Reviving the request list
Moderator: Moderators
-
Syffer Bidan
- Posts: 31
- Joined: 21 Jan 2005, 01:01
Request List Redeux
aGorm wrote:
One thing, I think the Mini Map should never be got rid of. Blips on main screen should not replace the mini map. with no mini map you would lose your orientation realy quickly!
I completely agree. I re-read what I wrote, and that was a typo on my part (I will change that right after this post). I never meant to suggest getting rid of the mini-map. It should read:
If we are to keep radar blips, it should be a server option, so that the admin, or server creator, can select the option to have radar blips appear on the battle field and the mini-map, or just the mini-map.
Insignias:
Alantai suggested that players should be able to upload custom insignias onto their units in conjunction with the ARM and CORE symbols. Sure, why the Hell not?
Boundries:
Alantai Firestar wrote:
No line is needed to mark the boundary[...]
When I referred to those lines earlier, I implied that the line would appear in the unit's field of vision. Imagine that a Peewee has an invisible circle around it, and anything that passes into the circle is within its sight range. The boundry line would remain invisible until the Peewee walked towards it, where only a small piece of the invisible line enters the Peewee's sight circle. The small piece of line within the sight circle would be visible to indicate the boundry. This line would be X color, and would be transluscent (see-through, basically).
The reason I suggested the line is for asthetic reasons. It just seems professional--at least in my opinion.
Sky Textures:
Again, another good one from Alantai.
I agree: if on Barathum, the lava planet, when I look up, I damn well expect to see a dark grey, cloud-filled sky that appears ominous and threatening due to the molten ash in the atmosphere. When on Emparyon, the forst planet, when I look up into the sky, I had better see a nice, comforting blue sky dotted with white clouds. When on Core Prime, the metal world, when I look into the sky, I had better see a stary night sky due to a lack of atmosphere.
Good idea, Alantai.
Dust:
I think it would be graphically neat to have some dust (an arid atmosphere) and particle effects floating around in the air on desert themed maps (a la Dust 1 and 2 in Counter-Strike: Source).
Concerning Radar Blips:
Alantai Firestar wrote:
If it's airborne[,] then it should be laying flat in [the] horizontal plane[,] but in the sky with a dropdown line to the ground.
See aGorm, I pick on everyone equally ~__^ (I suck, I know)
This is a good idea--granted--but is this in violation of what we previously requested? We requested that radar blips not reveal the sort of unit the blip represents. If the blip is in the sky, it is obviously an aircraft.
So, I take it that we are okay with devulging radar blips by air elevation? It makes sense; I am just double-checking.
One thing, I think the Mini Map should never be got rid of. Blips on main screen should not replace the mini map. with no mini map you would lose your orientation realy quickly!
I completely agree. I re-read what I wrote, and that was a typo on my part (I will change that right after this post). I never meant to suggest getting rid of the mini-map. It should read:
If we are to keep radar blips, it should be a server option, so that the admin, or server creator, can select the option to have radar blips appear on the battle field and the mini-map, or just the mini-map.
Insignias:
Alantai suggested that players should be able to upload custom insignias onto their units in conjunction with the ARM and CORE symbols. Sure, why the Hell not?
Boundries:
Alantai Firestar wrote:
No line is needed to mark the boundary[...]
When I referred to those lines earlier, I implied that the line would appear in the unit's field of vision. Imagine that a Peewee has an invisible circle around it, and anything that passes into the circle is within its sight range. The boundry line would remain invisible until the Peewee walked towards it, where only a small piece of the invisible line enters the Peewee's sight circle. The small piece of line within the sight circle would be visible to indicate the boundry. This line would be X color, and would be transluscent (see-through, basically).
The reason I suggested the line is for asthetic reasons. It just seems professional--at least in my opinion.
Sky Textures:
Again, another good one from Alantai.
I agree: if on Barathum, the lava planet, when I look up, I damn well expect to see a dark grey, cloud-filled sky that appears ominous and threatening due to the molten ash in the atmosphere. When on Emparyon, the forst planet, when I look up into the sky, I had better see a nice, comforting blue sky dotted with white clouds. When on Core Prime, the metal world, when I look into the sky, I had better see a stary night sky due to a lack of atmosphere.
Good idea, Alantai.
Dust:
I think it would be graphically neat to have some dust (an arid atmosphere) and particle effects floating around in the air on desert themed maps (a la Dust 1 and 2 in Counter-Strike: Source).
Concerning Radar Blips:
Alantai Firestar wrote:
If it's airborne[,] then it should be laying flat in [the] horizontal plane[,] but in the sky with a dropdown line to the ground.
See aGorm, I pick on everyone equally ~__^ (I suck, I know)
This is a good idea--granted--but is this in violation of what we previously requested? We requested that radar blips not reveal the sort of unit the blip represents. If the blip is in the sky, it is obviously an aircraft.
So, I take it that we are okay with devulging radar blips by air elevation? It makes sense; I am just double-checking.
-
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15
If you put a standard mex on a deposit it will provide metal, if you put another on the same deposit it will do nothing, but if you put a moho mex on the same deposit it will "override" the regular mex and produce metal for you.Thanks for the clarification, Napalm, but I am still confused. Is a deposit under-ground? That makes sense--yes--but does that mean that several extractors can go on one deposit? That seems a bit off.
And please, for further reference the names Das Bruce.
And another thing on radar, could we have it so that non seen/radared ground is textureless and black, but if its under radar cover have it with a grid so we can see the general lay of the land but not any features.
Not exactly, it could be a flying roach/crawling bomb, a peeweee near a nuke explosion, a hovering unit or a peeweee standing on a cliff that hasnt been seen yet (though if I'm corect the way spring works doesnt allow that atm), Also the fact that the only thing it tells us is that it's airborne is another thing, we dont know if it will stay airborne till we've watched it and we dont know what type of unit it is just that it's in the air.This is a good idea--granted--but is this in violation of what we previously requested? We requested that radar blips not reveal the sort of unit the blip represents. If the blip is in the sky, it is obviously an aircraft.
So, I take it that we are okay with devulging radar blips by air elevation? It makes sense; I am just double-checking.
hehe I'm gonna start using all ground units and get you all revved up for a horde of mavericks then suddenly build hundreds of peepers beyond your los and pretend they're hawks
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
For the most part, it was fairly obvious which blips represented aircraft in OTA. Any seasoned TA player could pick out an aircraft, simply by the fact that they are the fastest units, have super turn rates, and have direct-line pathfinding, not having to trundle about making corrections for terrain obstructions.
I don't think the lines are really giving away too much, if only for aircraft.
However, one must wonder whether the same line is applied for other units, such as hovercraft (slightly above the ground), and submarines (a line extending below the water). In my opinion, that is too much information.
I don't think the lines are really giving away too much, if only for aircraft.
However, one must wonder whether the same line is applied for other units, such as hovercraft (slightly above the ground), and submarines (a line extending below the water). In my opinion, that is too much information.
Oh yes, We only ment for aircraft, not for hover units and subs. Like it has been said you can tell the aircraft anyway on the mini map, the lines were more so you could tell where the dot actully is, as youd never be able to tell unless you went to the mini map. And you then might get the rong dot...
aGorm
aGorm
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Re: Syffer's Request
I don't understand what you mean by that. Like aGorm, i still don't see what the blips and the FOW have to do with each other...Syffer Bidan wrote:... fog of war ... makes radar blips obsolete, as both the fog of war and the radar blips would appear via the mini-map.
As for it beeing an option, it makes more sence for it to be a client option. Each player deciding if it want's to see them or not.
It wouldn't make much sence to have the blips on the mini-map but not on the map, unless the client chooses. If it was a server option, it would be trivial to cheat.
Actually I think hovercraft should be represented int eh same way as ships and ground units, exept for amphibious untis and subs, I think that this should be a setting as to wether they show up or not since some mods have extensive underwater stuff and some dont so really how much information you get depends on what you see as too much information
Besides nowadays you have no idea if it's a sub or a building or a hidden commander or even a mass of seaplanes, hehe Im gonna send a loada sonar planes to attack your fleet and pretend they're warlords and leviathans
Besides nowadays you have no idea if it's a sub or a building or a hidden commander or even a mass of seaplanes, hehe Im gonna send a loada sonar planes to attack your fleet and pretend they're warlords and leviathans
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
In the O.TA, you could distinguish aircrafts by trying to target them with some ground only units (only in the 1st patch i think...).
However, submarines get distinguished very easily. Just try to target them in the minimap with a missile tower or something.
Also, submarines do not get discovered by radar. Instead they are discovered by sonar.
It is senseless not to be able to distinguish subs. They are like airplanes only that instead of going higher, they go deeper. Also, they are beeing discovered by a diferent equipment and technology.
By all of that, the blips (or whatever substitutes them), can/should distinguish the unit depth, at least.
The Hovercrafts, they look like they are not in contact with the ground in the graphics engine, but that should not be...
Hovercrafts drag over the floor or water and so they should not have they're height distinguished. They are, suposedly, in contact with the ground or water.
I think, so.
However, submarines get distinguished very easily. Just try to target them in the minimap with a missile tower or something.
Also, submarines do not get discovered by radar. Instead they are discovered by sonar.
It is senseless not to be able to distinguish subs. They are like airplanes only that instead of going higher, they go deeper. Also, they are beeing discovered by a diferent equipment and technology.
By all of that, the blips (or whatever substitutes them), can/should distinguish the unit depth, at least.
The Hovercrafts, they look like they are not in contact with the ground in the graphics engine, but that should not be...
Hovercrafts drag over the floor or water and so they should not have they're height distinguished. They are, suposedly, in contact with the ground or water.
I think, so.
Unexplored ground in black with a grid = OK. (If unexplored ground is ever implemented)[K.B.] Napalm Cobra wrote: And another thing on radar, could we have it so that non seen/radared ground is textureless and black, but if its under radar cover have it with a grid so we can see the general lay of the land but not any features.
For already explored ground that is in fog of war, I would prefer having it display normally, but a grid over it, instead of covering it with fog. I hate visual fog effects in 3d rts games, they make you get lost and you can't see the beautiful map or plan your moves well in the 3d view. At least, if you put fog graphics in, make the fog very transparent so we can still see the ground well.
Radar blips: they are great, but yes flattening them would be a good idea.
In TA planes can fly out of the map. I guess it's the same in Spring: planes needs to go out of map for thier bombing run when targetting structures near the edeg. And it wouldn't look good having planes pass through a wall surrounding the map.Sean Mirrsen wrote:I've just had a... rather stupid idea.
It's mostly inspired by the recent remake of an old classic, Battle City.
In the remake, the little tanks are shown as inside a big box that lies on a table. Maybe that's what could be done to TA in Spring... make a Toy TA...
At least, that's my only idea so far on map boundaries. At least the only one suitable for all types of maps.
-
Syffer Bidan
- Posts: 31
- Joined: 21 Jan 2005, 01:01
Request List, Redeux
Radar Blips:
As for the blips themselves: the blips do need new asthetics. It is odd that they are 3D and cast reflections in the water and shadows on land. Radar blips should be 2D, and should conform to the contour of the land beneath them, as if someone were shinning a light there (the blip being the color of the army it belongs to).
Alantai Firestar has also submitted a good opinion, to replace the blips with faction insignias. Either way, they should be 2D and conform to the contour of the land. 3D blips are awkward.
As for the lines: personally, I could do without them. Yes, as stated, aircraft were easy to pick out, as were submerged targets (when your mouse goes over them, it reads "Unidentified Object").
If we have the lines, we would have to have them for aircraft, hovercrafts, and submarines. It does not make sense to have a line into the sky for an aircraft, but have no line under the surface of the water for a submarine.
Also, we need to take into account height in general. Airplanes can actual change altitude in the middle of a dogfight. The lines would have to extend to accurately portray the height information as the unidentified aircraft increases or decreases altitude. This makes sense so far, yes?
If the lines are to change depending on height or land elevation, then submarines would require that they too have a line drawn down towards their position. Besides, as stated, it is not hard to figure out that a target is submerged.
Also, what about Commanders and amphibious tanks and K-bots? When they approach land, their elevation increases, so it would only make sense that a line be drawn to them as well. This too makes sense, yes?
Using the same logic, hovercrafts would require the lines, for if they had no elevation line, it would seem illogical, as every other unit off the ground or beneath the water has one. Asthetics is very improtant in most videogames.
So, taking all of this into account, if we were to implement lines on elevated units, it would easily devulge what sort of unit they are. Does anyone have a problem with that, or should we scratch the line system because it devulges too much?
Fog of War:
Condition Effects:
As brilliantly stated in another topic, adverse weather effects should effect unit movement and sight.
Land Deformation:
As Alantai Firestar posted in another topic, units should leave temporary tracks in the sand or in snow. In forest maps, grass should be trampled. On CORE Prime... well, good luck tracking armies without radar.
I agree as I stated earlier:Gabba wrote:Radar blips: they are great, but yes flattening them would be a good idea.
As for the blips themselves: the blips do need new asthetics. It is odd that they are 3D and cast reflections in the water and shadows on land. Radar blips should be 2D, and should conform to the contour of the land beneath them, as if someone were shinning a light there (the blip being the color of the army it belongs to).
Alantai Firestar has also submitted a good opinion, to replace the blips with faction insignias. Either way, they should be 2D and conform to the contour of the land. 3D blips are awkward.
As for the lines: personally, I could do without them. Yes, as stated, aircraft were easy to pick out, as were submerged targets (when your mouse goes over them, it reads "Unidentified Object").
If we have the lines, we would have to have them for aircraft, hovercrafts, and submarines. It does not make sense to have a line into the sky for an aircraft, but have no line under the surface of the water for a submarine.
Also, we need to take into account height in general. Airplanes can actual change altitude in the middle of a dogfight. The lines would have to extend to accurately portray the height information as the unidentified aircraft increases or decreases altitude. This makes sense so far, yes?
If the lines are to change depending on height or land elevation, then submarines would require that they too have a line drawn down towards their position. Besides, as stated, it is not hard to figure out that a target is submerged.
Also, what about Commanders and amphibious tanks and K-bots? When they approach land, their elevation increases, so it would only make sense that a line be drawn to them as well. This too makes sense, yes?
Using the same logic, hovercrafts would require the lines, for if they had no elevation line, it would seem illogical, as every other unit off the ground or beneath the water has one. Asthetics is very improtant in most videogames.
So, taking all of this into account, if we were to implement lines on elevated units, it would easily devulge what sort of unit they are. Does anyone have a problem with that, or should we scratch the line system because it devulges too much?
Fog of War:
Yes, it safe to assume that we all agree that fog should be transluscent, so that it does not hinder the player's view of the map.Gabba wrote:At least, if you put fog graphics in, make the fog very transparent so we can still see the ground well.
Condition Effects:
As brilliantly stated in another topic, adverse weather effects should effect unit movement and sight.
Land Deformation:
As Alantai Firestar posted in another topic, units should leave temporary tracks in the sand or in snow. In forest maps, grass should be trampled. On CORE Prime... well, good luck tracking armies without radar.
-
sparkyhodgo
- Posts: 128
- Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 19:05
I've updated the list again.
I still don't know about dynamic lighting. I heard first that there wasn't any, then that there might be. I must say I would love to see it. That way blue lasers could light up the units, and a nuclear blast could light up the terrain like lightning. And in theory it would let you do a day/night cycle, too, which many of us have drooled at the thought of for years. MMMmmm... headlights at night.
I still don't know about dynamic lighting. I heard first that there wasn't any, then that there might be. I must say I would love to see it. That way blue lasers could light up the units, and a nuclear blast could light up the terrain like lightning. And in theory it would let you do a day/night cycle, too, which many of us have drooled at the thought of for years. MMMmmm... headlights at night.
-
Doomweaver
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
With the previous sky discussion in context to my weather suggestion, one wouldn't just need to have different skies for different maps, but have the sky variating in-game to reflect different weather conditions. You can't exactly have a blue sky while it is raining...
I think the footprints would be cool, but would be very hard to implement... It would also likely add to CPU calculations, based on the fact that it doesn't just have to remember 50 units on screen at once, render them and calculate where they are going, it also has to remember the path they came from and render footprints/treads...
There may be an easier way around the problem in Spring (such as having units deposit features as they move, which expire after a certain time limit), but it probably isn't worth it.
Even today many professionally made high-quality games don't bother with footprints...
However, I definitely would like to see units kick up dust when travelling in dusty (mars/moon/desert/etc) conditions. Not only because its a cool effect, but because it would impact on gameplay as well...
I think the footprints would be cool, but would be very hard to implement... It would also likely add to CPU calculations, based on the fact that it doesn't just have to remember 50 units on screen at once, render them and calculate where they are going, it also has to remember the path they came from and render footprints/treads...
There may be an easier way around the problem in Spring (such as having units deposit features as they move, which expire after a certain time limit), but it probably isn't worth it.
Even today many professionally made high-quality games don't bother with footprints...
However, I definitely would like to see units kick up dust when travelling in dusty (mars/moon/desert/etc) conditions. Not only because its a cool effect, but because it would impact on gameplay as well...
Footprints and tank tracks:
In the NUF I think that footprints should be set by scripting thus different shapes and more accuracy. The footprint would be inn the form of terrain deformation follwed by terrain restoration or possibly if that is too much just terrain deformation which I believe can be done atm by adding a weapon under the feet that fires when the foot is put down leaving a shallow imprint, which can be scripted. Possibly for snow worlds the weapon could char the surface in a way that makes it appear more apparent, I mean snow does look greyer when you step on it, or maybe shadows will solve that I'd have to try it out.
As for units kicking up dust why not generalise this so that units can create engine effects that're defined such as when a unit places its foot down the script can generate a footprint effect at that location or a dust particle effect of so great a size. Could be useful to create weather machines aswell or effect any existing weather patterns if weather is implemented
Lines and radar blips:
Units could be scripted to show lines or not in the NUF, but untill then Units would show lines when they move out of a buffer zone between them and the ground:
If (($unitheight - $ terrain height) >= 10){
//showline
}
maybe adjust the 10 more but otherwise this would mean ships kbots vehicles and hovercraft dont have lines unless catapulted in the air or jump for some reason. And I think that other than location and height, anythign more is just too much
In the NUF I think that footprints should be set by scripting thus different shapes and more accuracy. The footprint would be inn the form of terrain deformation follwed by terrain restoration or possibly if that is too much just terrain deformation which I believe can be done atm by adding a weapon under the feet that fires when the foot is put down leaving a shallow imprint, which can be scripted. Possibly for snow worlds the weapon could char the surface in a way that makes it appear more apparent, I mean snow does look greyer when you step on it, or maybe shadows will solve that I'd have to try it out.
As for units kicking up dust why not generalise this so that units can create engine effects that're defined such as when a unit places its foot down the script can generate a footprint effect at that location or a dust particle effect of so great a size. Could be useful to create weather machines aswell or effect any existing weather patterns if weather is implemented
Lines and radar blips:
Units could be scripted to show lines or not in the NUF, but untill then Units would show lines when they move out of a buffer zone between them and the ground:
If (($unitheight - $ terrain height) >= 10){
//showline
}
maybe adjust the 10 more but otherwise this would mean ships kbots vehicles and hovercraft dont have lines unless catapulted in the air or jump for some reason. And I think that other than location and height, anythign more is just too much
-
Syffer Bidan
- Posts: 31
- Joined: 21 Jan 2005, 01:01
Request List, Redeux
Radar Blips:
It appears as if the subject has been settled. Units that shift elevation will display a line between them and the surface--be it water or land.
Dust:
I agree whole-heartedly with Warlord Zsinj: when units move, dust should stir. On moon-based maps, the dust should stay in the air for quite a while unit it settles.
Tracks:
Again, Zsinj makes a good point: it may be too hard to implement tracks. The problem I have with Alantai's proposal is the fact that, if movement permanently scarred the terrain, constant treading over a small area--say a routine patrol, for instance--could create problems. The land would become awkwardly bumpy, and units that walk around in circles would create quite hideous marks in the ground, which defeats the purpose of having tracks--asthetic beauty.
Another problem is the fact that, no matter how shallow the track, the Spring engine may not be able to form footprints. When a missile comes into contact with the ground, a shallow hole is made. The engine lowers the elevation of the impact sight slightly. The diameters of these holes are about as wide as standard units. The engine might not be able to make smaller diameters for the holes, let alone actual square-based footprints... or tank tread marks for that matter.
It appears as if the subject has been settled. Units that shift elevation will display a line between them and the surface--be it water or land.
Dust:
I agree whole-heartedly with Warlord Zsinj: when units move, dust should stir. On moon-based maps, the dust should stay in the air for quite a while unit it settles.
Tracks:
Again, Zsinj makes a good point: it may be too hard to implement tracks. The problem I have with Alantai's proposal is the fact that, if movement permanently scarred the terrain, constant treading over a small area--say a routine patrol, for instance--could create problems. The land would become awkwardly bumpy, and units that walk around in circles would create quite hideous marks in the ground, which defeats the purpose of having tracks--asthetic beauty.
Another problem is the fact that, no matter how shallow the track, the Spring engine may not be able to form footprints. When a missile comes into contact with the ground, a shallow hole is made. The engine lowers the elevation of the impact sight slightly. The diameters of these holes are about as wide as standard units. The engine might not be able to make smaller diameters for the holes, let alone actual square-based footprints... or tank tread marks for that matter.
Or through soem trickery of unit scrpting perhaps the tracks are a part fo the unit itself that the unit leaves behind scripting the imprinting and then slow fading away fo tracks, in whichc ase tracks wouldeb unit cdependant and would leave the fact that they would always be present regardless of what type of terrain it is. Also there isnt a way fo varyign the tiem ti takes for tracks to dissapear so a moving unti will ahve a trail of tracks thats predictable and unrealistic
