[ASC-III] Air Superiority Challenge - King of the Hill (BDArmory 4v4 AI Duels: WW1 Theme) - Now Concluded!

[NotAnAimbot]

Should we put a restriction on turrets? I could really see how easy abusing them with huge craft armed with Goalkeepers would be.

[gag09]

Yeah i agree. Turrets are a bit OP especially considering they negate the importance of maneuverability in favor of how many turrets you can mount to a design.

[ScriptKitt3h]

8 minutes ago, gag09 said:

Yeah i agree. Turrets are a bit OP especially considering they negate the importance of maneuverability in favor of how many turrets you can mount to a design.

At first I thought I'd be more in favor of allowing turrets- but after lots of testing (and the fact that I've personally switched to a design that doesn't use them to be more agile), I feel they are a bit OP in that a plane technically could be "fleeing" but still shoot your aircraft down.

Also, the Matadors are good jets, but still die all the same. (They've got some pretty creative naming, BTW. :D)

Matadors RED and BLUE were launched in a test VS my Gemini fighters.

The Gemini "twins" then scored a kill on the first fighter while dodging all incoming AMRAAMs and Sidewinders.

Sadly (for me, at least), Matador RED managed to evade the incoming barrage from the second Gemini and used its turret to gun down both aircraft.

EDIT:

Also, @inigma, I've got an updated version of the Gemini file. It's got a fix for a structural issue in the fuselage and some changes to the AI variables.

link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/57hx8yvrzo8xk0f/ATS-FX7%20Gemini%20%28BDA%29.craft?dl=0

Edited April 9, 2016 by ScriptKitt3h

[drtricky]

4 hours ago, NotAnAimbot said:

I've tested many of my fighters with the ramjet engines instead, and found that it doesn't really have an advantage over the afterburned Panther. It's even worse when dogfighting, since you lose a lot of energy in turns and end up slowing down a lot. It's only effective when cruising at high speeds, like IRL ramjets.

On top of that, whiplash engines have slow acceleration, and have no way to turn off the afterburners, so they make a fighter very vulnerable to heat-seeking missiles.

Edited April 9, 2016 by drtricky

[gag09]

We could just limit the firing angles so they can only fire in front of the aircraft. @ScriptKitt3h@inigma.

Edited April 9, 2016 by gag09

[ScriptKitt3h]

4 minutes ago, drtricky said:

On top of that, whiplash engines have slow acceleration, and have no way to turn off the afterburners, so they make a fighter very vulnerable to heat-seeking missiles.

Yeah, the Panthers are just better overall for the task. (Which is fitting, given that they're meant as a fighter-jet type engine.)

I'll admit that the way I deal with lack of speed in my jets is engine clipping, which not only boosts speed overall, but sometimes improves handling/balance of CoM/CoL.

3 minutes ago, gag09 said:

We could just limit the firing angles so they can only fire in front of the aircraft. @ScriptKitt3h

Perhaps, but I'm starting to feel like fixed guns (M2 .50 cal, GAU-8, hidden vulcan, etc.) just seem a bit more fair, relying on craft design more than armament to ensure victory.

[inigma]

5 hours ago, Redshift OTF said:

@inigma I have done some testing and I think the AIM 120 fins on my plane are getting stuck on the rear control surfaces at times. I lowered the missiles so this shouldn't happen. If you are still having glitching issues I can provide you with a link to Stealth Weasel v1.1 with this change, everything else about the plane is identical.

Post a link or update your current. Ill run the match tonight.

[Dman979]

Guys, I don't think we should be too worried about turrets yet. So far, there haven't been any turret planes flown in a match, so we don't really know how they will work, long term on in a single fight.

Besides, turrets can lead to some pretty creative designs.

[inigma]

Concerning turrets, they are still allowed. ASC is about as much unconventional design as conventional. In other words the purpose of ASC is to produce an AI aircraft that is unbeatable for Career use. Effective turrets are advantageous in close quarters but at the cost of precious manuverability, aim time, and use of regular cannons. I expect missiles at range to defeat a turreted plane.

I am sure this thread will provide @BahamutoD much feedback on balance.

Edited April 9, 2016 by inigma

[ScriptKitt3h]

2 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

Guys, I don't think we should be too worried about turrets yet. So far, there haven't been any turret planes flown in a match, so we don't really know how they will work, long term on in a single fight.

Besides, turrets can lead to some pretty creative designs.

Maybe not in an "official" match, but in testing done by me and other contenders, turret-equipped aircraft have proven to be overpowered in many regards. Not being able to use turrets in a competitive environment isn't going to severely impede people's designs if they're committed to participating. 

[Redshift OTF]

9 minutes ago, inigma said:

Post a link or update your current. Ill run the match tonight.

Thanks, here it is:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9mK0rPybNaxYUlhUWdMYWUzM3M

It can still crash into its own missiles sometimes if it rolls at the wrong time but meh, that's life.

[ScriptKitt3h]

2 minutes ago, inigma said:

Concerning turrets, they are still allowed. ASC is about as much unconventional design as conventional. In other words the purpose of ASC is to produce an AI aircraft that is unbeatable for Career use. Effective turrets are advantageous in close quarters but at the cost of manuverability and use if regular cannons. I expect missiles at range to defeat a turreted plane.

I am sure this thread will provide @BahamutoD much feedback on balance.

Nothing wrong with unconventional design, but turrets somewhat defeat the purpose of having a maneuverable fighter- especially when it allows a plane that would have lost otherwise to win.

[gag09]

At least set them up so they can only fire forwards I don't want to be chasing down an opponent with a hail of 30 mm fire spraying me no matter what angle I engage them from especially considering a single hit would blow my ship into smithereens. 

[Dman979]

Just now, ScriptKitt3h said:

Nothing wrong with unconventional design, but turrets somewhat defeat the purpose of having a maneuverable fighter- especially when it allows a plane that would have lost otherwise to win.

But we're not doing planes here- we're doing weapons systems. You can change around the components on a plane, including adding and removing turrets. If a designer bases his or her plane around a turret, as unconventional as that may be, if it works nothing matters.

2 minutes ago, gag09 said:

At least set them up so they can only fire forwards I don't want to be chasing down an opponent with a hail of 30 mm fire spraying me no matter what angle I engage them from especially considering a single hit would blow my ship into smithereens. 

And that's a reason to add redundancy to the designs, not to ban them. My planes were getting wrecked by the Laser, but instead of asking @inigma to remove it, I designed around it.

[CommanderCoye]

I am submitting my Ghost.

 

 

 

I am going to die.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BznEolcLuLIld0s0QzN4ZVI5MDg

[ScriptKitt3h]

1 minute ago, Dman979 said:

But we're not doing planes here- we're doing weapons systems. You can change around the components on a plane, including adding and removing turrets. If a designer bases his or her plane around a turret, as unconventional as that may be, if it works nothing matters.

We ARE doing planes- armed planes nonetheless, but still planes. If a plane's solely winning due to a target-tracking gun turret, and even the best other designs are dying as a result, than that is quite arguably overpowered.

For example, let's say there's two teams of 2 aircraft, evenly matched in terms of performance and armament- but one team's got a plane with a turret vulcan. The team with regular guns gets a BVR kill with their missiles on the first enemy plane, and then passes into gun range. They proceed to engage the turret-equipped enemy with their guns/missiles, but the turret shoots both down.

That's not quite a fair fight, now, is it?

[Redshift OTF]

6 minutes ago, gag09 said:

At least set them up so they can only fire forwards I don't want to be chasing down an opponent with a hail of 30 mm fire spraying me no matter what angle I engage them from especially considering a single hit would blow my ship into smithereens. 

BTW, I tested your plane and it has a habit of flying into the ground. Mine did that until I set the minimum height to 500m in the autopilot settings. It seems to be a thing with the latest version of BD A.

[drtricky]

Truth be told, foward firing, head-on games of chicken is where my aircraft is at its weakest because I've been forced to set the minimum elevation of depression on the goalkeeper to be zero to help avoid it shooting itself, so it is also unable to shoot a plane down if it is chasing it straight on from behind. And since the current AI favors turrets over anything else, it never uses sidewinders on those occasions, unless it runs out of 30mm ammo.

Edited April 9, 2016 by drtricky

[ScriptKitt3h]

5 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

And that's a reason to add redundancy to the designs, not to ban them. My planes were getting wrecked by the Laser, but instead of asking @inigma to remove it, I designed around it.

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think anyone's using a laser now (I scrapped my laser jet, it was too heavy for my liking), and redundancies only get you so far when automatic weapons are involved.

Trust me, with the way BD handles damage modeling (heating to explosive levels), it's almost always a confirmed craft break-up upon any part near the CoM of the plane getting hit, be it by a missile,  sustained gunfire, whatever.

[Dman979]

2 minutes ago, ScriptKitt3h said:

We ARE doing planes- armed planes nonetheless, but still planes. If a plane's solely winning due to a target-tracking gun turret, and even the best other designs are dying as a result, than that is quite arguably overpowered.

For example, let's say there's two teams of 2 aircraft, evenly matched in terms of performance and armament- but one team's got a plane with a turret vulcan. The team with regular guns gets a BVR kill with their missiles on the first enemy plane, and then passes into gun range. They proceed to engage the turret-equipped enemy with their guns/missiles, but the turret shoots both down.

That's not quite a fair fight, now, is it?

I've never had that happen. I've tested my planes that same way (i.e., unmissiled vs ungunned) and the missile planes have always won.

[ScriptKitt3h]

Just now, Dman979 said:

I've never had that happen. I've tested my planes that same way (i.e., unmissiled vs ungunned) and the missile planes have always won.

I didn't say missiles v. guns, I said:

Team A: Missiles+FIXED guns (hidden vulcan, GAU-8, etc.)

Team B: Missiles+TURRETED guns (Vulcan turret, .50 cal turret, etc.)

Team A kills B1, but upon attacking B2 get killed in quick succession due the to the turret locking on, tracking with full-auto fire, and then shooting both down.

[gag09]

I just don't want to fight bombers with around 20 goalkeepers. There should be limits I think.

Edited April 9, 2016 by gag09

[DoctorDavinci]

It was discovered and confirmed by BahamutoD in previous challenges that turret equipped craft essentially can't be targeted as the AI on the targeted craft will always try to dodge like it is being targeted by a missile .... Essentially making a turreted craft invincible

This is why I haven't bothered entering any new crafts as no matter what a craft with turrets is going to win (unless by fluke it gets hit ... which is unlikely)

[drtricky]

22 minutes ago, gag09 said:

I just don't want to fight bombers with around 20 goalkeepers XD.

My aircraft has the power and size to mount 2 more Goalkeepers, but I don't. Why? it would cost too much in maneuverability for dodging missiles, and as you can see, it is vulnerable enough as it is to AMRAAMS, achieving only a sweat-inducing 50% dodge rate against those b*stards.

19 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

It was discovered and confirmed by BahamutoD in previous challenges that turret equipped craft essentially can't be targeted as the AI on the targeted craft will always try to dodge like it is being targeted by a missile .... Essentially making a turreted craft invincible

This is why I haven't bothered entering any new crafts as no matter what a craft with turrets is going to win (unless by fluke it gets hit ... which is unlikely)

Personal testing from me has shown this is not always true. I have noticed that if a fighter is fast enough, it will be able to effectively dodge Goalkeeper fire, and attack while it is at it. I've witnessed Redshift's "Stealth Weasel" doing this. It has good maneuverability, not the best I've seen on a fighter, but in combination with its speed, I've observed it able to shoot down my own fighter and escape unscathed, admittedly on some occasions. And as I've mentioned above, I've also observed that my fighter is unable to shoot down aircraft if it is chasing it straight on from behind due to the limited depression angle, but I will also admit I've rarely seen this happen due to current AI logic. Also, because my fighter is also maneuvering while it is fighting, it makes the Goalkeepers surprisingly inaccurate; I've noticed they only make kills with Goalkeepers around ~800 m on average. But if a enemy shoots off a wing and cripples its maneuverability, my fighter has been able to shoot down planes with its Goalkeeper from over 2 km away.

So the real balance issue remains that turrets provide supressive gunfire at any angle, like from the belly.

Edited April 9, 2016 by drtricky

[gag09]

We could force people to use certain pitch angles so they only fire in a cone in front of the craft.