Page 1 of 1
Longer range in e.g. hill
PostPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 10:29
by Remake 2012
Hill, hill, hill, In my opinion would have to be change the distance of the shot in such places. The benefits of the greater range of the hills, I do not think I need to write.
At present, there is no difference whether the archers are high on a hill or on the ground.
Re: Longer range in e.g. hill
PostPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 12:21
by Lewin
KaM is really a 2D game with pseudo 3D to make the terrain look nicer. It's very hard to judge the height between two different places since it isn't really rendered as 3D, so it's hard to tell where will increase your range and where will not. Sometimes you might get the bonus but it won't be obvious why because height is quite a subtle effect especially when sloping top to bottom of the map. I think it would feel unintuitive and unfair. It's confusing for the player if he can't tell exactly what his range will be, and if it keeps changing depending on where he is standing.
I also don't think this would be a fun game mechanic. It means camping would be far far more effective than ever, and sieging a village on a hill would be almost impossible since you'd have to step your crossbowmen 1-2 tiles further than the defender before they would start firing. That's just annoying. Right now crossbowmen vs crossbowmen face-offs are annoying enough, but if one side would sometimes have extra range that would be really frustrating.
Re: Longer range in e.g. hill
PostPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 12:30
by pawel95
At present, there is no difference whether the archers are high on a hill or on the ground.
I dont understand what Krom wrote, or this is in discussion/already fixed?
Im reading each post in castlesand
- Code:
36 + 5. Increase bowmen range by +1
37 + + Makes bowmen vs crossbowmen face-offs before battles more interesting
38 + - Could let you shoot over some hills you are not supposed to in certain maps
Re: Longer range in e.g. hill
PostPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 12:36
by Krom
I think you mistaken. The quote you show is from Balance discussion, not from Buglist. First + sign means a row that was added (or removed if that was a -). Where actual rows are solutions and list of their positive/negative sides. Marked with + and -.
Re: Longer range in e.g. hill
PostPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 13:02
by Remake 2012
KaM is really a 2D game with pseudo 3D to make the terrain look nicer. It's very hard to judge the height between two different places since it isn't really rendered as 3D, so it's hard to tell where will increase your range and where will not. Sometimes you might get the bonus but it won't be obvious why because height is quite a subtle effect especially when sloping top to bottom of the map. I think it would feel unintuitive and unfair. It's confusing for the player if he can't tell exactly what his range will be, and if it keeps changing depending on where he is standing.
I also don't think this would be a fun game mechanic. It means camping would be far far more effective than ever, and sieging a village on a hill would be almost impossible since you'd have to step your crossbowmen 1-2 tiles further than the defender before they would start firing. That's just annoying. Right now crossbowmen vs crossbowmen face-offs are annoying enough, but if one side would sometimes have extra range that would be really frustrating.
no !
You write that the new option to interfere with the game in the campaign. So, I agree, because the design of the map was not taken into account.
But, my idea is to introduce a "tile", which showed a computer that here is high, add the distance "2". In this way it would work only on those maps in which this option will work well.
Let's say that the highest hill gave to "+ 2" distance for propelling units.
Average hill "+1". Only the mapmaker wanted to where to set the "tiles".
What is it:
- The possibility of new solutions to new maps
- The possibility of new solutions to current maps (if possible)
- With manual setting "tiles" Mapmaker depends only on where and how the area will have a "+1" or "+2" to the distance.
Re: Longer range in e.g. hill
PostPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 13:36
by Krom
@Remake: Thats not gonna work:
1. Players wont know which tiles are bonus and which not.
2. MapMakers wont be able to provide consistent way of preferring one tiles over another.
3. It's enormous work to check and update all maps manually (we have ~180 maps in KMR, and there are others).
Re: Longer range in e.g. hill
PostPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 14:20
by Remake 2012
@Remake: Thats not gonna work:
1. Players wont know which tiles are bonus and which not.
2. MapMakers wont be able to provide consistent way of preferring one tiles over another.
3. It's enormous work to check and update all maps manually (we have ~180 maps in KMR, and there are others).
no !
why ?
1. no, no , no ! It's easy..... I see hill in e.g. LOST S. I now if I go there with my bows they will be + range... I now it ! Because THIS IS HILL
2. why? it's already implemented "X" [block passage]
jpg: like this
3. Do you need to immediately implement this option for the campaign?
////
yellow tile - (area with range +2 )
purpute tile ( hit area -2 to range if we attack area yellow)
1. right blue can attack red bows
2.the distance between the <---> 1 and <----> 3 is the same. But, red bows in the hill can kill blue bows in the ground in 2. , blue bow can't attack red bow. beacause ther is in purpute area -2 ( only when attack yellow area)
3. red bows can kill blue and, blue can red, normally
4. In yellow area range is the same. Because we attack soldiers in the same area.
yellow and purpute tile I put in map.
EASY
////////////////////////
////////////////////////
Yes,
Distance shot, longer range - a wish for future changes in the game.
Re: Longer range in e.g. hill
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 02:02
by Leeuwgie
I understand your point and it sounds logic, but I think it will mess up battles and also encourage an even more camping based gameplay.
Re: Longer range in e.g. hill
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 08:37
by Remake 2012
I understand your point and it sounds logic, but I think it will mess up battles and also encourage an even more camping based gameplay.
Yes/No
why ?
It all depends on maps. And how many will be hills on the map. So I am talking about balance, not only raw / but also the hills.
We can always give the options that the unit stands on a hill, has a longer range but less accuracy - a logical
Re: Longer range in e.g. hill
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 08:41
by The Dark Lord
This would just overcomplicate things...
Re: Longer range in e.g. hill
PostPosted: 01 Nov 2012, 06:36
by Ben
Agree with the Dark Lord: it is way too complicated. Also, being a map maker, I think that the terrain should be for looks (and accessibly i.e. steep heights can't be built or walked on) only.
However, slightly off topic it may be, I think it might be cool if we could place tiles that prevent missiles, (arrows, bolts and tower stones) units line of sight, and movement from passing through them. So if you wanted to create a mountain dividing two players, these tiles would run through the mountains to better separate the teams. Now wouldn't that limit a lot of testing in map making!