Spring RTS Engine

JohannesH wrote:

Licho wrote:Build order is not a choice..
its map specific ruitine..

What the hell, if your build order is not a choice what is then??

On a CA map, you have a choice - you can play it safe and build solars, or you can be daring and build winds... or you can even go out of your way to find high-elevation and make those winds that much more powerful.

On BA/DSD, you don't have a choice. You build solars. Winds are just a noobtrap on that map.

So, given the two game-design options:
a) Two viable choices on every map
b) Some maps have a hidden noobtrap and only one viable choice
You're seriously arguing that (b) is better?

I mean, it's fine for BA. BA is a whole game made out of noobtraps. But not for CA, where the game is supposed to be clear and accessible, and has a minimal number of "useless" units.

If you're going to be abolishing map-based gameplay variation, why not go all the way and turn the heightmap into a single flat plane at the start of the game?

Pxtl wrote:So, given the two game-design options:
a) Two viable choices on every map
b) Some maps have a hidden noobtrap and only one viable choice
You're seriously arguing that (b) is better?

/thread

Pxtl wrote:

JohannesH wrote:

Licho wrote:Build order is not a choice..
its map specific ruitine..

What the hell, if your build order is not a choice what is then??

On a CA map, you have a choice - you can play it safe and build solars, or you can be daring and build winds... or you can even go out of your way to find high-elevation and make those winds that much more powerful.

On BA/DSD, you don't have a choice. You build solars. Winds are just a noobtrap on that map.

So, given the two game-design options:
a) Two viable choices on every map
b) Some maps have a hidden noobtrap and only one viable choice
You're seriously arguing that (b) is better?

I mean, it's fine for BA. BA is a whole game made out of noobtraps. But not for CA, where the game is supposed to be clear and accessible, and has a minimal number of "useless" units.

Thing is that with map winds you get a lot more veriety in how you start...Not on a single map but as a whole the veriety is higher...
On some maps u can play both wind and solar on some only solar and on some only wind.
It is true that knowing where there is an isn't wind is confusing but that's cause of a lack of a proper ui or lua to show it in some accessible way.

At what point did I propose BA DSD as a model example, or even a relevant comparison?

Play some XTA 1v1s on Titan Duel, or Altair, or Barren...
All have different balances of wind/solar/geo/trees. I won't bring up tidals in puddles or anything like that, I guess that's way too much for our players, if variable wind is a noob trap.

Unless I am mistaken, wind having a potential of 0 production is something totally lost in the current model?

I dislike wind altitude bonus, it just seems super contrived and counter intuitive, also there are a few maps I can think of where X player starts on high ground vs Y player who just gets arbitrarily gimped eco.

Map specific build orders= looking at terrain and reacting appropriately. If you don't want terrain to influence gameplay... you are developing for the wrong engine.

JohannesH wrote:

Licho wrote:Build order is not a choice..
its map specific ruitine..

What the hell, if your build order is not a choice what is then??

Build order in this context means predefined build order.
Like various start builds - 3 mexes, 3 solars, factory .. etc..
Pintle said that buildorder differs in XTA depending on maps.

But its still a build order - for given map you got some genarally good build order - like you build 3 solars and then winds.

Ideally there is no build order at all and you can select whatever you want based on your strategy. But for this to work, tradeofs must be selected and balanced carefully.

Variable wind can make wind even 10x better or worse. This makes one energy option invalid on some maps or leads to map specific build orders.

Just like a map covered in water, or seperated by steep slopes, or full of choke points would dictate which units you use, and which lab you build, indeed it would also dictate your expansion and aggression strategies...

Most CA devs believe, it should not dictate it..

ther eis no point maintaing 4 sets of units and dividng maps into 4 groups where each is played with different set of units..

We are trying to make most units viable on most maps - like kbots on comet etc..

Licho wrote:Most CA devs believe, it should not dictate it..

ther eis no point maintaing 4 sets of units and dividng maps into 4 groups where each is played with different set of units..

We are trying to make most units viable on most maps - like kbots on comet etc..

So what factors should influence your choices? Nothing but RPS counters and the disposition of your opponent? :<

Peet wrote:If you're going to be abolishing map-based gameplay variation, why not go all the way and turn the heightmap into a single flat plane at the start of the game?

Something similar has been suggested. At least Saktoth likes the idea.

pintle wrote:Map specific build orders= looking at terrain and reacting appropriately. If you don't want terrain to influence gameplay... you are developing for the wrong engine.

pintle wrote:I dislike wind altitude bonus, it just seems super contrived and counter intuitive

o_O

What?

looking at terrain and acting appropriately = what CA has. Wind is better at higher altitudes, and its easy to find what terrain is higher, and it is a good strategy to secure higher ground and use it for windmills. And how is that unintuitive? Wind is stronger at higher altitudes. It happens that way in real life ffs.

Terrain isn't influencing the BA or other *A economy at all. Its all about the "i" button. If wind average is less then 10, build solar. If its greater, build windmills. How can you all call that variety in gameplay?

pintle wrote:I won't bring up tidals in puddles or anything like that, I guess that's way too much for our players, if variable wind is a noob trap.

And don't patronize us, before terraform was nerfed it was not uncommon to see people terraforming puddles purely for tidals.

luckywaldo7 wrote:Terrain isn't influencing the BA or other *A economy at all. Its all about the "i" button. If wind average is less then 10, build solar. If its greater, build windmills. How can you all call that variety in gameplay?

I wouldnt call that variety in gameplay, but thats not how economy in *A mods is.

pintle wrote:Map dependant wind is cool. The combination of available space, variable wind values, ease of defence/raiding, and available metal (desirability of solars) make the growth/harassment of an early/mid game economy much richer and more dynamic in B S and XT-A than the vast majority of contemporary RTS.

Wouldn't the economy be a lot less rich for a low wind map?

pintle wrote:

Licho wrote:Most CA devs believe, it should not dictate it..

ther eis no point maintaing 4 sets of units and dividng maps into 4 groups where each is played with different set of units..

We are trying to make most units viable on most maps - like kbots on comet etc..

So what factors should influence your choices? Nothing but RPS counters and the disposition of your opponent? :<

What strategy you're trying to pull off. For example kbots on 1v1 comet are sort of viable but it's quite a difficult and defensive game. Their cheaper expansion advantage must be used.

pintle wrote:Just like a map covered in water, or seperated by steep slopes, or full of choke points would dictate which units you use, and which lab you build, indeed it would also dictate your expansion and aggression strategies...

Yes it would but there's still a lot more starting choice in factories than the clear cut build wind only or solar only.

@Waldo, the tidal puddles was meant in jest, wai so srs? :) Whilst wind being stronger in more exposed areas does occur in real life, Spring takes no account of intervening hills, wind direction etc... to introduce the height element struck me as gimmicky. If it is integrated with map independent standardised wind it works well enough.

As for patronising: you just absolutely ignored what I was trying to communicate about wind vs solar, specifically in XTA. A large part of the distinction is the speed of snowballing, caused by the build time and e cost of the winds. It is nearly always more efficient in raw materials to produce wind, but the return on investment is slower.

The survivable nature of solars must be taken into account as well. I know it doesn't happen much in BA SA and CA, but in XTA people often micro raiders to tag individual solars, not killing them but forcing them to close, locking down E prod incredibly cost effectively in the early game.

It's much easier to drop a few solars when you recovering from a raid (no e cost, much easier to build while under fire)

It is a gross simplification to only consider average wind, I would argue that minimum is vastly more important.

Basically, there are way more factors at play than pure cost efficiency, and I know you are easily smart enough to acknowledge that.

TL:DR Standardised wind works well enough, I prefer a more complex eco model

@Google: Low wind maps are low wind for a reason. On a low metal, low wind map, people often go for winds anyway (again I am referencing XTA not BA, do people even play Arctic Plains in BA?) simply because they want to save the metal. This effectively slows the overall economy of the whole game, making for a much more conservative raiding/wreck management environment, completely different from the same map with a higher wind value.

XTA sets the cost of storage very high in comparison to *A, and correspondingly the storage has a much larger capacity. It's not something most people want to rush in the early game though, so wind having a minimum of 5 or below can be a reason many people choose solar.

Im rambling to the extreme here, just trying to relate my notion that a map carries with it more than simply a height map and spots I need to build mex on. The complexity and fluidity of TA style economies is definitely, in my mind, one of it's major draws, and a part of the game CA is moving further and further away from.

Sorry if I sounded overly confrontational or negative about your design decisions, I'm just expressing my preference

lol

there are some really dumb arguments in this thread.

it breaks down to this: should the energy economy vary per map the same way the metal economy does? ie, on maps with less space, higher wind values,, on maps with excessive metal, no wind to force you to use solars- should players be forced to adapt their strategy from map to map?

I argue yes, in the same way that a diffrent heightmap or metal layout should vary per map, it seems pretty logical that wind should vary. and noobtrap argument? oh come ON. it dosnt take players long to learn to checkk the wind values of maps. it dosnt take long to realise the rest of your team are making solars. hell, this is mostly redundant since the spring community basicly only plays DSD and comet anyway.

its just dumbing down, and its shit.

You know, I learned something today...



The XTA crowd is full of thugs and goons.

You want some trouble XTA? You're trouble makers making trouble and I'll bring you some trouble. YOU'RE GOING DOWN, XTA!! YOU EITHER BACK UP OR YOU HURT!!! STEP UP BECAUSE IT'S ON NOW!!!

Ok well I see where you guys are coming from now.

Don't forget, in CA all structures have a m/e/bp ratio of 1:1:1, so while there may still be reasons to chose between solars/windmills on different maps because of their cost differences, it isn't that way in CA.

In CA the differences break down to this: solars have constant energy output and much more hp while winds have a variable energy output (only slightly better then solars but the minimum decreases as altitude increases) and more raidability.

Now on Tundra for example the economy broke because wind (9-9) were only as good for output as solars. Except that solars were much more durable then winds. There was absolutely no reason to build winds. You got the some output for the same cost (no variation in wind either), but solars were much harder to raid.

No choice = dumbing down

Overriding the values means there will always be a choice. So while this would not work the same way in BA or XTA, in CA its preventing the dumbing down, not causing it.

should the energy economy vary per map the same way the metal economy does

metal mult

SirMaverick wrote:

Peet wrote:If you're going to be abolishing map-based gameplay variation, why not go all the way and turn the heightmap into a single flat plane at the start of the game?

Something similar has been suggested. At least Saktoth likes the idea.

o_O

He was joking I hope.

Edit: Car, er, nvmd

What's wrong? Gather round. It's just a good ole fashioned mod war. By gar it's been a while!

1/1/1 ratio is a dumbing down by itself IMO.
Providing some material for next CA thread.

luckywaldo7 wrote:looking at terrain and acting appropriately = what CA has. Wind is better at higher altitudes, and its easy to find what terrain is higher, and it is a good strategy to secure higher ground and use it for windmills. And how is that unintuitive? Wind is stronger at higher altitudes. It happens that way in real life ffs.

There are low wind places on earth. It happens that way in real life. And even strong winds in low lands. How do you know, what the mapper had in mind?
Anyway, why do you use realism to defend attitude bonus and do not accept that as a reason for wind speeds?

Google_Frog wrote:

pintle wrote:Just like a map covered in water, or seperated by steep slopes, or full of choke points would dictate which units you use, and which lab you build, indeed it would also dictate your expansion and aggression strategies...

Yes it would but there's still a lot more starting choice in factories than the clear cut build wind only or solar only.

Playing on a sea map cuts half of your starting choice in factories. Playing a low wind map cuts half of your starting choice in energy eco. I don't see a problem.

luckywaldo7 wrote:Now on Tundra for example the economy broke because wind (9-9) were only as good for output as solars. Except that solars were much more durable then winds. There was absolutely no reason to build winds. You got the some output for the same cost (no variation in wind either), but solars were much harder to raid.

76% attitude bonus is not a reason to build wind?