Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Why?

2019-07-08T17:06:51+02:00

I dont see a problem in blocking TML with a just started building. However I do have a problem with removing that possibility.
Here's why:
-It adds depth.
-It rewards awareness.

Comparable to the extended reclaim range on factory attackmove, it may or may not be intentional and looks like a bug.
But the TML block adds depth and rewards experienced players for pulling this off.

It requires:
-Realizing TMLs are being shot at your ACU
-Knowing that it can be blocked this way
-Reacting to it in a matter of seconds
-In the correct angle
Pulling this off should be rewarded imo.

Even it is a matter of seconds to "fix" it, like icedreamer said, in my opinion it should not be "fixed".

Statistics: Posted by Rikai — 08 Jul 2019, 17:06

Re: Why?

2019-07-08T09:54:04+02:00

IceDreamer wrote:
It would take me about 30 seconds to write a change which prevents any projectile colliding with a structure whos construction began in the last second.

Can you make the hit box start at ground level and then rise incrementally as the construction is being completed based on the %?

Statistics: Posted by Evildrew — 08 Jul 2019, 09:54

Re: Why?

2019-07-08T08:01:15+02:00

It would take me about 30 seconds to write a change which prevents any projectile colliding with a structure whos construction began in the last second.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 08 Jul 2019, 08:01

Re: Why?

2019-07-02T23:34:50+02:00

It does not seem worth the time of the developers to add extra code to stop 1/1000 situations where a canis river game goes on 5 minutes longer because someone didnt die to a tml when they would have if they werent paying attention.

Statistics: Posted by UnorthodoxBox — 02 Jul 2019, 23:34

Re: Why?

2019-07-02T22:31:14+02:00

My point was: "it makes sense" (hiting a 0 health target).

I know that we can do this in LUa, but the question was, does it makes sense to do it.

Statistics: Posted by Uveso — 02 Jul 2019, 22:31

Re: Why?

2019-07-02T21:33:06+02:00

Issue with your example there Uveso is that we are in fact capable of determining "Low health known target" from "Thing just started construction in the way" ...

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 02 Jul 2019, 21:33

Re: Why?

2019-07-02T21:11:26+02:00

--- wrote:
Why is it ok to counter a costly TML missile with a started building with basically 0 HP (e.g. radar or shield)? You know it makes no sense, don't even try to argue!!!! xD

Lets see how it works in case the TML is passing the building with "basically 0 HP".
(developer point of view. )

I try now to destroy an enemy building with my TML:

I fire my TML on an enemy building with 100% health and do 33.33% damage.
I fire my 2nd missile and again 33.33% damage.
And my 3rd missile. 33.33% damage.

0.11% left...(basically 0 HP)

Now my 4th missile. --> Almost hitting the target... passing the target ("basically 0 HP").... detonating behind the target.

Now my 5th missile....[...]

Hmmpf !?!

So, I need the collision between a TML and a building even with 0.00001% health or i can't kill it.
So it makes sense that the same building must collide with a TML projectile.

Statistics: Posted by Uveso — 02 Jul 2019, 21:11

Re: Why?

2019-07-02T19:53:52+02:00

This is a bug... Pretty sure it used to be a few hundred. Seems like an unintended regression to me.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 02 Jul 2019, 19:53

Re: Why?

2019-06-21T18:58:50+02:00

I litterally wrote "with a higher effectiveness, the more questions/gametypes you include"
not that you "had to prove all the mentioned things".

Statistics: Posted by Turinturambar — 21 Jun 2019, 18:58

Re: Why?

2019-06-21T18:54:27+02:00

Turinturambar wrote:
you didnt provide a prove that

- breaks the game (the example you gave is not more than a minor issue at best)
- lower stratigic diversity (you did not prove that tml + scouting became "non viable"/too weak to be a proper strategy)
- that it applies on a broad scale (I cannot see it being an "issue" on other maps than "tutle eco teamgame maps")
- that it doesnt have a "bad" effect in other situations (e.g. 1v1)

what you showed is that it
+ is "bad gameplay"/counters proper gameplay of tml (rush) + scouting

which leaves out of consideration if the combination of tml rush+scouting is "good gameplay" (which imo in many cases it isnt)
situations later in the game are of no importence, since the entire situation of mexes without tmd in mid/later game is ridiculous.
if sth is "gamebreaking" is ((((((usually)))))) decided by high level gameplay.

This is my last comment on this issue. Thank you for your thoughts and time.
I feel you provide a few strawmen arguments. I was not aware I had to prove all the mentioned things? Neither did I claim scouting and TML is no longer a viable strategy or that the issue applies on a broader scale. How often was yolo built in the game? 5 % of all games? 2 %? Still it was changed.
The way I see it is: yes, TML block happens very rarely. You may call it a minor issue in terms of frequency, I agree 100 %. I also think though that it is 100 % magic out of nowhere to block with 1 HP radar whenever it happens.
My view is: if in one out of 10000 games a 300 HP ACU escapes TML with t1 radar, that's 1 time too many. You may say it's awesome and in accordance to the simulation within the game. Ok!
The majority here disagrees with basically everything I wrote (actually everyone lol).
OK! GOT IT!
Cheers

Statistics: Posted by --- — 21 Jun 2019, 18:54

Re: Why?

2019-06-21T18:36:25+02:00

you didnt provide a prove that

- breaks the game (the example you gave is not more than a minor issue at best)
- lower stratigic diversity (you did not prove that tml + scouting became "non viable"/too weak to be a proper strategy)
- that it applies on a broad scale (I cannot see it being an "issue" on other maps than "tutle eco teamgame maps")
- that it doesnt have a "bad" effect in other situations (e.g. 1v1)

what you showed is that it
+ is "bad gameplay"/counters proper gameplay of tml (rush) + scouting

which leaves out of consideration if the combination of tml rush+scouting is "good gameplay" (which imo in many cases it isnt)
situations later in the game are of no importence, since the entire situation of mexes without tmd in mid/later game is ridiculous.
if sth is "gamebreaking" is ((((((usually)))))) decided by high level gameplay.

Statistics: Posted by Turinturambar — 21 Jun 2019, 18:36

Re: Why?

2019-06-21T18:29:50+02:00

Louvegarde wrote:
but... you know... interpretation is what gives art meaning. It's what art is for - you give meaning to it, you try to understand what the author wanted to say with it. You don't have to be a genius to understand that Rhinoceros of Eugene Ionesco is not about people turning into rhinos, but about the progression of fascism ideology in a small disconnected village. Even if the author didn't state it explicitly it doesn't mean that you can't understand what he wanted to say Same goes for all art in the world.

I have no issue with someone claiming he has an interpretation. I mind people claiming they know the actual intention of the author. We just have a somewhat different understanding of Literary Criticism it seems. Fine with me.

Louvegarde wrote:
You can trust me on this, animating projectiles and planes is much easier, faster, and less costy, by FAR, than building an optimized deterministic physic system on a RTS scale that will have to handle thousands of bodies moving in all directions, especially if you want it to be stable and predictable enough to have your gameplay rely on it.

No offense. Whenever someone says "You can trust me/Believe me" I am more hesitant to believe/trust than before. Trust is earned, not requested.

Louvegarde wrote:
Sometimes if it breaks the game too much and becomes a dominant strategy you _have_ to nerf it or to remove it. But the game here is far from being broken - we're talking about a very specific strategy of a specific case. I don't think it should ever be removed.

Breaks the game too much - as defined by who? I thought it's all about the intention of the author who you claim to know?
I find your approach very flawed bc inconsistent, but sure.

Statistics: Posted by --- — 21 Jun 2019, 18:29

Re: Why?

2019-06-21T18:27:23+02:00

Turin,
I think I did provide answers, which are not considered. Instead, people just give "counter arguments".
E.g. TML can be blocked with radar for zero costs
--> costs attention, so ok
--> only useful in specific game types
--> it's a simulation; nukes can be blocked with ASF too, so it's ok (?)
--> ACU can be blocked with buildings
--> it was the intention of the developers, so it's ok
--> it's hard to find another solution, so even pointing out a possible flaw is pointless

I have explained in detail why I think those things to not compare with/apply to what I said initially. If the majority here disagrees with that - ok, I will accept that.

Statistics: Posted by --- — 21 Jun 2019, 18:27

Re: Why?

2019-06-21T18:14:26+02:00

If you cannot answer those questions then dont be surprised if your desired change does not get accepted.
also remember you are the one who wants a change, so you have to provide the reasoning for it. (which you can do most effectively by providing answers to one or more of the questions, with a higher effectiveness, the more questions/gametypes you include)

Statistics: Posted by Turinturambar — 21 Jun 2019, 18:14

Re: Why?

2019-06-21T18:11:26+02:00

Turinturambar wrote:
1) does mechanic X break the game?
2) how does mechanic X affect strategic diversity?
3) how does mechanic X affect balance/gameplay?

those criterias ofc have to be considered for a variety of maps, for 1v1 games, and for teamgames.

Now you talk about questions I cannot answer. Does it break the game? What does that mean? When is this game broken? According to some, the yolo block should be ok, as far as I understood. Does breaking mean make it unplayable? Make it "unfair"?

I enjoy going over issues which I feel are not as clear cut as some argue. I am open to arguments, and I don't mind the TML to stay as is. I merely asked a question bc I felt this was the place where you could ask. I am not a fan of people trying their hardest to "convince others" by bringing imo flawed arguments.
I think asking questions should be encouraged, and I gladly take in your comments and think about them.
I still think the TML is flawed at the moment, but considering the lack of alternatives and the "fun" it can bring, I guess it will stay as is. I just remember the first time I saw it and I disliked it ever since bc I felt the one scouting and investing in a TML deserved the win, but this cheap trick (literally no cost) saved the other player.

To me it feels like a poker player who cheats with an ace up his sleeve. Some may argue "if he managed to bring one in - then it should be rewarded". OK. I don't really agree, but I'll accept that.

I won't bring this topic up again, PhilFry! ^__^

Statistics: Posted by --- — 21 Jun 2019, 18:11