Spring RTS Engine

Again.


Caydr.






WHY ARE YOU BOOSTING THE COST OF FUSIONS???




Also, these "Clowns" harrassing you about "OMG MAKE SHIELDS REPULSE AGAIN" are idiots. A handful of those GUARANTEED absolute safety from an enemy Bertha, or an entire battery of them. It was the ultimate porc tool, and frankly, even more porc is NOT what AA needs.

I've always seen slope tolerance for vehicles as one of the core game design flaws in AA for spring. No caydr, people should not be designing maps to work well for AA, AA should have the quality to not force maps to be disgustingly flat to be playable. Maps that are as flat as AA needs them to be are usually ugly, this is a design problem with AA.

SwiftSpear wrote:I've always seen slope tolerance for vehicles as one of the core game design flaws in AA for spring. No caydr, people should not be designing maps to work well for AA, AA should have the quality to not force maps to be disgustingly flat to be playable. Maps that are as flat as AA needs them to be are usually ugly, this is a design problem with AA.

On said maps, you don't use vehicles. The idea is that a mapper can have flat spaces for the vehicles, and hilly spots for the kbots. Most maps include a mix of flat and hilly terrain for that reason. Maps that are all-hilly are kbot maps, just like how maps that are all water are naval maps.

Pxtl wrote:

SwiftSpear wrote:I've always seen slope tolerance for vehicles as one of the core game design flaws in AA for spring. No caydr, people should not be designing maps to work well for AA, AA should have the quality to not force maps to be disgustingly flat to be playable. Maps that are as flat as AA needs them to be are usually ugly, this is a design problem with AA.

On said maps, you don't use vehicles. The idea is that a mapper can have flat spaces for the vehicles, and hilly spots for the kbots. Most maps include a mix of flat and hilly terrain for that reason. Maps that are all-hilly are kbot maps, just like how maps that are all water are naval maps.

Pxtl... Isn't that a bit narrow minded?

How? It gives the mapper the most control. Look at the rich gameplay you get on Altored Divide. The vehicles dominate the flatland, while the kbots snipe from the hills. If kbots and vehicles were too similar in terms of slope tolerance, it would be nigh-impossible for mappers to implement this sort of gameplay, trying to find that itchy, tiny little space where you can say "kbots can get here, but vehicles can't".

Plus, for naval maps you can ignore this problem anyways, since amphib vehicles have the slope-handling of kbots. You only need to consider the "flatland/roughland" dilemma in land-combat-intensive areas, in which case the difference is providing an important gameplay distinction.

Ok, I grow weary of this discussion. Here is photoevidence of pathing. #1 is insty at slope 24, #2 insty at slope 26

24 slope


26 slope


Btw guys, if you don't have something useful to say then keep your trap shut on this particular matter. Let the big boys discuss.

Now, honestly, is this utterly game unbalancing? Hardly, it just opens up the doors of opportunity.

Delta siege in about 5 mins.

That still doesn't address the issue that vehicle slope tolerance is actually too limiting... vehicles should be able to mount hills given enough time, but not cliffs, mountains, etcetera. At this point, they fall a little short.

neddiedrow wrote:That still doesn't address the issue that vehicle slope tolerance is actually too limiting... vehicles should be able to mount hills given enough time, but not cliffs, mountains, etcetera. At this point, they fall a little short.

I completely agree neddie, however trying to explain a simple concept to a fanboy with lack of brain is akin to cutting your heart out with a rusty spork. Not very easy.

Evergreenhaven:

slope 24


slope26

Now, here are photos representing what I originally wanted. I want insty's etc to have a maxslope of 28 and heavy tanks like gollies bulls and reapers to have a maxslope of 26.

slope 28 - Instys flashes and raiders/stumpys would have this kind of movement ability.


26 slope - Gollies, reapers, bulls, would have this kind of movement ability.



And simply because I want everyone to see this...

Kbots have a maxslope of 36. Your precious kbot advantage is not being threatened here.

So who here is gonna keep arguing with me just to save face? Is anyone ready to actually do something to solve this glaring discrepancy?

Kbots have a maxslope of 36, here is a thud

Slope36



Oh come now, surely someone wants to argue!

Cat got your tongues?

Maybe you just realized that you don't have even the least bit of an idea of what you were talking about.

[crickets]*chirp chirp*[/crickets]

I'm waiting...

There's no reason to start getting violent....

Caydr wrote:Has core always had a cloakable fusion reactor? It seems like something from uberhack, not OTA. It doesn't really make sense to me, tbh... core shouldn't have cloaking resource buildings. I think I might remove them and just boost their regular fusions a bit more.

PRO_rANDY wrote:In OTA you can build cloakable fusions with arm and core.

Yeah, i remember that. CORE cloakable fusions took as small space as ARM fusions. (normal core fusion took larger space)

I dont understand why caydr wants to remove CORE cloakable fusions...?

Pxtl wrote:

SwiftSpear wrote:I've always seen slope tolerance for vehicles as one of the core game design flaws in AA for spring. No caydr, people should not be designing maps to work well for AA, AA should have the quality to not force maps to be disgustingly flat to be playable. Maps that are as flat as AA needs them to be are usually ugly, this is a design problem with AA.

On said maps, you don't use vehicles. The idea is that a mapper can have flat spaces for the vehicles, and hilly spots for the kbots. Most maps include a mix of flat and hilly terrain for that reason. Maps that are all-hilly are kbot maps, just like how maps that are all water are naval maps.

It shouldn't be so violently pronounced "this is a kbot map" as opposed to "this is a vehical map" I see no good reason why vehicals can't climb hills and slopes, are futuristic war machines designed only for flat ground combat? IMO this standard of "all vehicals are only viable on flat land" and "all kbots are viable on hills" is stupid and it's bringing down the visual quality of the maps that try to accommodate it. IMO vechicals should be able to climb hills which is at some reasonable standard for mappers that want to produce reasonably good looking maps, kbots can climb hills as well as mountain slopes, and nothing aside from ATKbots can climb cliff faces. To me it seems much more forgiving and functional to not have units that are expected to spar on par with kbots restricted so heavily on average spring mapping terrain. In TA all maps were flat because there was no point in creating height that no one would see, it made TA very polarized. Spring maps are much more diverse because they look better that way, and some mods (AA most prominently) are trying to pull the mappers back into old practices that aren't ideal any more.

Alternatively maby we should just force mappers to make maps for specific mods so we don't have this problem any more. Ultimately the modder is responsible for what a map must look like to be balanced on their mod. Frankly I think it was pretty shortsighted to assume that we could have every map constructed to work with every mod and not need standardized slope types.

Vehs and KBots don't spar on par, the vehs are stronger than KBots in combat and the KBots can go where vehs can't. That's the whole point of having two unit branches.

Making vehicles unable to traverse slopes they should realistically be able to handle is just illogical.

Kbots already have many advantages over vehicles. They are cheaper and easier to deploy than vehicles, due to their smaller "footprint", and are a little harder to hit as a consequence.

Second tier Kbots have myriad abilities that vehicles do not, and can outmanuever vehicles.

They also have third-tier units that can level any vehicular opposition with ease, and can already climb steep hills.

In addition, the Arm have FARKs to greatly boost construction, which is another reason why most AA players take Arm instead of Core.

Vehicles only have a few advantages over kbots, which are health, speed in tier 1; and in tier 2, damage output per unit.

You call being able to traverse 25° slopes too low to be realistic? That's a 46% slope! How many vehicles can go over that? Especially off-road where the ground may simply slip away under your tyres?

Vehicle-kbot balence is a little bit lopsided in this version but with all these changes to vehicles that are already in the log there's a good chance it'll flip towards vehicles already, no need to keep beating that horse.

And FA's right that 2 points of slopetolerance wont make a big difference in gameplay, though I don't see why such an insignificant change is necesarry

tbh i dont see why people DONT use vehicles on a flat map
kbots WILL get TOTALLY dominated just many people dont seem to realise that i really dont think that 100 less metal for a vehicle lab
and 10% more maneuvebility are needed focus on seabalance instead

Caydr, Can you fix the uglyness on the shellshocker cannon? It looks like it has like 7 or 8 fire ports...