OK. So I'm personally frustrated with all the really pretty maps out there that have no building space, and I think that it is silly that humanity mastered the art of terraced building millenia ago, but the nanolathes of Spring just can't. I'm willing to accept that there might be a very valid gameplay reason not to allow building on steep slopes, but I just can't think of it.
So what does everyone think? It would be a brain-dead easy change to the game to implement, since construction units already level terrain, so it would just be a matter of changing the value that says how much they can level it.
Should units be allowed to level terrain arbitrarily for building on mountainsides? I feel like it would make all those cramped but very pretty maps so much more spacious to not have to hunt all over for the square milimeter of flat ground... Also, I hate it when ground that looks level is JUST outside the realm of buildability, so you get metal patches that you can't build on, and geo's you can't use, etc...
Building on mountainsides
Moderator: Moderators
I have to say, putting a mountin down is for two reasons, to stop units and to restirct building space.
I've voted no, but i may see a compramise.
Steep mountain sides should not be built on, but i see the point that its silliy not being able to build on rough ground. I mean, on a gental hill ud expect to be able to build. So possible the engin should be more genorous with where and where not people can build. currently anything other than pretty much flat is unbuildable on.
And I doubt it would be to hard to do as terrain already raises and lowers to fill space under buildings, so as to make the ground flat, so i expect it would just be a simple change of where you can place a building.
Better yet, maybe when it checks, it should check the build footpring size. As that size gets bigger, the less lee-way the game will give to the gradient of teh landscape.
Just my thoughts...
aGorm
I've voted no, but i may see a compramise.
Steep mountain sides should not be built on, but i see the point that its silliy not being able to build on rough ground. I mean, on a gental hill ud expect to be able to build. So possible the engin should be more genorous with where and where not people can build. currently anything other than pretty much flat is unbuildable on.
And I doubt it would be to hard to do as terrain already raises and lowers to fill space under buildings, so as to make the ground flat, so i expect it would just be a simple change of where you can place a building.
Better yet, maybe when it checks, it should check the build footpring size. As that size gets bigger, the less lee-way the game will give to the gradient of teh landscape.
Just my thoughts...
aGorm
Building on mountin sides shouldt be implented for sevral resons.
1: It removes the effect of rugged terrain, so if you want to make if imposibole for buildings to be built but for units to travel over the ground...
2. Big buildings will have to be made into a platue of some kind which looks ugly.
3. It can be used as terraginng and making walls on the mouantins bye building level 1 k-bot labs, and they will be IMPOSIBOLE to climb with any unit. (when the near verical errors is gone...)
1: It removes the effect of rugged terrain, so if you want to make if imposibole for buildings to be built but for units to travel over the ground...
2. Big buildings will have to be made into a platue of some kind which looks ugly.
3. It can be used as terraginng and making walls on the mouantins bye building level 1 k-bot labs, and they will be IMPOSIBOLE to climb with any unit. (when the near verical errors is gone...)
And no good maps have geos and metal patches where you cant build em. (except flooded desert, but there is metal everwhere there(map 4 sucks))Also, I hate it when ground that looks level is JUST outside the realm of buildability, so you get metal patches that you can't build on, and geo's you can't use, etc...
-
GrOuNd_ZeRo
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:10
I agree with Z on this..
Also, it may be 10.000 years in the future, but they still use silly tracked vehicles and wheels? wouldn't all units be based on hover technology? and aircraft should be UFO shaped objects firing phased quantum singularities or what not? lol
Gameplay would definitly be affected as well...that would mean that all units will be all-terrain and there will be no natural fortification what so ever.
Also, it may be 10.000 years in the future, but they still use silly tracked vehicles and wheels? wouldn't all units be based on hover technology? and aircraft should be UFO shaped objects firing phased quantum singularities or what not? lol
Gameplay would definitly be affected as well...that would mean that all units will be all-terrain and there will be no natural fortification what so ever.
-
LathanStanley
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 05:16
hover is aircraft...GrOuNd_ZeRo wrote:I agree with Z on this..
Also, it may be 10.000 years in the future, but they still use silly tracked vehicles and wheels? wouldn't all units be based on hover technology? and aircraft should be UFO shaped objects firing phased quantum singularities or what not? lol
Gameplay would definitly be affected as well...that would mean that all units will be all-terrain and there will be no natural fortification what so ever.
/smartass....
well I'd like to see a less strict system than th one currently in place, thus it will level more crazy terrain to fit, but it will still leave cliffsides alone...
sounds like a middleground to me
|GrOuNd_ZeRo and zwzsg|
I hope your not implying that I just make pretty, but unplayable maps?
(If i missread and it wasn't aimed at me atall sorry, but thats how i read what you were saying.)
Im with LathanStanley (hay man we have somthing else in commen)
Rules should be laxed slightly, but not total so people can build were ever.
aGorm
I hope your not implying that I just make pretty, but unplayable maps?
(If i missread and it wasn't aimed at me atall sorry, but thats how i read what you were saying.)
Im with LathanStanley (hay man we have somthing else in commen)
Rules should be laxed slightly, but not total so people can build were ever.
aGorm
how about not leveling to horizontal (cero slope), but to just leveling all the ground to build upon to the same slope angle.
yeah.... machinnery needs plain ground to work on.. (or it will brake).
but nanolathing may not need this.
also, building a lvl2 vehicle lab in a slope is a bit dumb, no unit will be able to leave the lab (but for the... the.. arachnid pewee..), but thats up to the player... he may build a adv cons and then reclaim...
BUT, a kbot lab (lvl 1 or 2) may be VERY usefull on a side of a hill soft, because kbots can walk on hard terrain.
why didnt commander think of this before? :D
also, not all buildings should be able to work this way... maybe only labs.
(voted yes), but depends on the way its implemented.
yeah.... machinnery needs plain ground to work on.. (or it will brake).
but nanolathing may not need this.
also, building a lvl2 vehicle lab in a slope is a bit dumb, no unit will be able to leave the lab (but for the... the.. arachnid pewee..), but thats up to the player... he may build a adv cons and then reclaim...
BUT, a kbot lab (lvl 1 or 2) may be VERY usefull on a side of a hill soft, because kbots can walk on hard terrain.
why didnt commander think of this before? :D
also, not all buildings should be able to work this way... maybe only labs.
(voted yes), but depends on the way its implemented.
I think the question is where would the real military draw the line when it comes to levelling ground to accomodate a structure, I think its about right the way it is, there is no way the military would embark on making large cuttings into a mountain unless it was for transportation or secure storage and in warfare today this need is rendered obsolete by the versatility of a well equipped airforce, so I say leave the terrain levelling as it is and new maps should have enough space for a base built into it.
Why not do it like they do in somcity. If you want to make small changes to the ground then it doesn't cost much but if you want to flaten a mounten then you would have to take a huge loan. Could make interesting strategy. Does the player want spend his/her hard earn metal and energy on making a pass through the mounten or build twice as many units. Does the player spend tons of resouces to raise land to make a wall or spend it on stationary guns.
I say why not
I say why not
-
smokingwreckage
- Posts: 327
- Joined: 09 Apr 2005, 11:40
I belive hardnes level is what desides how difficult it is to deform a peace of land. Grasslands and gravel should be no stress as they are soft while mounten ranges and cliffs would need excess amounts of time and resouces cuz of it's high hardness level.smokingwreckage wrote:Ground too steep to build on is a power mappers have. We must trust them to use it for good and not evil!
Look at it like thsi. A lot of maps have unbuildable space on them which looks buildable on. Its because of small hills that just make the land height differences to great to build on. It only realy needs to be a tiny wee bit more generous to free up a lot of space.
If anything was designed to inhibit building the map maker will make it pretty rough. However currently things have to be ni-on perfectly smoth to build on.
I dont want people building on cliff faces, or steep hills, or even relatively shallow ones, as thats why I put them there,but it would be nice if they could build on all the relatively flat ground on offer, insted of just a few choice spots where the land is perfect.
Also like I said it may be a good idea to give more leeway tosmaller buildings, so bases will still be on the planes, but so defences can be put on sweetspots on hills. (meaning as its more genouse there will be a possiblity of finding such a spot, not that small deffences should be able to level mountain sides to be built)
aGorm
If anything was designed to inhibit building the map maker will make it pretty rough. However currently things have to be ni-on perfectly smoth to build on.
I dont want people building on cliff faces, or steep hills, or even relatively shallow ones, as thats why I put them there,but it would be nice if they could build on all the relatively flat ground on offer, insted of just a few choice spots where the land is perfect.
Also like I said it may be a good idea to give more leeway tosmaller buildings, so bases will still be on the planes, but so defences can be put on sweetspots on hills. (meaning as its more genouse there will be a possiblity of finding such a spot, not that small deffences should be able to level mountain sides to be built)
aGorm
What test is currently applied to see if structure is buildable? Does it use total volume deviation from flat, average slope, max slope? For factories does it check the exits are not too steep?
Already we see a little earthworking happening before a build, if this had a greater cost in time and resources but did allow much more tolerance then I think that could be ok. The cost could be affected by terrain hardness (I would like to know where you can edit this for my maps).
Even with this system factories will have to be on the flatest land otherwise some types of unit will not be able to get out. Other large structures could be build on much steeper slopes but would require some investment in earthworking. Another thought... stuctures close to steep slopes should be damaged when that terrain is damaged even if the stucture itself is not hit. Call rock falls, subsidense or whatever.
I have no proplem with small structures being build on any land or even in very shallow water when these rules are applied.
Already we see a little earthworking happening before a build, if this had a greater cost in time and resources but did allow much more tolerance then I think that could be ok. The cost could be affected by terrain hardness (I would like to know where you can edit this for my maps).
Even with this system factories will have to be on the flatest land otherwise some types of unit will not be able to get out. Other large structures could be build on much steeper slopes but would require some investment in earthworking. Another thought... stuctures close to steep slopes should be damaged when that terrain is damaged even if the stucture itself is not hit. Call rock falls, subsidense or whatever.
I have no proplem with small structures being build on any land or even in very shallow water when these rules are applied.
How about the restore button in the builder menu correct grades to make it buildable again. I mean isn't it used for that anyway? I would also suggest that if there is an active building (not ruble) that this option cannot be used as it in reality would destroy the building. The restore option in the build menu repairs holes, divets, and craters to a more flat area. Say there was a mountain and you nuked it. You can stop the restore in mid nanolathe if it was a huge crater and you've got yourslef completely flat terrain. It just shows the graphic of the mountain, but the heightmap is flat there, so it is now buildable. Allowing building units to grade the terrain would make a big improvement to maps like The Desert Triad and others with pillars and large mountains that only a commander or a plane can get to.
I don't think this is a good idea. It might get exploited.
For example, you give the order to build a large building on a mountain, the ground would "straighten out" and you cancel right away. Now you have a "hole" in the mountain. You can keep doing this until the mountain is completelly gone and until you have a driveway that tanks can actually drive over.
Look at Small Divide(?) as an example. You could make those hills disappear real quick and haev tanks drive right to your enemy's base.
As for some maps where you have very limited space to build, well, I think that's the map designer's choice and it makes you play using different strategies. It forces you to expand and build out instead of just sitting in one corner.
My $0.02
-Slayer
For example, you give the order to build a large building on a mountain, the ground would "straighten out" and you cancel right away. Now you have a "hole" in the mountain. You can keep doing this until the mountain is completelly gone and until you have a driveway that tanks can actually drive over.
Look at Small Divide(?) as an example. You could make those hills disappear real quick and haev tanks drive right to your enemy's base.
As for some maps where you have very limited space to build, well, I think that's the map designer's choice and it makes you play using different strategies. It forces you to expand and build out instead of just sitting in one corner.
My $0.02
-Slayer