Spring RTS Engine

I think this thread passed its peak when the first post was posted...
Closing time?

Discussion was fine, you just need to filter out the noncontributors.

yeah.some are just ruining this for everyone.

Gota wrote:yeah.some are just ruining this for everyone.

Unintentionally funniest post in the history of the forum.

WZ: The issue of how much complexity to include is a one worth discussing. Overly complex games can be harder to learn, but they can also offer more to explore for a player who seriously wants to. If you rely on a simple, universal systems to define the attributes of a unit, though, it matters less about memorizing units and more about memorizing how the attributes work. That an arcing projectile that shoots over wrecks and other units is simple to understand, but the implications are quite complex in how you field it, dodge it, and use it. If you go a step further and make sure that the non-evident attributes such as HP, cost and DPS are clearly displayed by, for example, bulk/armour, size, weapon/projectile/explosion appearance then all you need learn is a set of simple laws and you can understand any unit in the game intuitively.

But this discussion isnt really about the level of complexity in a game, its about where you put it, at what stage of the game it kicks in. Whether its there from the start or you have to go through the motions of using the only thing you really can to get to the things you really want or need.

'Expandability' exists regardless of tech trees. As long as you have units suited to larger or smaller maps, sea or land maps, hilly or flat maps, and larger and more expensive units, faster units, slower units, etc (that appear, naturally and as a consequence of player decisions based on the situation, when and if they are needed) the game will play differently over a wide variety of circumstances.

You sort of seem to imply that anyone who wants a more complex or 'multifaceted' game also wants a longer game and doesnt mind slugging through the first 20 minutes of less faceted, less complex game to get there. I prefer short, mutlifaceted games that get directly to the action and have me making important decisions from the start.

In IW, on Artic Plains i use (and see others use) a lot more transports. Metal is scarce and spread apart, so you arent just hopping from flag to flag. This and other units are available at the same time, yet they are often much rarer on other maps.

Earlier you were arguing a game designer shouldnt 'over design', that ultimately the players should be left to explore the games possibilities rather than having it pre-mapped. Now you seem to be arguing towards rigid design. Sometimes i just think you like to be contrary.

I realise you arent going to abandon a tech-tree based game design, but i really think IW could be more heavily weighted towards the start, complexity wise, and less complexity up the other end of the game when you are spoiled for choice, or when economic differences are so great that you can spam prettymuch anything and it doesnt matter. Up the other end of the game you just need something reliable, spammy and easy to use, or some big game-ending gambit. Nuanced and complex units (like, in BA, capture, res, cloaking, EMP etc) usually lose any appeal by then.

Closing time?

Feel free to stop 'contributing' any time you like, Basic.

When're you all going to realize that I control you the instant you try to play my game?

Or maybe you just sound like a twit...

Your so dumb you actually thought it wasnt intentional.
I guess i could have commented about the fact warlord should become a diplomat but it seemed too obvious.

The most funny thing is the fact none of you actually made a mod that wasfun balanced and made sense yet you comment about it all like your masters(me included).
That was the reason i said this thread is bs.