Balanced Annihilation Reloaded - Page 2

Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Balanced Annihilation with remade Units

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7017
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by zwzsg » 22 Feb 2010, 00:40

Way to muddle the point that was just cleared, d_b!
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by KaiserJ » 22 Feb 2010, 02:50

Image
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by Pxtl » 22 Feb 2010, 02:54

@Kaiser .. while those 3 units look incredibly epicly awesome, it took me a minute to realize that they're not the same unit.

If you're going to use the lego approach, you'll have to make sure you seriously differentiate the silhouette, since the details are so interchangeable.
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by KaiserJ » 22 Feb 2010, 03:11

uh oh... they ARE the same unit :o
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by Pxtl » 22 Feb 2010, 03:17

.. boy is my face red. Oh, I see, the asymmetry of the thing threw me off.
0 x

User avatar
Tribulex
A.N.T.S. Developer
Posts: 1894
Joined: 26 Sep 2009, 21:26

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by Tribulex » 22 Feb 2010, 06:05

lmao @ fail

that tank is really sweet and I know where you got the idea from >:(

Regret I kind of liked the idea at first but i have been thinking and your doing the same backwards silly thing CA is doing by starting with BA and changing everything until it isnt BA. BAR=CA.

I do however like the idea of a better-looking BA, but imo XTA has that covered plus better gameplay.
0 x

Google_Frog
Moderator
Posts: 2442
Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by Google_Frog » 22 Feb 2010, 08:45

Preserving BA gameplay while replacing models will be quite a task. Thing like hitsphere size, relative weapon spawn coordinates and opening time on scripts are very easy to overlook (sometimes impossible to fix) and will effect balance. If you try to compensate for the changes I think more breaking will occur before it is all fixed, you no longer have BA. For example Rocko in CA became a lot better when it started using a new model.

This is of course assuming you're going to have pro 1v1s. I doubt teamgame people would notice minor balance changes introduced by model swaps.
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by KaiserJ » 22 Feb 2010, 19:47

Image

janus? i dont like the cannons, they will be changed.

*edit* i should probably armify the skin before i proceed.
0 x

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

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 23 Feb 2010, 00:04

I like the TA models because they are very visible even when zoomed out. Mr D's models and the models in this thread look really nice, but they have very busy textures. fine up close, but zoom out + busy texture= mess
0 x

User avatar
Mav
Posts: 258
Joined: 12 Nov 2009, 20:06

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by Mav » 23 Feb 2010, 02:54

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:I like the TA models because they are very visible even when zoomed out. Mr D's models and the models in this thread look really nice, but they have very busy textures. fine up close, but zoom out + busy texture= mess
Agreed.

Most modelers are looking at the model when it takes up the entire screen. Zoom out to the point where it now fits in a 50x50 pixel (or less!) area and see how it looks now.

If you look at the Halo pictures I posted, you'll notice that while the textures look complete and fairly realistic; they also look good at distance. This is what is important.
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by KaiserJ » 23 Feb 2010, 06:19

OTA models are very simple shapes with ugly textures on them. sure, they look great from far away, and it's easy to tell the difference between them, but up close they are painfully ugly.

Halo models are a completely different kettle of fish. poly counts that you would never see in a FPS, all sorts of different maps and advanced lighting settings, different meshes depending on how far away you are... the level of complexity is mindboggling comparitively. and i would disagree with good from far about the warthog... from directly above, at 50px by 50px, that warthog would just be a greyish green blur, possibly indistinguishable from the tank.

consider also that both pictures are from commercial projects. i for one would be bored out of my skull making a set of OTA style units, because i don't find that style of texturing interesting or fun in any way. pay me, it's a different story. and again, with the warthog, i would probably kill myself in the 999th hour of work trying to draw on each individual speck of dirt.

really, the bottom line with this project unless im completely mistaken, is to replace all OTA content in BA, so that springs most popular mod can actually be legalized and be smoked by teenagers on street corners around the world.

i have a feeling you've played so much BA that you're blinded to or have forgotten the fact that it is in actuality made primarily of small squares... as you learn the game, you learn which small square does what, and are able to play zoomed out even further. at this point in the game, i can pick out a scout on the minimap purely from the movement speed and im sure you can too.

looking at a static image of a unit gives no indication of its speed, its animation, its projectile, emittance, etc.

so really, its about "the best we can". which means if you're willing to make a totally awesome set of units with amazing visual coherence, then im sure that regret will use them. or even shit ones like the ones that im offering, because really, that's all that there is to work with.

i feel like ranting more, but is it even worth it? its not going to make these amazing hypothetical magical models spontaneously appear...

edit. no, i'll rant more, just a quick one. when this mod is complete, you are officially not allowed to enjoy it, no matter what. that is your punishment.
0 x

User avatar
Wombat
Posts: 3379
Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by Wombat » 23 Feb 2010, 08:29

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:I like the TA models because they are very visible even when zoomed out. Mr D's models and the models in this thread look really nice, but they have very busy textures. fine up close, but zoom out + busy texture= mess
this... i fully agree and thats the main reason why i dont like most of new models
0 x

User avatar
Mav
Posts: 258
Joined: 12 Nov 2009, 20:06

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by Mav » 23 Feb 2010, 08:52

KaiserJ wrote:i have a feeling you've played so much BA that you're blinded to or have forgotten the fact that it is in actuality made primarily of small squares...
I have a feeling that you're too close to the project and my criticism hits a sore spot.

OTA units win because they're distinguishable. A busy texture is a busy texture.

Compare:
tank 50 39.png
tank 50 39.png (4.35 KiB) Viewed 1380 times
warthog 50 40.png
warthog 50 40.png (4.96 KiB) Viewed 1380 times
I still feel like I get a better sense of detail on the Warthog. Simplify the texture and I feel like it would be even better.
KaiserJ wrote:Halo models are a completely different kettle of fish. poly counts that you would never see in a FPS,
First, Halo is a FPS. I think you meant RPS?

Secondly, stop designing for the past. Even the cheaper video cards on the market render Spring games without breaking a sweat. Simply put, I feel like Spring has more to gain by attracting the "high end" computer crowd than by catering to the "2005" computer crowd. This is coming from a guy with a GeForce 7400 Go card.

Put some poly count in your models. By the time BAR is finished (at least 1+ years from now) cards will be even better. By 2 or 3 years from now, people will be laughing at how the most complex models available have incredibly low poly counts.

Criticism is easy. I can sit back all day and pick out flaws in the models that others submit. I respect your challenging work and recognize that it is infinitely more difficult to create than judge. However, I do know what looks good. I'd really like to see some of these models' textures redone and toned down.

/sounds will be even harder
0 x

User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by JohannesH » 23 Feb 2010, 09:34

Mav wrote:First, Halo is a FPS. I think you meant RPS?
0 x

User avatar
Otherside
Posts: 2296
Joined: 21 Feb 2006, 14:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by Otherside » 23 Feb 2010, 10:38

ye kaiser i like the models but the textures are extremely noisey and will look like a mess from a zoomed range.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14606
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by Forboding Angel » 23 Feb 2010, 11:55

JohannesH wrote:
Mav wrote:First, Halo is a FPS. I think you meant RPS?
RTS
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by KaiserJ » 23 Feb 2010, 11:58

i don't have much invested in this project other than the few hours it took to bash those models together and optimize them; initially i just wanted to show regret "hey you can make stuff like this!" but i'd like to be as supportive to this project as i can be; i feel it has merit...

fair enough, you know what looks good, but generally stating that something does not look good, and that something else looks good, helps nothing... even if you said something like "there are too many vents" then at least i know... maybe i DONT know what looks good! if you understand things about textures that i dont, then explain it to me, don't just tell me i've failed. (just as i attempt to nudge you towards improving your critique skills; merely saying that i didn't like your tone helps nothing, right?)

point taken, missed your point, etc.

/enough of that

fixing a texture to look great both up close and at a distance is something i've found extremely difficult to master, and will probably always elude me as a skill. fixing a texture to look great up close and at a distance AND to match with mr Ds models while simplifying it considerably? maybe smoth could do it. if i manage to do it, it will be purely coincidence.

i WISH i was as good at texturing as some of these dudes, and if they still aren't doing it right, what hope do i have, right?

adding polycount = a more complicated model = development time! and more complicated surfaces to confuse the eye, no?

took less than an hour for each one, with a bit more on top to fix the texture to make it look like more of the units he will be using as i went along. the whole point of using the uncomplicated lego models was to speed up the process; which was the whole point of why i posted and wanted to help in the first place...

if i can mock up 4 models on a weeknight while idly watching TV, then thats 20 per week, which means i would be able to remodel all of TA using this method in 16 weeks.

of course, i wont do that; but 16 weeks for one person is actually a reasonable span of time. i've certainly crammed more time on other projects. not to mention that creating models using lego parts requires about 15 minutes of learning to know how to do, because all of the uvmapping and shaping of parts is already there. if others decide "hey, i'll do a lab, this is easy, and looks somewhat fun, and i'll get to see it in regrets game, and if i make it, then i get to play regrets game sooner."

this was the purpose of my bright, primary colored models, a proof of concept to show "hey, it doesnt have to take forever." telling me to design for the future really doesnt help here because i'd like for regret (and indeed anyone) to have this content as quickly and easily as possible.

i know you guys want to help me :/ i want to make nice models for you to play with. be nice to me, help me! explain things to me at length and in great detail because i am as stupid as i am enthusiastic. i am not trying to hurt your eyes. that is all.

Image

if you tell me that this texture is nice, but wont look good at a distance, without suggesting something concrete and practical as how to fix it, spiders will crawl into my brain and kill me. im not sure even how this turned from a thread about a mod to a critique thread about my model but i'll be damned if im letting you guys off the hook without helping me after breaking my brain
0 x

imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by imbaczek » 23 Feb 2010, 12:04

think of noisy textures as camo. the difference is, camo is noisy by design, because it's supposed to look "bad" at a distance. therefore, the closer your texture looks like a kind of camo, the worse it'll look.
0 x

YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by YokoZar » 23 Feb 2010, 12:17

You have my support. I made an attempt at something like this a while back but it didn't really go anywhere. The idea is more or less the same - free the assets.

The "Lego" approach above is very interesting, although all the contrasting colors make it quite hard to get a sense of what the model is (especially once there are 60 different similar ones on the screen). This is likely solvable with simple skinning and texturing, however.
0 x

User avatar
TradeMark
Posts: 4867
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 15:58

Re: Balanced Annihilation Reloaded

Post by TradeMark » 23 Feb 2010, 13:19

im sorry KaiserJ; all those units looks the same
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation Reloaded”