Game/Mod Definable Gravity

[Google_Frog]

No no no and no. This is a fallacious argument. Remember last time when I requested you to name maps that are "broken" cause of bad wind values? And noone named a single one?

A lot of maps are either wind maps or solar maps. What's the point of having 2 seperate energy sources if one is going to be plain better most of the time?

So your throwing out buildtime, space requirement, raidability in favor of cost based balance? Very complete.

Why could a game not only have reliable vs risky power sources? In the case of CA the risky income power source is more raidable. If solars have a better average wind will not be built. Conversely in CA as opposed to BA excess E income can be used for overdrive so excessing is not a problem, this means that if win is any better than about 1.5 then noone will make solar.

Please name me some decent maps that are unplayable in your selected mod because of gravity values.

None yet because we know certain changes to CA would make them unplayable. We're unable to balance impulse because of this and now we've got blastwings doing a lot of their damage with shrapenel, the distance it flies is affected by gravity. Variable gravity makes this unbalanceable too.

Its not imbalance, its variation in gameplay. Gameplay should vary from map to map, even if its just a little bit. What maps give you trouble with gravity btw? I dont recall any maps with wacky gravity besides muck.

Map gravity easily varies from 70 to 160. Once a game starts using shrapnel and impulse heavily in it's balance system a lot of the maps will make units that rely on impulse or shrapnel OP or UP. I am saying that currently there's not much imbalance due to gravity because we know that any unit which heavily relies on impulse or shrapnel will be broken. The changing gravity is preventing more interesting unit types.

No no no and no. This is a fallacious argument. Remember last time when I requested you to name maps that are "broken" cause of bad wind values? And noone named a single one?

A lot of maps are either wind maps or solar maps. What's the point of having 2 seperate energy sources if one is going to be plain better most of the time?

tanks vs hover

Yes tanks and hovers are a bit of a problem too. Ask Saktoth about them, he says he is able to make a lab viable hover factory which is different to vehicles and balance it on both land and sea.

Previously it was requested to allow mods to ignore typemaps as well, yet there arent any maps that you dont play specifically because it has a "bad" typemap.

Maps with unit speed changing typemaps. They just remove about 1/2 the viable units. Centerrock and Xanteterra are the worst for this.

They don't remove anything. They just move at a different speed.

Say if a map halved the hitpoints of bots. While it doesn't technically remove bots they become utterly worthless and not built, it's as good as removed.

[Forboding Angel]

Maps should always be secondary to mods (as far as standard map behaviors go).

Behe, but your definition, mods shouldn't be able to adjsut the amount of energy given in default tree features. If that were the case, then evo wouldn't be playable on any map using the default trees.

I take that back. Playable, yes. Fun? No.

Besides, you don't even play any of the mods that would take advantage of it and even moreso, you're attempting to stifle the engine (even though I don't think you realize it) from becoming more diverse in the process.

[lurker]

No, it's that Evo should be able to do that adjustment but still be affected by the map's original value. Dividing everything by 10 is valid, setting all trees ever to the same amount isn't.

Why should maps be secondary? Maps, when designed with certain games in mind, make intentional alterations to the gameplay that shouldn't be simply lost.

Gravity from 70 to 160 seems like an okay amount of balance variation. Units have counters against each other and you're not going to start using very specific units and lose half the game because of some slight adjustments. But let's say you want to be in control and block maps from doing crazy things, okay. Why not clamp at certain values instead of trying to remove it entirely? What's wrong with giving kbots a 10% hp cut? They still have their main advantages, will still be built.

[KingRaptor]

clamp at certain values

This man makes sense!

[CarRepairer]

This topic is derailed by the wind issue. Map wind values is moot as no mod is forced to use them. In contrast, mods are at the mercy of the gravity value defined in the map.

Behe's answer is "if you don't like the map's gravity value, don't play it."

Options:

1) Fix the engine to allow mods to override it.

2) Set up functionality in lobby clients to define allowable maps by the mod, based on criteria such as its gravity value.

3) Do nothing and stay in the current situation - force all mods to dumb down their balance due to wildly varying gravity, or suffer the consequence of broken games.

[Beherith]

This is my n-1th reply in this thread, since the fundamental difference between us is this:

force all mods to dumb down their balance due to wildly varying gravity, or suffer the consequence of broken games.

I think that having variable gravity is not dumbing down, its adding complexity.
Replacing gravity with a predetermined value is dumbing down. Making something simpler and less complex with less variability=dumbing down.

QED.

[SirMaverick]

Why should maps be secondary? Maps, when designed with certain games in mind, make intentional alterations to the gameplay that shouldn't be simply lost.

+1

But let's say you want to be in control and block maps from doing crazy things, okay. Why not clamp at certain values instead of trying to remove it entirely?

I like that. I'd imagine it in the following way: Mod can define value ranges for properties that are valid. Like gravity 50-100. If the map value lies within that map value is used, else the closes border value.

[CarRepairer]

I think that having variable gravity is not dumbing down, its adding complexity.

It depends on the game. Your statement may be true in one game, but not in another.

Googlefrog has already explained in this thread about the dumbing down in CA and I think it was very clear. I watched him playtest for hours, he didn't just pull this request out of a hat.

Map gravity easily varies from 70 to 160. Once a game starts using shrapnel and impulse heavily in it's balance system a lot of the maps will make units that rely on impulse or shrapnel OP or UP. I am saying that currently there's not much imbalance due to gravity because we know that any unit which heavily relies on impulse or shrapnel will be broken. The changing gravity is preventing more interesting unit types.

[lurker]

Explain to me why a unit being slightly OP 10% of the time is bad when you have a good counter system. It's just variety, it's not like any type of unit is going to take over unless the map does something absolutely ridiculous like making blastwing shrapnel do 1k damage. What I see here is fear of adding something that won't have the same balance everywhere. You know full-well that specific inter-unit balances are design choices, how effective units are in different ways, so I don't see any valid issue.

[JohannesH]

Hills make balance issues :/

[Pxtl]

Why is it so wrong to say "my mod requires very specific gravity values, and so I need to override it"? Obviously, for some mods where gravity doesn't have a deep gameplay effect, it's no big deal.

Part of the problem is that gravity is not obvious. It's not like hills where you see it at the very beginning of the map, or wind that you find out about after you build the first wind-gen in the worst-case scenario (and likely will find out about sooner than that).

Gravity uses an unknown scale, and its impact is not well-known. So players have a nasty challenge making informed decisions about how the gravity of the map should affect their play-style, if at all. Players want to have lots of options in-game, but they want to make them informed decisions. Do players realize how gravity affects plasma-based artillery units? Riot weaponry? CA's gravity weapons?

[Regret]

Dividing everything by 10 is valid, setting all trees ever to the same amount isn't.

Wait what? That's complete nonsense.

Maps are made for games, not the other way around. It's a flaw in the engine that games cannot force maps to behave like they should in said games.

[Beherith]

Maps are made for games, not the other way around.

Then why force play on maps that arent made for that game?

[JohannesH]

Its also limiting the scope of things mappers can do for that game. Should, for example, BA try to normalize Trademarks maps because they make BA silly?

[Regret]

Its also limiting the scope of things mappers can do

That's the whole point. Consistency.


edit:

Then why force play on maps that arent made for that game?

Why not? Restrict use of your maps by a strict license or don't complain when someone interprets your map differently.

[CarRepairer]

Maps are made for games, not the other way around.

Then why force play on maps that arent made for that game?

The issue is not force but that most maps were designed for AA and BA, and we do not have this:

2) Set up functionality in lobby clients to define allowable maps by the mod, based on criteria such as its gravity value.

which would be silly, since this:

1) Fix the engine to allow mods to override it.

is a more elegant and simple solution. Allow mods to set one number.

If you don't like the mod that overrides, play one that uses the map's default. Same argument.

[Forboding Angel]

I have a bit different view because basically, if a map is designed to work well with BA, 99% of the time that same map will work beautifully with Evolution. The biggest problem for me comes in with gravity, and typemaps.

The other day, me and google played on a map that gave hovers a 50% speedboost. It was like playing on +10 speed. Very bad.

If people would jsut stop using damn heightmaps things would be a lot better.

Or perhaps, mods should have an option in the lobby to make units completely ignore a maps typemap.

[imbaczek]

i believe synced lua should have control over map parameters. relations between mods and maps should take the form of gentleman's agreements, not superficially imposed technical barriers.

[CarRepairer]

i believe synced lua should have control over map parameters. relations between mods and maps should take the form of gentleman's agreements, not superficially imposed technical barriers.

[lurker]

Don't forget that maps can overwrite anything maps do. The main issue is that maps don't have continued development.