Spring RTS Engine

CarRepairer wrote:

el_matarife wrote:Not for a unit that used to be called "Chainsaw medium range ANTI BOMBER turret".

Not following you.. is the chainsaw for fighting against air?

I'm pretty sure I remember it shooting ground a few years ago. I hope it's still the awesome defensive unit it was then.

el_matarife wrote:

imbaczek wrote:special damages are evil, though. they're counter-intuitive.

Not for a unit that used to be called "Chainsaw medium range ANTI BOMBER turret". Seriously, all this aversion to special damage is nuts. Special damage is fine as long as you just document what units are countered by a unit in the description.

I agree with this guy. There's nothing wrong with special damages as long as it makes the unit worth using. Sure, sometimes they don't always make sense, but hell, TA isn't based on real life.

If it was, then in year 8746 (or whenever) the aircraft wouldn't move at the speed of propeller jets.

If giving Chainsaws and Pack0s special damage will improve the game, then I'm all for it.

Wing

Yeah chainsaw special damages v bombers and pack special damages v gunships could work out. Just dont make them completely single-purpose. If their "normal" damage stays at current level and they get say double-triple the damage v. their designated targets, they may even be useful. They have been costly noobtraps ever since i was playing, it would be nice to make em a niche.

I don't get it. Why pack0 special damage v gunships? I mean, isn't that what flakkers are for? Meanwhile, the pack0/SAM are hardened ones, and so are intended for front-line installations where you expect them to take a beating from a variety of sources. Do you mean that they're meant for fighting L1 gunships? If so, that's a pretty damned tight niche.

Either way, I think the Chainsaw/Erad should be buffed with the goal of making it able to effectively take down large, hardened aircraft like L2 bombers and Krows, whereas the flakker is for hordes of smaller aircraft.

yeah i was just carried away with that train of thought

thanks a lot for all the effort!

I have a few suggestions for balanced annhilation.

First, the team colors. everyone on the same team should have the same color. or shades of the same color or either a dark color or a light color.

Two, unit tracks: the same way gps tracks work. especially for enemy units. I think that would look cool. especially if you could have the computer guess the position of enemy units based last known position and speed.

CarRepairer wrote:

el_matarife wrote:Not for a unit that used to be called "Chainsaw medium range ANTI BOMBER turret".

Not following you.. is the chainsaw for fighting against air?

lmao I wonder about that as well sometimes...

Really now, the fundamental way the Chainsaw works could be changed to make it more effective (more aoe? weapontype? etc I have no idea which would work).

I imagine giving it "smart" missiles using lua. That is, instead of bursting on one target, it would fire missiles with high damage that, after killing target 1, would automatically attack target 2 and so on instead of being "wasted" after attacking 1 target. (I have a few ideas in mind for how to make this work, might attempt after midterms)

zerox_a wrote:First, the team colors. everyone on the same team should have the same color. or shades of the same color or either a dark color or a light color.

There's an alternative teamcolors.lua you can put in your spring folder to get that, it's outside the scope of a mod though.

KDR_11k wrote:

zerox_a wrote:First, the team colors. everyone on the same team should have the same color. or shades of the same color or either a dark color or a light color.

There's an alternative teamcolors.lua you can put in your spring folder to get that, it's outside the scope of a mod though.

Not exactly - it could be included by default.

Truthfully though, this problem is better solved in the lobbies. It would be neat if the host could easily configure a "team color" for one team that automatically shaded them (eg "warm colors" team vs "cool colors" team).

YokoZar wrote:

KDR_11k wrote:

zerox_a wrote:First, the team colors. everyone on the same team should have the same color. or shades of the same color or either a dark color or a light color.

There's an alternative teamcolors.lua you can put in your spring folder to get that, it's outside the scope of a mod though.

Not exactly - it could be included by default.

Truthfully though, this problem is better solved in the lobbies. It would be neat if the host could easily configure a "team color" for one team that automatically shaded them (eg "warm colors" team vs "cool colors" team).

Not a bad idea.

bad idea, it will be fucking hard to compare the colors then... would look too similar

TradeMark wrote:bad idea, it will be fucking hard to compare the colors then... would look too similar

Do the same thing it does already with fixcolors, but just make sure that one group gets one half of the spectrum and the other group gets the other half. Don't tint the colours, just change how the colours are assigned.

protip:
autohost--> !fixcolours
person hosting--> dont join retard hosts

voila, fixed colours

TradeMark wrote:bad idea, it will be fucking hard to compare the colors then... would look too similar

Preset colors can be easier to compare then individual set colors, and setting them manually is needlessly tedious.

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:protip:
autohost--> !fixcolours
person hosting--> dont join retard hosts

voila, fixed colours

Autohost fixed colors isn't very smart and doesn't really map to the human eye. for instance there's a wide range of "reddish" colors but a relatively narrow range of "yellow" colors.


More importantly, a team-based setting can easily give a unifying theme to the team. "Warm colors" team could be red, orange, yellow, pink, and white, while "cool colors" team could be green, blue, turquoise, purple, and black. All of these colors are easy to tell apart (often easier than !fixcolors gives), and they make some amount of intuitive sense

yeah... but i dont want my allies are all different lightness of blue etc. hard to know which unit belongs to who

TradeMark wrote:yeah... but i dont want my allies are all different lightness of blue etc. hard to know which unit belongs to who

So you don't want two allies that are blue and turquoise, but you're fine with one ally that's blue and one enemy that's turqoise? That's even worse! At least if you mix up one ally with another you're still assuming it's an ally, unlike the latter scenario of assuming an enemy blip is an ally.

in other news, how about reducing pw/ak e-costs? -)

CarRepairer wrote:

TradeMark wrote:yeah... but i dont want my allies are all different lightness of blue etc. hard to know which unit belongs to who

So you don't want two allies that are blue and turquoise, but you're fine with one ally that's blue and one enemy that's turqoise? That's even worse! At least if you mix up one ally with another you're still assuming it's an ally, unlike the latter scenario of assuming an enemy blip is an ally.

yeah, i already suggested year ago that enemies should be shown as triangles in the minimap, but they just added uniticons after my suggestion >_> Triangles would fix every problem...

TradeMark wrote:

CarRepairer wrote:

TradeMark wrote:yeah... but i dont want my allies are all different lightness of blue etc. hard to know which unit belongs to who

So you don't want two allies that are blue and turquoise, but you're fine with one ally that's blue and one enemy that's turqoise? That's even worse! At least if you mix up one ally with another you're still assuming it's an ally, unlike the latter scenario of assuming an enemy blip is an ally.

yeah, i already suggested year ago that enemies should be shown as triangles in the minimap, but they just added uniticons after my suggestion >_> Triangles would fix every problem...

Unless they're not on the minimap but in view of the screen. Sometimes you need to know which red player is winning the battle