Scale Megathread

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by tatsujb, June 24, 2013.

?

The size of units and structures in PA should be :

  1. Decreased a Whole Lot

    122 vote(s)
    21.7%
  2. Increased

    37 vote(s)
    6.6%
  3. Left as they are

    132 vote(s)
    23.5%
  4. Decreased

    271 vote(s)
    48.2%
  1. broadsideet

    broadsideet Active Member

    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    218
    You have been reading this thread wrong, then. The topic of this thread says that planet size is mostly irrelevant. It is purely about unit size in relation to terrain. Unit speed is easily altered and unimportant to discuss. Planet size is easily changed and unimportant to discuss in detail.
    cmdandy likes this.
  2. Raevn

    Raevn Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    4,324
    Planet size is important because planet size:terrain feature size ratio matters too.

    You can't just shrink units & speeds, because then planets are effectively bigger.
    You can't just make terrain features much larger, because then it can strange compared to planet size.

    Changing pretty much any variable here (planet size, terrain size, unit size and unit speed) affects the others. You need to adjust them all together if you want to change them, because some ratios just won't work.
    aevs likes this.
  3. abubaba

    abubaba Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    385
    Yes, this is very much true.. which is why I think a poll like this is a bit misleading. The poll question is too vague, or rather the issue is too complex and far reaching to just say yes or no right off the bat.
  4. tatsujb

    tatsujb Post Master General

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    5,385
    this is what cracks me up about criticizing polls x'D ... you've got a bit of everything in the bag. Binary polls upset more people than just you.

    in anycase I cannot add, edit or remove a poll with xenforo's options, so what we have is what' we'll stick to.
  5. abubaba

    abubaba Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    385
    I bet binary polls tend to upset pretty much everybody. Nothing wrong with binary polls, it is about how you pose the question. Not really sure if I feel the one in this poll is too specific or too vague. At least you could have had one option for "increased a whole lot" just for sake of balance. But whatever, it is what it is.
  6. tatsujb

    tatsujb Post Master General

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    5,385
    hey "increased" was a joke originally, for the longest time we had 0 votes to increase. We had a comment in the thread for everytime someone voted to increase. look at the beginning of the thread and look at the first poll results. the first poll results didn't warrant the creation of an extra category for increased... clearly not, on the other hand they definitely did warrant the creation of an extra poll option for the opposed.
  7. broadsideet

    broadsideet Active Member

    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    218
    Oh, I completely agree. I am not saying that they are not effecting each other; I am saying that it is unimportant. These scale issues that you bring up are only problems on very extreme cases (planets that are too small or too large). The problems are null in this case because they are broken anyways. Changing the scale of the props would just change the minimum planet size a bit. Hell, why not even have prop sets that only work on small planets or large ones?

    All I am trying to say is that the arguments in this thread are off-topic. You can keep talking about how unit size vs planet size would change, but that is hardly important in all but the most extreme circumstances.
  8. Raevn

    Raevn Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    4,324
    I'd agree if it was only a small change, bu people are arguing for reductions in unit size of half or more - this means either a) double planet size (which has many gameplay effects), or, if this is corrected, b) double feature size-to-planet size ratio, which is not just a small change visually.

    I don't see how it warranted the creation of an extra option, because you have no way of distinguishing what votes for "decreased" or "decreased a lot" mean. How much is "decreased" vs "decreased a whole lot"? The amount can't be determined from this poll, so the two seperate options may as well just be 1.

    Edit: Apparently my brain wasn't working.
    Last edited: December 26, 2013
  9. tatsujb

    tatsujb Post Master General

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    5,385
    it's in the freakin mock up. raevn ? common.
  10. abubaba

    abubaba Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    385
    One fun approach would be to make terrain features scale with planet size.. this way you would have all the scales from the mock up pic in OP in the game, 1.3x on really small planets and 0.3x on huge planets. I know it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't have to make sense.. it's a game. ;)
  11. tatsujb

    tatsujb Post Master General

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    5,385
    no that makes scene and it's been suggested a good number of times.

    I don't know why it isn't that way, if it is hard to do or not.

    That would help out, that's for sure.
  12. abubaba

    abubaba Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    385
    I'm no expert, but judging from the dev posts in this thread, messing with scale in general seems to be quite a bit of work. I can imagine how that would be the case with all the procedural generation etc, must be a pain.

    Anyway, having terrain features scale with planet size would probably mean maximum zoom level would vary by planet due to camera clipping issues, which would be a bit weird. And boring to watch, having tiny illegible units on larger planets.
  13. Raevn

    Raevn Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    4,324
    I'm not sure what you are getting at. I was responding to broadsideet's statement that small changes don't need to take into account the other affected size ratios, and simply stated that this isn't necessarily a small suggested change. Furthermore, mockups can't show the gameplay impact of such changes.

    Edit: Misunderstood what tatsujb's previous post was referencing.
    Last edited: December 26, 2013
  14. broadsideet

    broadsideet Active Member

    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    218
    That is exactly the point: gameplay impacts from these changes. Also, the only real changes that would happen in terms of planetsize:terrain would be that planets smaller than 300 would look wrong instead of 200. IMO, bodies that are of a certain smaller size shouldn't have terrain on them in the first place; or they should have their own asteroid terrain...

    I am not saying there are no side effects of the suggested changes, just that the side effects are small and totally worth it.
  15. Raevn

    Raevn Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    4,324
    @tatsujb: I had a (hopefully temporary) case of the dumb :(

    Changing planetsize:terrain has more effect than just at which size it looks bad at. There's also decreased buildable area and a correspondingly higher chokepoint count. You could reduce the number of terrain features, but that could make the planets look sparse. Trees and other small objects would also present a far bigger obstacle to both movement and weapons fire. Also, if terrain is effectively twice the size, it may require making the models and/or textures for these more detailed, so they do not appear out of place.

    To be clear; I'm not disagreeing that they (unit sizes) should be lowered, or even saying that they shouldn't be lowered by a large amount. I just think the variables are a lot more interconnected then they seem, and therefore discussions on the effects on other parts of the game (Such as planet size) are worth while.

    I would also suggest that changes of this kind shouldn't be tested until at least the trees are included in the physics simulation.
    Last edited: December 26, 2013
    Clopse and broadsideet like this.
  16. tatsujb

    tatsujb Post Master General

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    5,385
    yes we agree with all this, it requires work, that's why we're making such a big racket about it. also constantly pushing this back won't make it easier to do.

    how about implementing tree physics with the correct final scale?
  17. Raevn

    Raevn Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    4,324
    That would be like trying to balance the current units before adding the rest of them. You don't know what effect it will have (and therefore what the "correct" scale is) and you may just have to re-do the whole thing.
  18. tatsujb

    tatsujb Post Master General

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    5,385
    but can't the same be said for the opposite order?
  19. Raevn

    Raevn Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    4,226
    Likes Received:
    4,324
    If you've balanced a game when all the parts are in it, why would you need to re-balance again?
    On the other hand, if you balance a game and then other parts are added, you need to re-balance again.
  20. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    o_O This comment baffles me. Mr. raeven, are you expecting a perfect balance on the first try? Unlike pretty much every other RTS that has ever been released?
    tatsujb likes this.

Share This Page