 |
Author |
|
 |
|
spawnof2000

Joined: 16 Apr 2004 Posts: 6

|
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:08 pm Post subject: walls |
|
|
| i hate it in games when units like swordsmen can attack walls its so unrealistic i would like is that only like explosives and stuff like that can attack walls that way you wont have machinegunners filling a wall with bullets because that wouldnt do anything in real life |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
 |
|
Poo Bear Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002 Posts: 4107 Location: Sheffield, UK

|
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why do most (all?) rts's allow lowly infantry men to kill walls, buildings and tanks? Why do they try to make it fair by making the kill take 5000 bullets when all this does is make it all seem even more ridiculous?
There has already been discussion about this in another thread, the usual rts is not a simulation (i.e. accurate) it is a game. Therefore if you allow one player to place objects (a wall) then there is a good chance that sooner or later he will put it somewhere such that it blocks the other player in. If certain unit types (men) do zero damage against these objects then the game is now in stalemate and there is nothing the trapped player can do and his opponent gets to laugh at him.
The solutions are:
1. maps consist of areas that all units can move over but you cannot build on, careful map design prevents one player blocking the other in but still allows walls in certain areas. Not a good solution.
2. let any unit damage any other unit even if it would take hours to get a kill. Problematic solution.
3. Don't let the players place anything that could become an obstacle. If uber tanks are invulnerable then make sure you cannot park them touching one another and the narrowest pass is wider than they are. Building walls is fun, this solution removes that possibility, not good.
4. let certain units such as tanks destroy walls, but others like infantry cannot. In some situations one player will be able to wall in another, if that happens then accept it and allow players to resign the game. Sounds good. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
 |
|
Tryagain Infinity
Joined: 01 Aug 2005 Posts: 168 Location: You see that tank behind you...

|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello World!
| Quote: | | There has already been discussion about this in another thread, |
Umm could you point out which thread?
I tried searching already. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
 |
|
BlackLiger
Joined: 03 Sep 2005 Posts: 11

|
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sealing other players in is fun, but any smart map makes sure that theres some resource or something nearby a players start, allowing said player to face off against an opponent with no trouble. besides, you will have Rocket launchers for infantry, no? Therefore, they can attack and blow holes in walls. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
 |
|
Darth Dallas

Joined: 18 Oct 2003 Posts: 411

|
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the key is partly too, the circumventions of walls in other ways. Hand held rockets or something is certainly one avenue, but what of tunneling? In some cases it may not be very prudent (the fortification might extend under the ground several feet), and others good.
Time and money the player has may mean the difference between having a heavy wall fortification and one that's more of a stop-gap measure. (i.e. more easily destroyable in terms of the time it takes). |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|