version 05242014

[Khally]

@Khally, the whole point of posting in a forum isn't just to get your opinion out, but also to publicly discuss it for all to see. You state your opinion like its fact without using any evidence to back it up. This warrants for a discussion.
Really, this is just basic middle/high-school physics. Speed is always relative. Position is always relative.

Ex: Person is moving at 0 mph relative to car, but is moving at 60 mph relative to the ground.
Ex: If two people are moving at 60 mph in opposite directions, relative to each other, they are moving at 120 mph. That's why head on collisions are more violent than when one hits the other in the back.
Ex: If person A is moving at 50 Mph right, and person B move at 60 mph right, relative to person A, Person B is moving at 10 mph.
Ex: Person without seatbelt gets launched out of car when he slams breaks at 60 mph, or gets into a car accident (which usually accelerates the car, while the separate entity inside is still moving with X Velocity due to inertia
Ex: Person driving in car with a bat has much more force than a running person with a bat. (relative to the perpetrator, bat is moving at his swing speed) Relative to victim, it's moving faster than 60 mph.
Ex: Throwing a ball while running gives it more distance than standing and throwing it.

This was also discussed and resolved in the third page.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8108&start=20

Equation for calculating velocity

---

If you disagree, I would like to see your sources.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Relative+Velocity

tl;dr: This update is fine. It makes sense, is physically correct, and solves tons of ridiculous issues. I understand not implementing complex physics, but this is quite basic and easy to understand and apply.

I find it quite funny that you are explaining physics to me, from all people

Yes, the physics are 100% correct. I don't argue with that, so I'm sorry you had to go through the trouble of putting that (great) example into writing.
The thing is: It's only applying IN FRONT of the player. The range remains the same when you are shooting backwards. And you still fire horizontally in a straight line. This makes the whole hooking more inconsistent, because it's not applying the change all around.

I'm sorry that you thought I was questioning the physics behind the new system.

[SAA]

I find it quite funny that you are explaining physics to me, from all people

Why is that?

Yes, the physics are 100% correct. I don't argue with that, so I'm sorry you had to go through the trouble of putting that (great) example into writing.
The thing is: It's only applying IN FRONT of the player. The range remains the same when you are shooting backwards. And you still fire horizontally in a straight line. This makes the whole hooking more inconsistent, because it's not applying the change all around.

I'm sorry that you thought I was questioning the physics behind the new system.

Oh, ok. It's because there were others that questioned the basic fundamentals of physics. I don't know why, but it just really annoys me when people state false facts or misunderstand concepts.

"the best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer."
-Steven McGeady

I do see what you're saying, and I'd prefer it if it was consistent.

But, I can explain why it was implemented as such. I think that Feng earlier stated that having complete relativity made the game too hard to maneuver in. (Whether or not realistic physics is worth the more difficult game-play can be debated) On the other hand, having no relativity had things that made absolutely no sense occur, and things like you passing your hooks occurred.

Having Realistic physics or having non-realistic physics negatively affected the game-play in its own way.

I guess that having partly true physics implemented was the balance between the two extremes. It makes a bit more sense than having non-relative speeds, though not completely, and it doesn't make the game much more difficult than it already is.

This is why I am in full support of it.

[Khally]

I find it quite funny that you are explaining physics to me, from all people

Why is that?

I've always had a great understanding of physics. Scored max (100%) in the physics part of the exams for college admission; part-time hobby which I read a LOT about. Etc.

Regarding the actual topic; having true relative hooks would in fact make the game nearly unplayable. Calculating horizontal/vertical motion would require an extreme amount of skill, way beyond what common people could ever achieve. So, like you said, a compromise was made, which I understand. But it's very hard to accept that only one vector is being influenced. Having that said, I don't have any better options to present, but I still feel that the way it was before might have been more consistent and overall better. I guess I need to thinking about it further

[Miracle]

Personally I think most people wouldn't want to revert to the old hook physic once they get used to this one, as this new hook physic unlocked alot of possibility.

Anyway, this new hook physics is implemented based on the idea "How the fuck did the hook get behind me when I clearly shoot it toward the front".

Initially the vector is added to all direction, and that made the game almost unplayable. Adding the vector to both in front and behind made hooking behind impossible too. Thus, the vector is not added behind to prevent great changes to current skill set.

[Rawrz]

Mira <3 <3 <3

-----------------------------

I think having completely relative hooks sounds extremely fun, but I agree it'd be a bad choice from Feng's point of view. Making the game too hard would decrease the return rate for new players and possibly even make current players quit, though that's just stating the obvious really.

[trueblue1321]

I don't think this game follows the 3 laws of motion anyway
But so what.. As of right now, the game works pretty fine, and as Mira said, unlocks a lot of possibility. Let's just see how the physics work out later on, for now they are more than satisfactory as far as I'm concerned...

[SAA]

Feng, the new minimum character limit does more harm than good!

If people really want to spam, all they have to do is ctrl + A. ctrl + C, and then ctrl + V as many times as they want.

The minimum chat limit is quite inconvenient. As a human player, sometimes you need to communicate as fast as possible.

The chat minimum prevents you from saying things like:
Yes
No
Titan
PT
Help!

Now you have to spam space to get short quick messages across.

[MJRmasqu3rade]

Feng, the new minimum character limit does more harm than good!

If people really want to spam, all they have to do is ctrl + A. ctrl + C, and then ctrl + V as many times as they want.

The minimum chat limit is quite inconvenient. As a human player, sometimes you need to communicate as fast as possible.

The chat minimum prevents you from saying things like:
Yes
No
Titan
PT
Help!

Now you have to spam space to get short quick messages across.

...So, why the hell did you put that here instead of in the thread for the latest version? ._.

[SAA]

...So, why the hell did you put that here instead of in the thread for the latest version? ._.

I-I can't find it.

("-_-)

[The Rogue Titan]

Here they are.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8379
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8371