RE: [gamedesign-l] Re: primitives
> > I hate micromanagers though, so screw 'em.I'm not interested in belaboring either my code or my UI with stuff that
> No. We hang a sign saying on a button saying "want to micromanage?
> This way please."
I personally despise. I don't care about the micromanager market, screw
'em! As a matter of design aesthetic I also fervently object to Intel
CISC processors, OpenGL and D3D rendering state options, Microsoft Word,
and every 3D modeling/animation program I've had the displeasure to
Yes, some game designer somewhere will say that I suck, because I didn't
include micromanagement. I will say, I hate you!!! Damn you and the
horse you rode in on!
> Everyone else doesn't bother. Like I said, IBecause they're not getting ahead in the game as easily as they'd like,
> don't use all the buttons in WC3. Why would anyone use a button
> unless they want to?
so they turn to every available avenue of exploration hoping / thinking
/ expecting that this will improve the situation. Compare mining out
every single nook and cranny of a dungeon even if the vast majority of
the loot is worthless. When players are already not having enough fun,
you should not give them opportunities to bore themselves to death.
> > I'm not bending anything, you talked about the Panzer in SavingIn SPR they got slaughtered! Tom Hanks died! They wouldn't have held
> > Private Ryan. It had infantry support.
> You said infantry couldn't take on a tank. I proved they could.
the bridge if it weren't for the allied planes that divebombed at the
end. They got a tank, big deal. They also got killed. You can take on
anything you want, the point is to take it on and survive. Tanks in
close quarters with infantry support aren't the easy marks you say it
> TheWhy, exactly? "Excuse me guys, could you infantry shuffle your feet a
> fact the Panzer had infantry support is irrelevant, since it's a
> different unit.
little while I sticky bomb your tank?"
> > > So you wouldn't move your tanks to support another unit?SPR had a whole little moral thing on that.
> > Not if it's good money after bad.
> And how do you decide it's good money after bad?
> More to the point, how does an AI decide?Take lessons from Tom Hanks. He da man.
> > > And the USThere have been a lot of leaders in history that didn't give a shit
> > > Army did quite a lot to to try and get the trapped units out.
> > No, the US Army didn't do squat. They were quite prepared to write
> > off. The field commander, Mel Gibson's character, he wouldn't have
> > of that and did all the work. His superiors didn't want anything
> > politically embarrassing, like him getting killed in action. They
> > wanted him to leave so that the fiasco could be quietly over with.
> But that's not what you said. You said that it's not a good strategy
> because you don't want to risk more units. Bit different
> to "commanders don't give a shit about their units", is it not?
about their units. There have also been leaders, such as mentioned
above, that gave a nominal shit but gave up way too quickly because
political embarassment was more important to them.
> > And how many higher commands actually care? Loyalty is to the unit,No, without recruitment officers selling stories to impressionable
> > because once you're out there, you don't have anything else.
> Without signups you don't have an army to command. They care.
youths, or a draft, you don't have an army to command.
> Besides, I'm always seeing military ads on TV. Royal Army (regularYes. You gotta keep the arms sales rolling somehow. It's common
> and TA), Royal Navy and RAF. At £30,000 (actually, that was a few
> years ago, it's probably a lot more now) a second, they're not
> cheap. Do you think the military would do that if they didn't care
> about signups?
knowledge in the USA that the big defense budget money goes to the
$$$$$$$$ gee wow contracts for senators lobbying the industrial
interests of their home states, as opposed un-sexy things like spare
parts for Apache helicopters or better pay for grunts.
> > If artillery fire is instantaneous, then you can disallow friendlyThat means computing all possible future friendly movement for the
> > targets. If artillery is time-delayed, then units can move into
> and out
> > of the blast zone before it blows up. In that instance, the only
> way to
> > never make mistakes is if artillery fire only affects enemy units
> > your own units are magically immune.
> Or artillery doesn't fire stupidly.
duration of the time delay. You can't fire anywhere that your friendly
units could possibly move while the shells are in-flight.
Alternately, you could cheat. You could speed up or slow down the
friendly units or shells so that they don't collide. I suppose you
could make it a non-cheat if you explain it with a fantasy or sci-fi
fiction of "smart unit / smart shell symbiosis."
> If a unit moves into a live fire area, it's its own fault.That's just defining the artillery as smart, and the unit as stupid.
Doesn't solve the problem. Why isn't the unit smart and the artillery
stupid? The relationship is what's smart or stupid.
> (this isI thought we were trying to design a system where it wasn't possible to
> where your C&C network will come in - communicating the fire areas,
> so they won't go there) If the player orders an artillery unit to
> fire at an area containing his own units, it's his own fault.
screw anything up. If spatio-temporal overlaps are allowed then it's
possible to screw up.
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
> Define this boost. For hit points (x), do you mean that for all unitsObviously they are different, and I'm no the one programming Warcraft 3 or
> f(x): x -> x + C
> f(x): x -> x * C
> Something else?
Battle Realms so I can't say. The second preserves the ratios, but I would
say that War3 at least is closer to the first. Compared to Starcraft units
don't range as much in terms of HP. (A Zealot might be 4x tougher than a
Zergling in Starcraft, you don't see that sort of difference in War3)
Whether or not the increase is constant or proportional is a different
issue, but either way the point remains that when you increase HP losing HP
over a fixed time and distance doesn't mean as much. If you are trying to
reach someone and getting shot 3 times kills you the distance you have to
traverse means a lot more than if you can take 100 shots.