Gnome I really expected better of you. For you to lose your top over people you yourself call whiney n00bs is just beneath you. I would say you're one of the pillars of this community, I never expected such an outburst from you. I've done nothing to deserve this kind of treatment.
Nonetheless I think Molloy's point does deserve to be made. Myself, I'd love to see a way of disabling friendly fire. I'd love to see a lot of things - proper collision models and custom explosion graphics and a hundred other things. The only question is in priority. As I've stated before, and I believe the SYs, other developers, and any other reasoning person will agree, things need to be done in order of how vital they are to the project's ultimate success.
The only reason I got my "dontland" tag is because I profusely nagged a generous developer and provided him with a manhour-cost versus benefit analysis. The fact is, that I'm aware of, at least 3 mods would benefit tremendously from the ability to simulate accurate spaceship-like movement. There was no favouritism in this developer's choice to help me, just the fact that it would benefit the most people with the least amount of work.
I was recently given the opportunity to see where Spring currently stands in terms of development for the next version. I'm an optimistic person regarding this engine and I believe strongly that it has a lot of potential. But when I first loaded up this new version, I was honestly scared for its future. To be perfectly honest, it's broken in a dozen different ways as a result of the implementation of platform-independent code. Of course I support the implementation of such code as it will exponentially increase our user base here, but at the same time the toll it has taken on the engine is dramatic.
To be perfectly honest, had I known the state that the engine currently sits in, I do not think I would have asked for this feature to be implemented. Every available bit of steam these generous developers have left in them needs to go into fixing the current known issues. To continually add to the list of things which are, I'm sure you'll admit, trivial in comparison, is only making the burden on Spring's developers heavier and heavier.
While the previously mentioned ability to disable friendly fire, such as was the case in OTA at all times, would be nice, it is not by any means essential. Mod makers are now building their mods around the premise that units cannot shoot through each other. We are the TA community, and we can adapt.
In any case, useful or not, this feature request may not be practical. While suspension of disbelief may have been possible in OTA with its orthographic top-down view, in full 3D you must understand it would not only look unrealistic, but this degree is fraudulent gameplay would likely turn away more prospective players than it would attract.
Consider. TAUniverse, TAFansite, and PlanetAnnihilation are basically all that remains of the Total Annihilation community. This bickering morass of some 500 individuals at most, in general no longer even play TA. And for what reason? I know that at least one reason is that more recent games, while certainly not surpassing Total Annihilation in terms of moddability or the overall "fun factor", just plain look a lot better. Things like units shooting through units is one of the things that died with the likes of Red Alert, Starcraft, Age of Empires, and Total Annihilation. A certain standard of realism in the midst of these unrealistic games is now expected.
So let's assume that there's a miracle and every single one of those users from the aforementioned forums starts playing Spring as a result of a perfect port of OTA gameplay, including the lack of accidental friendly fire and the ability for units to shoot through each other. (Let's also assume that they leave their habits and religious discussions behind) We are now up 500 players, but we've lost out on the entire crowd of many thousands of people who just expect better.
Again, I am certainly not against the implementation of a method of disabling friendly fire, but it ultimately comes down to a question of prioties. Cater to the minory by introducing many new obscure features which may not even be used, or cater to the majority and have an engine which, once again, is fully functional and at least reasonably efficient.
Is an OTA mod really what you want? I doubt even the most dedicated, possibly deluded fan of Total Annihilation can tell you in all honesty that he believes TA has achieved the end-all perfect balance which must be duplicated. For me at least, things like the domination of some half-dozen possible game-ending strategies (mass-this, mass-that, mass-one thing, mass-another, and so on) really ruin what might be a well-done balance. So fix those. But then more things are found. Fix those. Repeat. Repeat. You may find yourself at the conclusion that many others have. For perfect balance, there must be at least 2 counters to every strategy, and two ways to counter that counterattack, and so on. There is no clear and defined way to counter the MT forest or the other super-strategies of OTA without expending a far greater cost and therefore, of course, leaving yourself open to massive reprisal. You know that if your opponent builds MT forests, there isn't really a whole lot you can do besides build your own MT forest, since nine out of ten units in OTA are so specialized (and some might say useless) that there is really only one thing you can do, if that, to counter a certain strategy. Predicability is to the detriment of the RTS genre.
Re: Friendly Fire, an open letter to feature-requesters
Moderator: Moderators
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
This is an open letter adressed to the comunity. Were it only the comment about gnome I'd delete the post, but there's alot here that deserves to be talked about. I think there's some points of relevent argument that could be made here if people take the time to read the post and post intellegently.
As a reminder: Caydr's e-resume is not a valid discrediting point to the comments and point's he's made here and your e-resume is not a valid counter point. Please refrain from personal attacks. Caydr: if you have an issue that needs to be dealt with with gnome take it to PM. That first paragraph might be something good for gnome to read but it doesn't belong in this letter.
As a reminder: Caydr's e-resume is not a valid discrediting point to the comments and point's he's made here and your e-resume is not a valid counter point. Please refrain from personal attacks. Caydr: if you have an issue that needs to be dealt with with gnome take it to PM. That first paragraph might be something good for gnome to read but it doesn't belong in this letter.
Futhermore, It's particularly bad form to rebuttal to a response in a closed threadl, it should just be dropped, not be provided oxygen to freely flame.
As I might infer in a rather pretentious manner; I once mused myself during the early days of Spring about the conflict that would occur when those from the TAUniverse forums would come into contact with their best friends from the PlanetAnnihilation camp. Both sides are full of talented and driven people each with strong opinions about how Total Annihilation should be balanced and played. I knew it wouldn't be pretty. :/
Cadyr's alarm to the new version is something I have felt myself. In the early days of Spring, before it was released I had several chances to test with the SY, it was then that I realized that Spring still had miles to go before mutiplayer even worked right most of the time, I even suggested to the SYs that they should hold off and little longer, as not to dissapoint the community, most noteable to the fact that Total Annihilation content did not directly transfer to Spring. However, it was not to be, and Spring was released, and went through a dark time of people crying how it didn't work, and why it didn't work on linux and blah blah blah.
What's most interesting to note now, is that the community is booming at a point of transition as far as the code and the engine is concerned, people are under the impression that the engine is stable and is ready for more intensive feature addition. The last release is largely based around SJ's last release, who didn't believe that cross platform was really plausible and would require a fairly large rewrite of certain chunks of code. However with the change of command, the first thing on the list switched from new features to cross platform support.
There is no reason to stop suggestions concerning features from coming in, it's just the community has to realize that they're not going to be added to the game anytime soon, I trust Zaphod and the other developers to not go off on game feature tagents and will stick to making the game cross platform and stable in that state.
As I might infer in a rather pretentious manner; I once mused myself during the early days of Spring about the conflict that would occur when those from the TAUniverse forums would come into contact with their best friends from the PlanetAnnihilation camp. Both sides are full of talented and driven people each with strong opinions about how Total Annihilation should be balanced and played. I knew it wouldn't be pretty. :/
Cadyr's alarm to the new version is something I have felt myself. In the early days of Spring, before it was released I had several chances to test with the SY, it was then that I realized that Spring still had miles to go before mutiplayer even worked right most of the time, I even suggested to the SYs that they should hold off and little longer, as not to dissapoint the community, most noteable to the fact that Total Annihilation content did not directly transfer to Spring. However, it was not to be, and Spring was released, and went through a dark time of people crying how it didn't work, and why it didn't work on linux and blah blah blah.
What's most interesting to note now, is that the community is booming at a point of transition as far as the code and the engine is concerned, people are under the impression that the engine is stable and is ready for more intensive feature addition. The last release is largely based around SJ's last release, who didn't believe that cross platform was really plausible and would require a fairly large rewrite of certain chunks of code. However with the change of command, the first thing on the list switched from new features to cross platform support.
There is no reason to stop suggestions concerning features from coming in, it's just the community has to realize that they're not going to be added to the game anytime soon, I trust Zaphod and the other developers to not go off on game feature tagents and will stick to making the game cross platform and stable in that state.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Weather or not this thread is closed is up to zaphod, and zaphod alone. However, don't waste zaphods time making this forum hard to administrate just because I can't get you here.
Playtesting is never peaches and flowers. People seem to belive that playtesters get an early look at how a game before everyone else with no downside. The reality of the situation is that playtesters usually only see unplayably buggy builds that are almost depressing when you think that this needs to acctually become a game at some point.
Also zaphod works boarderline slaved level, and on a project that is unsurmountably large no less. Hell, probably just listing all the features people have requested for spring in the last month would take a good 24 hours, and he gets to code them. Not that it isn't alright to request features, just that you need to realize that every new feature request is generally just being added to the wishlist that already contains 100+ massive requests. It really isn't even fair to expect half of them to get done in a timely basis, expecially since the focus at the moment is trying to get a fully workable lunix build out. There's a reason SJ never took on that project, because it's entirely easier said then done.
Playtesting is never peaches and flowers. People seem to belive that playtesters get an early look at how a game before everyone else with no downside. The reality of the situation is that playtesters usually only see unplayably buggy builds that are almost depressing when you think that this needs to acctually become a game at some point.
Also zaphod works boarderline slaved level, and on a project that is unsurmountably large no less. Hell, probably just listing all the features people have requested for spring in the last month would take a good 24 hours, and he gets to code them. Not that it isn't alright to request features, just that you need to realize that every new feature request is generally just being added to the wishlist that already contains 100+ massive requests. It really isn't even fair to expect half of them to get done in a timely basis, expecially since the focus at the moment is trying to get a fully workable lunix build out. There's a reason SJ never took on that project, because it's entirely easier said then done.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Caydr, I think Gnome's frustration was not meant to be vented in your direction, but rather in the direction of a number of fans of your modification. He's comments regarding AA were a knee-jerk regarding the hoarde of attacks by AA funs on OTA. While this certainly isn't your fault, I do think you have somewhat of a responsibility for the behaviour of your fans. If you see them behaving in a way that brings a bad name to AA (and I mean no offense when I say this, but some of your fans are developing a reputation for being rude and/or aggressive - perhaps its just part and parcel of being such a popular mod), perhaps you should point out that what they are doing is not on. They won't listen to who they consider "morons" trying to "ruin their game", but they will certainly listen to you. Opening your letter [no pun intended] with a retort towards Gnome somewhat sets a negative tone for what is otherwise a reasonably good post. (Though post it is, not grandiose letter 
)
While many of the points you made are good, I must disagree with this particular paragraph:
With regards to shooting through things, while yes, games have evolved, I could quite easily argue that they haven't really learnt. The RTS genre is still a quagmire, and is becoming more and more like hollywood, with big budget blockbusters with wizz-bang special effects, but no plot, poor acting, and no heart. Sure, the latest installments of C&C or the 'Craft franchises don't have things shooting through each other; but whether these have really improved on earlier games is something completely different.
Another important consideration is that seems to be going amiss is the effect on gameplay. While it can certainly be argued that missiles going through things is unrealistic; how Spring deals with this is also less than desireable. Because units cannot shoot through each other, long ranged units (that fire by LOS, and not ballistically) are now useless in groups; short ranged units, especially fast and high powered ones, dominate the game. This is also unrealistic; far more realistic than units firing through each other, but also less fun; and arguably, not really in the spirit of TA (to avoid the ire of anti-TA people: the spirit (And not a recreation) which TASpring is attempting to recreate through its design goal. Noone could honestly doubt the spirit of TA in these forums, because by being fans of Spring, they are by inference being fans of the spirit of TA).
Star Wars TA, for one, has really been troubled by this issue. Because the majority of star wars weapons are lasers, it means that units in groups are far less effective. Units, while unable to to fire through friendly units, do not seem to have any particular behaviour modes to deal with the fact that they can no longer shoot further. A large group of Stormtroopers trying to fire on a single enemy target will become completely bewildered (other than the very front), bump into each other, turn around, try and get closer to the unit, with no results. The most powerful unit ground unit so far in SWS (the ATST) has become more powerful than it was ever intended to be, simply because of its high firing point.
Sure, unit control is important; but weight of numbers are far less important in Spring, because of this issue, irregardless of unit control. Furthermore, this issue (along with auto-radar targeting) balances favour well into the hands of a defender; because a defensive line is able to fire at an advancing mass of enemy units one at a time. Instead of a defensive line having to fire at 30 units at a time, it is a defensive line having to fire at 10 units, then 10 units, then 10 units. This is a very large disadvantage to the offensive player, unless they are using units which fire ballistically, units which are fast and short ranged, or expensive units with a big punch that will rarely be seen in numbers where they impede each other. I think if you take a close look at all the mods; the most favoured units will fit one of these categories; and the best units probably more than one of them.
If firing through friendlies isn't removed, then things have to be done to ensure that Spring behaves better under its current friendly fire conditions. Units should be less temperamental about firing close to friends. I'd rather hit 4 out of 5 times, and graze my own unit once, then have my units ignore a clear firing path, and give the enemy even more of a chance to take advantage of this.
Gnome also suggested the following earlier:
<Gnome> i would personally rather see them try to encircle the target
<Gnome> but, that might cause problems if it's two lines doing battle
<Gnome> so maybe hook it into the move orders
<Gnome> maneuver would make no specific effort to get into a firing position, roam would allow them to try to fully surround it
<Gnome> or something to that effect
<Gnome> maybe hold position makes no effort, manuever semi-circles, roam surrounds
<Gnome> in any case, they should *always* try to do it at range
Finally, for the record; TA's friendly fire was very good. It was one of the first games to implement actual friendly fire, in a system where friendly fire was a common and regular occurence, and seriously had to be considered as part of your plans. If you used long ranged artillery units to fire at enemy units while your short ranged light units (flashes, stumpies, etc) were engaging, you would tear your units to pieces just as much as those of your enemy. You could even draw enemy fire into regions where they would deal as much damage to their own units/buildings as to your own.
Perhaps, if a system allowing friendly units to fire through each other were allowed, it could be set that there was a short immunity for travelling weapons, so that for the first few moments of their flight, they would be able to travel through friendly units, but after that, anything it touches it will hit. This would solve the issues that arise from the lack of firing through things, without completely altering the gameplay, or the realism.
I understand that there are more pressing things to be done; but I also think that this is important; what is more, I don't see any harm in discussing it and coming to a conclusion regarding it before the window to implement it is available.
And I feel I must point out, for those people who think that everything is solely about them and their mod I would not want this as a default option; I would simply want it as an option which mods can utilise, perhaps a selectable choice in the game-room. I don't want to force this on anyone who doesn't want it; but there are people who want it.
As Caydr said earlier; if this change would bring 500 and discourage 1000 (both large exaggurations, unfortunately. If only there were that many people on both ends lining up to play), surely if it was an option, both the 500 and the 1000 would be appeased; resulting 1500 new players for Spring?
) While many of the points you made are good, I must disagree with this particular paragraph:
I'd hardly describe it as a "bickering morass"; and I rather find this somewhat offensive, having more or less grown up in the TA community (Joined up in 2000; was 14). The TA community is far tighter knit then you would expect; people are very friendly, and on the whole, I think it is thriving, not dying like you say. Our numbers certainly aren't going up; but at the same time, they aren't going down either.Consider. TAUniverse, TAFansite, and PlanetAnnihilation are basically all that remains of the Total Annihilation community. This bickering morass of some 500 individuals at most, in general no longer even play TA. And for what reason? I know that at least one reason is that more recent games, while certainly not surpassing Total Annihilation in terms of moddability or the overall "fun factor", just plain look a lot better. Things like units shooting through units is one of the things that died with the likes of Red Alert, Starcraft, Age of Empires, and Total Annihilation. A certain standard of realism in the midst of these unrealistic games is now expected.
With regards to shooting through things, while yes, games have evolved, I could quite easily argue that they haven't really learnt. The RTS genre is still a quagmire, and is becoming more and more like hollywood, with big budget blockbusters with wizz-bang special effects, but no plot, poor acting, and no heart. Sure, the latest installments of C&C or the 'Craft franchises don't have things shooting through each other; but whether these have really improved on earlier games is something completely different.
Another important consideration is that seems to be going amiss is the effect on gameplay. While it can certainly be argued that missiles going through things is unrealistic; how Spring deals with this is also less than desireable. Because units cannot shoot through each other, long ranged units (that fire by LOS, and not ballistically) are now useless in groups; short ranged units, especially fast and high powered ones, dominate the game. This is also unrealistic; far more realistic than units firing through each other, but also less fun; and arguably, not really in the spirit of TA (to avoid the ire of anti-TA people: the spirit (And not a recreation) which TASpring is attempting to recreate through its design goal. Noone could honestly doubt the spirit of TA in these forums, because by being fans of Spring, they are by inference being fans of the spirit of TA).
Star Wars TA, for one, has really been troubled by this issue. Because the majority of star wars weapons are lasers, it means that units in groups are far less effective. Units, while unable to to fire through friendly units, do not seem to have any particular behaviour modes to deal with the fact that they can no longer shoot further. A large group of Stormtroopers trying to fire on a single enemy target will become completely bewildered (other than the very front), bump into each other, turn around, try and get closer to the unit, with no results. The most powerful unit ground unit so far in SWS (the ATST) has become more powerful than it was ever intended to be, simply because of its high firing point.
Sure, unit control is important; but weight of numbers are far less important in Spring, because of this issue, irregardless of unit control. Furthermore, this issue (along with auto-radar targeting) balances favour well into the hands of a defender; because a defensive line is able to fire at an advancing mass of enemy units one at a time. Instead of a defensive line having to fire at 30 units at a time, it is a defensive line having to fire at 10 units, then 10 units, then 10 units. This is a very large disadvantage to the offensive player, unless they are using units which fire ballistically, units which are fast and short ranged, or expensive units with a big punch that will rarely be seen in numbers where they impede each other. I think if you take a close look at all the mods; the most favoured units will fit one of these categories; and the best units probably more than one of them.
If firing through friendlies isn't removed, then things have to be done to ensure that Spring behaves better under its current friendly fire conditions. Units should be less temperamental about firing close to friends. I'd rather hit 4 out of 5 times, and graze my own unit once, then have my units ignore a clear firing path, and give the enemy even more of a chance to take advantage of this.
Gnome also suggested the following earlier:
<Gnome> i would personally rather see them try to encircle the target
<Gnome> but, that might cause problems if it's two lines doing battle
<Gnome> so maybe hook it into the move orders
<Gnome> maneuver would make no specific effort to get into a firing position, roam would allow them to try to fully surround it
<Gnome> or something to that effect
<Gnome> maybe hold position makes no effort, manuever semi-circles, roam surrounds
<Gnome> in any case, they should *always* try to do it at range
Finally, for the record; TA's friendly fire was very good. It was one of the first games to implement actual friendly fire, in a system where friendly fire was a common and regular occurence, and seriously had to be considered as part of your plans. If you used long ranged artillery units to fire at enemy units while your short ranged light units (flashes, stumpies, etc) were engaging, you would tear your units to pieces just as much as those of your enemy. You could even draw enemy fire into regions where they would deal as much damage to their own units/buildings as to your own.
Perhaps, if a system allowing friendly units to fire through each other were allowed, it could be set that there was a short immunity for travelling weapons, so that for the first few moments of their flight, they would be able to travel through friendly units, but after that, anything it touches it will hit. This would solve the issues that arise from the lack of firing through things, without completely altering the gameplay, or the realism.
I understand that there are more pressing things to be done; but I also think that this is important; what is more, I don't see any harm in discussing it and coming to a conclusion regarding it before the window to implement it is available.
And I feel I must point out, for those people who think that everything is solely about them and their mod I would not want this as a default option; I would simply want it as an option which mods can utilise, perhaps a selectable choice in the game-room. I don't want to force this on anyone who doesn't want it; but there are people who want it.
As Caydr said earlier; if this change would bring 500 and discourage 1000 (both large exaggurations, unfortunately. If only there were that many people on both ends lining up to play), surely if it was an option, both the 500 and the 1000 would be appeased; resulting 1500 new players for Spring?
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
As a point of argument, many members of the current spring generation might tell manually forcing units to encircle and properly range attack a target is an aspect of micro management skill, and thus argue that drasicly changing the way TAS units respond to attack orders and other base level AI scenarioes would be removing one of the skill elements of the game that. They might be wrong but playing devils advocate I can't see why they would have any less valid a point as people claiming that units should be able to shoot through eachother do.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
I would find that highly ironic, considering the very same people argued that auto-radar targeting and ghosted buildings don't usurp necessary player skill, which the TA veterans argued it did.
As I said, controlling units is important, but Spring was never about forcing players to control a unit to make up for some deficiency in the game engine/game design, which was the argument behind the inclusion of ghosted buildings, or auto-radar targeting.
Telling your units to surround the enemy because you want to divide their fire while concentrating yours is good tactical management. Telling your units to surround the enemy because otherwise they won't fire properly is something altogether different.
As I said, controlling units is important, but Spring was never about forcing players to control a unit to make up for some deficiency in the game engine/game design, which was the argument behind the inclusion of ghosted buildings, or auto-radar targeting.
Telling your units to surround the enemy because you want to divide their fire while concentrating yours is good tactical management. Telling your units to surround the enemy because otherwise they won't fire properly is something altogether different.
Auto-radar targeting and ghosted buildings absolutely dumb down the game that we've come to know and love. Nearly every "feature" that Spring and AA add does nothing but begin the transference from game to "war simulation" where you tell the game what to build, and where to go, but don't really do anything that seperates good players from bad. Unit Control in nearly every RTS game is what makes the difference between two evenly matched players, but in Spring, with Aircraft being impossible to control properly, and everything firing at little radar dots automatically, however inaccurately, that line is blurred, because the majority of the current generation of Spring gamers were probably fairly bad at TA, and felt it was a deficiency of the game, not their own skill.
I have to disagree with that. There was really low activity during christmas and before that, but I'm quite optimistic about it again. Chris Han is suddenly really active again (more than me actually in terms of new features), and there are tobi and greenail working on sync, fnordia doing small bugfixes regularly again.Also zaphod works boarderline slaved level, and on a project that is unsurmountably large no less.
All in all, once the next release is there I think spring development will go faster than on the old windows code. The development has been getting more open and more people are working on it.
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
Ghosted buildings I can agree on to some extent, but whether buildings are kept track of automatically (as was a standard from... something like Warcraft 1 and the original CnC... and probably Dune, though I've never played it, it's logical) or by a guy who holds down his tilde key and makes dots everywhere he sees something he wants to blow up at a later time... it doesn't really make much of a difference in my mind. Unless you think that even the features introduced by TA Demo Recorder were bad, I don't think this argument holds a lot of water.
As to automatic radar targetting, I completely disagree. People shouldn't have to hand-hold their armies just because that's how it was done before. Having to go on a pixel hunt every time you want to attack something that's not in your direct LoS is silly.
Summer, your post is backed by no evidence. I know many excellent OTA players who have come to Spring. There was an initial disorientation, but they quickly caught on and play it over TA now. I myself was a pretty damn good TA player before I started working on AA - now I rarely get time to play more than a couple times a week and I'm completely out of practice. HOWEVER, I do blame TA for many situations which caused me to lose the game, such as the fact that as I mentioned there are just a handful of ruthlessly game-dominating strategies. AA does not dumb the game down, it opens the game up to a completely unprecidented level of strategy and playability. You can't just build a sh*tload of X and know you'll win.
I would have gladly, as you suggested, told any players of AA involved in the discussion to back off, but the discussion was locked before I took notice of it. People are entitled to their opinion and I strongly disapprove of any attacks made on people who play other mods, etc. I didn't realize this situation even existed - I'm not omnipoetent, I can't possibly read every active thread here.
As to automatic radar targetting, I completely disagree. People shouldn't have to hand-hold their armies just because that's how it was done before. Having to go on a pixel hunt every time you want to attack something that's not in your direct LoS is silly.
Summer, your post is backed by no evidence. I know many excellent OTA players who have come to Spring. There was an initial disorientation, but they quickly caught on and play it over TA now. I myself was a pretty damn good TA player before I started working on AA - now I rarely get time to play more than a couple times a week and I'm completely out of practice. HOWEVER, I do blame TA for many situations which caused me to lose the game, such as the fact that as I mentioned there are just a handful of ruthlessly game-dominating strategies. AA does not dumb the game down, it opens the game up to a completely unprecidented level of strategy and playability. You can't just build a sh*tload of X and know you'll win.
I would have gladly, as you suggested, told any players of AA involved in the discussion to back off, but the discussion was locked before I took notice of it. People are entitled to their opinion and I strongly disapprove of any attacks made on people who play other mods, etc. I didn't realize this situation even existed - I'm not omnipoetent, I can't possibly read every active thread here.
here's what I think...
I think "goes-through-friendly-units" might be a nice option(in lobby) as it allows a different gameplay and feeling but here's a thought
1) Main problems currently-
a)units close together when firing can hurt each other because of their big collision spheres.
b)Defense often not firing because of FF, and it can't adjust it's targeting by moving a little like mobile units because it's stationary.(especially plasma towers like punisher suffer from this, prolly because their canon position is low)
c) Actually colliding uits like your aircraft shouldn't be able to hurt each other- this makes no sense.
Anyway, my suggestion:
1)For all defensive structures set their firing point/cannon position a lot higher(and adjust dt's accordingly so now they will be more usefull) so they will be able to fire over most stuff around them.
2)Attacker should try to attack the open part of target's collision sphere(like a cannon sticking out from top of a DT) but the shot is ofcourse not 100% precise so if only a small part of cannon is sticking from DT it still would be hard for a unit to hurt it.
3)Main thing: When attacker attacks a target make all collision boxes/spheres between them smaller-like the size of sphere that would fit inside the units: this way if there's a unit right in the way it still won't fire, but if it moves just a little- the atacker will have a clear shot;
the sphere of the target would stay the same- maybe the same size as now and if a friendly unit happens to get in the space of target's sphere it will be hurt ofcourse.
In real war the units are small, the space between them is really big so there's usually always a space to make a shot at the enemy, unless there's a friendly unit right in your face, so this model might work...
4)Make unit's targeting(aiming scripts) better: you often see the problem when a unit switches between targets(partly because unable to attack because of FF) all the time and cannot decide which to attack; So a unit should track it's target somewhat longer and wait some time for a clear shot if FF is possible.
1) Main problems currently-
a)units close together when firing can hurt each other because of their big collision spheres.
b)Defense often not firing because of FF, and it can't adjust it's targeting by moving a little like mobile units because it's stationary.(especially plasma towers like punisher suffer from this, prolly because their canon position is low)
c) Actually colliding uits like your aircraft shouldn't be able to hurt each other- this makes no sense.
Anyway, my suggestion:
1)For all defensive structures set their firing point/cannon position a lot higher(and adjust dt's accordingly so now they will be more usefull) so they will be able to fire over most stuff around them.
2)Attacker should try to attack the open part of target's collision sphere(like a cannon sticking out from top of a DT) but the shot is ofcourse not 100% precise so if only a small part of cannon is sticking from DT it still would be hard for a unit to hurt it.
3)Main thing: When attacker attacks a target make all collision boxes/spheres between them smaller-like the size of sphere that would fit inside the units: this way if there's a unit right in the way it still won't fire, but if it moves just a little- the atacker will have a clear shot;
the sphere of the target would stay the same- maybe the same size as now and if a friendly unit happens to get in the space of target's sphere it will be hurt ofcourse.
In real war the units are small, the space between them is really big so there's usually always a space to make a shot at the enemy, unless there's a friendly unit right in your face, so this model might work...
4)Make unit's targeting(aiming scripts) better: you often see the problem when a unit switches between targets(partly because unable to attack because of FF) all the time and cannot decide which to attack; So a unit should track it's target somewhat longer and wait some time for a clear shot if FF is possible.
Ok, time for me to get dirty.
You guys are acting like children. Options are disableable, and by nature can be TURNED OFF. Every single IQ-dropping flamenugget that has been far more than the 'This should be put at the bottom of the Dev list' post that it needed. I, for one, vote in favor of the option, yet I probably won't play it at all, simply because I know other people like it.
Go to bed kids. Shut up, and go to bed.
You guys are acting like children. Options are disableable, and by nature can be TURNED OFF. Every single IQ-dropping flamenugget that has been far more than the 'This should be put at the bottom of the Dev list' post that it needed. I, for one, vote in favor of the option, yet I probably won't play it at all, simply because I know other people like it.
Go to bed kids. Shut up, and go to bed.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
I don't think anyone's in disagreement with you. The argument is that "should be optional" and "is optional" are on different planes, because adding new features that are honestly fairly low priority to the tag system is taking up development time and clogging up tag system organization. I understand that OTA mod would benifit from these features, but the timeline between when something gets asked for and when something acctually gets implimented isn't usually instant. The last tag feature I remember being added was the do not land feature that several mod authors expressed the need to have.Slamoid wrote:Ok, time for me to get dirty.
You guys are acting like children. Options are disableable, and by nature can be TURNED OFF. Every single IQ-dropping flamenugget that has been far more than the 'This should be put at the bottom of the Dev list' post that it needed. I, for one, vote in favor of the option, yet I probably won't play it at all, simply because I know other people like it.
Go to bed kids. Shut up, and go to bed.
What's your problem Slamoid? Did you read anything in this thread?
The option should not be server-based, it should be mod-based. Balance needs to be adjusted *dramatically* if friendly fire is disabled in order for the majority of units to not be useless while others are like krogoths before peewees.
The problem Warlord mentioned, of Stormtroopers freaking out because they can't target the enemy, will be improved a lot once custom weapon collision meshes are possible. A LOT of the current problem of units often not firing when it looks like they should be able to can be blamed on the very makeshift method in which weapon impact spheres are calculated currently. I believe that this problem will largely solve itself once collision meshes are possible and implemented in the mods.
Finally, I want to talk about something completely different:
I think a lot of people here need to get a thicker skin. For every contributing member to this community there will be half a dozen idiots and you all need to understand that. This isn't Nazi Germany where the slightest offense gets you shot, and not every tiny affront needs to be pounced on, deleted, and its poster banned. I'm all for a more peaceful community here, but not at the expense of the ability to be honest. Not every sentence must be "seasoned with salt" and filled with so much PC crap that the actual meaning is lost in the struggle not to offend anyone.
The option should not be server-based, it should be mod-based. Balance needs to be adjusted *dramatically* if friendly fire is disabled in order for the majority of units to not be useless while others are like krogoths before peewees.
The problem Warlord mentioned, of Stormtroopers freaking out because they can't target the enemy, will be improved a lot once custom weapon collision meshes are possible. A LOT of the current problem of units often not firing when it looks like they should be able to can be blamed on the very makeshift method in which weapon impact spheres are calculated currently. I believe that this problem will largely solve itself once collision meshes are possible and implemented in the mods.
Finally, I want to talk about something completely different:
What I said about Gnome was not an attack on him. I was expressing my dismay that he completely lost his temper over such insubstantial provocation. I was hoping he'd look back and maybe try harder not to lose his temper the next time.Neuralize wrote:Shouldn't really start out the thread with a personal attack, but whatever, the topic is good none the less.
I think a lot of people here need to get a thicker skin. For every contributing member to this community there will be half a dozen idiots and you all need to understand that. This isn't Nazi Germany where the slightest offense gets you shot, and not every tiny affront needs to be pounced on, deleted, and its poster banned. I'm all for a more peaceful community here, but not at the expense of the ability to be honest. Not every sentence must be "seasoned with salt" and filled with so much PC crap that the actual meaning is lost in the struggle not to offend anyone.
Last edited by Caydr on 19 Feb 2006, 21:09, edited 1 time in total.
I'm just going to say 3 things here.
1. Friendly fire occured in OTA. Not the same way that it occurs in Spring, but it definately occured, and was part of play, and was sometimes very annoying.
2. Fixing the scripts/models of units so that they can fire in a reasonable fashion is quite easy, if you know how. For example, I have tested making a missile launcher that can fire over other units. It's not hard. Simply have a weapon with the launcher barrels forced up to a certain angle and have the shots emerge from them. Half of this "controversy" comes from people who are, apparantly, very uncomfortable with unit design and scripting- if you knew what you were talking about, you'd realise a lot of the "problems" here come from the fact that OTA's units weren't ever intended to behave realistically- Cavedog was using a lot of smoke and mirrors, and it looked fine from top-down. It's all fixable, but not without the obvious costs of re-designing a lot of OTA units so that they actually can behave in realistic ways.
3. Using S3O solves a lot of the problems of junky friendly-fire. Really. Now that I have gotten the hang of designing the collision spheres and adjusting the heights and centers of my models, I will be able to make units that can fire around each other without significant problems. AND you can make things shoot through each others' top sections by just moving the centerpoint of the S3O below the groundplate. Perfect? No. But it's a lot better than the behaviors of 3DOs.
Lastly, I think that making a tag for weapon TDFs that would cause units to ignore friendly units hitboxes/spheres would be a lot harder than most of those who have proposed such a solution realise. This would involve changes to the aiming and shot animation code which would be quite problematical- for one thing, we'd have to have a solution that didn't look totally lame. Spring's shots travel in real 3D paths. OTA's did not, despite appearing to do so. Their hitboxes did, but the shots were drawn over everything else, to preserve the illusion. Just "making a tag" would be a looooot of work- think about implementing such a thing... that would look convincing from ALL ANGLES! Sheer madness... I thought I'd asked for a lot from Zaphod et al!
I understand that there's a lot've nostalgia involved here. I don't really sympathise, nor do I agree with people who want to remake OTA in Spring... but I understand that people do, and I won't stand in their way if they're willing and able to put the work in, and not just whine about it in public.
To do so in the true spirit of OTA, though, you should learn how to model, script and game-design... and make something that doesn't have to cheat reality to be a decent game. Because that's where Chris Roberts and the Cavedog team really made a serious difference- unlike the vast majority of RTS games ever made (including many modern ones- Caydr is incorrect, but that's beside the point) OTA was really attempting to achieve a game with serious versimilitude of physical behavior... within the limits of 1998 computing. Spring is 2006 computing, and my opinion is that limiting us to 1998 gameplay when we can have 2006 gameplay is a waste of time, but if they want to put their time and talent into making something worth the developers' support, more power to them.
That's my opinion.
1. Friendly fire occured in OTA. Not the same way that it occurs in Spring, but it definately occured, and was part of play, and was sometimes very annoying.
2. Fixing the scripts/models of units so that they can fire in a reasonable fashion is quite easy, if you know how. For example, I have tested making a missile launcher that can fire over other units. It's not hard. Simply have a weapon with the launcher barrels forced up to a certain angle and have the shots emerge from them. Half of this "controversy" comes from people who are, apparantly, very uncomfortable with unit design and scripting- if you knew what you were talking about, you'd realise a lot of the "problems" here come from the fact that OTA's units weren't ever intended to behave realistically- Cavedog was using a lot of smoke and mirrors, and it looked fine from top-down. It's all fixable, but not without the obvious costs of re-designing a lot of OTA units so that they actually can behave in realistic ways.
3. Using S3O solves a lot of the problems of junky friendly-fire. Really. Now that I have gotten the hang of designing the collision spheres and adjusting the heights and centers of my models, I will be able to make units that can fire around each other without significant problems. AND you can make things shoot through each others' top sections by just moving the centerpoint of the S3O below the groundplate. Perfect? No. But it's a lot better than the behaviors of 3DOs.
Lastly, I think that making a tag for weapon TDFs that would cause units to ignore friendly units hitboxes/spheres would be a lot harder than most of those who have proposed such a solution realise. This would involve changes to the aiming and shot animation code which would be quite problematical- for one thing, we'd have to have a solution that didn't look totally lame. Spring's shots travel in real 3D paths. OTA's did not, despite appearing to do so. Their hitboxes did, but the shots were drawn over everything else, to preserve the illusion. Just "making a tag" would be a looooot of work- think about implementing such a thing... that would look convincing from ALL ANGLES! Sheer madness... I thought I'd asked for a lot from Zaphod et al!
I understand that there's a lot've nostalgia involved here. I don't really sympathise, nor do I agree with people who want to remake OTA in Spring... but I understand that people do, and I won't stand in their way if they're willing and able to put the work in, and not just whine about it in public.
To do so in the true spirit of OTA, though, you should learn how to model, script and game-design... and make something that doesn't have to cheat reality to be a decent game. Because that's where Chris Roberts and the Cavedog team really made a serious difference- unlike the vast majority of RTS games ever made (including many modern ones- Caydr is incorrect, but that's beside the point) OTA was really attempting to achieve a game with serious versimilitude of physical behavior... within the limits of 1998 computing. Spring is 2006 computing, and my opinion is that limiting us to 1998 gameplay when we can have 2006 gameplay is a waste of time, but if they want to put their time and talent into making something worth the developers' support, more power to them.
That's my opinion.