Ennemi building stay out of los - Page 3

Ennemi building stay out of los

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

Wow, you would agree with me if we removed the marker too? I mean, it doesn't hit you in the face that this is a strategic tragedy and you want to rip away another feature?
Torrasque
Posts: 1022
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 23:55

Post by Torrasque »

Storm : With marker you can already have ALL the ennemi building marked. (with a lot of micomanaging)
It is just like having permanently LOS on building.

So if marker weren't implemented, I would agree with you that is a f*****g feature.

I hope I'm more clear
User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

The whole point of markers was to be quick and note out crucial buildings for bombardement. This new thing is permanent and as I have explaned five times on the previous page, it means that you can easily differ the mobile units from the defences, and by their spped even determine the type. Why this devouring of a great game into Warcraft?
Torrasque
Posts: 1022
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 23:55

Post by Torrasque »

Sorry, can you explain a bit more this please :
you can easily differ the mobile units from the defences, and by their spped even determine the type.
By deducing from the lab? Because I don't see any changes for the mobile units.

Perhaps, I'm missing a point....
User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

* Storm smashes forhead on keyboard '

God, I JUST said it to you. Explained everything. Then on the previous page, I said it even more throughoutly and then quoted it.
Torrasque
Posts: 1022
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 23:55

Post by Torrasque »

Hum, that now we have good chances to distinguish ennemi building from mobile units...bah, i don't think you will know so easly the map....

But don't you think it will be better to try a then have a better discution?
Perhaps that with autofiring with terain deformation with I don't know what can do a good things...

I would really people to try before trowing away the idea. I'm for trying stupid idea, it's a beta, we have all the time to changes things. I don't know what is the best rts possible, but I don't think we can found it without try a lot of possibilities.
User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

I don't need to try no emg, no bertha, no nuke, no units on hills to know such a game would be an awesome suck. I have already played enough games with this feature, none of which even had any reasonable scout unit to explore a base, nor to mention radar coverage over all mobile units. This is so wrong... so wrong.
Torrasque
Posts: 1022
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 23:55

Post by Torrasque »

Pfff you're so conservative....I (only?) now understand the this discussion is pointless. Do you agree to stop it here?
User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

Conservative? Yes, I'm trying to preserve what makes this game great and hinder it from being reduced to rubble. I can see the difference between features like Alt-Shift buildings and stupidity, like this thing.

And no, I donät see it as pointless. I'm desperately trying to explain why it is such an immensively bad idea and being frustrated at the incompetence of people that don't see how this "fix" cripples yet another pillar in the game.
User avatar
BeeDee
Posts: 42
Joined: 16 Mar 2005, 03:17

Post by BeeDee »

Maybe people "don't see how this "fix" cripples yet another pillar in the game" because they don't agree that it cripples anything? I certainly don't, I think it will improve both realism and the opportunity for developing strategies both offensive and defensive. And if I turn out to be wrong, there will be opportunity to make the feature optional later on.

Flipping out like this before you've even tried it will reduce the credibility of your analysis later on when you've got evidence to work from, IMO.
Torrasque
Posts: 1022
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 23:55

Post by Torrasque »

so you don't want to end this conversation...
I'm tired to talk to a man who think he is god..

You saisd yourself, you have already said 100 times you opinons. You will never change your opinon, I will only change mine after trying it.

So I ask again, would you end this conversation?
User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

Flipping out like this before you've even tried it will reduce the credibility of your analysis later on when you've got evidence to work from, IMO.
Tried no emg, no bertha, no nuke, no units on hills yet? :roll:
I'm tired to talk to a man who think he is god..
Interesting news.
mongus
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Apr 2005, 18:52

Post by mongus »

I like the current MM-oriented marker system.
But the auto mark feature is a nice (and very strategic) addition too...
Maybe a new building can do this? or an existing one (as targeting facility, so expensive!).
User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Post by NOiZE »

mongus wrote:I like the current MM-oriented marker system.
But the auto mark feature is a nice (and very strategic) addition too...
Maybe a new building can do this? or an existing one (as targeting facility, so expensive!).
That's an excelent idea imo.

The targeting facility which is useless now, is very usefull then :D And now u got to invest a whole lot be4 u get this micromanegment reliefer, just like in OTA
Torrasque
Posts: 1022
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 23:55

Post by Torrasque »

Mongus : This is not a bad idea...
User avatar
Nemo
Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 1376
Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 19:44

Post by Nemo »

Yeah, that makes much more sense to me...you get the benefits of this new feature (which i personally think brings the game closer and closer to the user telling the AI to attack, and the rest is done for them) but you need a massive hunk of resources to do it.

Good idea ^^
mongus
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Apr 2005, 18:52

Post by mongus »

Targeting Facilty is not useless.
Just spitting numbers i will say it can improve your firepower about +50%.
Because it makes 100% accurate Laser weapons, and "just as in LOS accurate" misiles and plasma shots.
Giving a 100% efficiency to weapon range.

Its like an upgrade of accuracy to all your current weapons.

Just look any replay, and you will nottice that defense tower shots are VERY inacurate if the enemy is not in LOS.

I just dont build it much cuz its too expensive...

EDIT:
I just read the SJ post about enabling it by default... and i dont think its a good idea...
anyhow, this is beta, and we can try very different stuff. this will give us more xp :shock:
Frog
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 20:09

Post by Frog »

I´d say please, please SJ don´t make it default, but toggable in the host room (like resources, map etc.). Then everybodys happy, right ?
User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

Maybe a new building can do this? or an existing one (as targeting facility, so expensive!).
Now we're reaching an awesome sollution.

In fact, this function is so powerful, it should take target fac's place easily.
Manveru
Posts: 7
Joined: 21 May 2005, 12:01

Post by Manveru »

Make SOME things toggable is important, make EVERYTHING toggable is not good at all.
Imagine all the discussions: "I will this, I can't play without that, this is better, you're a dumbass, ignorant, I play TA longer, ...." *kick*.

We need a good standard and a handfull toggable features.
More complex changes are part of mod's.

Btw. wasn't in OTA the opponents stuff visible for some time after a scout revealed it? And the buildings as long as they were in the 'grey fog of war'. And everything returned invisble in the 'black fog of war'.
(these options were toggable, if I remember correctly.)
Locked

Return to “General Discussion”