Transports in MP - Creating New Models, GPMs, UI & SFX ?

Other talk that doesn't fit elsewhere.
This is for General Discussion, not General chat.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Transports in MP - Creating New Models, GPMs, UI & SFX ?

Post by Rman Virgil » 16 Nov 2010, 19:06

.

As it has been made available in the latest releases for a while now I was wondering what have been peeps formative experiences and thoughts on its effecting their game play - both pros and cons - in MP and SKI.

I'm guessing the devs would surely appreciate this feed back, for one, and naturally there is a concurrent, self-serving motive to boot.

On my end, I want to derive & take into account its adjacent possible impact by casting the widest analogical catchment basin in this neck of the woods. All this towards the end of modifying & completing a couple projects in the coming weeks. Any such feedback will supplement, in the most practical sense, the narrower sampling scope of what I have already heard from gaming buds in RL who forego the delights of expression hither & yon.

My thanks in advance for your time, insights and cogency. :3

- Synergistically, RV :hmm:
.
Last edited by Rman Virgil on 24 Mar 2011, 17:25, edited 3 times in total.
.

Impact = C x (R + E + A + T + E)

Contrast
Reach
Exposure
Articulation
Trust
Echo
.

User avatar
lav_coyote25
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3434
Joined: 08 Aug 2006, 23:18

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by lav_coyote25 » 16 Nov 2010, 22:48

i love it!! but, it needs a bit more speed, and a bit more in the carry.... 4 super heavy tanks. or 10 standard tanks. or 20 regular cyborgs. 10 supercyborgs. i did say it needed a bit more speed right? XD

User avatar
WarTux
Trained
Trained
Posts: 190
Joined: 08 Jul 2010, 04:41
Location: Arctic sector

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by WarTux » 17 Nov 2010, 08:24

Well, more speed could possibly unbalance the game by making borg transports useless (especially on high-power maps, though at this point I am starting to think balancing for high-power is a futile effort). ;)

So far, I haven't been able to find a good use for the super transport in a multiplayer game, though I am thrilled that it's finally in. :)
Warzone nicknames: WarTux[BDC], ChuckNorris-BDC, DeathStar, etc.
Part of the Black Dragon Clan; apply today, we welcome most! :3
On the Warzone IRC channel you can find me hanging out with the BDC dudes or messing with the bot.

User avatar
KenAlcock
Trained
Trained
Posts: 192
Joined: 25 Nov 2009, 03:50
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by KenAlcock » 17 Nov 2010, 09:35

The blasted thing cannot hold more than 3 heavy tanks, so it's useless. If I want to transport Cyborgs, I'll simply build a Cyborg transport where the ratio is 1 Transport to a 10 unit payload. Building a transport with a ratio of 1 transport to a 3 unit payload is a waste of time and power.
I'm on the forums on a limited basis. I play MP late Saturday night or Sunday afternoon/evening; my game handle is Cosmic Raven.

User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by Rman Virgil » 17 Nov 2010, 16:10

.

Thanks, gentleman. Your feedback raises several fundamentals about the game which I'll quickly tick-off.

WZ MP was never designed to account for -

1.) High-oil maps. Indeed, Pumpkin was VERY resistant to releasing the Map Editor for months. In the public conversation that took place the focus was on it's being very unstable, hard to learn and that it was not at all user friendly or ever intended for public consumption outside the studio - all of these reasons turned out to be over blown. The real critical reason was once High Oil maps were created game play would devolve and this proved to be the case with the emergence of TW style maps. Within 6 months of EW's release, & proliferation of TW maps, MP activity at MPlayer steadily declined. High-oil maps, in all fairness, were not the only reason for the decline but it was part of it. The other 2 main reasons were cheating and tech-unit-weap imbalances. Between those 3 the game's MP component was effectively doomed BEFORE Pumpkin was even shut down.

2.) The Super Transport itself - Pumpkin didn't have the time to invest in figuring out its balance integration into MP game play. WZ development was very much focused on the Campaign experience with the MP component very much a piece-meal add-on with a minimal investment in beta-testing for every set of tech-unit-weaps added during the 10 Patch cycle after retail release.

3.) The Borg Transport was NEVER part of the original game or even Pumpkin's idea. Halfway through the patch cycle one of our community members by the name of Toricat suggested it, everybody liked the idea, including Pumpkin, and it ended-up in the game within 3-4 weeks of first being proposed without any testing cycle outside of Pumpkin devs playing against each other in the studio.

- Lav: Speed could stand to be bumped up some. Trying to invest strategic considerations into the unit by putting restrictions on its payload mix is non-generative in the deep-fun factor of game play, IMHO. Load whatever 10 unit mix you want is worth stress-testing, at least.

- WarTux: Trying to balance WZ for High Oil maps is futile and a dead end. It should not even factor in any considerations. It's like Pandora's Box - once it's "evils" were let loose (by the release of EW) then those style maps-GP should be allowed to collapse of their own narrow-scope short-comings as they always have since '99. The focus should instead be on making an MP lobby were in it is as easy as possible for like-minded players to find each other, set-up games in RT and via Time-Shifting and forget about trying to balance the game to High-oil or TW style maps.

Another avenue to explore in balancing the Super Transport is to follow the pattern used for Trucks - limiting the max number that can be in play at any time. What that optimal number is would again have to be subject to Beta Stress Testing. (Maybe starting with 3.)

- KenAlcock: Agreed. Again, trying to invest the Payload with strategy thru restrictions is a complexification cul-de-sac for this game, I think. 10 units, whatever mix you want, should at least be explored in a beta-stress test in conjunction with the Truck balance model of limiting the number in play.

Side Bar: The idea of embedding LZ's in MP maps (modeled after the Campaign GPM) for the Super Transport's structured operation is a good one going forward but only as a map-mod. Because it will not work for the multitude of legacy maps extant any modification proposals here should NOT include it, I think, and stay focused on the core game elements related to the unit.

Thoughts ? Come-backs ? ;)

- RV :hmm:

.

User avatar
effigy
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1217
Joined: 22 Jan 2010, 03:21
Contact:

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by effigy » 17 Nov 2010, 17:05

I was born into squared, and TW style multiplayer. Even though squared will remain special to me for that reason, I have to risk passive pretend patricide (angstful coming of age) in saying I too can see it's troubling to balance the game for maps with 24-40 oil resources per player(whether or not they're in a clump in your base).

That said, I lost interest in even experimenting with the Super Transport when I discovered it could only hold 3 tracked units, or 10 regular cyborgs(the same as the current cyborg transport!). I liked the idea of needing a landing zone for the Super Transport, to add a bit of campaign seasoning to MP, but I can see how that would adversely effect old maps. I had also assumed that it would carry 10 of any tank, just like campaign.

I had a chat some time ago on IRC with [I don't remember who] about the point system [3 for track, 2 for half-track, 1 for wheeled, 1 for [Super]Cyborg???] for the transport. The idea that he was promoting to pack more units in the Super Transport (and justify the title) was based on Super Cyborgs deserving less space. IIRC we talked about it holding 10 Super'borgs or 20 regular, and that the older Cyborg Transport should only allow 5 Super'borgs. If that idea were absorbed perhaps the balance between the two could come as a lowered cost of the Cyborg Transport or increase in the cost of the Super Transport?
This is why some features aren't implemented: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7490&view=unread#p87241

User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by Rman Virgil » 18 Nov 2010, 06:10

.
effigy wrote:I was born into squared, and TW style multiplayer. Even though squared will remain special to me for that reason, I have to risk passive pretend patricide (angstful coming of age) in saying I too can see it's troubling to balance the game for maps with 24-40 oil resources per player(whether or not they're in a clump in your base).
I can relate. In '99-2000 I played extensively along these lines. Made some maps back then with high-oil and very much like squared too. There is a certain intoxicating appeal I can honestly remember first hand. Live and let live. Whoever wants to play along those lines, cool.... Find each other and go at it. It is what it is. Same goes for other preferred types and styles of playing. If like minded can readily find, arrange, engage... it's all good. But again, the games basic design roots are only supple enough for balance to be predicated on low-mid oil.
effigy wrote:That said, I lost interest in even experimenting with the Super Transport when I discovered it could only hold 3 tracked units, or 10 regular cyborgs(the same as the current cyborg transport!). I liked the idea of needing a landing zone for the Super Transport, to add a bit of campaign seasoning to MP, but I can see how that would adversely effect old maps. I had also assumed that it would carry 10 of any tank, just like campaign.
The loss of interest is understandable. I would guess in it's current state, that is the prevailing sense. However, I see this introduction as just a place to start and not the end state. It is an adjacent possible state with still many more combinatorial variants to explore and test on the road to uncovering the optimal depth and fun.
effigy wrote:I had a chat some time ago on IRC with [I don't remember who] about the point system [3 for track, 2 for half-track, 1 for wheeled, 1 for [Super]Cyborg???] for the transport. The idea that he was promoting to pack more units in the Super Transport (and justify the title) was based on Super Cyborgs deserving less space. IIRC we talked about it holding 10 Super'borgs or 20 regular, and that the older Cyborg Transport should only allow 5 Super'borgs. If that idea were absorbed perhaps the balance between the two could come as a lowered cost of the Cyborg Transport or increase in the cost of the Super Transport?
Worth exploring and still on the continuum of increasing the Super Transport's current payload.

I take it the point system refers to a unit's occupation of Transport slots.

1 Trax = occupying 3 slots, Super Borg = 1 slot, 2 Regular Borg = 1 slot for example.

Perhaps in keeping with these guidline proposals, upping the # of slots for the Super Transport and keeping the Cyborg Transport at 10.

This does go down the path of complexification but it just may be the right degree & kind as to make GP more interesting, deeper and fun without invoking countervailing frustration.

Hypothesizing and pure thought experiments are only so useful - really need to implement and stress test wide to get a true handle on the viability of any of these changes. Though, again, I think they are worthwhile exploring in-game and not just in-brain.

Generative input effigy, to be sure, and appreciated. :)

- Synergistically, RV :hmm:

.

User avatar
KenAlcock
Trained
Trained
Posts: 192
Joined: 25 Nov 2009, 03:50
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by KenAlcock » 18 Nov 2010, 09:34

Why not balance both the Cyborg Transport and Super Transport by the only metric that would actually be used in real life--maximum cargo weight?

IIRC, every non-cyborg unit in Warzone already has a weight calculated for it don't they? So what remains is assign weights to super and regular cyborgs and set maximum weight limits for each type of transport. This would add an element of realism, offer a fair restriction that is: plausible, understandable, and even self-balancing. They key, of course, is in figuring out what the maximum weight capacities should be for each type of transport.
I'm on the forums on a limited basis. I play MP late Saturday night or Sunday afternoon/evening; my game handle is Cosmic Raven.

User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by Rman Virgil » 18 Nov 2010, 14:50

KenAlcock wrote:Why not balance both the Cyborg Transport and Super Transport by the only metric that would actually be used in real life--maximum cargo weight?

IIRC, every non-cyborg unit in Warzone already has a weight calculated for it don't they? So what remains is assign weights to super and regular cyborgs and set maximum weight limits for each type of transport. This would add an element of realism, offer a fair restriction that is: plausible, understandable, and even self-balancing. They key, of course, is in figuring out what the maximum weight capacities should be for each type of transport.
Tight and clean as a construct. Makes sense. :3

Deriving speed would then be the next major consideration.

It would be fixed irrespective of payload, I think. Not sure how practical it would be to make variable... .ie, less payload, faster.

Though you would think game play would mostly be streamlined to always max-out the payload.

Then again, if you have suffered losses & have decided a tactical retreat, less of a payload & a greater speed would be an advantage and make sense. But if the speed differential were significant, spamming empty transports could become a monolithic tactic unless there was a truck-like # cap.

I've made myself dizzy with those combinatorial permutations. :shock:

- RV :hmm:
.

User avatar
effigy
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1217
Joined: 22 Jan 2010, 03:21
Contact:

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by effigy » 18 Nov 2010, 17:46

I am truly a master of complexification :stressed: :twisted: :stressed: :augh: :zZz: :lol2:
oops, this isn't the Talk With Smiley's thread...

In a sense I think the current point system simulates weight, except it counts the Super Cyborgs the same as the regular Cyborgs. Perhaps their extra armor is made of aluminum? :D

...and it appears I've mis-spoke (doing this alot it seems) as to how the the points are attributed. It's the body class, not propulsion. So: light body = 1 point; medium body = 2 points; heavy body = 3 points.

The more I think about this, the more I'm wondering if Cyborgs should have not be allowed on the Super Transport if only to deliver distinction to each transport (though, I 'd rather see the Cyborg capacity altered as mentioned above). If that were to happen I hope the Super Transport would be renamed to something more to the point (i.e. Tank Transport).
This is why some features aren't implemented: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7490&view=unread#p87241

User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by Rman Virgil » 19 Nov 2010, 01:28

effigy wrote:I am truly a master of complexification :stressed: :twisted: :stressed: :augh: :zZz: :lol2:
oops, this isn't the Talk With Smiley's thread...

For these type discussions there is a tendency to simplify for which I am as prone to as much as anyone.

Complexification as a concept is inherently neutral. We ourselves are the result of a complexification process as is all we experience in life, both made by humans and found in nature. Where the neutrality ends in the concept is in what works well and thus endures - at least for a spell, in a specific context or niche - and what but fades away, forgotten..

Warzone was conceived as quite a complex construct of a special type. Its complexity is all geared to an interesting, challenging, fun, interactive, entertaining experience. It's complexity is also divided into 2 parts - the hidden and the exposed. The complexity exposed is to enhance the fun and the complexity hidden is done for the very same reason. Another relevant aspect of WZ as a complex construct is that it is a dynamical system with adjacent possible emergent behavior which is where the need for critical beta stress-testing comes in towards the end of refining its complexity in ways that are most satisfying to the greatest number who have any interest in engaging its genre game play.

Durn ! :P Enough of that... O_o ;)

effigy wrote:In a sense I think the current point system simulates weight, except it counts the Super Cyborgs the same as the regular Cyborgs. Perhaps their extra armor is made of aluminum? :D

...and it appears I've mis-spoke (doing this alot it seems) as to how the the points are attributed. It's the body class, not propulsion. So: light body = 1 point; medium body = 2 points; heavy body = 3 points.
Cool. Thanks for the clarification. That's helpful, for sure. :3
effigy wrote:The more I think about this, the more I'm wondering if Cyborgs should have not be allowed on the Super Transport if only to deliver distinction to each transport (though, I 'd rather see the Cyborg capacity altered as mentioned above). If that were to happen I hope the Super Transport would be renamed to something more to the point (i.e. Tank Transport).
That would be a departure from its use in Campaign - mixing Borgs and Tanks. But the fact is when the Campaign was created the Borg Transport did NOT exist even as an idea, so that this proposal to further distinguish their use is a good one within the extant context. I do believe as much as I can imagine that it would deepen and broaden, in interesting, fun ways, tactical opportunities....

In a very short time, a highly worthy set of proposals for change have been articulated here. :D

My efforts will benefit from these insights, no doubt. And I cannot help but think the same for any developer efforts towards enhancing the Super Transport experience going forward.

Thanks again, guys. Quality insights and proposals for sure and hopefully generative of core .wz adjustments in the near term to test.

- RV :hmm:

.

User avatar
JDW
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1669
Joined: 18 May 2010, 20:44

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by JDW » 19 Nov 2010, 20:36

KenAlcock wrote:Why not balance both the Cyborg Transport and Super Transport by the only metric that would actually be used in real life--maximum cargo weight?

IIRC, every non-cyborg unit in Warzone already has a weight calculated for it don't they? So what remains is assign weights to super and regular cyborgs and set maximum weight limits for each type of transport. This would add an element of realism, offer a fair restriction that is: plausible, understandable, and even self-balancing. They key, of course, is in figuring out what the maximum weight capacities should be for each type of transport.
Nice idea. But out of curiousity, what is currently the cost of the most expensive Warzone unit?
"Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret."
-- Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
effigy
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1217
Joined: 22 Jan 2010, 03:21
Contact:

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport in MP & SKI - eh ?

Post by effigy » 20 Nov 2010, 02:35

j0shdrunk0nwar wrote:
KenAlcock wrote:Why not balance both the Cyborg Transport and Super Transport by the only metric that would actually be used in real life--maximum cargo weight?

IIRC, every non-cyborg unit in Warzone already has a weight calculated for it don't they? So what remains is assign weights to super and regular cyborgs and set maximum weight limits for each type of transport. This would add an element of realism, offer a fair restriction that is: plausible, understandable, and even self-balancing. They key, of course, is in figuring out what the maximum weight capacities should be for each type of transport.
Nice idea. But out of curiousity, what is currently the cost of the most expensive Warzone unit?
3
This is why some features aren't implemented: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7490&view=unread#p87241

User avatar
Buginator
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3285
Joined: 04 Nov 2007, 02:20

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport - Ways to Improve ?

Post by Buginator » 20 Nov 2010, 09:13

I'll come back to this at a later point, I just skimmed some messages, and I just wanted to say that having 10 units as the limit is only because the UI don't support anything higher than 10 right now. I haven't had time to fix this... the plan was to have multiple transports that can hold different amount of units.

If anyone wants to fix the UI, that would save loads of time... :3
and it ends here.

User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Experiencing the Super Transport - Ways to Improve ?

Post by Rman Virgil » 25 Nov 2010, 15:53

.

Asked elsewhere but buried in a broader topic. Here it is focused tightly, I think, & thus the recap.

cybersphinx Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:51 am wrote:......

2.3.6 will be released soon, see https://github.com/Warzone2100/warzone2 ... /ChangeLog for the changes so far.

......
Rman Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:53 am wrote:
As I recall only v.3.x was gonna have MP Super Transport support.

Could it be included in v.2.3.6 for those who would pass-on the new terrain renderer for various legit reasons ?

- RV :hmm:

.

Post Reply