Wreckage limit
Moderator: Moderators
Wreckage limit
Would it be possible to have such a feature in the next version of Spring - that there's a limit to the amount of wreckage being able to be present in that map ie. older wreckage disappearing if new ones appear? When playing on Speedmetal and porcy maps, my FPS often takes a great big hit due to the crazy amounts of wreckage. Plus, it makes the paths impossible to navigate, thus there's a greater demand for aircraft as compared to land vehicles during late game
Your not playing speedmetal right if thats happening.
You see speedmetal follows a very simple formula.
Thats speedmetal nicely tidied up.
I believe your crisis is not caused by wreckage, but rather the sheer number of units you have.
I suggest you play on one of the many speedmetal alternatives that arent small blocks with a tiny linking bridge, such as speed comet, or battlespire.
Too much wreckage is the sort of thing they worried about before TA was released back in the age of the 175Mhz cpu.
As for the paths, I suggest you build some aircraft buidlers to scoop up the metal floating around. Lvl 1 and 2 assault units on speedmetal are just a ridiculous waste of tiem and effort for any half decent player.
You see speedmetal follows a very simple formula.
Code: Select all
spam conbots():
spam_windgens():
build(sidename+"llt",5);
build(sidename+"flak",30);
nuke rush();
antinuke_spam();
if(enemystillalive){
while(lvl3army < 10){
spamlvl3();
spamfusions();
}
SendArmy(enemybase);
}I believe your crisis is not caused by wreckage, but rather the sheer number of units you have.
I suggest you play on one of the many speedmetal alternatives that arent small blocks with a tiny linking bridge, such as speed comet, or battlespire.
Too much wreckage is the sort of thing they worried about before TA was released back in the age of the 175Mhz cpu.
As for the paths, I suggest you build some aircraft buidlers to scoop up the metal floating around. Lvl 1 and 2 assault units on speedmetal are just a ridiculous waste of tiem and effort for any half decent player.
Re: Wreckage limit
Why do I see an obvious solution to this problem?bma wrote:When playing on Speedmetal and porcy maps
You will have to pardon my associates. They hold a set of beliefs, which I share, which logically concludes that speed metal is not a good map, but they do not make room for other belief structures.
As for the slowdown. I find it unlikely that it is due to wrecks. Certain performance testing has shown that complicated, many-polygon, non-moving objects (such a wrecks) have less of a performance hit than few-polygon, multiple moving part objects (like streams of nano-particles).
As for the pathing issues. AF is correct, you could use aircraft builders (or any other builders) to remove them. Perhaps you could blast them away with a nuke. Maybe you could flank with some heavy air transports. Finally, you could play, or even write a mod in which there are no wrecks. A wreckless version of AA could not be that hard to make, although I must profess I know next to nothing about moding.
As for the slowdown. I find it unlikely that it is due to wrecks. Certain performance testing has shown that complicated, many-polygon, non-moving objects (such a wrecks) have less of a performance hit than few-polygon, multiple moving part objects (like streams of nano-particles).
As for the pathing issues. AF is correct, you could use aircraft builders (or any other builders) to remove them. Perhaps you could blast them away with a nuke. Maybe you could flank with some heavy air transports. Finally, you could play, or even write a mod in which there are no wrecks. A wreckless version of AA could not be that hard to make, although I must profess I know next to nothing about moding.
In my many years in these lands, I hath not been attacked by one so young as you. Those with SVN commit access can speak no heresy, for what we write in the great scriptures is law on YOUR battlefield.
Edit: And yet, I feel I am partly to blame. Despite my attempts to clear all kindling from which a flame may grow, the passage thy hath quoted is yet more flammable than all that I hath posted before.
Edit: And yet, I feel I am partly to blame. Despite my attempts to clear all kindling from which a flame may grow, the passage thy hath quoted is yet more flammable than all that I hath posted before.
Last edited by ILMTitan on 08 Jan 2007, 09:09, edited 1 time in total.
People's preferences change now and thenWhy do I see an obvious solution to this problem?
I realise it doesn't happen on Speedmetal alone. In fact, the AI likes to rush a lot of small units eg. Jeffy and Flash, and the amount of wreckage can be quite an inconvenience on smaller maps, especially when they're rushing my base and my turrets are easily wiping them out. Happened even in a map like Industrial Mountain
Last edited by bma on 08 Jan 2007, 17:58, edited 1 time in total.
I see that was a good thing, since the field of wreck becomes so dense that no enemy unit manages to even aproach my defenses, and then I use aircrafts to get a lot of bulldogs outside the barrier of wreck and destroy the ai. (the ai also fails greatly into making defenses against heavy units like bulldogs)bma wrote:People's preferences change now and thenWhy do I see an obvious solution to this problem?
I realise it doesn't happen on Speedmetal alone. In fact, the AI likes to rush a lot of small units eg. Jeffy and Flash, and the amount of wreckage can be quite an inconvenience on smaller maps, especially when they're rushing my base and my turrets are easily wiping them out. Happened even in a map like Industrial Mountain
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Shots colisions with features must be fixed.
At the moment, shots explode far from the features (or something with similar effect, like exploding on contact but only damaging if the explosion reaches the center of the feature), making so that only the explosions with large area of effect really damage the features.
If that is fixed, regular battling should waste most of the carcasses in the mean time. This is a well known problem, especially with Dragon Teeths, and very, very old.
At the moment, shots explode far from the features (or something with similar effect, like exploding on contact but only damaging if the explosion reaches the center of the feature), making so that only the explosions with large area of effect really damage the features.
If that is fixed, regular battling should waste most of the carcasses in the mean time. This is a well known problem, especially with Dragon Teeths, and very, very old.
Yes, it is ten years old.This is a well known problem, especially with Dragon Teeths, and very, very old.
I have only dislike for games where wreckage vanish over time (nearly most RTS, but it's more glaring in some, like in C&C:G where wreck sink under earth seconds after appearing, and it looks very WTF), and love for games where the battlefield is permanently altered by wreck, scorch marks, and burnt tree (Like C&C and TA).
By permanently altered, I mean, they don't auto-vanish over time, but can stay forever. But if player have the possibility to restore the state of the battlefield, it's good, both for gameplay reason (like, if a bridge can be destroyed, it's good, but if it can be rebuild, it's better), and for metaphysical beliefs (Entropy constant growth is a scary thought, I prefer universe where what's been done can always been undone, and where the initial state can always be restored).
When the remain of a battle affect gameplay, such as corpse being rezzable into skeleton armies like in WC2&3, wrecks being valuable ressources like in TA, or craters changing the relief of the map like in Spring, I love it even more.
Anyway, so I'm against wreck automatically disappearing.
If you think wreck are blocking the units movement too much, then ask the author of your favourite mod to increase the CrushStrength of all units: It allows units to crush wrecks by driving over. That or use non-blocking wrecks.
