Spring RTS Engine

did u say stuff in TA was made of bricks u lie!! :p

This is a recruiting thread... somewhere in the middle...ish.... part... I said something about help... I think.

The difference between kbots and vehicles is: One can go up hills, one cannot. Anything else is cosmetic or reproducible without nonsense like walk animations.

"Go to school and learn to program"? Ok, I'll be back in 2 years then spend another year doing animations so my game can be pretty. Oh, or wait, I could just make the game and avoid using things that have no purpose other than coolness, and be done in half the time so you can enjoy another free game, if you can find the time.

Coolness can be made in other areas, and in ways that benefit gameplay.

By bricks I meant motionless, lifeless objects.

The scripting language isn't difficult. It takes a week or two to get used to it and there's even a pretty complete reference for the TA stuff thanks to Maestro. I mean how long have you been working with TA and Spring again?

rattle wrote:By bricks I meant motionless, lifeless objects.

The scripting language isn't difficult. It takes a week or two to get used to it and there's even a pretty complete reference for the TA stuff thanks to Maestro. I mean how long have you been working with TA and Spring again?

Extra complexity is extra maintenance. It's not that the scripting language is hard, but how long do you see guys tweaking their walk scripts to look good, and then having to go in and adjust them all over again once they change the unit's performance and the old walk script no longer looks good?

Easier to just have a driving brick, and not just in terms of effort, but mainly the time to implement and maintain. The cool mod you didnt' finish isn't as good as the decent one you did.

Caydr wrote:The difference between kbots and vehicles is: One can go up hills, one cannot. Anything else is cosmetic or reproducible without nonsense like walk animations.

Yes but how will you make it clear to the player which one is the unit type that can go up hills? In TA the legs were a dead giveaway that it's a kbot, what will your design be to show that?

Have you noticed it being a problem in Evolution? Notice that evolution has all of 1 path cost.


You guys make things much more complicated than it needs to be.

Forboding Angel wrote:Have you noticed it being a problem in Evolution? Notice that evolution has all of 1 path cost.

Which is very bad- major pathing issues arise when a unit's real footprint is different from the footprint in its move type.

Forboding Angel wrote:Have you noticed it being a problem in Evolution? Notice that evolution has all of 1 path cost.


You guys make things much more complicated than it needs to be.

Walk/Drive (kbot/vehicle, infantry/tank) differentiation makes for a different gameplay mechanic than no differentiation. Neither is superior, of course. While Caydr's project goals are a bit hazy at this point, one thing I took away from his original post was that he wants recreate the essential gameplay mechanics of TA. In order to do this, walk/drive differentiation is necessary; the kbot/vehicle divide was one of the defining aspects of TA's gameplay.

Just because it works with your mod doesn't mean that it works with all mods. S44 would be silly with only one path cost. So would any *A mod.

It's not hard to visually represent "this unit is different from this other unit". Maybe put hugeass spikes on the treads or something. I don't know, and it doesn't really matter, it's just a visual indicator.

Excuses.

Seriously, it can be very little effort for a big gain.
A bit more effort and PROFIT!

Which is very bad- major pathing issues arise when a unit's real footprint is different from the footprint in its move type.

Correct.

lawl bricks. Cool other people noticed this besides me.

Oh my. Dont get too techy or argue that KBOTs on wheels aren't TA enough. I played AA a lot and I dont doubt Caydr's ability to come up with some nice gameplay that reminds one of TA but is something entirely new.

How about less chitchat and more recruiting?

my 2 cents

child wrote:Oh my. Dont get too techy or argue that KBOTs on wheels aren't TA enough. I played AA a lot and I dont doubt Caydr's ability to come up with some nice gameplay that reminds one of TA but is something entirely new.

How about less chitchat and more recruiting?

my 2 cents

let the caydr-worshipping begin!

Felix the Cat wrote:let the caydr-worshipping begin!

*sigh*

Silence heretic! Our lord Caydr will smite....

...oh... he was being ironic.

We need a smiley with a little monk's hood.

In my opinion, there must be some sort of unit differentiation like air vs. sea vs. land. However, kbot vs. vehicles is a totally different gameplay element that would definitely be reminiscent of TA, especially if it was called kbots and vehicles. Supcom seems to do pretty well with its single land factory, but its a little bit different with all its tech levels. There is also the idea of differentiation based on armor class or weapon class separate of locomotion type or tech level such as heavy unit factory or AA factory.

Differentiation is for noobs.

rattle wrote:Differentiation is for noobs.

Yea, I agree. Once you know the game differentiation is not needed as much. But the point is everyone is going to be a noob at a new game at some stage so wouldn't it be nice if it was easier to learn.

im willling to help model if you need somebody to help you do that .