Killing the game

[Molon Labe]

Hmmmm.... Do I detect a new consensus forming?

[Molon Labe]

Amizaur,

What a lot of us are saying is that the aTMA shouldn't be "penalized" but should be limited to produce a solution no better than what is available with the data provided. In other words, the initial solutions should be crap, but should improve with time, provided that ownship is manuevered properly.

[Amizaur]

OK, I agree that this would be much better and much more realistic that what what I propose.
I'm only not sure when we could see such radical improvement... Let's hope that it's not so hard to make as I feel.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Amizaur

OK, I agree that this would be much better and much more realistic that what what I propose.
I'm only not sure when we could see such radical improvement... Let's hope that it's not so hard to make as I feel.

I think SCS already did all the hard work. They were quite proud of "Otto" when DW was released because, supposedly, "Otto" narrowed down the solution and gets better with time. My observations are generally consistent with this....the problem isn't that they didn't set it up to get better with time--I think they did--but that the error in the solution is limited by the real data. The aTMA program needs to choose a solution within the total range of error, not limited by anything that the player doesn't/wouldn't have knowledge of. Once this artificial variable is removed, aTMA might work just fine with a minimum of further refinements.

[OKO]

That's a good solution
but you can be more rude at start, as for the real thing ... as said Molon, the AI shouldn't be able to do a better solution than informations provided can give.
so, with 1 sensor (examples ...)
2 LOB => 150% of error
3 LOB => 100% of error
4 LOB => 50% of error
5 LOB => 25% of error
6 LOB => 7% of error
7 LOB and above => 2% of error

for a good solution you need 6 LOBs, excellent one from the 7th.

but this doesnt solve the fact the commander could manoeuver as need without any constrainst.
in other way, we couldn't penalize commander using good pattern, and as we couldn't check that ....

And this way they have to wait near the same time of manual players to have some good solutions.

I saw a script instruction named "solution".
I suppose this could be implemented, after further investigation about accuracy (that was just a drift), without noticeable problems by Sonalysts. But certainly not for the next release.

Of course, this consensus must be agreed by all, we don't gonna ask for something concerning few people.

But this change could allow manual & AC TMA on the same game
at this time, it's really unfair.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by OKO

That's a good solution
but you can be more rude at start, as for the real thing ... as said Molon, the AI shouldn't be able to do a better solution than informations provided can give.
so, with 1 sensor (examples ...)
2 LOB => 150% of error
3 LOB => 100% of error
4 LOB => 50% of error
5 LOB => 25% of error
6 LOB => 7% of error
7 LOB and above => 2% of error

for a good solution you need 6 LOBs, excellent one from the 7th.

but this doesnt solve the fact the commander could manoeuver as need without any constrainst.
in other way, we couldn't penalize commander using good pattern, and as we couldn't check that ....

And this way they have to wait near the same time of manual players to have some good solutions.

I saw a script instruction named "solution".
I suppose this could be implemented, after further investigation about accuracy (that was just a drift), without noticeable problems by Sonalysts. But certainly not for the next release.

Of course, this consensus must be agreed by all, we don't gonna ask for something concerning few people.

But this change could allow manual & AC TMA on the same game
at this time, it's really unfair.

Right! I like your point about the manuevering in particular. The rate at which the solution improves needs to be dependent on how Ownship is manuevered. 7 lines while Ownship is stationary should still produce a crap solution. Half of the refining process will need to be changing ownship's contribution to the bearing rate. The last thing I would want to see is a "good" range solution being obtained on a parallel or lead course, or a "good" range solution being obtained with no DEMON data without extensive manuevering...etc.

It's worth noting that with SC, it was usually fair for manual and aTMA players to be in the same game. I think I saw one incredibly lucky aTMA ASROC shot in all my time playing against opponents using autocrew...

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Precisely. Have you looked at the changes made in the LWAMI Mod?

Nope. I figured I'd wait until they stop releasing patches before I start experimenting with mods.

[LuftWolf]

Well, my intention from the very beginning was to create something to get us through to v1.02 and DWX, since there was so much complaining going on here, so you might want to revise that viewpoint.

At least, in my opinion, the game is unplayable in stock v1.01+sound vs. speed. But that's only my opinion.

[darksythe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Well, my intention from the very beginning was to create something to get us through to v1.02 and DWX, since there was so much complaining going on here, so you might want to revise that viewpoint.

At least, in my opinion, the game is unplayable in stock v1.01+sound vs. speed. But that's only my opinion.

I have done alot of testing with Luftwolf in Mp using the LWAMI mod and can tell you that if your looking for a more balanced gameplay solution while waiting for 102 etc.. to come out this is the way to go for now. The vast amount of things that are affected by the mod produce a practicaly new simulation.... Ok im over exagerating a bit. But IMHO it is the great equalizer as far as Dw goes... Now if we can get the 102 with a fix for the Kilo Bb hack that will be a good day.