Suggestion: More terrain/gameplay interactions...

[aGorm]

Dhu, so was I, you posted after i had started my replay thats all... didn't you notic the time difference was tiny? You though i could write that fast?

aGorm

[AF]

I beleive that was because I was in a state of temporal flux, I am infact an extremely slow typer and have spent the last few eons and the next few eons typing this post. Which is extraordinary considering the number of posts I make

[Warlord Zsinj]

Eep, the thread has been taken over by alantai and agorm!
I'll return shortly to bring this thread to its former stature (:P)

... I'm up to my ears in work, so don't really have time to write anything substantial.

... Just to say to gabba quickly, the responce from men3mat is exactly what I was trying to avoid by making the system overly complex.
We both understand it, and its outcomes, but not everyone does, and so to them the sight ranges and the hidden values is a whole lot of gobledigook that detracts from their game.

(Oh, and I still disagree with the hidden percentages vs sight range at the moment)

[Gabba]

Way to keep things on track WZ!

You're right about the complexity thing, but after all in these long posts I was trying to go in detail so if the SJ want to implement it, they have info appropriate for a programmer. Otherwise I believe the system is quite intuitive and can be summed up by what I replied above to Alantai Firestar:

Not exactly; the percentage reduces the range at which other units can see you. So, if a unit has 200 sight range, it can only see units with 50% hiding at range 100 or less.

Why would the percentages be hidden? I would very well see two color bars or other indicators (which can be toggled) for each unit which indicate how visible you are to sight and radar. Easy to understand and use.

[DopeFishhh]

how about line of sight radar?
once the code for unit line of sight is done it wouldn't be hard to transfer that to a radar or sonar system (though not much of an effect for sonar).

that way taking high ground and putting radar on it would increase the effective range alot.

ballistic weapons should not have pre-fixed ranges that they attack at, instead they should have fixed barrel speeds and calculate ballistics correctly, this would stop the stupid low angle ballistics ta does.

[Gabba]

I believe the SYs said there would be LOS radar - I can't check since all the threads were deleted.

Real ballistics are a must, of course, but something tells me they're already implemented.

[AF]

Gabba , you're right on both counts, I remember it as if it where yesterday

[Neuralize]

SJ said.

The los hindered by features would also be doable but then a single tree would stop los which im not sure if you want since trees arent really that thick (you can see under/between branches etc).

Pseudocode, yay.

Code: Select all

If "x" amount of standing trees are present in "a certain, very small, defined area", then that those trees block los, and jam radar, or..  whatever.

As for the actual uncovering of units, like when they finally appear on your screen. Are we going to have a alpha fade in effect, or at they just going to "pop" into our los?

Hmm. Currently in Spring, radar targeting is on by default. That's what I remember.

[aGorm]

I think they would just pop up, because then its like you suddenly spoted them, not like they sort are and are not there. And as they pop up you'd see them straigt away as things always stand out of they suddenly appear. And thats the way it should be. I like the Pseudocode, id say it would have to be worked out per a tree as to weather that one gives no los.

So... (not real code)

Let:
Treedist = Tree (X,Y) - Nearest Tree (X,Y)
Let TreeNum = 0

Then:
If -20 < Treedist < 20 then
If -10 < Treedist < 10 then
TreeNum = TreeNum + 2
Else
TreeNum = TreeNum + 1
End If
End IF

And then:
I TreeNum > 5 then
"Tree blocks line of sight, I dont know who youd say that..."


This way it would either have to be very near a couple of trees, or just in a large lose group. The distances are obviosly more there for the sake of it, it would realy be about 3 peewees for the max dist id say, and half for the smaller dist, pluss you could probabliy re write that so it take the exact distance between the trees and produces the number to add on from that so trees half way betwwen the current two states would give +1.5 ish.

aGorm

Taking over the thread Warlord Zsinj? I hardly think so... Oh wait. Maybe we were...

[AF]

Why not make it so that units themselves have a small effect that doesnt effect themselves? A huge mass of tightly packed small units is bound to do soemthign to how we percieve the central units unless seen from above is it not?

[[K.B.] Napalm Cobra]

Just thought I'd make some psuedo code of my own...

Code: Select all

for(int i; i<numTrees; i+=5)
{
    float x=objects.trees[i].getX();
    float y=objects.trees[i].getY();
    
    int treeCount getTreeCount(x,y,radius);
    
    if(treeCount>radius*5)
        shroudArea(x,y,radius*0.6);
}

Just an idea, any comments?

[Warlord Zsinj]

I always thought that true LOS should work radially, so that if a unit was standing behind a tree, you would see it, simply because it was sticking out next to it, but if it was standing a little while back, the unit wouldn't be able to be seen. This would work on a cone of vision, similar to the way it works in the Commandos series.

Here is a screenshot roughly explaining what I mean:


See how the cone of vision extends from the ship, hits the wall (which halts its vision), but the LOS obstruction isn't directly limited to behind the wall, but as a cone extending from where the unit is.
Using this technique, units wouldn't be able to hide behind a single tree (which would only extend a minor obstruction in terms of LOS on their own, not enough to hide any units), but in a forest, the combined cones of many trees would resolve to make large zones where units are hidden...
Of course, having many eyes looking in at many angles would help alleviate this somewhat.

Please remember, people, that the cloaking issue was a minor part of my entire Terrain Interaction proposal. One that I wasn't even certain of myself. (Although I do think certain weather effects/terrain features should definitely obscure unit LOS, if not cause unit cloaking)
The most important parts of my system were that


1. Unit movement and actions are more affected by the terrain they are currently on.
2. Weather effects occur in different terrain conditions, and also impede your view of the battlefield (LOS and radar), which is intended to be a disadvantage, which can be turned into an advantage when utilised by the player
3. That certain terrain conditions, as well as feature conditions, impede radar


Try not to forget those while focusing on the more controversial suggestion I included at the end of my opening post...[/list][/list]