Me adn Zsinj think so. i want a vote.
Case Points: Walking through 3 feet of snow and driving a car through. Walking on the beach compared to driving a tank on the beach. I believe these hold true as KBots are MUCH lighter than tanks as they have far less armour also their feet splay out at the bottom (like snowshoes) (i think...)
KBots<Vehicles in Soft Terrain?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: KBots<Vehicles in Soft Terrain?
I hate to pick nits, but I'm afraid that moving this discussion out of maps doesnt make physics any more an issue of your opinion.Min3mat wrote:Me adn Zsinj think so. i want a vote.
Case Points: Walking through 3 feet of snow and driving a car through. Walking on the beach compared to driving a tank on the beach. I believe these hold true as KBots are MUCH lighter than tanks as they have far less armour also their feet splay out at the bottom (like snowshoes) (i think...)
Anything with legs will be worse off in SOFT terrain. Anything with wheels will be worse off in ROUGH terrain. It isn't about HARD v SOFT. It's about smoothness.
As I pointed out in the other forum, land speed records have been being set for the last 100+ years on 'soft' terrain.
You guys are like fundamentally confusing acceleration with its integral. Wheeled vehicles may indeed have more trouble accelerating that a kbot, but once moving they will not be slowed by the softness.
kbots=go over obstructions ! do well in muck.
And in your specific examples:
-You could get much further in a friggin tracked vehicle. Exactly how far do you think you can walk in 3' deep snow?
-Tanks are much better on beaches, D-day comes to mind...
PS I really think your poll options are confusing as hell. 'afftected' almost reads 'effective, and the answer is the OPPOSITE of the question you asked (i.e. "Is Bob shorter than Robert?" a)Yes Bob is longer than robert... etc.
:idea:IMSabbel wrote:Maybe tracks should lose _turn rate_ instead of velocity on soft terrain. I mean, the primal advantage of bipedal movement isnt speed to begin with, but agility.
That and maybe an option to factor weight (metal cost or whatever determines what goes flying when shelled).
You go and stop a mobile fusion in 50 hardness stuff and leave it sitting a while, yeah it may become a 'mini fusion' more than a mobile one...
um...i'm trying to keep it very simple for the SYs and for the map designers etc. realism and gameplay don't always go hand in hand and i'd take gameplay over realism ANY day! this would really encourage use of kbots which just can't be a bad thing! gotta love the little guys :) this would be a simple enough thing to do and make teh game slightly more realistic :) all good imo
Except that you and WZ are arguing with the map makers about this...Min3mat wrote:um...i'm trying to keep it very simple for the SYs and for the map designers etc. realism and gameplay don't always go hand in hand and i'd take gameplay over realism ANY day! this would really encourage use of kbots which just can't be a bad thing! gotta love the little guys :) this would be a simple enough thing to do and make teh game slightly more realistic :) all good imo
.
The reason I gave vehicles a tiny advantage over kbots on the sand is simple. In my experience, wet sand tends to sink somewhat. It seems like it would be harder for a kbot to walk through wet sand, than for a vehicle to drive over it. And walking through a dry sandy dune would be even harder for a kbot. I know cause its a pain in the ass for a human. (and it is not cause the sand is hot as hell, its cause bipedal movement tends to kick it up all over the place)
If you want to get technical... Terrain modifiers are imperfect because the extreme variation within both vehicles and kbots. Take vehicles for instance, you can't expect a goliath to act the same as Jeffy/weasel in wet sand. The weight/design difference is so large. The same goes for kbots. You can't expect a Sumo (four legged) to act the same as a peewee.
If you want to get technical... Terrain modifiers are imperfect because the extreme variation within both vehicles and kbots. Take vehicles for instance, you can't expect a goliath to act the same as Jeffy/weasel in wet sand. The weight/design difference is so large. The same goes for kbots. You can't expect a Sumo (four legged) to act the same as a peewee.
Last edited by hrmph on 08 Aug 2005, 17:01, edited 1 time in total.
-
Doomweaver
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14
-
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Good to see you've all waited for my reply before lumping me in [/sarcasm] 
Frankly, I initially thought that vehicles should be better on sand. Only tracked vehicles, but seeing as the majority of TA's vehicles are tracked, that means vehicles.
However, after thinking about it more, I have to say that I think Spring would be better off if kbots were better on such terrain. Basically because I think that on the whole, kbots are weaker options than vehicles, except for a few rare situations (sumos, morties, etc). The advantage, I think, of having terrain affect units is that it forces players to rely on different forces. If kbots are designated off-road units, then they should hold true to that stance no matter what terrain they are on. Because of this, players will be encouraged to use kbots more for attempting to cover difficult terrain, whereas vehicles will be much better for easier terrain, and be the better choice.
I made my decision that sand and snow should affect vehicles more before I considered the physics; I made the decision based on gameplay, which I believe is the more important option.
However, it is possible to explain such things in physics, even if they are not the most correct.
In snowy conditions, kbots are able to step over the snow, thus reducing their contact time, whereas vehicles (who are inevitably heavier) have no option but to slog through the snow, pushing it out of their way...
Frankly, I initially thought that vehicles should be better on sand. Only tracked vehicles, but seeing as the majority of TA's vehicles are tracked, that means vehicles.
However, after thinking about it more, I have to say that I think Spring would be better off if kbots were better on such terrain. Basically because I think that on the whole, kbots are weaker options than vehicles, except for a few rare situations (sumos, morties, etc). The advantage, I think, of having terrain affect units is that it forces players to rely on different forces. If kbots are designated off-road units, then they should hold true to that stance no matter what terrain they are on. Because of this, players will be encouraged to use kbots more for attempting to cover difficult terrain, whereas vehicles will be much better for easier terrain, and be the better choice.
I made my decision that sand and snow should affect vehicles more before I considered the physics; I made the decision based on gameplay, which I believe is the more important option.
However, it is possible to explain such things in physics, even if they are not the most correct.
In snowy conditions, kbots are able to step over the snow, thus reducing their contact time, whereas vehicles (who are inevitably heavier) have no option but to slog through the snow, pushing it out of their way...
I agree with Warlord. The K-bot has become relitivly useless. The tank's are faster and simply better. However if they had this added moblity thing then Tank's would find there rode's mined and the side path's filled with infantry. So it mean's that player's would be FORCED to relay on more then one unit type, and that make's game play down right better.
-
Doomweaver
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14
I absolutely agree that generally what you guys are saying should be true, but wouldn't a new tag just make so much more sense? I mean, you don't want to limit the power of modders for no reason. And having a single tag means its easy to take into consideration when you are working out what units to build. Its just, okay, this unit performs better on bad terrain, this one doesn't. Simple as that, rather than having to tab into a map thing to see exactly how your units will perform on various terrains.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Doomweaver, this is in relation to the map standards. Which you read and replied too. It is not going to be hardcoded in, we are just setting up some standards, made by the map community, for the map community, which we think will make it easier for players to understand what terrain damages affect what units. By no means will it be hardcoded in; it will simply be there for map makers to hopefully decide.
What happens if I have "Desert Triad" and "Painted Desert", which both use the same type of sand, but on one map, the map maker thinks vehicles should be affected more, and on the other, a different map maker thinks kbots should be affected more. As a player, nothing has changed visually in these two maps, so I should reasonably be able to expect that both maps should affect units similarly.
We should decide now how we want units to be affected; either way it is decided, it should be maintained that all maps should use the decided style.
What happens if I have "Desert Triad" and "Painted Desert", which both use the same type of sand, but on one map, the map maker thinks vehicles should be affected more, and on the other, a different map maker thinks kbots should be affected more. As a player, nothing has changed visually in these two maps, so I should reasonably be able to expect that both maps should affect units similarly.
We should decide now how we want units to be affected; either way it is decided, it should be maintained that all maps should use the decided style.
