Spring RTS Engine

It seems where was an issue with my config. It only effected XTA people...


so to the xta community... WHY U NO TRY MY MAP..

to jools, thanks for at least trying it even if you never told me about the crash until today. At least you told me!

Map features:
- sfx,
- 1000s of features creating an industrial sprawl(roughly 50-60 unique objects made just for this map)
- night map option
- ambient sounds

fixes:
sfx shows all the time now
sfx file corrected, now loads in xta!

> get it here <

so to the xta community... WHY U NO TRY MY MAP..

not sure if srs but still:
-no metalspots on texture (there is some widget to draw toggleable spots)
-too much metal:
--7.5m for a T1 mex is too much. (there are relatively few spots but still. did not do the math, maybe its actually fine)
--lots of reclaimable features worth hundreds of metal each (as gato wrote here) that is def. too much...
-cut-off water areas to safely spam underwater eco
-its prefixed grts_, would not play kp_ or ct_ either

but even with that fixed, 20x20 is simply too big most of the time.

knorke wrote:

so to the xta community... WHY U NO TRY MY MAP..

not sure if srs but still:

I am almost always serious. you guys think I am too serious and now that you guys bawed away my image macros I have to be serious all the time because there is no way to make it blatant that I am joking. So yes I am serious.

knorke wrote:-no metalspots on texture (there is some widget to draw toggleable spots)

Does that work now? why isn't it part of the respective mods. Seems to me that their game is lacking support for one of it's integral features there.

knorke wrote:--7.5m for a T1 mex is too much. (there are relatively few spots but still. did not do the math, maybe its actually fine)

divide that by 3. Most maps use a cluster of 3 spots. I forget who it was but I did seek a prominent ba player to get the metal map laid out and did the large spots because he suggested that it would at least bring something new and interesting to the game. Prior to that I did do 3 spots. The values were based on popular maps, I got that income if I had 3 spots capped.

knorke wrote:--lots of reclaimable features worth hundreds of metal each (as gato wrote here) that is def. too much...

looks at thread title and date.. something you seem to forget about.."Gunmetal Harbor v4" that was version 4. The version prior to this was 9. that critique was 5 versions ago and from: "Apr 03, 2010"

I actually severely reduced the metal to liek 1/2 or 1/4 the metal it was even though I fundamentally disagree with that opinion because OTA urban maps were a metal bonanza.. the *A crowd don't really remember OTA so whatever I did reduce it because hey, not like I will play it and feel vexed by how little metal the structures are worth.

knorke wrote:-cut-off water areas to safely spam underwater eco.

how so? there are many ways to get in and out of the water

knorke wrote:-its prefixed grts_, would not play kp_ or ct_ either.

I play gundam on kp maps sometimes. Even still CT and KP both have very different surrealist styles where this is actually reasonably human.

knorke wrote:but even with that fixed, 20x20 is simply too big most of the time.

not my fault they like 12v12 on a 4 player map(dsd) With a game that has WAY more units that GRTS, I find it amazing how inflexible it is in that it cannot handle large maps.. of course I played only large maps in ota days.. then again, this isn't ota.

smoth wrote:I have to be serious all the time because there is no way to make it blatant that I am joking.

knock knock
who's there?
smoth.

jk

I do not feel like replying to all points because it really would go nowhere.

smoth wrote:

knorke wrote:but even with that fixed, 20x20 is simply too big most of the time.

not my fault they like 12v12 on a 4 player map(dsd)

you explicitly asked about xta but now seem to confuse it with ba.
Maps made by/for xta players:
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=26458
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=26814
"10x8 for 1v1 or 2v2"

Map made by/for ba players:
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=25972
"Large 24*16 team map with 28 start positions"

why would it really go nowhere? you didn't explain how there is no way to enter the water...

your point about the high metal based on that user's one post is moot

none of it has anything to do with actually TRYING the map.

smoth wrote:

knorke wrote:-no metalspots on texture (there is some widget to draw toggleable spots)

Does that work now? why isn't it part of the respective mods. Seems to me that their game is lacking support for one of it's integral features there.

Yes it works. Made by cheesecan and implemented by me. Can be found from Seths_Ravine_v2.

Smoth, It's incredibly difficult to implement it into a global gadget because maps have different artistic styles, and a widget that intervenes with visual aspects of the map could break some of them.

It's even technically difficult: How it would behave on maps like speedmetal?

Metal spot placer widget is basically designed for the games like yours smoth (games that dont use metal spots) so that the maps could played in that kind of games aswell. It is supposed to work so that the host sets metal spots off from map options for the games they dont fit. Unfortunately, autohosts lack of this support so the widget is pretty useless atm.

smoth wrote:

knorke wrote:--7.5m for a T1 mex is too much. (there are relatively few spots but still. did not do the math, maybe its actually fine)

divide that by 3. Most maps use a cluster of 3 spots. I forget who it was but I did seek a prominent ba player to get the metal map laid out and did the large spots because he suggested that it would at least bring something new and interesting to the game. Prior to that I did do 3 spots. The values were based on popular maps, I got that income if I had 3 spots capped.

Yes it was me who suggested this approach, and yes you did the 'traditional' 3 spot way first. I though it could be nice idea to experiment 1 spot layout for your map cos' Imo it suited for the style of your map better. Sorry about experimenting this with your map and not mine (though I would had tried it with if I just had suitable at hand).

Seems like BA people didnt like the idea. They are very conservative crowd.

Whatsoever, I need to say that I ideologically still stand behind my idea that one spot layout suits better for your map. The only downside of it is mohomines and overdrive system like in ZK, which can make them really powerful. That's why you may want to considering going back to 3 spot system.

smoth wrote:

knorke wrote:--lots of reclaimable features worth hundreds of metal each (as gato wrote here) that is def. too much...

looks at thread title and date.. something you seem to forget about.."Gunmetal Harbor v4" that was version 4. The version prior to this was 9. that critique was 5 versions ago and from: "Apr 03, 2010"

I actually severely reduced the metal to liek 1/2 or 1/4 the metal it was even though I fundamentally disagree with that opinion because OTA urban maps were a metal bonanza.. the *A crowd don't really remember OTA so whatever I did reduce it because hey, not like I will play it and feel vexed by how little metal the structures are worth.

Yet I think this is the biggest reason that your map is highly 'underrated.' It has tons of metal which leads to reclaim wars; the player who reclaims features most efficiently wins the game. We discussed about this and I stated that this is the problem, but you insisted to go on your own way. Why? Gundam doesn't even support reclaiming?

Anyway, sorry for destroying your map

But I did go back and greatly reduce the metal of the features, how was that not enough?

M:84923 E:340540 !!!

I'd say zero m and e for the features and then you'll have *A people playing your map...

Then I have to jack up the reclaim delay so that people are not insta clearing features right?

(I'd do a map option but autohost still stubbornly do not support it)

Yea that could work. And by adding mass to avoid unit bulldozing.

And you still feel I should go back to my old 3 point spots?

What about Knorkes complaint wrt the sea acess? What is he talking about?

I don't see a point in making them reclaimable at all, Spring games use ways too rarely unreclaimable features (ever saw other games where every feature is reclaimable or even destroyable?).

the smaller ponds at top/bottom.
they do not add much to gameplay other than being filled them with basically unreachable T2 underwater eco.
Similiar to how it happens with the lakes on that supcom remake (Surpreme Battlefield iirc)

agree with jk.
you could make some features explode though (run over a tree/wall in spring tanks)

smoth wrote:And you still feel I should go back to my old 3 point spots?

What about Knorkes complaint wrt the sea acess? What is he talking about?

My personal opinion is no, but you may want to follow the public opinion...

Well in TA it was an important part of gameplay, here in *a spring, they collectively shit the bed about non-Mex income.

I do not feel it is right to disable feature reclaim or value. I feel such decisions belong to the content developer of said game. Which is why i left them with value. It is very easy to remove metal value in featuredefs_post. Same for the Mex spot crap it can easily cover the situations arturri listed, link me the effing widget and I will make a mutator tonight. Maps should be able to over-ride game features but I believe the priveledge should not be abused.

The smaller ponds are there for two reasons:
- Because they are very useful for amphib raids
- Because the map is where a large river forks which is why it is a docking area. The little one on the left is cutoff because spring doesn't have proper bridges.

Thanks for rereleasing a xta version specifically. I didn't try this map before yesterday either because I didn't know it existed basically, maybe nobody that plays xta had seen it because of the prefix.

The map looks very nice, with the only problem I see is the huge output, 7.5, from one mexx. This isn't that much of a problem with t1 mexxes, but as people go moho it certainly is. The huge output from moho mexxes in xta is covered with a 300 energy cost. The reason is to encourage grabbing territory instead of just developing your technology vertically with a few mexxes (basically the output from one moho mex is so large that it pays off more to go moho than to try to control land and several t1 mexxes).

I wouldn't worry about the entry to sea or reclaiming of metal, because in that sense your map is very similar to a classic OTA map called Eastside Westside. It was a popular map and it works because the reclaiming takes time too, and the income from that is just one-time (and requires lots of metal storages) and all in one batch (unlike gradual reclaim in ba), so you still need to plan your reclaiming.

Also eventually the wrecks run out, so you can't rely on it forever. Basically it works the same way as late game reclaim-wrecks-to-army tactic.

Oh man good point about the power! I didn't think about that. 3 points it is!

Any other thoughts?

You can tell who played OTA and who didn't. I have happy memories of Trout Farm and Eastside Westside.

Obviously the gameplay of these uberrreclamation maps will be *very* different from modern maps, but they worked in OTA.