P.U.R.E. RC4.2 - Page 12

P.U.R.E. RC4.2

WolfeGames and projects headed by Argh.

Moderators: Moderators, Content Developer

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by smoth » 19 Mar 2009, 22:57

I think he is saying that as far as he sees most posts are along the lines of "shit sux" or "shit sux make it like ta." I am not sure if I would entirely agree but his point still stands.

I think ivory is trying to offer solutions I don't think he is saying argh didn't try just that he is saying he thinks maybe some other approaches can be tried. I have not played lotr because I think lotr is gay(hey there are people here who don't play gundam because it is animu so bite me) so I only have eman's post to go by..

So looking at it ivory is saying that most of the people here want to play those 3 maps, that it will happen and the way pure is made hurts gameplay on the non-pure specific maps. The fact the it hurts gameplay will turn off a lot of players. If this is true, then a solution needs to be addressed. I am not knowledgeable enough to say one way or the other. Before someone tells me play more pure, no I don't have the time to stop everything and grok pure.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by Argh » 20 Mar 2009, 02:05

Also, out of curiosity Argh, how would you feel if a map "fixed" your mod?
Simple enough to do, just raise the distance mines cover...


RC5 is finally being uploaded, btw, I'll post more when it's up.
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by Pxtl » 20 Mar 2009, 04:25

I don't mean that. I mean, like, the kind of mutator-maps that Trademark makes, that completely change the gameplay of the mod into something different.
0 x

Google_Frog
Moderator
Posts: 2434
Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by Google_Frog » 20 Mar 2009, 06:00

Eman and Argh, you're completely missing the point. It's not about redesigning your resource model it's about reducing the tedious micro in your current one while keeping it the same for gameplay purposes.

Metal patches which create +2m and are placed in a triangular grid with a distance between them equal to extractor diameter is the same as the current whole map/large radius mex system for most practical and gameplay purposes.

There's a reasonable number of mexes on Mesa but on larger maps making all those mexes gets a bit much. Larger mex radius has map edge issues so you could use a triangle gird with larger point distance. Scale the mex output(and even mex cost if you want to) so that the total metal on the map scales to that of smaller maps.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14585
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by Forboding Angel » 20 Mar 2009, 06:19

Personally I don't really see the issue here. I also don't see how the almighty mex is the only valid resourcing model in the rts world.
0 x

User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 20 Mar 2009, 10:32

smoths diplomatic translation is exactly what I meant

the issue is that placing large numbers of resource generators- and then replacing and rebuilding them after raids over and over again- represents the least enjoyable part of an rts. The developer should therefore take this into consideration and make his or her resource model one that does not involve large amounts of repetitive clicking.
(for an example of this, s44 used to have buildable flags instead of lua flags. it was unbearable having to micro your troops to build flags when they died almost instantly and eventually well over 50% of your game was spent placing flags)

my second point was, that currently your maps would work exactly the same way if you just placed a grid of metal spots across the map- but with one major benefit; now pure metal extractors are configed in a way that makes it compatable with the other 700 maps spring has to offer. there is no reason NOT to do this except to hamstring your mods popularity and force interested players to make a mutator release.

and this isnt trolling, its a genuine show of effort to help
0 x

Warlord Zsinj
Imperial Winter Developer
Posts: 3742
Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by Warlord Zsinj » 20 Mar 2009, 14:17

Yeah, we were at one stage going to make IW work a certain way that would require making our own maps for it to be playable. We eventually decided that the modularity of Spring's production (that is, you make content, and map makers make maps, you don't need any affiliation with the map makers, and as such have over 500 maps for people to play on) is one of it's greatest strengths, and you'd really be hurting your mod by not taking advantage of it; basically it meant that we went out of our way to make our mod as compatible as possible with as many spring maps as possible, even if it restricted the full control we had over certain aspects of the design. Of all the constraints spring throws at you, this one has one of the biggest upsides.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by Argh » 20 Mar 2009, 19:14

We're not doing the grid of metal spots. That limits where you can put mines, and doesn't make any sense to me.

Thanks for the suggestions / concerns, but the gameplay works, and I'm not interested in maintaining backwards compatibility with a bunch of maps nobody plays.
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by Pxtl » 20 Mar 2009, 19:18

How are you planning on handling the micromanagement issue? Placing that many metal extractors is very tedious.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by Argh » 20 Mar 2009, 19:22

In our experience playing the game, it's not terribly tedious.

Most metal placement is either early, and it's long queues that you don't bother messing with unless you need to micro the builder to do something else, or it's emergency repairs after a successful raid (that you pushed back) in which case it's fast and furious. Or you didn't push it back, in which case, you're dead ;)

Either way, while it's certainly a distraction from other micro, that's kinda the point. It's like Starcraft, where you have to manage your peons. It's just part of the game. Since you have three builders, it's certainly not like it takes all that long to have a roaring economy, and maps could just have wider areas (since that's a map-side thing) and cut down the micro a lot, if people want to experiment with the gameplay.

Now, as to modding it to behave "normally"- sure, why not, that part of the game's GPL. Just make sure that you don't hose the name. Do I think the game will play correctly then? No, I think it will feel very porcy and it won't be an enjoyable experience.

That's assuming that you play it on a map with both metal-spot econ and buildings. If you're playing this game on a map without buildings, let us know how that works for you, because it wasn't really designed for that, and I'm curious if it works without them. I'm guessing Overmind gets killed easily on small maps, because it can't defend itself fast enough.

In the final analysis, what I hear here is mainly, "please make it like OTA, it's the only model we think works". That's bullshit. Starcraft doesn't work like OTA. AoE doesn't work like OTA. LoTR2 doesn't work like OTA. Kohan II doesn't work like OTA. And they're all great RTS designs. So my desire to keep the supposedly-best model is zero.

And please don't tell me about S'44's supposedly-cool system again.

It's terribly balanced towards the victors, because the flags are like mexes with overdrive that increases over time, so your true resource advantage is expanding n*P, where n is the number of flags you have greater than your opponent, P is the final multiplier per flag over time. That may work for S'44, but I did not like it, and would never build something like that. I believe that if you didn't have to micro things to get more econ, the model is fail, and the larger the gain you want, the more micro it needs to eat.

And before I read some smartass trying to say otherwise, go look at the raw math first. If one guy has 10 flags, the other one has 9, how long before that 10th flag's output doubles, triples, and so forth? Now, think of situations where one guy has two more flags than his opponents... how quickly does that become three, then four, then five?

It's not a good model, imo. P.U.R.E. uses straightforward linear growth curves. What you build produces what it produces. I don't like systems where things change over time, they're almost inevitably major force multipliers.

And it doesn't matter if you reverse it, either- either way, there's always a break-point, where one side actually gets the advantage, then it keeps on growing, assuming both sides are unable to take the terrain. Since P.U.R.E. is a game where it's quite possible to reach stasis for both sides... it's not a very hard call for me to say that if people are going to econ-boost, it has to cost them micro-time and resources. That takes them out of the fighting for the seconds it takes, and eats resources. Both things are very risky, but if you get away with it, then you get rewarded, which I think is totally fair.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by smoth » 20 Mar 2009, 21:09

Argh, that isn't what he is asking, he is saying that there are many good maps made and many more will be made, you isolate yourself thus making more work for yourself. You have made a firm and final decision but I think you are misinterpreting ivory king, he doesn't want it to be TA, it isn't going to be, he is just saying it would behoove you do consider compatibility with the wealth of maps at your disposal.

IMO if you are going this route, you could probably benefit from limiting pure to only working on pre-approved maps or pure specific maps. That way players of the game would not even be able to try playing pure on them and blaming pure for gameplay that is a result of using a map that is known to cause issues.
0 x

User avatar
Nemo
Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 1376
Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 19:44

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by Nemo » 20 Mar 2009, 21:58

Argh wrote: And please don't tell me about S'44's supposedly-cool system again.

It's terribly balanced towards the victors, because the flags are like mexes with overdrive that increases over time, so your true resource advantage is expanding n*P, where n is the number of flags you have greater than your opponent, P is the final multiplier per flag over time. That may work for S'44, but I did not like it, and would never build something like that. I believe that if you didn't have to micro things to get more econ, the model is fail, and the larger the gain you want, the more micro it needs to eat.

And before I read some smartass trying to say otherwise, go look at the raw math first. If one guy has 10 flags, the other one has 9, how long before that 10th flag's output doubles, triples, and so forth? Now, think of situations where one guy has two more flags than his opponents... how quickly does that become three, then four, then five?

It's not a good model, imo. P.U.R.E. uses straightforward linear growth curves. What you build produces what it produces. I don't like systems where things change over time, they're almost inevitably major force multipliers.
Hi, don't want to get involved in this discussion overmuch, I'd just like to stop you from spreading FUD about S44. I guess that makes me the smartass saying otherwise. Short version: I don't think you can use simple math to explain the actual effect of ingame mechanics, and that you're wrong in your assumed outcome of the S44 territory system.

Long version:
In practice, the 10th flag in a 10-9 match up is the one that gets traded back and forth the most (or at least the most recently captured), resetting the counter each time. This actually serves to REDUCE the advantage that a single or marginal flag advantage gives you by lessening its resource importance compared to the 'base' of high value flags in the safer, rear areas.

In other words, players on a map like Terra will expand and capture the 'safe' flags around their base in roughly equal time - think of this as the area behind your river and then a little bit. Then they will grab for the really contentious ones in the center of the map.

The first class of flags are "core" and provide the bulk of the resource base for both players, by virtue of their long life without contention. The second class represent a rather smaller amount of either players' potential economy, given that they are frequently contested (or at least more recently captured). As time goes on and one side or another weakens to the point that these core flags are no longer effectively contested, that's when the resource advantage starts to become clear.

To my mind, that's ok - if the player has lost the ability to contest spots, the game needs to change drastically very soon - either the losing player should lose, start raiding/teching unexpectedly, or stage a defense that shifts the balance in their favor when the winning player pushes.

This also provides a nice headshot style mechanic where a losing player can raid enemy rear areas and 'reset' the flag counters, striking a proportionally larger blow to the enemy econ than duking it out at the front would give (where that player is likely getting trashed anyways).


All of that said (whichever version you read), I think we simply have very fundamentally different philosophies on what constitutes a fun game. I do not believe that demanding ever greater amounts of micro to keep growing the economy leads to an engaging game, if the goal is to keep the player engaged with the traditional meat of the genre (tactical/strategic choices and management).
0 x

User avatar
Eman
Posts: 37
Joined: 07 Mar 2009, 01:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by Eman » 21 Mar 2009, 02:02

Whoa. That got kinda technical and heated there.

Look - Ivory has a point. Google asked a question. I am not real sure when or how this became a point fingers and talk load sort of conversation, but it doesn't do anyone any good.

@Ivory - I agree that econ micro is tedious. Point taken. I have been thinking on a way to make such a change, without messing with balance too much. I haven't come up with an idea that I like yet.

One thing I am unsure of - in terms of micro, how does moving to metal spots spread in a grid change micro?

@Smoth - The existing community pool of maps and the variety it can lend are both good things. That said, as above I have been thinking on a clean way to make PURE work with other maps. Frankly, I think that right now it is more important to make the game itself work.

I really can't say much else besides I hear your points and will chew on them.
0 x

User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 21 Mar 2009, 13:15

Eman wrote: One thing I am unsure of - in terms of micro, how does moving to metal spots spread in a grid change micro?
noez, I suggested this as a way of making pure metal extractors compatable with maps if argh plans to keep the current model
Now, as to modding it to behave "normally"- sure, why not, that part of the game's GPL. Just make sure that you don't hose the name. Do I think the game will play correctly then? No, I think it will feel very porcy and it won't be an enjoyable experience.
I dont mean to contradict you but I suspect it'll play very very similarly, with the precise amount of porc/agression decided by the maps metal layout.
In the final analysis, what I hear here is mainly, "please make it like OTA, it's the only model we think works". That's bullshit. Starcraft doesn't work like OTA. AoE doesn't work like OTA. LoTR2 doesn't work like OTA. Kohan II doesn't work like OTA. And they're all great RTS designs. So my desire to keep the supposedly-best model is zero.
you misunderstand me. I enjoy every mod more than the TA mods :p
If you read people have been posting, it amounts to "your current resource model is flawed." not "make more like ta an kill urself" I suggested using spots just so you had cross compatability. I never said LOL MAKE IT MOAR LIKE TA. what I did say was it might be wise to conceive a better resource model for all the reasons mentioned here (tedious micro, compatability with existing maps). I'm all for diffrent resource models.
And please don't tell me about S'44's supposedly-cool system again.

It's terribly balanced towards the victors, because the flags are like mexes with overdrive that increases over time, so your true resource advantage is expanding n*P, where n is the number of flags you have greater than your opponent, P is the final multiplier per flag over time. That may work for S'44, but I did not like it, and would never build something like that. I believe that if you didn't have to micro things to get more econ, the model is fail, and the larger the gain you want, the more micro it needs to eat.
Check out SWIW before you knock this model, because it works a hell of alot better than TA metal extractors (especially with DoW upgradeable flags etc). In terms of gameplay, resources become a matter of agression and expansion (ie, no porcing) and in terms of a resource model, if you split up your army to go capping then you lose combat power (and get owned if the other guy makes a big concentration and pushes). it reflects war stratrgy alot better than buildable extractors ever will.
I believe that if you didn't have to micro things to get more econ, the model is fail, and the larger the gain you want, the more micro it needs to eat.
I think games should be more about intelligence and stratergy than who can wtfclick the fastest. linking micro to resource income puts you in the position of BA comet 1v1, where a huge proportion of your micro is placing and replacing structures.

and on the subject of s44, because stratergy and troop placement/management affect the efficency of units so much, in real game terms being one flag behind dosnt mean shit compared to the importance of not losing troops and massing (the benefit of an extra flag is almost totally lost if you lost more troops than the other guy taking it). play s44 1v1
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: P.U.R.E. RC4.2

Post by smoth » 21 Mar 2009, 15:21

Ivory will give it a fair shot, I remember when he used to help with gundam. I really believe he is trying to help and he is putting way more effort into it than I am. All I have tried to do is act as a mediator.

I have no idea where the s44 bashing started, I figured I missed a post but I don't think it is fair to dismiss all of their hard work like that. I am also glad I didn't share anything that KDR_11k and I worked out for gundam if you treated the s44 team this way. It is unfair to make that kind of statement argh, the s44 guys deserve respect for their hard work.

It is a different design decision, that doesn't invalidate it. It also might not apply to pure, just people snow balling. I know what it is like to work on an economy and people hate it, I have several economy models that people rejected. It does add some difficulty to things but it is good sometimes to change the way this or that works.

as far as backwards compatibility, I don't think argh is going to hear that point out ivory, and he seems to have made a decision that he is unwilling to compromise on. Probably better to focus on a different way of handling this.

btw, please don't make attacks on other projects, I don't think it has anything to do with PURE and it is frankly inappropriate.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Argh's Projects”