A_WolfAttack

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :geek: :ugeek: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :3: :wub: >:( :blergh:
View more smilies

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: A_WolfAttack

Re: A_WolfAttack

by Major Cooke » Wed May 11, 2011 1:36 pm

Right then, so, could we get a page up on the wiki please? I would do it but since there was additional changes I have that feeling I might miss something, and then people will start putting up bug reports and what not.

Re: A_WolfAttack

by NeuralStunner » Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:19 pm

Gez wrote:Out of scope of this thing. I'm not going to put either/or codepaths in standard hitscan functions to have them do the scan either with a trace or with a range check + sight check.
Mainly I was referring to an A_FireBullets flag to reduce damage toward the given maximum range, similarly to A_Explode.

Re: A_WolfAttack

by Gez » Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:18 pm

Out of scope of this thing. I'm not going to put either/or codepaths in standard hitscan functions to have them do the scan either with a trace or with a range check + sight check.

Re: A_WolfAttack

by NeuralStunner » Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:22 pm

Gez wrote:Any comment, problem or niggle?
My comment: FBF_FALLOFF. :P

Re: A_WolfAttack

by Gez » Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:19 am

New version of the patch. The first argument is now for the flags (just put 0 to get default behavior). I've added NORANDOM and USEPUFF. Also made it spawn blood, puff, and blood decals. Any comment, problem or niggle?
Attachments
WolfAttack.zip
(1.94 KiB) Downloaded 65 times

Re: A_WolfAttack

by Gez » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:45 am

Interesting. I looked into the TakeDamage() function to see if there were an explanation, but it only shows that damage are quartered in the baby skill ("Can I play, Daddy?"), no other adjustments.

Re: A_WolfAttack

by AFADoomer » Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:33 pm

In live testing, the damage levels seem to be significantly higher than in Wolf3D... Using something like:

Code: Select all

WBOS FG 5 BRIGHT A_WolfAttack("boss/attack", 0.666, 64, 64, 2, 4, 160.0)
as one of the HansGrosse attacks seems to damage at 2-3 times the rate of Wolf3D when at range (as observed in Dosbox). Though this could be an effect of Wolf's weighted "random" number table (that or something I did to compensate when using hitscans is now causing problems).

Re: A_WolfAttack

by Gez » Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:23 am

Enjay wrote:Would there be any way (or any need?) to expose those features so that they could be used in other attacks. ie, you get the realism of the Doom system hitting the first shootable target in the path, but also the nice effect of the "dodge" and the speed related inaccuracy (and the distance degradation) - or are they intrinsically linked to an attack that "rolls to hit" (which I suspect may be the case)?
They could be implemented in normal hitscans by simply increasing the maximum spread angle in such conditions.

Re: A_WolfAttack

by Blue Shadow » Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:44 pm

I hope I don't see/play a mod where chaingunner's attack has been replaced with this :) .

Re: A_WolfAttack

by NeuralStunner » Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:05 pm

Gez wrote:
Graf Zahl wrote:Absolutely. While you are at it, how about WAF_NOGHOST?
Sure, what would it do? Remove the ghost check or remove damage for ghosts?
I would hope it would be equivalent to having +THRUGHOST on the weapon, which is very limiting in many cases. (Setting it by A_ChangeFlag is useless, as that affects the Player.)

Re: A_WolfAttack

by Enjay » Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:58 pm

OK, thanks for the explanation of how both types work. It makes a lot more sense to me now.
Gez wrote:There are a couple of niceties in the Wolf function, though, like the "dodge" effect (enemies are less likely to hit you if you see them, to simulate you seeing they aim and trying to move out of their crosshair) and the enemies having a harder time aiming you when you're moving fast.
Would there be any way (or any need?) to expose those features so that they could be used in other attacks. ie, you get the realism of the Doom system hitting the first shootable target in the path, but also the nice effect of the "dodge" and the speed related inaccuracy (and the distance degradation) - or are they intrinsically linked to an attack that "rolls to hit" (which I suspect may be the case)?

Re: A_WolfAttack

by Gez » Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:51 pm

Graf Zahl wrote:Absolutely. While you are at it, how about WAF_NOGHOST?
Sure, what would it do? Remove the ghost check or remove damage for ghosts?
Enjay wrote:I note that this attack means that the target will be hit even if other actors are standing in the way. If a check to see if actors are in the way is being made (I'm not sure that it is)
The reason the target is hit even if other actors are in the way is because there are no such checks at all.

The normal hitscan functions work like this:
1. Verify that there is line of sight. (This only checks level geometry, actors never block line of sight.)
2. Compute horizontal angle between shooter and target.
3. Optionally add some random deviation to angle.
4. Trace line along that path.
5. Hit the first shootable actor that is met along the line.

The Wolf hitscan function works like this:
1. Verify that there is line of sight. (This only checks level geometry, actors never block line of sight.)
2. Compute distance between shooter and target.
3. Compute probability of hit depending on distance and other factors.
4. Compute damage depending on distance.
5. Damage target.

Doom is therefore a lot more "realistic" (as far as realism can be applied to faster-than-light attacks...) since the bullets are actually projected; whereas Wolf merely rolls to hit. There are a couple of niceties in the Wolf function, though, like the "dodge" effect (enemies are less likely to hit you if you see them, to simulate you seeing they aim and trying to move out of their crosshair) and the enemies having a harder time aiming you when you're moving fast. And a downside of Doom's approach is that, since it's exclusively 2D, a flying cacodemon can "intercept" a bullet from a zombie that had a clear shot at you.

Re: A_WolfAttack

by Enjay » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:29 pm

I knew I'd seen something like that somewhere recently. I reckon that Neural's suggestion would have more universal appeal than tying it to the A_WolfAttack function.

Re: A_WolfAttack

by Xaser » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:24 pm

It seems that this feature suggestion would take care of that if implemented, though I certainly wouldn't complain if a flag here was added, either.

Re: A_WolfAttack

by Enjay » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:16 pm

I note that this attack means that the target will be hit even if other actors are standing in the way. If a check to see if actors are in the way is being made (I'm not sure that it is) is there any way to expose such a check to a modder so that they can put a jump into an attack state so that an enemy would not fire if there was another actor in the way? (I think that I may be right in saying that current checks only take account of map geometry and not the position of other actors?)

Top