Minimap idea - Page 4

Minimap idea

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

Moderator: Moderators

is this a good idea

yes
18
55%
no
15
45%
 
Total votes: 33

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

Post by Storm »

Now, if buildings are shown somehow on the minmap, then scouting becomes more useful, and thus gets incoorporated quicker in players repetoar. This means that if the game hints players towards good play, noobs become decent players quicker, and decent players become good players quicker.
Not really...

Scouting in general will be exactly just as useful as ever before, that fact is not changing, unless we push some really freaky suggestion. However, what the Ghost + Minimap Bleed function does is removing the whole art of intel, making it a trivia (send a bunch of planes somewhere, then wait for the dots to target). On a plain basis, all players will level faster, but on the internal scale, you just removed a whole chunk of game piece to master, so instead of upping rookies, you actually hinder people from upgrading because there is nothing to upgrade in.

There are always players that match you, but then again, there are many different styles that match each other with different methods. Where there were once the overlord player that knew the position of every unit of the map, there will be nothing. Imagine it as removing the whole water section of TA (i.e. reverting to impassable water a la StarCraft). That would mean cutting a whole field of mastery. Now the shore-shellers have to go swarm Jethros or something instead. We should expand the strategical options, not limit them.
Your
adversion towards this stems from beeing a elitist, right?
Hardly. Quite frankly, I'm average at best. I just know what gameplay is and why TA differs from others. Plus I just bleed internally everytime this game takes a step backwards, towards games like StarCraft.
User avatar
FireCrack
Posts: 676
Joined: 19 Jul 2005, 09:33

Post by FireCrack »

Funily enough the last paragraph of your sentance only proved the point it was adressing...
User avatar
Zoombie
Posts: 6149
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 07:08

Post by Zoombie »

We need a unit... i will call it "Binoc" for the CORE and "Spotty" for the ARM. Basicaly a K-bot with some binoculars, just for spotting the enemy base. Less advanced then radar, but cheaper!

BTW: I am a sucky player, mainly cuase i have a habbit of walking my army into withering crossfire. Hmmm....

Mabey i sould stop doing that....
User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Post by NOiZE »

First i was against ghosted buildings as well, but it really works out well. And okay maybe we lost a bit of gameplay but i think it is worth it. I mean we lost tracking the scout and writing on the map where what building is. And IMO that's not Strategy, That's just doing something the game should do.. it's just extra time being used up. I find it actually a relief that i don't have to track my scout all the way to his death and quickly write on the map where what building is... it's just stupid, i realize now, it removes strategy from the game, because the time I'm writing on the map i can't be busy with my strategy. So Ghosted buildings is a good thing!! and yes i know i probably repeated myself a few times.

Now on this topic, this simply removes dumb micromanagement. and adds time for the strategy part of the game IMO, and u don't really got that more info from this feature. And u are the one who was sending out those scouts. And really noobs don't start to much with this because they don't even know what offensive units are..

Just my 2 euro-cents

PS
Sorry for my not that good English.
User avatar
Min3mat
Posts: 3455
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 20:19

Post by Min3mat »

yeah but xta needs a counter to lone peepers! conventional AA normally kills the scout after its seent the AA, i reckon a AA only Long Range MT would do the trick with a slow rate of fire (stole idea from AA :P)
User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

Funily enough the last paragraph of your sentance only proved the point it was adressing...
By mentioning StrarCraft or being average.
Torrasque
Posts: 1022
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 23:55

Post by Torrasque »

NOiZE wrote:First i was against ghosted buildings as well, but it really works out well. And okay maybe we lost a bit of gameplay but i think it is worth it. I mean we lost tracking the scout and writing on the map where what building is. And IMO that's not Strategy, That's just doing something the game should do.. it's just extra time being used up. I find it actually a relief that i don't have to track my scout all the way to his death and quickly write on the map where what building is... it's just stupid, i realize now, it removes strategy from the game, because the time I'm writing on the map i can't be busy with my strategy. So Ghosted buildings is a good thing!! and yes i know i probably repeated myself a few times.
I agree (exept I was always for having ghosted building).
I prefere having my time improving my strategy, finding solution to problem, than following some plane. If you spend 30% of your time microing, it's 30% that you don't spend on doing your strategy. And it's applicable if you are a noob, or a skillfull player.

If you like microing, just play Starcraft (ok, it's just sarcastic)
Last edited by Torrasque on 27 Oct 2005, 13:58, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PauloMorfeo
Posts: 2004
Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53

Post by PauloMorfeo »

Storm wrote:... I tried to reason and bring long, advanced arguments to support my cause, but you know what? They were ignored, every single one of them. ...
I see, arguements. Funny thing cause i only remember one repeated over and over and over in diferent styles. And always the same one that, if aplied, would increase the need for micromanagment to, which, your answer has always been, «it's what destinguishes a good player from a not so good player». And you still talk about the game going the Starcraft way because of not folowing your sugestions... Pathetic! If that's the arguement your going to use everysingle time against memory of buildings, you're the one who should keep your mouth shut.
Storm wrote:... I'm like... the only oldschool left on these boards because the others left, ...
I guess. I thought zw and gnome, at least, were some oldschool TAers but i was probably wrong. How greatly pathetic of me to think such a thing.
sp2danny72 wrote:... Well, an picture says more than a thousand words; Look how sexy it could look:
...
I must say that i didn't really knew what your idea was about and only posted here to express my ideas against features (or lack of them) that would require more micro-managment.

Now that i've seen what you meant, i say it is a nice idea.
Still, i don't know if it should be implemented. It could become confusing in the minimap. In a TFT, i hardly see black dots in the minimap in some maps. Also, if it is added the possibility for more players, meaning more colours, at least some of them would be similar enough to make one hell of a mess in the minimap.
Also, it is somewhat redundant as seen buildings are already ghosted on the mainmap.
Again, i think it is a nice idea.
User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

see, arguements. Funny thing cause i only remember one repeated over and over and over in diferent styles.
That's called a point and the variations are different arguments for it.
And always the same one that, if aplied, would increase the need for micromanagment to, which, your answer has always been, «it's what destinguishes a good player from a not so good player».
It removes a chunk of the game, that's why I keep saying it. If someone would want to scrap the whole naval business in TA to make it easier, I assume even you would object. This is the same way I feel about this.
Pathetic! If that's the arguement your going to use everysingle time against memory of buildings, you're the one who should keep your mouth shut.
As if my opponent base is saying anything different than "It's logical to do" or "Remove some of the hassle", which, as I see it, are void arguments compared to the consequences.
I guess. I thought zw and gnome, at least, were some oldschool TAers but i was probably wrong. How greatly pathetic of me to think such a thing.
Note the word "like" and try to use it with the context. I never implied that I am the only one left, I'm one of those. We got some vets here... GZ and Floz playing their mods, zwz developing stuff and Gnome as a FU admin. And out of those, I blatantly assume that zwz is the only one to play actual Spring. You know, we had pretty many people on IRC that played Spring in the start... I doubt any of them is left.

I like how you clog up on petty phrasings and try to prove my point for me. :roll:
User avatar
sp2danny72
Posts: 60
Joined: 09 Jan 2005, 04:52

the score

Post by sp2danny72 »

ooo, now its 12-12. Its devided between for and against. So, lets make
it an option that the modmaker can turn off. Please SY? And while we´re
at it, lets make ghost buildings off-able too?

And, you STILL need to tag along the scout to get a full intel-readout
of the enemy, just knowing where the enemy base is if you werent
looking is not anywhere near as usefull as knowing what he is up to.
User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

I prefere having my time improving my strategy, finding solution to problem, than following some plane. If you spend 30% of your time microing, it's 30% that you don't spend on doing your strategy. And it's applicable if you are a noob, or a skillfull player.
Sorry for bringing up the same example again, but a good analogy to this is removing all water units from the game to get more time to spend on land.

(and Danny, Zoombie changed his vote, so it's technically 11-13 against)
User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Post by NOiZE »

Storm wrote:
I prefere having my time improving my strategy, finding solution to problem, than following some plane. If you spend 30% of your time microing, it's 30% that you don't spend on doing your strategy. And it's applicable if you are a noob, or a skillfull player.
Sorry for bringing up the same example again, but a good analogy to this is removing all water units from the game to get more time to spend on land.
Sorry but IMO that isn't a good example, ghosted building didn't removed that much really.. it removed babysitting your scout. TA was so good because u didn't had to babysit your units all the time, and now its even better as u don't need to baby sit your scouts any more...

Your argument of removing naval is weak to be honest.

Owh and u should really try spring sometime again, its a lot better now really it is..

And spring doesn't hav to be a complete copy of TA. It's has the feeling of TA but it plays a lot better imo, it's focused more on strategy, and no i do not play XTA..
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20687
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

SILENCE!!!!

Enough arguing over ghosted buildings and minimap bleeding thing, the bleeding thing ahsnt even been implemented, adn I've just coded and tested the switch to turn ghosted buildings on and off Now all that's needed is a switch in the lobby so one person doesnt have it turned on in a game where everyone else has it turned off.

So if you dont like it, turn it off!

And enough fo people praising eachother for joining their sides ro even pointing out ehy udnerstand the side.

I udnerstand storms aversion to ghosted buildings, but because I also udnerstand why other people like it I'm flamed. Aside from the usual fact that me + storm + flame = very firey discussion in most flames, this is getting out of hand and I havent even ahd my points coutnered, which is freaky even for me....

Storm glad to see you're back, but you all have the wrong approach to this, dotn pummel a feature some people want because there's an equal nubmer of people who dotn want it and both have good reasons for their opinion. Just implement a switch and turn it on/off if you dont want it.

Now I fail to see why there should be any arguing over a combination of a feature that can be turned off and a feature that doesnt exist yet.
User avatar
Weaver
Posts: 644
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 21:15

Post by Weaver »

Top job AF
User avatar
Gabba
Posts: 319
Joined: 08 Sep 2004, 22:59

Post by Gabba »

Alantai Firestar wrote:Now I fail to see why there should be any arguing over a combination of a feature that can be turned off and a feature that doesnt exist yet.
I promise not to argue if you also implement ghosted buildings appearing on the minimap as an option :-) .
User avatar
Zoombie
Posts: 6149
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 07:08

Post by Zoombie »

Weaver wrote:Top job AF
I agree. AF has a point. Lets stop arguning and start blowing the ever loving snot out of eachothers armys.
Vehementi
Posts: 67
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 23:27

Post by Vehementi »

I agree that having the option toggleable for everyone at once in the game lobby screen is the answer (though it'll cause some games to not start quickly, heh.) That being said, I want to chime in here:

Having ghost buildings is a UI feature on exactly the same level as having hotkeyed groups of units. I could make the exact same argument that Storm is making, but with hotkeyed units, and say that by allowing hotkey groups, you're taking away the aspect of the game where you need memory to know where your units are, skill and dexterity to select only the units you want and be able to order around multiple groups at once, etc.

Having buildings disappear from your vision is an artificial limitation that doesn't make sense in the game, just as taking away unit hotkey groups would be an artificial limitation. Doing either would surely increase the skill required to play the game. Similarly, I could suggest that we make it so that units don't automatically pathfind away from other units when something is coming their way, or you're trying to build something where those units are. You would be required to use more skill in placing your units and multitasking to move them out of the way while simultaneously managing the other aspects of the game.

Consider this: in order for your commander to D-gun, you should have to draw a star-shaped mouse gesture on your screen, while saying "D gun power activate!" into your microphone at a certain speed, all while holding down the control key. In this case, it would increase the skill required to shoot your enemies with your one-hit-kill gun when they come near.

All of these suggestions are on the same level: they make the game artificially more difficult to play. Removing ghosted buildings has nothing to do with gameplay or units auto targetting or the strength of defenses or the strategies you will use. It is something *outside* of gameplay, a user-interface hinderance that will simply increase the tedium in your game.

Storm argues that adding helpful interface things like that will make the game more like Starcraft. Ironically, the opposite is true: if you've ever played StarCraft or WarCraft 3, you know that the game is very, very heavily built around micro. At competitive levels, you need to be able to issue upwards of 180 orders per minute to your units during a battle or you will lose to an inferior sized force simply by them out-microing you. Blizzard has implemented stupid interface limitations to *promote* this - that is why you cannot select more than 12 units at a time, or shoot while moving, etc.

TA, unlike SC, is supposed to be about strategy and economy and battle tactics - not fighting the fucking interface to get your job done.
User avatar
SwiftSpear
Classic Community Lead
Posts: 7287
Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29

Post by SwiftSpear »

Storm wrote:
Funily enough the last paragraph of your sentance only proved the point it was adressing...
By mentioning StrarCraft or being average.
By mentioning starcraft. Starcraft requires some of the most micromanagement of any RTS ever. Units don't formation at all, they need to be run back all the time, most of them have special abilities that need to be manually controlled. If you are removing the nessisity of micromanagement in your RTS you are making it less like starcraft, not more like starcraft.

Starcraft is characterized by the koreans who compleate 200 some odd actions per minute to out micromanage thier opponents.
Vehementi
Posts: 67
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 23:27

Post by Vehementi »

Am I the only one that sees the retarded colour schemes at the beginning of certain people's messages?
Vehementi
Posts: 67
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 23:27

Post by Vehementi »

Storm wrote:
I prefere having my time improving my strategy, finding solution to problem, than following some plane. If you spend 30% of your time microing, it's 30% that you don't spend on doing your strategy. And it's applicable if you are a noob, or a skillfull player.
Sorry for bringing up the same example again, but a good analogy to this is removing all water units from the game to get more time to spend on land.

(and Danny, Zoombie changed his vote, so it's technically 11-13 against)
Your analogy is flawed. Having to watch your scout go through the base to his death is *micromanagement.* Having extra units (sea units in this case) has nothing to do with micromanagement.

Honestly, I can totally see where you're coming from, and I like the idea of pegging stuff on the map manually, but really it's just more micromanagement. Besides, the only thing that not watching your peeper fly through the base manually gets you is the positions of the static buildings in the base at that time. Someone that does only this is still going to get owned (intelligence-wise) by somebody who watches their peeper go through, noting positions of units, movements of armies, how many farks are patrolling which defenses, etc.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”