delems

Infantry spawn building (SP).

115 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, major0noob said:

in the meantime basic stuff can attract a crowd, and its within their capabilities. just have to identify them...

like going back to the inf-fru, all the work is done for it, and there is a need to improve the battles both; petering out, as well as getting started

I'm attracted (and it would motivate me to stick around) by things that improve gameplay. The spawn building and CP seem like likely targets, since 100% of  gameplay revolves around them, and the CP is also the point at which the very worst of the game is to be seen.

6 hours ago, major0noob said:

low hanging fruit... there are easy opportunities for improvements, easy enough to be reversible experiments like the constant ToE changes.

the fb 3x health patch was the exact same issue: easy work, lots of controversy, and easily reversible if it failed.

This is a great point, and why I made that thread asking for what was possible---to which I got the non-answer, "anything is possible."

The CPs and spawns seem like reasonable things to tweak since they are 100% the same, everywhere, so they could be globally replace just by changing 2 physical objects that all the locations in game point to, so the imapct per unit work seems pretty high, and they could always be swapped back. The buildings would have to have the exact same footprint, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tater said:

This is a great point, and why I made that thread asking for what was possible---to which I got the non-answer, "anything is possible."

The CPs and spawns seem like reasonable things to tweak since they are 100% the same, everywhere, so they could be globally replace just by changing 2 physical objects that all the locations in game point to, so the imapct per unit work seems pretty high, and they could always be swapped back. The buildings would have to have the exact same footprint, however.

based on past projects

  • 1 year for anything 3d (PPO's)
  • 2+ years if there's non-existing features, like a new vehicle without a base (sherman CS 1yr vs m18 hellcat 2+)
  • 6 months for modifications/changes not involving features, like the textures on 4g. (NOT like the 09 flop)
  • 1+ year for modifications/changes involving existing features, 09 flop (splitting towns & their CP's)
  • 1-3 days for ToE tweaks
  • 1-2 weeks to revert a feature/tweak it's properties (ex. FB health, HC-fru, PPO health/distance/build/cool times)
  • and finally, 3+ years for stuff like town based supply, major overhauls. the ones everyone like to talk about willy nilly

 

they could do them faster or slower, but multiple are in the works at the same time. based on memory of announcements to implementation, this is more of a rule of thumb.

this is why i advocate the under 1 month approaches, they can be done and experimented on without sunk costs in work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can see that.

So areas ripe for easy gameplay experiment (intermission?) might be:

1. EWS range setting.

2. AO timer.

3. Cap timers: multiplier for added inf, or if you need to clear the inf in the building (as the defender currently must), etc.

4. FMS rules: distances, (what are the already coded variables, just the exclusion from enemy facilities?), damage to kill, etc.

5. AI fields of fire, range, damage, and rebuild times.

6. Garrison and Brigade sizes, as well as associated spawn lists (facilities, MSPs, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

each and every one will invite a catastrophic change according to the forums... made the devs too afraid to experiment

 

i would say they're safe for normal campaigns, they're simple enough to trial for a month without much of a difference. if there is a difference they can scale back and experiment incrementally instead; the FMS doesn't have to go 0m or 1km, there's 1000 options in between

if there is a catastrophe, it's a simple revert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, major0noob said:

each and every one will invite a catastrophic change according to the forums... made the devs too afraid to experiment

 

i would say they're safe for normal campaigns, they're simple enough to trial for a month without much of a difference. if there is a difference they can scale back and experiment incrementally instead; the FMS doesn't have to go 0m or 1km, there's 1000 options in between

if there is a catastrophe, it's a simple revert

I think you underestimate the coding difficulties of some things, independent of any gameplay effects. It's not a simple reversion unless it is DESIGNED to be simple, i.e. a value input for things like FMS distance.

I suspect some things have been retrofitted that way, others like the spawnlist entry apparently has not when it should have been at the least database template type loads and not a painful hand process that is practically designed to create errors and paranoia/ill-will.  I would say that process is a good example of why the Rats don't do more spawnlist experimentation and the coding IS a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** like going back to the inf-fru

Only way I would ever go for this is if there was a frontline, say based on drawing lines from every frontline town to each other, then disallowing any MS to be built in enemy territory.

Then, MS could only be built in no-mans land between the front lines (or friendly area behind own frontline).  I don't even like the HCMS atm.

 

Regarding development and changes, there has been lots of changes and lots of dev work going on; some fantastic additions (new gear, new terrain), and they are making changes to basic game play (grouping up actually speeds cap timers now).  So, give them some credit, game is improving :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, major0noob said:

each and every one will invite a catastrophic change according to the forums... made the devs too afraid to experiment

Which is sad, because I think they need to experiment and iterate with the available options where total recoding is not really on the table.

 

20 minutes ago, major0noob said:

i would say they're safe for normal campaigns, they're simple enough to trial for a month without much of a difference. if there is a difference they can scale back and experiment incrementally instead; the FMS doesn't have to go 0m or 1km, there's 1000 options in between

if there is a catastrophe, it's a simple revert

Yeah, exactly, who cares if some campaign ends up slightly goofy, it's better than the same thing happening over, and over.

1 minute ago, Kilemall said:

I suspect some things have been retrofitted that way, others like the spawnlist entry apparently has not when it should have been at the least database template type loads and not a painful hand process that is practically designed to create errors and paranoia/ill-will.  I would say that process is a good example of why the Rats don't do more spawnlist experimentation and the coding IS a thing.

Yeah, you'd expect that things would be as they are in the other games I play (and mod). Look at the profound changes people have been able to accomplish in some game engines with no more than plain txt cfg files. That was the point of my other thread about what is possible, and I got the non-answer I got. What I'd like to see is:

Buildings are really hard, and we never had a GUI to let people simply place objects on the map, and hit "save," which would have made making the map originally like 10 million times easier.

You'd think many things are simple cfg files like, AI_MG_range=250, when instead, for some reason it's coded with every single one individually, so we have to change 50,000 lines of code to change that.

(made up, obviously, but I have no idea what is simple, and what isn't---and I was hoping to see a list of what was trivial, and what was very unlikely)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kilemall said:

I think you underestimate the coding difficulties of some things, independent of any gameplay effects. It's not a simple reversion unless it is DESIGNED to be simple, i.e. a value input for things like FMS distance.

that's why i said it's more of a rule of thumb, based on their announcements to implementation time

 

2 hours ago, delems said:

*** like going back to the inf-fru

Only way I would ever go for this is if there was a frontline, say based on drawing lines from every frontline town to each other, then disallowing any MS to be built in enemy territory.

Then, MS could only be built in no-mans land between the front lines (or friendly area behind own frontline).  I don't even like the HCMS atm.

regardless of our opinions no matter how hardline they are, the polls have shown a even split between the spawn mechanics.

other than reverting, every other idea is overly complex. I'm not against front lines, just thinking within their limits and capabilities. reverting, just as a experiment is within their capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tater said:

Which is sad, because I think they need to experiment and iterate with the available options where total recoding is not really on the table.

 

Yeah, exactly, who cares if some campaign ends up slightly goofy, it's better than the same thing happening over, and over.

Yeah, you'd expect that things would be as they are in the other games I play (and mod). Look at the profound changes people have been able to accomplish in some game engines with no more than plain txt cfg files. That was the point of my other thread about what is possible, and I got the non-answer I got. What I'd like to see is:

Buildings are really hard, and we never had a GUI to let people simply place objects on the map, and hit "save," which would have made making the map originally like 10 million times easier.

You'd think many things are simple cfg files like, AI_MG_range=250, when instead, for some reason it's coded with every single one individually, so we have to change 50,000 lines of code to change that.

(made up, obviously, but I have no idea what is simple, and what isn't---and I was hoping to see a list of what was trivial, and what was very unlikely)

yeah, but the game is from the PS1 era. it's incredible they've been able to get the game to use 1gb of memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm revisiting this after a comment by @gavalink in another thread.

Take @delems original idea to get people out of the depots, and add in something akin to my suggestion above for a wide open CP with a few small areas to hide.

I wonder if it would be possible to try this. Find SOME building with the same footprint as a CP (or anything smaller) that is wide open (a stone barn?), and set the texture to capture, then play it on intermission or something.

My specific idea is say the graveyard concept. You have a tomb that has a turn in it (like the CP closet). Capping in there has you staring at a wall. Everyone else can be outside, obviously. To clear the "CP" you need to throw a nade into that tomb, basically. Otherwise, the place can be covered from all the surrounding buildings, and in fact a decent chance at capping means securing the area that has LOS to the capture area. Note that you can still chuck smoke, and get a guy into the tomb, and the enemy will have to get boots in to clear that tomb, but a single guy in there would take a while,a nd the fight becomes broader than the fights inside the CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Propaganda?  Education?

GJjRrpq.jpg

Edited by downtown
Updated Image
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** I wonder if it would be possible to try this. Find SOME building with the same footprint as a CP (or anything smaller) that is wide open (a stone barn?), and set the texture to capture, then play it on intermission or something.

Good idea.  Just make one of the capture areas the current CP, but make it more rubbled, like nearly to the ground but with a wall or pile maybe.

 

Also, back to original forum post, change the SP to 1 floor only, and make sure no CP/SP pair is within 100m of any other CP/SP/AB area; allow some room for fighting.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, delems said:

Also, back to original forum post, change the SP to 1 floor only, and make sure no CP/SP pair is within 100m of any other CP/SP/AB area; allow some room for fighting.

I think for old towns, this would be a lot of work. I'm all for doing the same with the depot for the test i suggested (literally replace every depot with some 1 story building with the same footprint).

I think for this to be easy for devs, it literally have to be renaming some buildings as the CP/Depot, and they are just globally replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.