Short load times vs. Improved gameplay
Moderator: Moderators
Argh, it may be a tiny issue in the overall scheme of things, but it can add up and can be annoying, it has cropped up and been noticable enough for me to notice it, now generally units wont get stuck in factories because you can also make the factory bigger, but if you want the proper balance of different slope tolerances, and so on.. you will need a new movetype for each one.. this is the nature of the beast..
So... Z and Argh with their god-like knowledge (no sarcasm) say we don't need many, Fanger and I all say we need them. Who's right?
Z knows his stuff, but AFAIK it's mostly to do with scripting and OTA. Argh knows his stuff but it's mostly to do with scripting and engine modification, but he also made Nanoblobs. But does nanoblobs have a lot of varying terrain restrictions? I haven't had the opportunity of playing it yet.
Fanger makes EE and therefore obviously knows a lot about pure modding. I make AA but that mostly involves modeling, general unit assembly, balance tweaking, finding ways to trick the engine into doing what it's not supposed to, etc.
I'm not sure where exactly Smoth fits in this equation. He made Gundam, but all the Gundam screens I see (again, haven't had the opportunity to play it) involve similarly-sized units that I have to imagine have similar terrain restrictions.
Likewise, Guessmyname's Epic Legions appears to be largely to do with similarly-sized units as seen here: http://spring.unknown-files.net/picture/2861/3/ - again, I have no firsthand experience.
Who made CA? Maybe they can weigh in.
Mixed opinions in the thread I posted in Development, as well: http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=10509
BTW, I'm not posting this to shove AA down anyone's throat. it's an honest question directed at the community at large, not the modders, which is why I'm posting it where the community at large will be most likely to see it.
Z knows his stuff, but AFAIK it's mostly to do with scripting and OTA. Argh knows his stuff but it's mostly to do with scripting and engine modification, but he also made Nanoblobs. But does nanoblobs have a lot of varying terrain restrictions? I haven't had the opportunity of playing it yet.
Fanger makes EE and therefore obviously knows a lot about pure modding. I make AA but that mostly involves modeling, general unit assembly, balance tweaking, finding ways to trick the engine into doing what it's not supposed to, etc.
I'm not sure where exactly Smoth fits in this equation. He made Gundam, but all the Gundam screens I see (again, haven't had the opportunity to play it) involve similarly-sized units that I have to imagine have similar terrain restrictions.
Likewise, Guessmyname's Epic Legions appears to be largely to do with similarly-sized units as seen here: http://spring.unknown-files.net/picture/2861/3/ - again, I have no firsthand experience.
Who made CA? Maybe they can weigh in.
Mixed opinions in the thread I posted in Development, as well: http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=10509
BTW, I'm not posting this to shove AA down anyone's throat. it's an honest question directed at the community at large, not the modders, which is why I'm posting it where the community at large will be most likely to see it.
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
Epic Legions Movement classes:
Infantry
-Can climb almost all cliffs
-Cannot crush a damn thing
Tanks
-For Light / Medium vehicles with footprints of 2x2 or 3x3
-Lower slope tolerance
-Can crush trees
HeavyTanks
-For the big ones such as Landraiders and Macharius tanks and Gorgons
-Slightly higher slop tolerance
-Can crush trees and sandbag walls
HoverTanks
-For amphib tanks (Chimera, Gorgon, Ludin Pattern Rhinos)
-Slope tolerances and maxdepths fiddled with
-Can crush trees
Notice:
No movement classes for buildings - they don't need them
Been getting away with giving aircraft (which are generally the largest units in the game) the HeavyTank class
Infantry
-Can climb almost all cliffs
-Cannot crush a damn thing
Tanks
-For Light / Medium vehicles with footprints of 2x2 or 3x3
-Lower slope tolerance
-Can crush trees
HeavyTanks
-For the big ones such as Landraiders and Macharius tanks and Gorgons
-Slightly higher slop tolerance
-Can crush trees and sandbag walls
HoverTanks
-For amphib tanks (Chimera, Gorgon, Ludin Pattern Rhinos)
-Slope tolerances and maxdepths fiddled with
-Can crush trees
Notice:
No movement classes for buildings - they don't need them
Been getting away with giving aircraft (which are generally the largest units in the game) the HeavyTank class
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
I said I was wrong and you could rightfully gloat over me. Then fang came and completly ignored my and KDR post over his (as well as he seem to be completly oblivious of what's written his screen during Spring loadups). I guess I have to repeat.Caydr wrote:So... Z and Argh with their god-like knowledge (no sarcasm) say we don't need many, Fanger and I all say we need them. Who's right?
Having units of different footprint share the same movementclass seemed to work at first glance. But proper testing as show it doesn't:
- The pathfinder use the footprints of the movementclass. When none is specified in the movementclass, then a value of 1x1 is used.
- The collision between units and features or units use the footprints of the FBI.
So, if different sized units share the same movementclass, you will have pathfinding problems. Either big units trying to fit in passages too small for them and getting stuck trying. Or small units not realising they have the place to barely pass in some place.
What did I ignore beyond that Im not entirely positive that number of movement classes is the sole contributer to the amount of time it takes to path a map..
Beyond that I stated that:
If you have differently sized units it is highly advisable that they all have properly sized movement classes to avoid issues with collision, and pathing, Additionally if you want units to have different slope tolerances again they need a new movement class.. So to optimize your movement classes unless you want to wing it and ignore the actual information is to minimize the number of unit sizes, and the number of slope differences..
That is it..
Now If I may use EE to illustrate a point, currently for Epic i have 25 movement classes.. which Im sure most people would go HOLY SH*T about, and I expect to probably end up with 30... and you will probably go why so many you cant need them all.. well actually I do and Ill explain why:
URC ground classes
Light mech, this is all level 1 mechs (different size and slope)
Medium mech, this is most level 2 mechs (different size and slope)
Medium AT mech, this is stealth mechs and some others (same size as med but a better slope)
Heavy mech, this is most level 3 mechs (different size and slope)
Heavy AT mech, this is heavy stealth mechs (same size as heavy but again better slope)
Hover light mech, this is light amphibious units which have to be hovercraft (same size as light, but hovercraft)
Hover medium mech, this is medium amphibious units (same size as medium, but hovercraft)
Hover heavy mech, this is heavy amphibious units (same size as heavy but hovercraft)
Hover spider mech, this is the scout URC spider (smaller than light, and also hovercraft)
That is all the URC ground units the list of course continues to GD, NI, and the Aliens as well as Ships. Now I use ALL of those classes, a few are used by only 1 unit, but unless I alter that unit, or remove it there is nothing I can do, one of the issues is that additionally, YOU need a different moveclass for a Ship, a ground vehicle and a hovercraft so if you have a light tank, and a light hover tank even if they have the same slope and size they still need 2 different moves, and Even If I didnt make my amphibious units hovercraft I would still need a new moveclass to allow them underwater movement..
Does this explain what I mean..
Beyond that I stated that:
If you have differently sized units it is highly advisable that they all have properly sized movement classes to avoid issues with collision, and pathing, Additionally if you want units to have different slope tolerances again they need a new movement class.. So to optimize your movement classes unless you want to wing it and ignore the actual information is to minimize the number of unit sizes, and the number of slope differences..
That is it..
Now If I may use EE to illustrate a point, currently for Epic i have 25 movement classes.. which Im sure most people would go HOLY SH*T about, and I expect to probably end up with 30... and you will probably go why so many you cant need them all.. well actually I do and Ill explain why:
URC ground classes
Light mech, this is all level 1 mechs (different size and slope)
Medium mech, this is most level 2 mechs (different size and slope)
Medium AT mech, this is stealth mechs and some others (same size as med but a better slope)
Heavy mech, this is most level 3 mechs (different size and slope)
Heavy AT mech, this is heavy stealth mechs (same size as heavy but again better slope)
Hover light mech, this is light amphibious units which have to be hovercraft (same size as light, but hovercraft)
Hover medium mech, this is medium amphibious units (same size as medium, but hovercraft)
Hover heavy mech, this is heavy amphibious units (same size as heavy but hovercraft)
Hover spider mech, this is the scout URC spider (smaller than light, and also hovercraft)
That is all the URC ground units the list of course continues to GD, NI, and the Aliens as well as Ships. Now I use ALL of those classes, a few are used by only 1 unit, but unless I alter that unit, or remove it there is nothing I can do, one of the issues is that additionally, YOU need a different moveclass for a Ship, a ground vehicle and a hovercraft so if you have a light tank, and a light hover tank even if they have the same slope and size they still need 2 different moves, and Even If I didnt make my amphibious units hovercraft I would still need a new moveclass to allow them underwater movement..
Does this explain what I mean..
