Author Topic: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons  (Read 13102 times)

Offline awkm

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 77
    • [Muse]
    • 16 
    • 45
    • 28 
    • View Profile
    • Notes for Next Century—n4n100
Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« on: April 05, 2013, 12:29:32 pm »
I want to make sure we're all on the same page with the direction of the game's weapons are going.  A lot of different people play the game and will therefore have several expectations, balance included.  However, right off the bat I'll say that this game was never meant to be a realistic shooter simulation.  We're not the old school Tom Clancy games.  At the same time, though, we're not completely imaginary like in Quake.  We're inspired by what happens in real life.  We're authentic, a verisimilitude.  Not 100% realistic.

This also means we cannot turn the game to become realistic.  It's too late for that.  Under the hood, nothing was designed with realism in mind.  Again, it's a verisimilitude.  We only appear to be realistic, to have only a semblance of realism.  We'll add in things like accurate sights (the Lumberjack, thanks to those who mailed us a real weapons sight) or how a bullet should drop after long distances (e.g. Field Gun, but all our projectile physics), but it's not our aim to completely dive into realism at the sake of what I and the others on the team believe is 'fun' in this game.  Again, it's also just too late for that :P

So the guns don't look realistic, that's for sure.  They also don't behave realistically either.  It's my job to first and foremost make the game 'fun', balanced, and easily approachable for quick and snappy matches.  Tuning guns to operate realistically does not scream 'fun' or easily approachable in my mind.  It's not the direction we're trying to head to.  This is not the weapons simulation.  The closest thing that comes to simulation is airship driving and movement... and airships don't exactly exist.  So that's how real this game is lol.

A good way to imagine this is the feel of TF2.  That's definitely not realistic and neither are we.  However, we still draw a lot of inspiration from reality since the world that the game exists in is loosely based off of reality.  That's the line that we draw.  Somewhere in the middle.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 12:53:37 pm by awkm »

Offline Helmic

  • Member
  • Salutes: 35
    • [NCNS]
    • 6
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2013, 09:48:32 pm »
I believe Resistance and Liberation used the term "Hollywood realism" to describe their goal.  They wanted believability, not realism.  This has been on my mind ever since that silly turning bug discussion, thanks for making this clear.

Offline Lord Dick Tim

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 119
    • 7
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2013, 03:21:08 am »
Your qoute about batman in space with no helmet is the perfect, simplistic argument helmic for believability vs reality.  At least I think you said it...  Hmm.

Offline NoWuffo

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 24
    • [COx]
    • 19
    • 34 
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2013, 03:35:37 pm »
In terms of "Hollywood Realism" (to borrow the phrase from Helmic), I think you guys have pretty much got it. No one's going to actually believe that if you use Moonshine on engines that you'll get a tremendous speed boost. Yet at the same time, I can totally believe that adding hydrogen to a balloon will introduce a chance of the balloon catching fire. It's fun intricacies like that make the experience believable. I feel like I'm flying a steampunk war airship, even though I know it couldn't possibly exist. I'd almost argue that TF2 isn't a good comparison, because the universe that you've thrown players into is far more unique than the cartoony FPS that TF2 does, and yet you guys still nail it in terms of feeling authentic. In summary, good job, keep it up.

Offline Chango

  • Member
  • Salutes: 13
    • [Gent]
    • 16
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2013, 08:13:56 am »
Why does the Flamethrower sound like a Marvin the Martian raygun now?

Offline Thomas

  • Member
  • Salutes: 80
    • [SPQR]
    • 20 
    • 44
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2013, 08:26:50 am »
It depends on the ammo type you're using. Different ammo types make the gun sound differently. (charged, lesmok, etc) Otherwise it should sound like a normal old flamethrower. (I think, it sounded normal last time I checked)

Offline Hekkthor

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • [CsM]
    • 8
    • 12 
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2013, 07:50:50 pm »
I know this is offtopic because this thread is about weapons, but it fits fere because of the realism discussion

F= m x (a[ship] x y)    y= 2.5 for kerosine (+150%)   y= 3.0 for moonshine (200%)

F= 50'000kg x 11.6m/s^2 x 2.5
F=1'450'000 N for kerosine/squid

F=150'000kg x 3.6m/s^2 x 3.0
F=1'620'000 N for moonshine/goldfish

Thrust of a russian engine that was used to at the space programm to launch exorbital missions: 1'638'000 N

Thrust of the engine used on the concorde airplanes ( they got a traveling speed of mach 1 ) :
169'200 N

AND WHY ARE THESE SHIPS STILL SLOWER THAN MACH 5?

don't take me serious, I love the game like it is and I'm waiting for the reality-discussions in the adventure mode

Offline Queso

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 126
    • [Muse]
    • 13
    • 25 
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2013, 10:29:03 pm »
Obviously the exact unit conversions were lost after the great war. While the numbers are meaningful compared to each other, they no longer remain the same due to the inaccurate historical records and improper calculations from the early days of post-war engineering. (That's my explanation and I'm sticking to it!)

Offline Coldcurse

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 164
    • [TFD]
    • 18 
    • 36
    • 42 
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2013, 02:39:43 am »
I know this is offtopic because this thread is about weapons, but it fits fere because of the realism discussion

F= m x (a[ship] x y)    y= 2.5 for kerosine (+150%)   y= 3.0 for moonshine (200%)

F= 50'000kg x 11.6m/s^2 x 2.5
F=1'450'000 N for kerosine/squid

F=150'000kg x 3.6m/s^2 x 3.0
F=1'620'000 N for moonshine/goldfish

Thrust of a russian engine that was used to at the space programm to launch exorbital missions: 1'638'000 N

Thrust of the engine used on the concorde airplanes ( they got a traveling speed of mach 1 ) :
169'200 N

AND WHY ARE THESE SHIPS STILL SLOWER THAN MACH 5?

don't take me serious, I love the game like it is and I'm waiting for the reality-discussions in the adventure mode

seems someone is on drugs here.

Offline Saeth

  • Member
  • Salutes: 0
    • [TAW]
    • 7
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2014, 04:29:55 am »
Gah, I had written an extensive and probably over-detailed post about this but my browser crashed and I lost everything ):

Anyway, summarizing the points I didn't get to make: I think the biggest issue right now are the ship weights, not the thrust of the engines or anything else. It's absolutely impossible for ships as small as they appear in the game to weight anything like 150 tons. That's the weight of a modern fast-attack ship, which is around 120 feet long (~37 meters) and MADE OF PURE STEEL. Not even the Galleon looks any longer than 100 feet, and its guns are comparatively smaller and lighter than those of any contemporary war ship.

Also, more implausible than the thrust for these kinds of weights would be the balloons. The only airship I know of that can lift that kind of weight (~160,000 Kg), the cargo CS-160, is over 720 feet long, and its balloon is just absolutely humongous.

Easy solution? Just change the ship's description so it reads less weird. Since all that matters on in-game physics are the compared weights, what you guys actually write down on your code doesn't matter.

Great job on the physics, by the way! It feels very fun and very realistic in spite of the weird numbers we see on the descriptions sometimes (:

zlater75@hotmail.com

  • Guest
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2014, 04:49:24 am »
I'd like to think the planet on which goio takes place is different than earth in many ways too even if similar as well in many ways. The gravity could be lower. The wood from trees could be lighter. The gas could be way more efficient at oifting objects.
The manners similar. The tools and weapons. The clothing similar but the history different which gives us this alternative model of life to take place. Philosophy, psychology and imagination makesome of the rational differencies seem more relative opposed to strict earthlike physics.

Offline Byron Cavendish

  • Member
  • Salutes: 89
    • [TB]
    • 21 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • The Brotherhood
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2014, 09:17:46 am »
Y'all have way too much time on your hands.

Offline redria

  • Member
  • Salutes: 136
    • [OVW]
    • 16 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2014, 09:35:03 am »
That's the line that we draw.  Somewhere in the middle.
It's not so much a line as it is a gradient. A beautiful, fiery, airship-flying, hades-exploding, friend-making gradient. With some ramming thrown in for good measure. And no other game compares for me now.

Offline Queso

  • Muse Games
  • Salutes: 126
    • [Muse]
    • 13
    • 25 
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2014, 02:54:06 pm »
Obviously the exact unit conversions were lost after the great war. While the numbers are meaningful compared to each other, they no longer remain the same due to the inaccurate historical records and improper calculations from the early days of post-war engineering. (That's my explanation and I'm sticking to it!)

HEAD CANON!

Offline Sprayer

  • Member
  • Salutes: 14
    • [SPQR]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 27 
    • View Profile
Re: Authenticity vs. Realism in our Weapons
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2014, 01:42:39 pm »
They don't want their airschips to burn down due to airfriction so they just stop accelerating at a some point.