Different congestion management

[smoth]

bummer, so there is no way to have the unit moving through ignore them? (imagine giant walker mech).

Setting pushresistant=true might help it push other stuff out of the way a bit

Pushresistant essentially has the unit go, nope, I AIN'T moving. In the old spring it was critical for gundam and s44 becuase units would move and change position at the slightest bump of an allied unit. Causing all kinds of issues, like scouts bumping snipers who are then spread out everywhere.

I don't agree with google frog but then again, in his project, facing doesn't matter.

[Anarchid]

Another non-default pathfinder setting might-be palatable, imo.

[smoth]

could raise the level of maintenance to much higher levels.

I want to see how it is in the next release of spring. Then I may cry one way or another. to say it doesn't need improvement though, I think is silly, it always will.

[Jools]

Exploring ideas is good but pathing in Spring has been so fickle that I'd rather we didn't have another complete redesign.

I don't see this really connected to pathfinding or path following. I think it has to do with what to do when something is blocking the way, not how to find path from A to B.

It's unrealistic but I say 'screw realism', the most important part of the pathing for me is playability.

If we take that to the extreme we could just play chess instead, it is the best strategy game anyway. I think people want a bit of realism.

[Silentwings]

Pushresistant essentially has the unit go, nope, I AIN'T moving

It should stop other units pushing it out the way, so if a pushresistent unit is walking through a sea of moving units it should have an easier time doing it (but will be no help at pushing through stationary stuff). It does help our corkrog wade through spam.

[luckywaldo7]

It's unrealistic but I say 'screw realism', the most important part of the pathing for me is playability.

If we take that to the extreme we could just play chess instead, it is the best strategy game anyway. I think people want a bit of realism.

That doesn't make any sense. He wasn't talking about strategy, he was just talking about not being frustrated by the game for the sake of realism. The point of the game is, after all, for people to have fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTkgi7scKo

(And chess is not the best strategy game)

[smoth]

Pushresistant essentially has the unit go, nope, I AIN'T moving

It should stop other units pushing it out the way, so if a pushresistent unit is walking through a sea of moving units it should have an easier time doing it (but will be no help at pushing through stationary stuff). It does help our corkrog wade through spam.

Eh? if the units do not have push resistant they move out the way. What are you on about?

[Forboding Angel]

It's unrealistic but I say 'screw realism', the most important part of the pathing for me is playability.

This.

A million times this.

[Funkencool]

I'd rather not babysit dumb units, and since 'smart' units are more expensive to simulate; I'd rather just have it be unrealistic to obtain the same outcome.

[smoth]

set collision to false. force units moving through each other to move slower. BAM! if you are not a big realism guy.

[Funkencool]

set collision to false. force units moving through each other to move slower. BAM! if you are not a big realism guy.

I like that idea. Although the visuals might not be realistic, the outcome could maybe be considered more realistic.

[Jools]

For those who say realism is not important, explain why we have 3d unit models instead of just dots moving...

If you admit that we want to have some realism, then the issue is instead of where to draw the balance between realism and playability, but that's another issue. First we have to agree on whether we care about realism at all, and that was the argument above.

[Funkencool]

If realism is black and playability is white; I think it would be safe to say nearly everyone, if not everyone, would be right in the gray region between them.

[Jools]

That's what I thought they said but that's not what was said. They are two epistemologically different questions.

[luckywaldo7]

For those who say realism is not important, explain why we have 3d unit models instead of just dots moving...

If you admit that we want to have some realism, then the issue is instead of where to draw the balance between realism and playability, but that's another issue. First we have to agree on whether we care about realism at all, and that was the argument above.

Because 3D models are pretty and fun to look at? Doesn't the attractiveness of the unit and how it is balanced always take priority over realism in design?

[Anarchid]

set collision to false. force units moving through each other to move slower. BAM! if you are not a big realism guy.

... observe hilarity when an AOE weapon hits the stack, or when some things with big guns inside the stack try to shoot themselves.

[smoth]

I think it is frustrating because content devs have real specific goals for their projects and players are frequently trying to shoehorn their views into their game via the engine. It is an area that content devs are at the mercy of the engine code, so if something is changed, it effects all spring projects. It is HORRIBLY FRUSTRATING to have a situation where we are at the mercy of the engine and it's ebs and flows on several elements such as pathing. To have to watch over it to see that things are not stripped out based on players of 1 game requesting a feature for their favorite project(typically ba or AA in the past) or saying, nah, we don't need this.(such as not caring about units moving out of position because *A units have 360degree fire arcs.

I am not saying you guys are posting to that effect I am ASKING you to consider that when you request something like pathing work differently, it effects MORE than just the current spring project you are playing. I know many of you are swell guys but you forget about how some of these things may effect other projects. Then we post and come off as rigid jerks who fight progress. That isn't my goal at all that being said....

set collision to false. force units moving through each other to move slower. BAM! if you are not a big realism guy.

I like that idea. Although the visuals might not be realistic, the outcome could maybe be considered more realistic.

well it is a bit abstracted but this whole thing is all about what level of abstract elements you want in your project. I am VERY interested in writing something for this very feature because there are things that are difficult to manage without massive overhead.

EX: I have a large infantry squad in my mech game.
Say you have a squad of infantry, are you going to write all the code to have the infantry NEVER get crossed and squashed by your giant mech?
What about when it is moving, do you want it Godzilla stomping them?
That isn't realistic, they would move!

So then what? why not have it just pass on through them?
+ advantages
++ no crazy stuff like the mech cannot move because infantry are in the way!
++ Gameplay flows better rather than having to deal with the mech stopping all the time to avoid these tiny boxes.
- Disadvantages
-- clustering, if their collision is off, you can stack them all up on one another.
-- looks silly having units clip through each other.

Kloot do we still have heat maps to force units to space out? I really liked that feature.


Anther example is when I was handling vegitation in GRTS. Sure some of it would be too dense to pass through but I never got around to those maps. The conclusion I came up with in GRTS with respect to vegetation, I cannot make the mech easily swerve around and through all the trees but it is agile enough to move through them. So it can, I just cannot really be bothered to write the code for it's visual!

that is realism vs abstraction done correctly IMO

[varikonniemi]

How hard would it be to have the collisions be solved by physics? Unit acceleration * mass = the force he pushes other units out of the way with. A golly should push (destroy by driving over) a swarm of pw:s getting in the way. Not as a specific feature of a golly, but as a feature of golly mass*acceleration / pw mass*acceleration.

Running against a golly's direction of movement should throw your unit away/wreck it on contact as if driven over.

Same should apply to houses etc. If a 1M ton tank drives over a 1T windmill, the windmill should just be pushed away and fall into pieces.