@map makers

Rayden · Post by **Rayden** » 05 May 2005, 13:33

Please make water deep enough, it's annyoing if you build underwater buildings and their top is over water surface, so they can be destroyed with every unit. (a good example is gods of war)

Storm · Post by **Storm** » 05 May 2005, 16:50

IIRC that's what happens in Standard TA as well. The heightmap was simply ported from there.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 05 May 2005, 22:09

No, it's just simple modification of the x and n values. a good depth for water (n) is -40 if you can swing it without the heightmap turning into a mass of spikes.

Storm · Post by **Storm** » 06 May 2005, 01:34

Yeah, but GoW is a port. Its as deep as it ever was and it's water can't be raised, because the amount of land would shrink (and that wouldn't look like old GoW anymore). I recall my UW metal storages showing up there in Old TA as well.

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 06 May 2005, 01:50

Err, no. You could very simply enlarge the height scale, or more difficult but better, increase the darkeness of the dark part of the heigtmap without touching the bright part.

PauloMorfeo · Post by **PauloMorfeo** » 06 May 2005, 12:07

Like zwzsg said,

zwzsg wrote:... having the metal patches grouped make it interesting for it provokes the creation of area you want to keep and defend, and areas you don't care about. ...

i would want to ask map developer to take that in consideration.

I really think that concentrations of metal are much better than having the freaking thing scatered all over the map.

With the clustering, we end up having ├é┬½bases├é┬╗ of extraction instead of spreading ourselves.

Redfish · Post by **Redfish** » 06 May 2005, 14:05

I have to admit i haven't tested building underwater stuff on my gow map. However the water level isn't precisely the same as the original map. Thing is though that in OTA the units weren't really 3d but just images that got a certain color when built underwater. I'll have a look at, i'm making a new map pack with all OTA(non cc maps) anyway but it will take some time.

Gnomre · Post by **Gnomre** » 07 May 2005, 02:29

Meh, I consider the bunched up metal (metal veins included) not good for gameplay. It just encourages porcing and boredom.

And, uhh, redfish, the units in TA are quite 3D. Why do you think they are 3D in spring? Yes, the TA engine just applied a simple color mask over the underwater parts of units, but that doesn't make the units any less 3D.

Funny thing is, TA had full 3D units and was released a year before StarCraft and its shitty sprites...

Rayden · Post by **Rayden** » 07 May 2005, 08:14

Meh, I consider the bunched up metal (metal veins included) not good for gameplay. It just encourages porcing and boredom.

True, it makes moho extractors pointless. I don't build a very expensive moho extractor to increase my iron production from 2 to 4

.

Btw. Redfish if you're still reading this. What's about a upgrade of GoW to needs of TA:Spring like underwater metal ressources?

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 07 May 2005, 14:28

Gnome wrote:Meh, I consider the bunched up metal (metal veins included) not good for gameplay. It just encourages porcing and boredom.

In Spring you can have either:
- Large metallic area, but large metal extractor radius: since only one metal extractor can be used within its radius, it means that even if metal area are large, one mexx and it's exploited, you have to expand to get more metal. It's like in TA, save that the mexx position isn't precisely fixed but can vary within the screen-wide patches. Just like TA, you have to expand to get more metal, but unlike TA you can't send bombers and flashes raind blindly over the exact mexx position. Exemple: the map4 shipped with Spring.
- TA style patches, where the metal map is map of dense tiny spot, and with a texture map making metal patch visible, and with a very low metal extractor radius: it's like in TA, you have to expand to get more patches. Exemple: Redhaven.
- TA style metal maps, where all the map gives metal and where metal extractor have low radius they can be layed one next to the other. Yes in those map you don't have to expand to get more metal, but some people like metal maps. Exemple: CPIA.

Old TA units are 3D. And when they go into water, you can see precisly the water level plane intersect the 3D model and only the part underwater gets colored (or invisible for enemy units). Have you never seen AI units gettin stuck trying to leave the shore, with only the turret sticking out?

Here's for instance a commander with just the top of the head sticking out, with and without underwater view:

Note that water level intersection with model is correct 3D, but shadows aren't.

PauloMorfeo · Post by **PauloMorfeo** » 07 May 2005, 15:05

Rayden wrote:
Meh, I consider the bunched up metal (metal veins included) not good for gameplay. It just encourages porcing and boredom.
True, it makes moho extractors pointless. I don't build a very expensive moho extractor to increase my iron production from 2 to 4 .
...

I'm sorry dude but that makes no sense.

And,

Gnome wrote:Meh, I consider the bunched up metal (metal veins included) not good for gameplay. It just encourages porcing and boredom.
...

Just like Great Devide, Gods of War, Lava Highground, etc? I wonder then, why so many people play those porcing and boring types of maps.

Torrasque · Post by **Torrasque** » 07 May 2005, 15:20

Bunched metal don't make people porking. Just place them at strategic points, not where the commander begin.

Spring RTS Engine

@map makers

@map makers