Scale Megathread

What i'm really missing is the ability to put buildings at different heights and take advantage of height as a strategy. I really hope John Mavor can bring more complex battlefields exactly like the one we have in the biome concept. At least i hope this is technically possible. And hopefully it's not implemented yet just because they first need to finalize the pathfinding first path where there's not too much complex geometry to deal with.

height is useless and has nearly no impact. only some mountains can block projectile trajectories. I would like to have elevated planes instead of only some small mountains. larger areas that cannot be passed from some sides but be climbed from others. this is missing at the moment. Planets are "flat", even though they are spheres
There are only "natural" walls like the mini-mountains and the cracks. I would like if we had some real mountain/height gameplay, like in TA or supcom, or starcraft even xD.

Indeed.. planets are definitely are a little flat, and with the flow-field path finding technique that PA is using it should be a little easier then it would normally be when it comes to the units knowing whats exactly passable and what isn't. That is sort of the whole point of flow-field pathing, to enable such things much more easily, it would be nice to have not such a flat area on the planets.

ok !

I was talking about small lava planets, their props outstretch outside the planet.

this is a bit too exagerated but it gets the idea across :

biome : lava
seed : 7944
radius: 100
height range : 0
biome scale : 50
water height : 0
temp : 100

try it and you'll understand what I mean.

no more room for making props bigger. it's the units that have to shrink.

on that note UBER this time you got the lava biome props right, they're gorgeous, please keep them. they're soo much better than the monkeys and that slendervolcano.

I take it this is what you meant? lol....

just bare in mind your not really supposed to go lower than 200 radius, yes you can manually enter numbers in, but if you go outside what the slider actually allows, then you can expect this kind of behavior, especially on a small map like 100, which is barely a size you could really play on anyway, but your point is still valid.

totally agree. we should push this too.

people also started a thread about sim projectiles. I think it's important to mention that currently the whole sim-pro aspect isn't being utilized that much and it's a bit sad.

I'm fine with things being left as they are scale-wise. I expect the average world size to be scale 4-6 once its stable enough to run, which is a good deal bigger than what we have now. Granted I do think some terrain features could be scaled up once you're on larger planets.

as we've stated in the thread numerous amounts of time (not to metion before the first max planet size augmentation)this does not have any fixing property for proportions.

I am honestly surprised that the props and terrain doesn't have a scale feature. I would have expected the procedural generation code to be able to separately size pieces of terrain to make it look more random and less repeated. I feel that currently the larger planets that we can play on look pretty sparse in terms of terrain and that makes me sad after having seen the biome concepts.

After reading this thread a little bit. It seems people think its a lost cause for the scale of the game to be altered. I'm sure its important that it gets addressed early but at the same time we don't know everything that is on Uber's plate.

I too wish the environment can feel bigger, and useful for forming strategies and choke points ( Thermopylae pass/ canyons blocking shots) but there has to be a balance with unit size and interaction.

I guess everyone wants a simple fix to a very complicated problem.

I know in engineering tests I deal with the simple problems first before engaging the complicated problems. I guess the same can be said for Uber. I kind of want them to work their magic since i'm no game designer/modder/whatever that can weigh in on how long it should take to do something.

Nobody is expecting it to be simple.
Zep called it back in summer, so we don't end up with a "oops, it's too late" scenario.

I don't always agree with him (esp how he brings things up "tact"? )...
But he's got his head screwed on right.

He seems to be rarely wrong, at least from the player-experience side of things.

Zep? ( I wasn't here then)

reading the responses of Uber in this thread. They never say its to late or that it can't be done now since we added to much stuff. They actually want a smaller unit scale as well. Sometimes I think we want things to happen faster then what Uber can produce haha.

Tatsujb, Do you think you have a picture that shows x.1, x.05, or x.025? That would be awesome...

ZePilot (Maker of FAF - aka Forged alliance forever)

^^' I don't actually but I take it you're just voicing that it should be reduced a whole lot. vote that.
I too would go for x0.05
It is my understanding however that where Uber agrees a size reduction is in order, there are in their eyes hard limits to this that can't be crossed.

so to make any effort worthwhile let's ask for the attainable.

x0.05?! Wouldn't that be waayyy too tiny?

Or they could just have planets that can be size 400000, which is equal to having x.05 for everything.(Or I mean x20 bigger than the max size now.)

.... Again. That does NOT fix the size-relation between trees, mountains and units. This is NOT about how big the units are compared to the planet.

thanks for being the billionth person in this thread to suggest this genius idea. /sarcasm