Spring RTS Engine

varikonniemi wrote:+1

TA is the reason i am here, and TA brought the battle to a whole new scale compared to other RTS:s. Don't throw that away.

I would have to agree with this. Still, in TA wrecks had more tactical meaning, at least in BA and in XTA it's too easy to just clean up all that stuff, and many of the wrecks don't block the majority of the weapons anyway. So in essense it depends on what you do with the units.

tl:dr: in principle: +1. How spring is implemented: -1.

Does use of color green make a game better? Say +1 if you think more green makes game better.

Do pixels make games better? Vote +1 if you think better pixels make the game better (both more visible pixelization and more of the pixel stuff, ex: minecraft)

Does sex make games better? A sure bet. The engine requires a sex fork. In fact, i'm starting it like a month ago.

+1, Spring is not TA 1, when 250 units ruled in the year of 1996. This is 17 years later, and given should allow 17 times more units.

Bring on 4000+ units per player.

Petah wrote:+1, Spring is not TA 1, when 250 units ruled in the year of 1996. This is 17 years later, and given should allow 17 times more units.

So the general formula for optimum number of units is:

n = (a-1996)*250, where n = number of units and a = year in gregorian calender.

Sounds simplistic.

Beating linear unit-increase with a quadratic CPU-complexity-increase is at least theoretically feasible :)

Jools wrote:

Petah wrote:+1, Spring is not TA 1, when 250 units ruled in the year of 1996. This is 17 years later, and given should allow 17 times more units.

So the general formula for optimum number of units is:

n = (a-1996)*250, where n = number of units and a = year in gregorian calender.

Sounds simplistic.

Shouldn't it be 250^((a-1996)/1.5) ?

FLOZi wrote:Entirely a function of game design, c.f. S44 vs BTL

Yes.

Pxtl wrote:+1 up to a point. When your force becomes a big meaningless aggregate of numbers like the Total War series, I lose interest.

But then you go into battle mode and get to see them stabbing each other individually!

Das Bruce wrote:Shouldn't it be 250^((a-1996)/1.5) ?

Not if we stick to what your compatriot stated. He formulated a linear relation between year and unit number, with the base year 1996.

Petah wrote: +1, Spring is not TA 1, when 250 units ruled in the year of 1996. This is 17 years later, and given should allow 17 times more units.

250^((a-1996)/1.5)

Evaluated at a = 1996, this claims that in 1996, ONE UNIT was already cool enough.

klapmongool wrote:Maybe you are right when talking about the average player, but you are wrong when it comes to BA in FFA or 'the best player in the team'. These players do hit high unit limits on a regular basis AND it forces these players to change their tactics.

If you really have a replay/screenshot of a player with "control thousand of units", please post.
Sometimes it happens that players must reclaim solars etc, replace with fusions when they reach unitlimit. Unitlimit on most hosts is 500 atm? The players still hardly have 500 controllable units in normal games. If someone was to make 300 peewees that would be quite special.
Maybe fighter swarms can reach such numbers: but one does not really controll or micro them.

Anarchid wrote:

250^((a-1996)/1.5)

Evaluated at a = 1996, this claims that in 1996, ONE UNIT was already cool enough.

Yes, but TA was released in 1997 right?

Yes, but TA was released in 1997 right?

So what? One unit was NOT cool in 1996.

Command & Conquer
a=1995
250^((a-1996)/1.5) = 0.025 units required for cool.

in 2000 already 2480314 units were required.
In 2013: 1.5019429e+27

The formula wins one golden Neonstorm.

knorke wrote:

klapmongool wrote:Maybe you are right when talking about the average player, but you are wrong when it comes to BA in FFA or 'the best player in the team'. These players do hit high unit limits on a regular basis AND it forces these players to change their tactics.

If you really have a replay/screenshot of a player with "control thousand of units", please post.
Sometimes it happens that players must reclaim solars etc, replace with fusions when they reach unitlimit. Unitlimit on most hosts is 500 atm? The players still hardly have 500 controllable units in normal games. If someone was to make 300 peewees that would be quite special.
Maybe fighter swarms can reach such numbers: but one does not really controll or micro them.

Most hosts? What does that mean? I know I had to deal with problems with unit limit 1000 often enough. Not going to provide screenshots because i'v only played 2 games since latest spring releases fucked up the little that was left of the BA community.

Most hosts? What does that mean? I know I had to deal with problems with unit limit 1000 often enough.

I clicked into random hosts and most had Max Units: 500
Some had 1000 and 10000 (lol as if that would ever be playable) though.

Anarchid wrote:

Yes, but TA was released in 1997 right?

So what? One unit was NOT cool in 1996.

Yeah, anyway that formula is simplistic for other reasons too...

OK so it needs a lower bounds on year, but I was going for Moores law in regards to unit numbers.

OK so it needs a lower bounds on year, but I was going for Moores law in regards to unit numbers.

unlike moore's law, is not supported by evidence

Let's see: Are the largest gametypess currently played too small? They are, obviously, already playable with current hardware and engine.

Is there really a big group of people who will not only answer +1 to the question posed, but also feel that there is never a limit where more units stop improving a game?

knorke wrote:So far every spring game has just completly ignored unit limits in its game design, at best some autohosts set a unitlimit..

Just one of billions of people who never played BTL.

Maximum is around 20 (There is a 'tonnage' limit and light mechs take up less than heavy etc) and we will probably reduce it further.

knorke wrote:The formula wins one golden Neonstorm.