|
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Ur-Quan Dreadnought to be re-named "Banana Boat" (Read 37113 times)
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3872
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I like the explosion, but it seems similar to the Chenjesu blasts.
Another idea I had was to have the shots emerge from the side pods instead of the nose, and alternate sides. That would make the dead zones narrower and further away.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3872
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I guess so; but we'd need to rebalance the damage rate in that case.
3 damage each per shot, to keep the same total? Or, since hitting with both is less likely, more? 6, as this is intended to be a buff?
Or would we halve the fire rate?
To avoid this is why I was thinking of alternating.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
tartarus
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 11
|
And even when it is an effective counter to chmmr, there are also cheaper alternatives.
So Ur-Quan is never used anyway.
It needs to be made more powerful against small ships.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
Double shots would definitely help against smaller ships, which can currently take advantage of the blind spots that literally go all the way up to its hull.
Ha, I remember that. You might have noticed it earlier, but I didn't know until we played Androsynth vs Ur-Quan repeatedly. The tiny little comet could attack Ur-Quan head-on without taking damage. That was beatdown of the century for Ur-Quan.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3872
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Here's an SVN diff, replacing my old file diff. This one also uses indenting more consistent with the rest of the code.
Index: trunk/sc2/src/sc2code/ships/urquan/urquan.c
===================================================================
--- trunk/sc2/src/sc2code/ships/urquan/urquan.c (revision 3029)
+++ trunk/sc2/src/sc2code/ships/urquan/urquan.c (working copy)
@@ -117,27 +117,42 @@
#define MISSILE_HITS 10
#define MISSILE_DAMAGE 6
#define MISSILE_OFFSET 8
-#define URQUAN_OFFSET 32
+#define URQUAN_OFFSET_FORE 16
+#define URQUAN_OFFSET_SIDE 48
STARSHIP *StarShipPtr;
MISSILE_BLOCK MissileBlock;
+ SIZE xOff, yOff;
+ COUNT angle;
GetElementStarShip (ShipPtr, &StarShipPtr);
- MissileBlock.cx = ShipPtr->next.location.x;
- MissileBlock.cy = ShipPtr->next.location.y;
MissileBlock.farray = StarShipPtr->RaceDescPtr->ship_data.weapon;
MissileBlock.face = MissileBlock.index = StarShipPtr->ShipFacing;
MissileBlock.sender = (ShipPtr->state_flags & (GOOD_GUY | BAD_GUY))
| IGNORE_SIMILAR;
- MissileBlock.pixoffs = URQUAN_OFFSET;
+ MissileBlock.pixoffs = URQUAN_OFFSET_FORE;
MissileBlock.speed = MISSILE_SPEED;
MissileBlock.hit_points = MISSILE_HITS;
MissileBlock.damage = MISSILE_DAMAGE;
MissileBlock.life = MISSILE_LIFE;
MissileBlock.preprocess_func = NULL;
MissileBlock.blast_offs = MISSILE_OFFSET;
+
+ angle = FACING_TO_ANGLE (MissileBlock.face) + QUADRANT;
+
+ xOff = COSINE(angle, URQUAN_OFFSET_SIDE);
+ yOff = SINE(angle, URQUAN_OFFSET_SIDE);
+
+ MissileBlock.cx = ShipPtr->next.location.x + xOff;
+ MissileBlock.cy = ShipPtr->next.location.y + yOff;
+
FusionArray[0] = initialize_missile (&MissileBlock);
+
+
+ MissileBlock.cx = ShipPtr->next.location.x - xOff;
+ MissileBlock.cy = ShipPtr->next.location.y - yOff;
+ FusionArray[1] = initialize_missile (&MissileBlock);
- return (1);
+ return (2);
}
#define TRACK_THRESHOLD 6
Having played a little with it, I think it's a dramatic improvement.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 10:45:44 pm by Death 999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tartarus
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 11
|
Sorry to ask such a silly question but how can I use this code on my UQM ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
tartarus
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 11
|
Is it possible to compile windows version of UQM with any free compilers ?
Is it only one file which is being compiled, not the whole game ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
psydev
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 136
Why don't all races have point defense lasers?
|
I agree that the ur-quan is over-valued, though not for any particular tactical shortcomings (in my opinion, it can hold its own against almost any ship rather well), but rather because it simply lacks endurance. Fighters are powerful but tend to get killed by asteroids/stray fire/collisions with ships. If you want to have your ur-quan last, you need to use them sparingly. They're also quite unintelligent, mindlessly pursuing an enemy instead of plotting an intercept course (like looping around the screen, maybe).
If we were to make a Melee mod, I would recommend some of the following as potential ideas:
1. Make the fighters behave like Orz marines: bounce off ships and asteroids instead of crash into them; pull gravity whips; fly smarter (not fly in a predictable straight line towards target but "deek" a bit; try to plot intercept vector. )
2. Make it so that the fighters don't expire. Sure, they should have to "return to base" instead of stay out perpetually, but actually having them die sucks. I think this is a huge problem and should be fixed. Their engagement time should be limited but they should not actually die.
3. I really don't think that the ur-quan should be made more maneuverable--its lack of maneuverability is the only thing that smaller ships have on it so they can get behind it to tongue/whatever. I wouldn't be opposed to a longer range blaster, however, for standoffs, or maybe a faster firing rate for those close encounters.
Either that or just reduce the cost of the banana boat. Personally though, even though it's a weak ship, I love the ur-quan.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dabir
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 291
|
Time to revive an old topic with a new idea.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Ur-Quan sucks and people want its projectile to be homing. People also don't like it seeming like a Cruiser missile. So, for starters, how about making the plasma projectile strafe? Not only does this improve the uniqueness of the ship, it also prevents sprites-looking-like-crap-because-they're-rotatedness. Of course, it's not quite as homing as other weapons but if the guns were mounted in the nacelles instead of the nose and the turning ansd speed were improved AND the fighters were given the improvements previously discussed, the Dreadnought could once again rule the stars. As it is it's a sick, green, fatassed joke.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Cedric6014
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 701
|
Okay, I’ve just read all 7 pages of this thread.
Going back to what Angus said aaaages ago, I think he’s right about the Ur-quan being valued highly in SC1 because of the fortress destroying thing.
Nevertheless, I believe that the Ur-Quan SHOULD be a feared and destructive ship. When I see an opposing player’s fleet contain an Ur-Quan, or when I bump into four-strong squadron of Ur-Quan in the full game, I want to crap my pants
There’s any number obvious things you can do to make the Ur-Quan a better ship.
I’d like to see subtle changes that keep the essence of the Ur-Quan. It’s supposed to be a big mean ship with awesome fire power.
It should demolish most small ships, but it should also be vulnerable to the Chmmr – remember, the Chmmr was designed to destroy Ur-Quan. Ideally it should be able to foot it with a Kohr-ah too.
I think only three things need to be changed:
- The fighters should bounce off/evade asteroids and enemy ships – and they should not expire.
- Fusion blasts should be less fuel intensive. I think this would have a BIG impact, especially against other cap ships.
- Improve the turning rate so it can’t get so easily picked apart by small ships and Orz marines
Interesting idea:
- Could you make it so some small fighters diverted their attention to Orz marines, DOGIs etc?
After this, we need to fix the Yehat and the Chenjesu. And the frickin Thraddash!
P.S. homing fusion blasts is a crap idea
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
|
|
|
|
|
