Why is there no LOS? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Conflict of Heroes Series >> Tech Support



Message

CesarM -> Why is there no LOS? (5/13/2012 12:01:15 PM)

From the first FF, "partisans". The soviet and german squads in the middle of the screen doesn't see each other.

Is this a modification of the boardgame LOS rules? or a bug?

I think a bit of clarification on LOS rules and a tool to check LOS between two hexes would be welcome.

[image]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2827944/capturaas/coh/Dwm%202012-05-13%2012-45-46-40.jpg[/image]



Joram -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/13/2012 2:03:12 PM)

LOS tool is high on the wishlist. Since the game uses a true 3d board, the LOS rules are slightly different because in this version you don't need to simplify the rule. With that said, in your particular situation one could reasonably expect to see the other unit. I suspect a bug but Eric would have to confirm. It could be a tree is crossing the hexside or some undulation in terrain that's not possible to model with the boardgame.



Lebatron -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/13/2012 4:38:06 PM)

No looks clearly to be a major LOS bug. 2 hexes away and the one in between them is clear terrain. No one in the world playing hex games would even need to do an LOS check for that one. I find lots of them myself that should clearly be or not be in LOS, but I don't want to spam the forum with LOS compliants to much. I may make a few to point out some terrible examples but other than that I'm not going to take a pic every time.



CesarM -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/13/2012 5:38:27 PM)

Sorry I didn't think posting that was a bad idea.

I had read the rules on LOS had changed, but couldn't find the new rules anywhere. I'll try to play a bit more and find them on the go.



Lebatron -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/13/2012 5:54:01 PM)

I wasn't referring to you making a post about LOS. I was referring to me making more complaints about LOS. I was known and despised:) during dev for being very critical of the LOS engine used for this game. It gets a lot of things wrong IMO.



ericbabe -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/13/2012 8:13:42 PM)

The engine uses a ray tracing system to determine LOS. It was necessary to do this to allow for arbitrary height configurations, which is something I discussed with Uwe explicitly, and that together we decided we wanted the engine to be able to do. As it is based on ray casting techniques that look at the geometry and at ascertain whether lines between the centers of hexes are occluded or not. The engine was programmed to try to allow rays to pass along the edges of hexes without occlusion (except in the cases of smoke), but it doesn't always fall that way in the calculations.

Lebatron sometimes employs the rhetorical device of obloquy to which several testers expressed disapprobation.



ioticus -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/13/2012 8:38:53 PM)

I have no idea what you just said but I wish they would've kept LOS like the board game.



CesarM -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/13/2012 9:48:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ioticus

I have no idea what you just said but I wish they would've kept LOS like the board game.



+1



basem2502 -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/14/2012 4:30:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CesarM


quote:

ORIGINAL: ioticus

I have no idea what you just said but I wish they would've kept LOS like the board game.



+1


+2



Lebatron -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/14/2012 4:53:39 AM)

There is nobody on the Matrix forums with a few thousand posts under their belt that don't occasionally run across a few others they just can't see eye to eye with. I have only 4 forum members that ever got belligerent with me. The hundreds of others I have helped, given support to, or shared ideas with consider my posts a worthwhile read. I have my opinions and I state them clearly and rationally. This is a forum. It's what people do here. I'm not sure why fawning is the only form of feedback some devs seem to think is appropriate. I think the LOS engine gets to many things wrong, and I'm going to say something about it because I notice these things. This is a tactical wargame. As such, LOS can not be taken lightly. It can't be just considered "good enough" it has to be perfect.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/14/2012 3:22:39 PM)

Hi Lebatron,

I believe the point Eric was making is that there is a difference between saying "we would like an option to have LOS just like in the board game" and "I found one case where LOS does not make sense" and saying "There are many major LOS issues". The latter is going overboard and exaggerating the issue, which is not helpful. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, in my experience the LOS system works very well overall and instances like this are rare corner cases that are seen as issues mainly in comparison to the board game LOS rules.

The 3D LOS system was not meant to duplicate the board game rules. It was another joint decision between us and Uwe as it would allow us to have a LOS system that would let us have more complicated (and thus more realistic) elevations. The LOS overlay removes guess work as it always shows you exactly what you can see. Adding an LOS check tool is something we have high on our wishlist.

Regards.

- Erik



ericbabe -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/14/2012 6:04:36 PM)

My point was that I had quite a different impression than Lebatron during beta testing: I do not believe that he was "despised" by other testers nor by us at WCS because of his insistence that we make the changes to the engine he wanted us to make, rather it was simply that a handful of testers objected to the type of rhetoric he used in the course of making his arguments.

In another post on this forum Lebatron has described his own rhetorical efforts directed at us as "bitching" and I think that is a fair characterization of the type of rhetoric he employs. The "rhetorical device of obloquy" is my gentlemanly attempt at restating his own characterization of his own rhetorical efforts. My perception is that the other beta testers were not objecting to Lebatron's demands that we make the changes to the game that he wanted us to make, but rather they were objecting to this rhetorical obloquiousness.

Several testers objected openly and in private messages to me about the tone of Lebatron's posts, but I recall very little objection to the fact that he was demanding we make certain changes to the game. That is to say, the disapprobation that I saw was almost entirely directed at the rhetorical style, not at the subject under discussion. In point of fact, the tester who showed the most disapprobation of Lebatron's rhetoric style actually concurred with the substance of much of Lebatron's opinions concerning game design.

In short, I worried that this mischaracterization of the beta team and of WCS might have a calumnious effect upon our reputation, and I wanted, succinctly, to offer my own perception of our team and testers.

As to my own opinion of obloquious rhetoric, I don't recall ever expressing an objection to gamers who see fit to employ negative rhetorical devices in characterizing elements of the game design to which they disagree, though I may offer my own contrary opinions in such cases. I have stated in our private forum that I am disinclined to be persuaded by any sort of rhetoric that I perceive to be an appeal to emotion; we've had gamers who try to get me to do what they want by fawning flattery, and I am just as disinclined to be persuaded by that sort of rhetoric as I am disinclined to be persuaded by overly negative rhetoric.



Lebatron -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/14/2012 6:20:50 PM)

The current LOS method is set in stone now. Wishful statements like "I prefer it was like the board game" are not going to fix any problems with the ray tracing method. When I say "there are major LOS issues" I'm summing it up obviously. It would not be true in my case to say "I found one case where LOS..." and make the said post. I've seen to many to think in those terms anymore. In my case, it truly is better to just sum it up and say I see an overall issue with the current LOS than to spam the forum with a pic of an error every time and say "I found one..."

I don't try to argue for a return to the original COH LOS rules. I know that ray tracing is needed for a fully 3D map. Hills aren't going to be perfectly L1 or L2. I get that. My posts in beta always kept that in mind. I strongly suggested and explained in detail in the past that some tweaking of the ray was needed so that logical inconsistencies would be avoided. I pointed out that the ray seems to bend and follow the curve of the land which in a lot of cases messes with the plateau effect. Whether you are using board game rules, or using real world site lines, troops should not be seeing through hills. I'm not exaggerating the issue at all. Some casuals may think so, and I know they wouldn't care either way, but I know hard core tactical players would agree with me. Plateau effect matters. It's in the rules for all the major tacticals on the market.

This pic is a perfect example of the ray bending over a L1 hill instead of that hill completely blocking site to the other hill in the back. Is this trivial? Again, to some maybe, but not to me. I like the plateau effect in my plays of the board game version of COH. It allows me to hide behind the lip of the hill(useful for mortars), or to seek cover until I rally etc. I can't seem to find this same level of cover in the PC version because the plateau effect is so weak. In almost all cases, because the ray appears to bend, being on the second hex back from the first L1 part of a hill still does not allow one to be out of LOS. If the ray was more rigid, if that's possible, then the plateau effect would become so much stronger and that would improve the engines LOS by a lot. Please take this as constructive criticism.

[image]local://upfiles/16830/AC19F2BA102D4078804482691A6FE851.jpg[/image]



Lebatron -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/14/2012 7:20:11 PM)

Sigh. My writing style is what it is. Stop singling me out for bashing. This is now the second post you made in this very thread that calls me out. You seem to be on a crusade here. A forum is a place where people speak their minds. So I do so. I suppose by that very definition you can say what you want about me here. Often times a moderator would step in and shut such things down, but here it's a mod himself making the personal attacks. Fancy professional sounding language does not hide what it is, nor make it acceptable.

I'd rather stick to the subject matter of the game itself and debate pros and cons. If I make a valid criticism about persistent AP, LOS, or the lack of 2D maps and you wish to counter it with a well reasoned response, have at it. It's a forum after all. But responding to my posts with irrational calls to my character and writing style is unprofessional of you. Stop it please. I refuse to go down this road with you. My posts are going to continue to speak directly about the game and not about people. As I said, my writing style is what it is. It's going to be blunt. Try not to let your offense to it color your responses in the future.



CesarM -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/14/2012 8:51:28 PM)

Well, back to the point guys: I'm finding the case in the picture I posted is not unusual at all. I'm not taking pictures of every single case, as most of the time I'm so inmersed in the fight.

But I remember I saw it in the "demolition" firefight. Theres that 3 hexes building germans pioneers have to take, well, the rightmost and the leftmost hex can't see each other.

I don't really like the new LOS system. I understand some may like the real feeling of the 3d environment, hills and whatnot... but I'm struggling to find some justification to those no-LOS cases like the picture or the "demolition" building.

I hope I've made my point clear and politely, it's not that easy for me to write in english.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Why is there no LOS? (5/15/2012 2:34:17 AM)

Hi Cesar,

Understood and apologies for the sidetrack.

Our immediate goal is to investigate any reported instances where the LOS does not make sense and see if there's an actual issue and something we can tweak. Second, we want to add the LOS tool. Third, we'll discuss future LOS options for the future and get back to the community once we have more to report on that.

Regards,

- Erik



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.984375