Spring RTS Engine

In general i never found all the redundant information confusing or unintuitive. On the other hand i agree with you ont the default 'C' and 'B' behaviour in spring reclaim and repair are the same though :)
Some of your other point are valid too. For me, at the time i started playing spring the ui was just another UI to get used to .

I dont know what UI you use, but ive allways been able to give orders on the minimap. isnt it in one of the spring settings, "issue orders on minimap" oss ?

Let's take smoth's latest map for example. Visually wonderful and alive map with lots of features, designed with care. Problem however was some gameplay aspects (numerical) on which we *A mod players grasped right on... Isn't this discussion about gameplay?

yes, but while that is about gameplay it is just pointing out a very obvious flaw.
And even the grts game i played on this map was very porcy and with grts commanders being able to wall off the only base entrace very easily its easy to see why. Imo that is a serious design mistake. Then take the many (indeed pretty) features that make moving units highly frustrating and it makes you wonder how good this maps gameplay actually is.

When a map is released, what is there left to say? I feel its kinda pointless to request much big changes

maybe for the next map.

Besides positional imbalance there isnt really anything that makes a map objectively bad. Compare to other games with very asymmetrical races, its hard for inexperienced mapper to get that right.

Yea thats true. E&E was probally the mod with the most different races but even those were not that different.

At least my maps are designed very carefully taking account every edge and angle...

I didnt want to attack you or any other mapper But it is true that there are some other maps where ie one side can build stuff on a cliff, the other can not. Slopes in terrain that vehicles can _just_ go up/down but only in strange places etc...

Most successful games have one thing in common: easy to learn, hard to master. This is hard to learn, hard to master.

I never got this "easy to learn, hard to master" thing.
In every game an experienced player will be more sucessfull. Even in tetris which is really easy to understand, a good player gets 100 times the points of new player.
Exception are simulation games, like if you have no idea what you are doing you will not even manage to start the engine of your virtual F-16 jet. But spring is not that bad, even new players can build a base and blow some stuff up. In xta if you make some solars, 2 mex and a kbot factory you have already avoided all noobtraps (air or t2 start etc)
Just against long time players you lose but well, yea.
Gameplay is fine, interface sucks. (confusing widgets, springsettings.exe, lobby)
Maybe make more loadscreens that show some xta basics? Like lines of missle units, build order, what you can survive dgunning ("1 llt: ok, 3 llt: com dies")
The current hints in loadscreens are mostly about T2 stuff that noobs do not reach anyway or that are obvious even to them ("reclaim wrecks") But how is it done?
Better would be to also tell them the reclaim hotkey.

* you cannot issue unit orders on minimap

i am pretty sure that always worked for me. maybe a setting?

Yes, my comments concerned the ui, not gameplay. I guess some would say xta is has a high leraning curve bc of many units (for example ansik hasn't bothered with learning sea yet), but I think that's what makes is so good. I can't relate to this point personally though, because ota has many units too. But tetris has only about 10 different units, so I guess it's a valid point in comparison.

lineblock micro ftw :D

babbles wrote:did you just compare core artillery with arm raven? lol

and what's wrong with that?

I'm kinda new here, but i've been curious about rts balance for many years, and there's something fishy about this game.

want another weird facts?

The can. On ota and some mods it's equipped with a powerful short-range laser. On xta it's equipped with a relatively light laser (85dps). a pyro has half the armor, has 3/4 of the range, but more than twice the firepower, and can almost kill a can in direct combat, yet it costs half as much and is 67% faster.
A leveler costs about the same as a can, has a bit less range, but is 50% faster, has more than twice the firepower, and even has more hp!

rocket hovercraft are also kinda fishy, they have pretty high speed, range and spike damage for their cost. They are almost twice as fast as other vertical rocket units with otherwise similar stats (dominator, diplomat) and they all cost aprox. the same.

Arm zeus vs arm warrior. The warrior is a bit weaker on hp and dps and a bit more expensive, but it's almost twice as fast and has 50% greater range..... How often do zeus get built anyway?


Blizzard's rts are examples of games that are relatively easy to learn, but hard to master. The ui is also part of the problem here. Other games have more and better tooltips and information.

The maps can play an important part in balancing, for example, starcraft is considered balanced but it relies on maps where the main base locations have choke points. However, in this game's case, maps weren't really thought with that in mind. And it would be a bad idea to balance a map for one mod when it'll be played by other mods. Making maps mod-specific would add to the confusion.

you're comparing different unit roles. zeus is porc breaker warriors are raiders/kiters. same with cans/pyros

it's like me comparing rockos and bombers

why are zeus better at porc breaking than warriors?

Random fact, they have 10% armour when their gun packed.

They're also cheap and have lots of amrour/health, close range they own.

Warrior is just 10% more expensive. Seems that the advantages zeus has (33% more firepower and armor - when gun is holstered) don't make up for its shortcommings.

Being almost twice as fast and having 50% more range, warriors will take less damage while moving into firing range and start firing back earlier than the zeus.

zeus still seems a bit weaker than it should be.

EDIT: i've noticed zeus costs half as much energy and it's build time is also half as long. Imo that still doesn't make up for its shortcommings (the limiting factor is usually lack of metal, not energy or build assistance, if you don't lack the metal, you can build more energy generators and nanotowers to make up for it)

warriors are only good because they're microable. with zeus, unless there's a comm, you don't need to micro. warriors you do

play lava highgrounds 4-way-ffa. nearly all player porc have tons of AA, annis, anti-nukes, so its time to build some lrpb - but no there is tobi - wtf is he doing - he had built some lvl2-air-trans with lot of zeuses - and now hes heading for you - all airtransports are destroyed by your well-equipped AA - but OHHHHH NOOOO the zeuses are dropped and loose some HP coz of the drop and do some SERIOUS damage to your turrets.

summing up, i agree with babbles zeus are a real porc-breaker, but i didnt knew that the had nearly the same hp as warriors. also the hover-rocket-launcher are a bit op immo and i agree with the can, maybe it should get a double light laser

+1 to the "The Can" buff. They are seldom worth their metal. Small dmg buff should be sufficient.

cans are useless yes, but 1 on 1 cans own pyros in a stand up fight, but pyros are infinitively better as they are so cheap and epic raiders.


Just giving my two cents to this stupid thread

[quote="Spawn_Retard"]Just giving my two cents to this stupid thread [/quote]
[quote="Spawn_Retard"]stupid thread [/quote]
[quote="Spawn_Retard"] [/quote]

There is nothing wrong with xta. case closed.

raaar wrote:Blizzard's rts are examples of games that are relatively easy to learn, but hard to master.

lol really? please explain how theyre easy to learn, compared to xta or whatever

JohannesH wrote:

raaar wrote:Blizzard's rts are examples of games that are relatively easy to learn, but hard to master.

lol really? please explain how theyre easy to learn, compared to xta or whatever

I think he means that the hidden damage/armour categories are telepathically beamed to a player's minds by the SC devs, along with a sound understand of the 3 factions different build/economy approaches.

Can does not need buff, comparing it to the pyro is retarded when you do not consider effective range and the pyro's inability to hit mobiles.

1 can/4 morties, repeat + not being a dirty failure at keeping a formation together= winsauce.

I think Commanders need a buff. Why? Well, compared to the Tornado (Arm t1 gunship) they cannot fly. Please fix.

babbles wrote:I think Commanders need a buff. Why? Well, compared to the Tornado (Arm t1 gunship) they cannot fly. Please fix.

I SUPPORT YOUR LOGIC SIR

babbles wrote:I think Commanders need a nerf. Why? Well, compared to the Krow (Core t2 flyingfortress) they cannot fly. Please fix.

fix'd

SirArtturi wrote:

babbles wrote:I think Commanders need a nerf. Why? Well, compared to the Krow (Core t2 flyingfortress) they cannot fly. Please fix.

fix'd

Now that's just ridiculous. Also, love the way you used the "regret" smiley when talking about flying Commanders.