Poll: Immobile buildings (in the Y direction)

[Google Frog]

This is more a poll to gather opinions. I haven't implemented immobile buildings or fixed the bugs that mobile buildings create. Immobile buildings is easier to implement and from a gameplay standpoint I think it is slightly better.

If you have good points towards either implementation or ways to fix undesirable gameplay elements then say them here before I do anything, which at this stage is immobile buildings.

[SirMaverick]

Mobile building? As in: building e.g. bb behind wall and then terra it up so it can fire?

What are contras and undesirable gameplay elements?

[Google Frog]

What are contras and undesirable gameplay elements?

Depends on what anyone thinks should be part of gameplay. What do you think needs fixing?

There is only 1 indisputable bug with mobile buildings (that I can see). Spring takes building height from a single point below the middle instead of averaging the area which the building is on. This means that buildings can be terraformed through (which is ugly) and that every building can be moved vertically with only 1 terraformed point in the middle. The 1 terraformed point can be used to make the building almost entirely underground (as in below the actual heightmap) which makes buildings near invulnerable.

Immobile buildings would need implementing as the new terraform system would not work well with the old immobile building system.

I would prefer immobile buildings but I don't want to implement it just to find that everyone else wants them to be mobile. That is the purpose of this poll.

[Saktoth]

I'd really like players to have the freedom to move buildings about, but it just comes with too many problems.

We could just flatten the ground under buildings, to fix that bug, but sinking is still just incredibly easy.

Its really a problem with terraform on the whole: It offers some incredibly strong tools to make fortresses, blockades, ramps, or new terrain to build on. But its mostly used to block in fusions, which is quite possibly the least interesting use of it in the whole game.

Mobile buildings sounds like such a neat idea, but then when you play a few games with it, i had to change my mind pretty quickly. The problems were obvious.

I think, as your project Google, you should get the most say in what to implement. When not creating any new bugs and continuing old behaviour, especially. It would be frustrating to think people arent implimenting good additions to CA because they arent sure if they can get political agreement from other devs.

[Google Frog]

It would be frustrating to think people arent implimenting good additions to CA because they arent sure if they can get political agreement from other devs.

It's not really political. I'm not entirely sure which way it should work so I'm hoping for feedback so that I can make a better decision.

We could just flatten the ground under buildings, to fix that bug, but sinking is still just incredibly easy.

If buildings are mobile I would make it impossible to only terraform part of a building's footprint. Also non-amphib buildings would not be terraformable below water.

But its mostly used to block in fusions, which is quite possibly the least interesting use of it in the whole game.

I think the issue here is amphibious fusions. If the fusion is just in a hole units should be able to peer over the edge and shoot at it. If there is a wall as well then level-missile will flatten the wall.

[licho]

I would like mobile buildings because its simpler to use (you can terraform after structure is in place).

But if its hard to fix bugs, immobile is better.

[SirMaverick]

I'm not really convinced immobile buildings will make anything better.

[SirMaverick]

*mobile

[Google Frog]

I'm not really convinced immobile buildings will make anything better.

That's irrelevant to immobile buildings. Anyway, suggest what the behaviour should be of spires and how to fix it.

[Google Frog]

How about a cost multiplier for height difference on the edge of terraform? The difference between the desired height and the height of the nearby block can add to the terraform cost exponentially for points on the border.

Someone is terraforming a single 'block'. A block is made of 4x4 heightmap points (in bold). The non-bold points are not terraformed, they are the surrounding points.

05 15 25 35 45 55
04 14 24 34 44 54
03 13 23 33 43 53
02 12 22 32 42 52
01 11 21 31 41 51
00 10 20 30 40 50

The points 23, 33, 22 and 32 have the normal terraform cost. The other points have their cost added to(exponentially?) by the difference between the non-blod points height and their desired height. For example the cost of terraforming point 13 is multiplied by abs(height(03) - desiredHeight(13)). The cost of points 14,44,11 and 41 could be multiplied by twice as they are on the corner, this may nerf diagonals too much though so an average value could be used.

[Saktoth]

Basically that terraform doesnt rely on height-above-natural, but rather height-above-sorrounding-area? If the math for this isnt too difficult, it sounds reasonable, and as for diagonals- technically they block more area anyway.

No matter the implimentation though, do we WANT to block spires?

I think in the case of vanguard, if this is really a problem, it just shouldnt be AT. The only real reason for it to be AT is so you can do this.

There are a bunch of other circumstances where terra is a problem too though: Every non-spherical range weapon- Defenders dont lose range, Stardusts and Warriors actually GAIN range. Yet by being on a spire, they cannot be hit by any spherical or ballistic weapon (so a warrior on a spire always beats one that isnt).

The fact it becomes trivial to terraform underneath a unit shouldnt be underestimated here (previously they had to move).

Hopefully siesmic missiles can solve this issue, but only for porcy situations. Things like fusion starts being immune to sniping by all land units will still be an issue.

[Google Frog]

Basically that terraform doesnt rely on height-above-natural, but rather height-above-sorrounding-area?

And the cost multiplier is based applied to the edge. This makes large areas more efficient than spires.

[Google Frog]

Winner: 2 (25%)