New Map: Epic

Neuralize · Post by **Neuralize** » 28 Jan 2006, 01:37

Total Annihilation is about options, possibilies, not limitations. If I want to play on a 40x40 map, I can. If I don't, there is no reason for me to bitch about it.

Decimator · Post by **Decimator** » 28 Jan 2006, 02:08

Yes, though we can also say that it has some flaws, like the fact that aircraft are the only way to go on this map. Kbots are too slow, and many vehicles can't even get across the map.

It would be nice to have a mod designed with large maps in mind, but at the moment, I don't think we have any way of liiting aircraft in that fasion. One thing that could be done is to make aircraft extremely fast, but also extremely vulnerable to anti-air. IE, if there's a missile tower there, it's off limits to all but the heaviest aircraft.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 28 Jan 2006, 03:10

neuralize, calm down. We are not insulting runecrafter, but we played it last night comm ends. I was the only one to really attack and that was with fighters and rapiers. I systematically killed everyone. no vehicles could make it to the other side and kbots are pretty much out of the question. Airlifting is impractical.

One this thing that limits map size is the fact that jpeg compression has a maximum pixel limit, depending on the compression you use. A 60 x 60 might be possible, buit it would look like shit and have an enormus filesize to boot.

We are really in need of png support. WIth png lossless compression we would be in much better standings.

Also, a map on this type of scale is going to have to be relatively flat, otherwise anything but air is extremely impractical. A scaled height of 400 would prolly be the maximum. At 400 only kbots will be able to climb the hills. 300 would prolly be the preferred, as with that kind of height vehicles should be able to pass hills as well.

I'm sure all the non map makers will disagree with me and some of the map makers may disagree with me but consider this... If it is huge and lends itself to nothing but an air war do you really think it will be played very often?

As kelson says, this map is a nice novelty, but the sheer size of it is unweildy and trying to path vehicles and or kbots through those passes is not something I'm willing to devote my time to. For that matter, here is the replay of last night's game.

http://s39.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2ZCK ... XPXJDNKMYV

PauloMorfeo · Post by **PauloMorfeo** » 28 Jan 2006, 03:17

Decimator wrote:... But the game needs some changes before we can have maps this large. Aircraft rule all on this map, so we would need some sort of range or ammo tag on aircraft, preferably range so you have to build bases closer to the enemy.
...

Indeed! Planes do not scale well as the map size changes. SupCom's decision to go for air-bases and planes with limited range is a wise decision, especially if they really are going for hugeness in map sizes.

I've thought many times about that but never bothered with it yet. As far as i know, the engine would need modification to suport such things.

Chocapic · Post by **Chocapic** » 28 Jan 2006, 04:51

I think to that point we'd need a flaty 40x40 but still it would be better to go air cuz the time for ur attack to get there would be enough for a lvl2 change (lol..).
But its nice to have a huge map to play on every now and then.
But it sure needs some polishing first

Weaver · Post by **Weaver** » 30 Jan 2006, 08:39

I thought of way to limit the range of air units that might not be too difficult to implement. It's controversial so remember to flame the idea and not me... (It's probably not even a new idea!)

Make all air units take damage when flying. This would enforce a maximum air time, make having air repair essential, limit the effectiveness of construction swarms and generally make air units an interesting challenge/hell to use.

Decimator · Post by **Decimator** » 30 Jan 2006, 08:53

Wow, that would be weird... But it would work very well indeed, as aircraft are already set up to automatically go home after they get below a certain health. Now, can you make the hurting slow down after their health gets low enough?

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 30 Jan 2006, 09:06

Weaver wrote:I thought of way to limit the range of air units that might not be too difficult to implement. It's controversial so remember to flame the idea and not me... (It's probably not even a new idea!)

Make all air units take damage when flying. This would enforce a maximum air time, make having air repair essential, limit the effectiveness of construction swarms and generally make air units an interesting challenge/hell to use.

I would prefer a fuel limit.... using hp as a fuel counter could also mean that aircraft will suck outside of the base and become really good as base defense because of the hp we would need to give them.

Consider also that long maps would mean that aircraft would be near halfway dead on an attack run. However, if one keeps the aircraft in the base on a circular patrol the aircraft in the base will have a much higher HP then that of the attacking aircraft. Which would make attacking with aircraft a pain in the ass.

Alought I really like the fuel idea.... if we had it as a seperate stat then we could have air refueling units and the like. that would add some awesome aspects of gameplay...

So perhaps something like fbi tags?

Fuel
fuelconsumption

????

Decimator · Post by **Decimator** » 30 Jan 2006, 09:11

I can't really think of any reason we would need two tags. All we would need is the fuel tag and a static depletion rate while it is in the air. If you want it to stay in the air longer, just increase the value specified by the fuel tag.

Weaver · Post by **Weaver** » 30 Jan 2006, 09:28

Decimator wrote:Wow, that would be weird... But it would work very well indeed, as aircraft are already set up to automatically go home after they get below a certain health. Now, can you make the hurting slow down after their health gets low enough?

I suppose it could be limited like that, I was all for them running out of health/fuel and dieing.

This way if you wanted to amass a huge air force you would have to keep them on the ground until you were ready to attack. Which would leave them realistically vulnerable. You would also need forward airfields close to you front lines, even if you factories are safe, deep within your base.

This does of course weaken air overall and they may need a boost in other areas to compensate.

If we do this I think its worth having the damage modified by the gravity and wind on a map. I say this because I would like to make some maps that are good for air and some that are very bad.

Weaver · Post by **Weaver** » 30 Jan 2006, 09:50

smoth wrote:
Weaver wrote:I thought of way to limit the range of air units that might not be too difficult to implement. It's controversial so remember to flame the idea and not me... (It's probably not even a new idea!)

Make all air units take damage when flying. This would enforce a maximum air time, make having air repair essential, limit the effectiveness of construction swarms and generally make air units an interesting challenge/hell to use.
I would prefer a fuel limit.... using hp as a fuel counter could also mean that aircraft will suck outside of the base and become really good as base defense because of the hp we would need to give them.

Consider also that long maps would mean that aircraft would be near halfway dead on an attack run. However, if one keeps the aircraft in the base on a circular patrol the aircraft in the base will have a much higher HP then that of the attacking aircraft. Which would make attacking with aircraft a pain in the ass.

Alought I really like the fuel idea.... if we had it as a seperate stat then we could have air refueling units and the like. that would add some awesome aspects of gameplay...

So perhaps something like fbi tags?

Fuel
fuelconsumption

????

I did post another idea a while back that suggested that we could use the energy storage of most units as fuel. And that energy sharing (which is instant over any range now) should be limited to a range. The only engine change required.

Each unit would then need it's energy consumption, production and storage considered as part of it's design. But it would allow a whole new range of gameplay possibilities, remote mexes and radar would need a nearby source of power, a solar or wind generator or even a stationary tank.

Planes would store energy but produce very little (or none) compared to their consumption while flying, once the fuel/energy was half used they would need to land near an energy source to refuel.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 30 Jan 2006, 13:20

yeah, that would be a huge change. I was just thinking more of a perunit basis for aircraft, in that instant wouldn't we only be talking about a simple behavior modfication based on a stat found in the fbi?

Chocapic · Post by **Chocapic** » 30 Jan 2006, 19:06

have you guys thought about gameplay after that change ? i think it would be pretty bad..
Realism isnt allways a good gameplay idea

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 30 Jan 2006, 19:28

Of course not chocapic... I NEVER think of gameplay when I post. I only think of f------g over your good time.

Weaver · Post by **Weaver** » 31 Jan 2006, 00:13

Chocapic wrote:have you guys thought about gameplay after that change ? i think it would be pretty bad..
Realism isnt allways a good gameplay idea

When I am thinking of ways to improve things, I find reality is a good starting point. True its not the only way and definately not always the most fun, but why ignore gravity, friction and entropy, when they bring us all such joy. Even if most people don't understand why.

Spring RTS Engine

New Map: Epic