Isfeature units (dragons teeth, fort walls, etc)

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 18 Nov 2005, 02:31

What is the reasoning behind making these units be features, without health bars, etc? I'd always just accepted it as being "the way it is"... but is there any actual benefit or reason for this?

(I mean, especially when we've got 5k units per player, etc)

Gnomre · Post by **Gnomre** » 18 Nov 2005, 02:36

So they don't take up unit slots, mainly... I'd rather not have to worry about crippling my attacking force's sizes just because I decided to fortify a couple defense towers. Even with 5000, it'd be a bit ridiculous to have them count against you. And of course they aren't auto-targetted that way, and they don't show up on radar (though that could be handled with stealth).

Plus since they aren't running scripts and all that constantly, I'm sure it's less of a strain than it would be otherwise.

The real question is why would you want them otherwise?

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 18 Nov 2005, 03:37

Gnome wrote:The real question is why would you want them otherwise?

Word. I believe the primary reason is due to the unit limit.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 18 Nov 2005, 06:11

Yeah...this also means that someone can add in ready made DT's in there map. And wrekages too! And make a battle that takes place in the aftermath of a bigger battle.

I'd call it wasteland

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 18 Nov 2005, 07:07

Gnome wrote:The real question is why would you want them otherwise?

So decoy DTs with weapon's platforms hidden under them can hide amoungst the normal DTs...

Gnomre · Post by **Gnomre** » 18 Nov 2005, 08:32

So... cripple the numbers of your forces so you can have a few surprise decoy defenses... yeah, great strategy.

Storm · Post by **Storm** » 18 Nov 2005, 10:26

And great, the false DTs will be ghosted. Another failure of man.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 18 Nov 2005, 11:21

Storm wrote:And great, the false DTs will be ghosted. Another failure of man.

Mods can choose to disable ghosting in the current build IIRC... and XTA doesn't have any false DTs anyways.

Post by **jcnossen** » 18 Nov 2005, 11:26

Mods can choose to disable ghosting in the current build IIRC... and XTA doesn't have any false DTs anyways.

Not entirely, the lobby can choose, not the mod maker.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 18 Nov 2005, 12:01

Ew, what a gross solution...

10053r · Post by **10053r** » 18 Nov 2005, 20:46

how about adding neutral units? That would solve the unit slots problem.

Gnomre · Post by **Gnomre** » 18 Nov 2005, 22:50

Zaphod wrote:
Mods can choose to disable ghosting in the current build IIRC... and XTA doesn't have any false DTs anyways.
Not entirely, the lobby can choose, not the mod maker.

Could it be made a mod option? Like the high trajectory tags in FBI files...

GhostBuildings=0; //Always off no matter what
GhostBuildings=1; //Always on no matter what
GhostBuildings=2; //User option in the lobby as it is now

That'd make a nice addition to modinfo.tdf... The same thing would be nice for auto-targetting radar dots.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 18 Nov 2005, 23:04

Wait wait wait... Gosted Buildings.... are an OPTION?

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 19 Nov 2005, 01:25

Gnome wrote:The same thing would be nice for auto-targetting radar dots.

I concur. And add "fire through friendly" to the list of things I'd like to be toggleable.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 19 Nov 2005, 03:17

The ability to disable ghosted buildings on a building-by-building basis (with default to how it is now) would be great.

AF · Post by AF » 19 Nov 2005, 18:10

Zaphod, ghosted buildings was an option that could be turned off in the bianries I released with NTAI. Since then zaphod ahs taken those changes and made changes so that the next release will ahve full support for turnign them on ro off.

Post by **jcnossen** » 19 Nov 2005, 18:21

See this is exactly why there needs to be an extendible script system instead of a crapload of fbi tags. Everytime something new gets added, everyone starts thinking of little exceptions to the rule to make things even better... Not that I mind that, but I'm saying it's better to postpone a lot of things...

AF · Post by AF » 19 Nov 2005, 18:23

I think too many people are pushing for new thigns when zaphod should be making the innards fo spring as they are more stable, and working properly.

hat use is an engine that can do all these things based ontop of a faulty foundation.

Targ Collective · Post by **Targ Collective** » 20 Nov 2005, 20:15

I concur. There are real issues in the Spring engine that need resolving, well above and beyond the 'bells and whistles' type. Someone go bug a mod to make a dedicated 'Bells and Whistles' forum, so all these ideas can be collated instead of being buried under a mountain of future posts.

EDIT: Hang on, Zaphod's in this thread. Zaphod, you think that's a good idea?

The Collective

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 20 Nov 2005, 20:18

its definately a good idea as far as AA is concerned

Spring RTS Engine

Isfeature units (dragons teeth, fort walls, etc)

Isfeature units (dragons teeth, fort walls, etc)