Banning ship phasing while in combat.

xX Lord Anubis Xx · August 2012

Me and a few other feel quite strongly that phasing should not be allowed during ship combat on the server. I think some of them want it banned outright. It is unfair to the other combatant that he cannot hit you because you simply cannot be hit. Moving very fast is not cheating, however phasing is. I'm not posting this here because i just got killed by someone who had a phased ship, but simply because I think it should not be allowed on the server.

Jordi LaForge · August 2012

Please ban!

Lambda217 · August 2012

I don't think it should even be allowed outside of combat (unless you were stuck in a planet or something). What if you were trying to surprise attack some dude, but he was phased for safety?

As for actually using it during combat, well, being able to decide arbitrarily whether your enemy can damage you or not? Yeah, how about no.

(for reference, phasing is defined as making the majority of your ship or all of it not solid to projectiles and/or traces.)

Steeveeo · August 2012

Didn't we get rid of the Phase Generator or whatever from Stargate ages ago? Did someone bring that back?

However, if it's the E2 function, then yeah, back when it was introduced we made a rule where it could only be used on things like doors and such, not entire ships (unless it was a station being moved into position or a ship being stuck in a rock or something). If people are using that as a combat maneuver, then yeah, that is against the rules.

If someone wants to mod the cores in some way to not allow weapons to fire while "phased," this would balance it to be somewhat fair.

NinjrKillr · August 2012

Steev, how do you measure whether a ship is "phased", though? Core phased = ship phased = weapons off? Work-around that by leaving your core solid. Percentage of props? Unreliable, at best, imo.

If we can figure out a fool-proof way of determining whether a ship is "phased" then it can't be too hard to do it.

Although, I think this sort of thing is being minimised / removed in the GMod 13 re-writes, etc, IIRC.

Steeveeo · August 2012

Another way to fix it would also make weapons shit tons more efficient (though slightly inaccurate collisions): When a ship is parented/gyropod activated/core tree updated, the core would generate a bounding box "shell" around the ship with which weapons would collide (accuracy could be improved with multiple shells, though harder to program and successively more expensive with better resolution). This shell would then be the only thing weapons and projectiles would check against, rather than solid props with traces (which is both really expensive and bugs out on parented props, historically).

I'm trying to remember the method of generating these things, as I know I've stumbled on it before, but it's just a thing to consider at this point.

EDIT: Here we go, I believe it was an R-Tree I'm thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-tree

xX Lord Anubis Xx · August 2012

Steeveeo wrote:

Another way to fix it would also make weapons shit tons more efficient (though slightly inaccurate collisions): When a ship is parented/gyropod activated/core tree updated, the core would generate a bounding box "shell" around the ship with which weapons would collide (accuracy could be improved with multiple shells, though harder to program and successively more expensive with better resolution). This shell would then be the only thing weapons and projectiles would check against, rather than solid props with traces (which is both really expensive and bugs out on parented props, historically).

I'm trying to remember the method of generating these things, as I know I've stumbled on it before, but it's just a thing to consider at this point.

EDIT: Here we go, I believe it was an R-Tree I'm thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-tree

Well it seems like a very nice idea, but that leaves a gap. Not everybody cores their ship, and if they are shooting rainbows of directed energy weapon bursts and antimatter at you then you cant do shit back, because the weapons wont hit them at all.

Steeveeo · August 2012

xX Lord Anubis Xx wrote:

Steeveeo wrote:

Another way to fix it would also make weapons shit tons more efficient (though slightly inaccurate collisions): When a ship is parented/gyropod activated/core tree updated, the core would generate a bounding box "shell" around the ship with which weapons would collide (accuracy could be improved with multiple shells, though harder to program and successively more expensive with better resolution). This shell would then be the only thing weapons and projectiles would check against, rather than solid props with traces (which is both really expensive and bugs out on parented props, historically).

I'm trying to remember the method of generating these things, as I know I've stumbled on it before, but it's just a thing to consider at this point.

EDIT: Here we go, I believe it was an R-Tree I'm thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-tree

Well it seems like a very nice idea, but that leaves a gap. Not everybody cores their ship, and if they are shooting rainbows of directed energy weapon bursts and antimatter at you then you cant do shit back, because the weapons wont hit them at all.

Don't weapons just not fire without Support Energy from cores?

Also, moving to Suggestions.

xX Lord Anubis Xx · August 2012

Steeveeo wrote:

xX Lord Anubis Xx wrote:

Steeveeo wrote:

Another way to fix it would also make weapons shit tons more efficient (though slightly inaccurate collisions): When a ship is parented/gyropod activated/core tree updated, the core would generate a bounding box "shell" around the ship with which weapons would collide (accuracy could be improved with multiple shells, though harder to program and successively more expensive with better resolution). This shell would then be the only thing weapons and projectiles would check against, rather than solid props with traces (which is both really expensive and bugs out on parented props, historically).

I'm trying to remember the method of generating these things, as I know I've stumbled on it before, but it's just a thing to consider at this point.

EDIT: Here we go, I believe it was an R-Tree I'm thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-tree

Well it seems like a very nice idea, but that leaves a gap. Not everybody cores their ship, and if they are shooting rainbows of directed energy weapon bursts and antimatter at you then you cant do shit back, because the weapons wont hit them at all.

Don't weapons just not fire without Support Energy from cores?

Also, moving to Suggestions.

Steev no offense, but you really got to play on the server a bit more often. The weapons can fire just fine without cores, because Polonium Nitrate reactors and Fusion reactors produce support energy.

Steeveeo · August 2012

xX Lord Anubis Xx wrote:

Steev no offense, but you really got to play on the server a bit more often. The weapons can fire just fine without cores, because Polonium Nitrate reactors and Fusion reactors produce support energy.

No offense taken, I just care more about programming than I do GMod. I suppose the simple fix would be to make the support energy reactors require a core either in the network or loaded into the core tree. That being the simple fix, it's probably not the MOST intuitive or complete. Also, it doesn't have to be the cores, it could easily be the gyropod as well; and if you're worried about people using those gyropod-replacement E2s, then both the cores and the gyros could report to a global script that keeps track of each ship shell.

Now, you could also say that it's both uncored and E2 powered, and if you were REALLY not liking that, you could go the most complex route and have a global script keep track of what's welded to what and generate the shells based on that. Granted, though, that would be REALLY complex and probably expensive, depending on how you do it.

Just some thoughts, by the way. The point that phasing your ship with E2 commands in combat is still a poor thing to do and is against the rules.

xX Lord Anubis Xx · August 2012

Why do we have so many goddamn rules that aren't written down ANYWHERE?

And also steev, if we did that, what would planetside bases do for support energy?

Steeveeo · August 2012

xX Lord Anubis Xx wrote:

Why do we have so many goddamn rules that aren't written down ANYWHERE?

And also steev, if we did that, what would planetside bases do for support energy?

Many of the unspoken rules fall under "Don't Be a Dick." If it's unsportsmanlike and outright unfair like making your entire ship not solid or invisible or things like that, it's probably not something you should be doing.

I dunno, core them? Granted planet bases don't usually have anywhere near the "bulk" of space ships, but they could still benefit from cores (unless it's just a bunch of SEnts lying around). And hey, its a bit more balanced than just having a bunch of resources stuck underground with a couple turret weapons here and there on the surface for the sole purpose of causing havoc.

Lambda217 · August 2012

No-one seems to bother with planet bases any more, not sure why.

evil haggis · August 2012

Lambda217 wrote:

No-one seems to bother with planet bases any more, not sure why.

lambda, i think the reason people dont bother with planet bases is because:

1: the sufficiant planets for building/placeing a base are either to small or to overcrowded

2: most planets that are big enougth to place a base are insuffciant to provide reasources to power and provide life suppport

3: the terrain on the large planets are mostly rougth and unsmooth making placeing a base difficult

Note: i am not complaining about how the maps are designed, i am simply pointing out the flaws and disadvantages that these designs pose to base building. and i realize that the reason the designers have made the terrain rougth and unsmooth is to put realizm into the map.

also if anybody is on this to vue the topic at hand, ignore this for it has nothing to do with ship phaseing

Amaroq · August 2012

Steeveeo wrote:

Many of the unspoken rules fall under "Don't Be a Dick."

Actually, that's not unspoken at all. It's right there, written down in the MotD. Making your ship fully phased in an agreed fight is a pretty damn dickish thing to do.

xX Lord Anubis Xx · August 2012

Maybe we can make a new map for GM13 that is designed to have a good balance between planets eligible for base construction and a good amount of spatial objects to make space fights have tactical and strategic positions rather than "See enemy, fiar all teh weponz". Maybe we can fish Kamekazi out of whatever hole he's been hiding in and have him make a few more maps. Or just get whoever is really really good at making maps.

Lambda217 · August 2012

Stuff like asteroid belts and stations is always fun.

Steeveeo · August 2012

Amaroq wrote:

Steeveeo wrote:

Many of the unspoken rules fall under "Don't Be a Dick."

Actually, that's not unspoken at all. It's right there, written down in the MotD. Making your ship fully phased in an agreed fight is a pretty damn dickish thing to do.

I meant that as in many of the things that aren't explicitly stated fall under that "Don't Be a Dick" category.

xX Lord Anubis Xx · August 2012

Back to the topic at hand, is anyone going to add something to the server to help prevent phasing on the server? Because if you don't then ill just continue slap around anyone i see using it.

NinjrKillr · August 2012

Must I reiterate the difficulties in limiting full-ship phasing whilst allowing parts (such as doors) to still be phased?

Phasing is allowed, Noobis. It's just a dick move to do in a fight.

Amaroq · August 2012

NinjrKillr wrote:

Must I reiterate the difficulties in limiting full-ship phasing whilst allowing parts (such as doors) to still be phased?

Phasing is allowed, Noobis. It's just a dick move to do in a fight.

Could have a rule about it. I had a ship-phasing system, but it only worked for about 3 seconds, and could only be used every 30 seconds. I used it primariy to avoid high-damage bursts.

NinjrKillr · August 2012

Amaroq wrote:

Could have a rule about it. I had a ship-phasing system, but it only worked for about 3 seconds, and could only be used every 30 seconds. I used it primariy to avoid high-damage bursts.

That could work. Or we could potentially edit the setSolid() function to only allow a maximum of 10% of the props of a ship to be phased at any one time, but that's too limiting - IMO.

On the idea of making it a rule: Have it allowed, but with limitations - such as you've mentioned your phasing system had?

LtBrandon · August 2012

..Please correct me if I read this wrong Anubis, but the way you talk would lead to the assumption that these rules would affect people outside of combat. There is utterly no point in blocking people from using it when they aren't in a battle, if they use it while in a battle THEN do something about it. As mentioned earlier in the thread, "Making your ship fully phased in an agreed fight is a pretty damn dickish thing to do." as such it falls under the "Don't be a dick" rule and there is no need for anything further IMHO.

Lambda217 · August 2012

Lambda217 wrote:

What if you were trying to surprise attack some dude, but he was phased for safety?

NinjrKillr · August 2012

Then it's not an agreed fight, is it - Lambda?

I know if I was to "phase for safety" it would be because I was going afk - so there's no problem there, imo.

Mouldy_Taco · August 2012

I'm against allowing phasing for any reason. If you need to go AFK, you can park your ship on the spawn planet, or just remove it, or you could just take the chance that you might get blown up. That's how it's going to be when factions get implemented anyway.

If phasing is allowed, you have the capability remain 100% safe anywhere on the map. You never have to agree to fight anyone, therefore you never have to disable your phase. That's not how a battle server is supposed to work. It's supposed to encourage conflict.

Amaroq · August 2012

Mouldy_Taco wrote:

I'm against allowing phasing for any reason. If you need to go AFK, you can park your ship on the spawn planet, or just remove it, or you could just take the chance that you might get blown up. That's how it's going to be when factions get implemented anyway.

If phasing is allowed, you have the capability remain 100% safe anywhere on the map. You never have to agree to fight anyone, therefore you never have to disable your phase. That's not how a battle server is supposed to work. It's supposed to encourage conflict.

Um, you never have to agree to fight anyone anyways. It's in the rules. Not everyone wants to be shot at. Also, we all seem to agree that a small, temporary limited phase seems to be acceptable, if applied correctly.

Lambda217 · August 2012

When faction warfare returns, the "Agreed fights" rule should probably be removed. It'd be a bit weird to see something like the B.A utterly paralysed because their targets don't feel like getting shot at.

Amaroq · August 2012

Lambda217 wrote:

When faction warfare returns, the "Agreed fights" rule should probably be removed. It'd be a bit weird to see something like the B.A utterly paralysed because their targets don't feel like getting shot at.

I fully disagree. We don't exactly have a lot of servers, and not everyone appreciates being shot at. All it promotes is dickery.

I suggested to Brandon that we instead host events where this rule is no longer the case, for several hours. We might even make them scheduled ones that happen with a code-based timer on it.

So if you don't like being randomly shot at, you just won't participate in these events. If you do, then you can feel free to blow up anyone you want during them.

I think it's a pretty damn fair trade, at least until we can get some kind of secondary server that'll constantly sync with the other one.

Mouldy_Taco · August 2012

At this stage, all we have is a very laggy build server. Hardly anyone fights anymore. Setting up a synced build server would help reduce the stagnation of the battle server and allow for more open-ended combat.

Hell, just make the build server flatgrass with all the Spacebuild props and custom tools. Disable support energy to limit violence.

Another alternative would be once we get careers implemented, turn the build server into a peaceful server, and set up a system where gains on the battle server are much higher than gains on the peaceful server, to encourage risk-taking.

Gains could mean unlocks, resources, money, etc.

There's room for both those who want to battle and those who don't, but currently there aren't many options for people who want to battle.

LtBrandon · August 2012

Sigh.. honestly I am totally against limiting it anymore than it already is, if you're going to try to limit it then I would much rather see it removed. It DOES have valid uses, such as docking, getting parts stuck on a planet unstuck(YES IT HAPPENS, EVEN WITH PARENTING), hidden weapon bays, and more. Without it I would have crashed the server so many times that it's ridiculous, my ships hate even the slightest contact with planets, if I don't phase the server crashes within seconds because of collisions.

For those of us who rarely come 'round the gmod server, we do have a factions only server planned which will not have any peace rules beyond no attacking spawn and no attacking allied factions until war is declared. If you want to hear more about that you can talk to me on steam rather than derail this thread further.

Banning ship phasing while in combat.

Comments