Spring RTS Engine

Not really. Patterning is the PERMENANT movement of the person mind into a machine. Arm merely use a temporary interphase instead. Thats why Arm units are harder to hit in the cockpit/head area than core units, because there IS a pilot in there.

Or perhaps they use something like Battlezone 1's EDD.

If you have it, go read the manual. The rest, look for the online manual and read about the Grizzly tank

ARM units have pilots in them, true. But true and complete modularity in the robots? No, then everything would be able to shapeshift. And a single particle could get in the workings of another robot to disable it. Which would be silly and break the game. Might as well reduce the game to a straight production war with two laser cannons - the first to get overwhelming force wins.

Probably a bad metaphor. What I'm trying to say is that such invulnerability on both sides would make the game seriously unfun.

The ARM responded with mass cloning. I assume the nanobots spin these clones out of raw matter, but I could be wrong.

I take it if your in a mech amde out of nanites, that if a nanite from a core unit, probably using the same design adn technology, that the nanites in your mech in their overwhelming superior nubmers arent going to be able to eradicate the lone invader? And what fit ehses ivnaders are in superior nubmers. I think that I remember what its called when that happens. Oh yah, "reclaimation" or "ressurection" or "capturing", dependign on what the annites do to yuor nanites and wether your nanites are active ro not.

Nanites are small things, I take it that nanolathes use confinement technology to guide them tot heir target or they'd float in the wind and very rarely reach the target.

And I'm sure a peewee could attempt to turn into a zipepr if it wanted to and had the extra nanites, but I'm sure it would destabilize and colapse itno a green mist that blew away fi ti did, or it'd selfdestruct in the process. Or in arms case the pilot would be destroyed, or in cores case the host for the patterned midn would fall apart as it morphed. Or the aptterned midn wouldnt knwo how to usethe new hardware.

You guys are all a bunch of geekass bastards. What should be implemented is what enhances gameplay the most. Forget the plot.

Dragon45 wrote:You guys are all a bunch of geekass bastards. What should be implemented is what enhances gameplay the most. Forget the plot.

The plot enhances the game!

Dragon45 wrote:You guys are all a bunch of geekass bastards. What should be implemented is what enhances gameplay the most. Forget the plot.

This is how I feel as well :) Personally I don't care about making everything conform to OTA's storyline. How about making wreckage have the same HP, or maybe just a small amount more, than the original unit?

Because that would be illogical.

A tank is easier to destroy than it is to batter its wreck so badly its a pile of dust.

Maybe you should read my first post before replying...
and I quote.....
"I understand the logistics behind this... I think gameplay can be improved by making wreckage a bit weaker though."

If spring worked like real life hitting a specific area on a unit would cause more/(different kind of) damage than elsewhere (IE a peewee's head instead of his foot). THIS IS A GAME, it doesn't have to be 100% realistic.

But it would be nice to be able to define an armour % tag for the different sides of a unit, even just top, front, back and sides would add alot of strategy to it.

And probably without too much effort.

This is a game. We all know that. Debating the intricacies of how the scenario works makes it more 'real', creating a more immersive gameplay experience.

Immersion is important. When I stopped thinking of Starcraft in terms of a scenario, and instead thought in terms of a series of animated pixels and algorithms meshing to create an illusion, it broke the game for me. All the units and structures lost their personalities and the game became seriously unfun.

Good point about the nanites having an 'immune system' style response. I'd hate to thing what a map ravaged by loose nanites would look like.

This would make an excellent mod. Wish I had the time...

Targ Collective wrote:This is a game. We all know that. Debating the intricacies of how the scenario works makes it more 'real', creating a more immersive gameplay experience.

Immersion is important. When I stopped thinking of Starcraft in terms of a scenario, and instead thought in terms of a series of animated pixels and algorithms meshing to create an illusion, it broke the game for me. All the units and structures lost their personalities and the game became seriously unfun.

I have to say I agree with you 100% about Starcraft. I used to play it all the time before Spring was released. Once I started playing Spring the Starcraft world just seemed so tiny/confined/artifical.

hrmph wrote:I have to say I agree with you 100% about Starcraft. I used to play it all the time before Spring was released. Once I started playing Spring the Starcraft world just seemed so tiny/confined/artifical.

Funny, replace "Spring" with "Total Annihilation" and you've got my story .

What I said was logical, common sense. Humans need to map the RTS world onto logic otherwise ti doesnt seem right. Like a physics engine that makes ti all seem wrong, because we have built in knowledge fo how thigns are supposed to go.

Yah gameplay might benefit from units being able to jump huge distances by exerting a tiny little jump in its weapona dn nto even its feet, for great mobility but we dotn do it, why? cus it looks silly and unrealistic.

I'm not sure how jumping large distances would benefit gameplay at all.

I'm not sure how weaker wreckages would benefit gameplay at all.

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree then... I just did a quick test to see if I could illustrate my point.... I shot a living freaker at point blank range with a big bertha, the dust that remained was worth 70 metal. Then I killed a freaker with a few other freakers, leaving a fully intact corpse. This fully intact corpse was then shot at the same range with a big bertha, leaving some dust. This dust was also worth 70 metal... Care to explain this logically? Cause it has me a bit confused

FizWizz wrote:

hrmph wrote:I have to say I agree with you 100% about Starcraft. I used to play it all the time before Spring was released. Once I started playing Spring the Starcraft world just seemed so tiny/confined/artifical.

Funny, replace "Spring" with "Total Annihilation" and you've got my story .

Funny, replace "Total Annihilation" with "Bashing my head against a wall" and you've got my story

zwzsg wrote:...
I mean, currently PauloMorfeo's #1 and #2 are already there!

But are they implemented into mods? I think they don't because of ... what i said early about the diference between severitie's dmg to destroy untis and the hp of carcasses.

This is up to the ones taking care of mods so this must be one of a few things around the forums that is not up to the Spring developers.

The 70 Metal thing... Computers do have their limitations. There are a variety of corpses in the Features folder which all have metal values associated with them. It wouldn't break the game for anyone but an accountant. Besides, I'm sure I could draw a plot around it if I could be bothered right now.

The Collective

hrmph wrote:Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree then... I just did a quick test to see if I could illustrate my point.... I shot a living freaker at point blank range with a big bertha, the dust that remained was worth 70 metal. Then I killed a freaker with a few other freakers, leaving a fully intact corpse. This fully intact corpse was then shot at the same range with a big bertha, leaving some dust. This dust was also worth 70 metal... Care to explain this logically? Cause it has me a bit confused

Nanites.