Archwing Guns Should Stop Disregarding Issac Newton

[Ashnal]

This is the case in a perfect vacuum without any sort of electromagnetic interference.

 

But space isn't actually a perfect vacuum, and there's all sorts of electromagnetic interference. But even so that shouldn't cause so much of a damage falloff.

 

And considering how large Archwing areas are... I think Archwings need a heavy-duty sniper rifle weapon. 

They need to let me take my Opticor into space with me :)

Create a version for Archwing that fires a wee bit faster due to being bigger, balance the damage for an archwing sniper type weapon, and let us go to town. I'd be all over that.

[uppertiggy]

i am just waiting for the high powerd long rnage sniper rifle that requires you to hunker down on an asteroid or peice of space debri and charge te thign before one shotting something into oblivion

[Corvid]

dancingknight, on 30 Oct 2014 - 10:38 PM, said:

And where do you think falloff in games came from? Fun? It was implemented into games because... wait for it... PHYSICS! And Sir Isaac Newton's middle name is, you guessed it, PHYSICS. 

 

Actually, it was implemented for the sake of balance.

[TwiceDead]

It was probably done for balance reasons for when they eventually do implement some kind of long(er) range Arch-weapon, as to not make it completely redundant to the Imperator's 2000DPS across all ranges... 

That said I am not against removing it. 

 

... I am probably fooling myself for thinking that DE made a balance decision based on future content. 

[Brynslustafir]

To be fair, the guns should also cause us to fly backwards when firing. 

[DSpite]

Archwing propulsion probably takes care of that aspect. 

 

No it dosn't, the fact no game code was written to do that is why we don't go backwards.

 

And to whoever thought that shaking effects were a cool "sprint" visual for Archwing? what spacemagic causes that?

 

It's one thing leaving out "physics" that are supposed to be there because it's too much work, or because it adds nothing useful to the game, it's another to add "physics" that would not exist AT ALL when they will obviously effect players in a negative way, and they still add nothing useful to the game anyway.

[Renegade343]

No it dosn't, the fact no game code was written to do that is why we don't go backwards.

Thing is, our Archwing systems are still on when we stop. So, it is not out of our minds to say that when we fire (which would push us back thanks to Newton's Third Law of Motion), the Archwing system reacts to it by boosting us forwards a little bit so that our position does not move (like chemical equilibrium equation changes, but much more quicker). 

 

There are ways to explain why things happen with Warframe besides defaulting to 'no game code was written to do that, so we do not do X'. 

[UncommonUnicorn]

Q: Space fire?

A: You can have fire in space just like on Earth, as long as you have the proper Fuel, O2, and an Ignition source. But in this regard, it's probably wayward plasma that has been vented from a piece of the Grineer or Corpus space equipment, and is basically a super-heated jet of gas that looks like a fire to your silly eyes and it jus-SMOKEBOMB!

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmgP0eZYlSU

So... I wonder how they'll code that...

 

*Edit*

F*** the BBCode system they use here.

There's been requests for improving it like over a year ago and DE still hasn't done S#&$ about it.

Edited November 1, 2014 by UncommonUnicorn

[DSpite]

Thing is, our Archwing systems are still on when we stop. So, it is not out of our minds to say that when we fire (which would push us back thanks to Newton's Third Law of Motion), the Archwing system reacts to it by boosting us forwards a little bit so that our position does not move (like chemical equilibrium equation changes, but much more quicker). 

 

There are ways to explain why things happen with Warframe besides defaulting to 'no game code was written to do that, so we do not do X'. 

 

No, there are no ways "to describe it" because it's a game, it's code, and ones and zeros. You want your own little fuzzy private reality you go right ahead. The FACT remains that no recoil was coded to happen.

[Renegade343]

No, there are no ways "to describe it" because it's a game, it's code, and ones and zeros. You want your own little fuzzy private reality you go right ahead. The FACT remains that no recoil was coded to happen.

I am not denying that, but all I am saying is that besides having the default (and often right) answer, "It is all just coding, and coded to have XYZ happen.", there are other ways to justify why things happen in-game, using real life formulae and theorems (to an extent). 

[MirageKnight]

To be fair, the guns should also cause us to fly backwards when firing. 

 

Not if its using magnetic acceleration to provide initial thrust to the rounds before they leave the gun or the gun operates on a recoil-less principle, wherein an equal thrust in the opposite direction is applied to compensate.

[Brimir]

The thing is, for any archwing interception we are at extremely close distance. The max distance one can see an enemy is at like 1.5km while most air to air combat nowadays takes place in excess of 50km.

 

 

Makes you sorta miss WWI...