Spring RTS Engine

Want this:

I remember somebody, maybe Beherith, showing off something to that nature, with a proofpic of crackled smoking bertha that got minced with a displacement shader (i think).

picasso wants the holes to show up where the impacts happen. like a decal on each unit

That would be the lesser of two evils, he might want model deformation instead.

Perhaps he wants all models to have fully functional body tissues and circulatory systems!

I want bulletholes and lasermarks, and stuck projectiles (arrows, bolts,spears).

The one should be feasible via 2DSubtexture manipulation of a otherwise blank normalmap + some 2DSubtexture manipulating of the basic texture + 2nd texture)

The other one is basically a "after impact attach projectile to the UnitpieceMatrice nearest its impact" and actually.. if you had 3d modelled bulletholes you could glue them to the unit with the same method.. will post example soon here..

you'd need a separate deformation texture per each instance ou a unit. Sounds expensive for an RTS, even if you omit healthy guys?

I want a lump of polygons with its own texture, and glue it to units that have been hit by specially potent weapons (sniper rifles )



And i want controll over this things behaviour- how long it stays, how big it is, to avoid ridiculous stuff, (flea with bigger hole then itself)

Normal Maps are nice, but 3d objects are better - and if my sources are correct, actually cheaper..

zerver wrote:Given that the game runs smooth, without lag or slowdown, would you prefer a game with very many units or with fewer units?
[...]

I came to the conclusion that one of the features I love the most about Spring (among others) is that, after some time, the whole game evolves into a perpetual state of engagement. You don't spend 95% of the game building up a few 5~20s engagements, like in most RTSs. You really end up in perpetual states of engagement, especially when artillery fights come into play and you have to continue to move around your units, try to finish off your own artilery, try to fend off their attacks, try to repair the dmg from their artillery, all the while moving your Econ forward.

My preference - just enough units to perpetuate the current state of gameplay, not a lot more.

If we have lots more units, each unit becomes meaningless, we start to need looking at battlefields too zoomed out and no longer see units, just the map and maybe some blips, like we had in SupCom. Microing them will become a meaningless activity.

With too few units, microing units might become too powerfull and we'll lose that great % of time spent resolving the engagements.

Iv been playing FFA lately and every other game is BIG. Hitting the unit limit (1000 per player), or lagging out before that, is a common occurrence. I hope MT developments can help with this problem in the near future.

PauloMorfeo wrote:

zerver wrote:Given that the game runs smooth, without lag or slowdown, would you prefer a game with very many units or with fewer units?
[...]

I came to the conclusion that one of the features I love the most about Spring (among others) is that, after some time, the whole game evolves into a perpetual state of engagement. You don't spend 95% of the game building up a few 5~20s engagements, like in most RTSs. You really end up in perpetual states of engagement, especially when artillery fights come into play and you have to continue to move around your units, try to finish off your own artilery, try to fend off their attacks, try to repair the dmg from their artillery, all the while moving your Econ forward.

My preference - just enough units to perpetuate the current state of gameplay, not a lot more.

If we have lots more units, each unit becomes meaningless, we start to need looking at battlefields too zoomed out and no longer see units, just the map and maybe some blips, like we had in SupCom. Microing them will become a meaningless activity.

With too few units, microing units might become too powerfull and we'll lose that great % of time spent resolving the engagements.

Actually, spring is the only game I know you can still control efficiency hundred of unit at a time because of amazing GUI and widget customization.
Long story short, zooming in an area you want to be, selecting you unit class (one key with auto group), refining your selection to current screen, or not (alt+z) and then elaborate a complex order using area attack, or custom formation takes you in total 2 sec...

No other engine can compete with that. That he very reason MT was awesome.

albator wrote:No other engine can compete with that. That the very reason MT was awesome.

come off it. There will be another multi-threaded implementation

Here is a replay of Supreme Commander:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4PrQWSmzqs

Notice how since there are so many units and the map is so big (ok, and the units so undistinguishable from one another that it's pointless), that all you can ever do is play with icons - MS-DOS/nintendo style!

Notice how absolutely uninteresting the whole game is up to minute 1 million. I remember at a certain point the caster saying that tier 3 units were already hitting the blobs composition. I was like - What? Have we passed tier 2 already? Completely unnoticeable in all game senses. And tier 3? Completely unnoticeable.

Now, a serious game of *Annihilation... Now that's something to behold, with all those fewer ammounts of units and much smaller maps. The levels of destruction I've see in 4v4~8v8 DeltaSiegeDry games are absolutely epic! Much more than I have ever seen on SupCom (I am not joking, I'm very serious).

SupCom had alot going on for it to become the ultimate strategy RTS (not the ultimate action RTS). But it failed! One of the reasons it failed was because "just add more and make it bigger" just on itself doesn't make it better and can actually make it worst.

Ho, another thing. I actually like that the unit limits be reacheable (I hit that many times when the limits were lower, many years ago). It adds another layer of strategy. You'll find yourself getting rid of those fields of wind collectors to free up unit slots. Re considering your mass of fighters and considering alternatives.

The only problem with that is that the gameplay can become somewhat dependant on the map size...

unless different units utilize mobility to a much greater degree at which point a late game shift may be in order.

PauloMorfeo wrote:Ho, another thing. I actually like that the unit limits be reacheable (I hit that many times when the limits were lower, many years ago). It adds another layer of strategy. You'll find yourself getting rid of those fields of wind collectors to free up unit slots. Re considering your mass of fighters and considering alternatives.

The only problem with that is that the gameplay can become somewhat dependant on the map size...

Can become? Gameplay already varies tons depending on how big a map is, in most any game where you have more than 1 size available.

PauloMorfeo wrote:Ho, another thing. I actually like that the unit limits be reacheable (I hit that many times when the limits were lower, many years ago). It adds another layer of strategy. You'll find yourself getting rid of those fields of wind collectors to free up unit slots. Re considering your mass of fighters and considering alternatives.

In some games that's an intended mechanism, e.g. the *Craft games and their supply mechanic. However one factor there is that bigger units take up more of your cap.

tryied the bullethole thing.. was crappy idea.. sorry is allmost undistinguishable and very expensive..

I should stop thinking about all of this in fps..

-1 Cause lagout. Constantly. 5x concentration t2 fighter plx. It looks cool to have so many units but gameplay wise its completely pointless.

Maybee we should have decorator units? Contributing nothing to the battle itself- just dying and respawning in the Background, and for those - simple collission, simple pathfinding..

Imagine it as a creep infantry+jeeps who just happens to march along your line of tanks.. heavily dependant on your victory.

zerver wrote:The background behind this poll is that it was used as an argument against MT.
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 62#p539858

abma wrote:maybe as note: more units doesn't mean better games, it just gets confusing.

So naturally I want to know what the community thinks.

Apologies for not reading through the whole thread, but IMHO isnt the question of "we should have more processing resource available" always has a "yes" answer? It doesnt matter what it is used for, either more units or smooth games, whatever the case is, if you have MORE headroom, then you are always better of than if you had none of it at all.

The statement only argues against the "more power = more units = games are as laggy". There were a few other valid questions raised against MT at the moment, which are not as straightforward to address as this one. But all in all, MT is the future and giving up on it is shooting yourself in a foot.