Aircraft in Interior Maps
Should Not Be Possible
-
RadicalEdward2
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:34 am
- Location: NJ
I did try looking there and went back as far as 2013 and couldn't find anything. Also, if you cut off my quote before I explain the whole airplane analogy, of course it would sound dumb.OMnom wrote: ↑Just go to the modding and map section of the forum and ask how to edit the yaml for your map.You don't have to know a single thing about programming or flying an airplane to mod a map. You're making a fuss over something that won't even take you 30m learn and fix.RadicalEdward2 wrote: ↑Thank you! Finally, someone that actually agrees with me.SoScared wrote: ↑One reason interior maps aren't found in the official map pool (I was told at one time) was due to the logic of having aircraft available.
Would be interesting to see games w/o aircraft and AA but I don't think we'll see anything beyond modded maps.
The thing is, the potential of ground based vehicle maps (Interiors) seems to be lost mostly due to the lack there of. If there isn't any existing examples to be used to see the true potential of the gametype, then it'll never see fruition.
It's like (ironically) inventing the first airplane.
No, it definitely sounds dumber if you put the whole quote there.RadicalEdward2 wrote: ↑I did try looking there and went back as far as 2013 and couldn't find anything. Also, if you cut off my quote before I explain the whole airplane analogy, of course it would sound dumb.OMnom wrote: ↑Just go to the modding and map section of the forum and ask how to edit the yaml for your map.You don't have to know a single thing about programming or flying an airplane to mod a map. You're making a fuss over something that won't even take you 30m learn and fix.RadicalEdward2 wrote: ↑Thank you! Finally, someone that actually agrees with me.SoScared wrote: ↑One reason interior maps aren't found in the official map pool (I was told at one time) was due to the logic of having aircraft available.
Would be interesting to see games w/o aircraft and AA but I don't think we'll see anything beyond modded maps.
The thing is, the potential of ground based vehicle maps (Interiors) seems to be lost mostly due to the lack there of. If there isn't any existing examples to be used to see the true potential of the gametype, then it'll never see fruition.
It's like (ironically) inventing the first airplane.
All you have to do is copy and paste this at the bottom of the yaml file in .oramap:
Code: Select all
Rules:
HPAD:
Buildable:
Prerequisites: ~disabled
AFLD:
Buildable:
Prerequisites: ~disabled 2. Open your map with WinRAR
3. Open map.yaml with Notepad++
4. Copy and paste that code at the bottom of the map and make sure the tabs are right
5. Profit???
Literally, you could have solved your "problem" with 7 lines of code, maybe fewer. Instead, you chose to whine and complain instead of asking the right questions. If you have an idea about something, go out and do something about it.
-
RadicalEdward2
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:34 am
- Location: NJ
You say that like I know how to program. I get I sound like I'm whining but, I'm not trying to.
I just want to help improve the game by giving my feedback because I know I'm not as good at programming things as well as the next guy. I know the guys working on this game don't owe me anything.
I don't get what your problem is.
I'm just trying to get the point across that I shouldn't have to program something into a map type that should have come naturally before it was even made available (referring just to the Interior theme).
Sure, I would understand if it's still something that's being worked on but, I'm new here and even if I've only started trying to keep up with the development side of OpenRA, I haven't seen any talk about the issue in even the stuff that came out the same month I joined the community.
I don't get why me trying to make the argument that aircraft shouldn't be allowed inside of a building or underground facility is something that even needs to be debated.
I mean, an option in the Map Editor for Interiors like:
"Allow Aircraft in Interior Maps? Toggle On/Off"
Good stuff! How convenient!
But just by default allowing aircraft to exist inside of Interior maps? That's just silly.
Not everyone knows how to program stuff.
Last time I tried messing with lines of code, I couldn't launch Red Alert 2 or YR again (still can't but, that's mostly EA's fault for not actually trying to run quality assurance on older software when they make it available on Origin). Since then, I've been hesitant to tamper with anything I don't know. Normally I would but, I'm not that adept in coding stuff to trust myself with it just yet.
Granted, I'll probably try messing with coding once I'm done making the map I mentioned but, I still don't think leaving the game with planes inside of buildings phasing through solid layers of Earth is something that should be looked at as "fine" (even in a game where Einstein turned a Pink Floyd album cover into a tower that shoots lasers).
Could imagine how different the game would have been if that stuff flew in Westwood?
First mission of Retaliation:
Topolov: The Allied forces are working on a new Chronosphere technology. Infiltrate the facility and destroy it and kill the scientists involved with the project.
Player: Nah, son! I got this! I'm gonna fly this cargo plane full of guys with AVS-36s and RGDs and a single Yak into the mountain hiding the facility! It'll take like 40 seconds! ... Nah, Nah the planes can go through solid concrete! Trust me, it won't blow up and kill them all when it hits the side of the mountain! We're good!
I just want to help improve the game by giving my feedback because I know I'm not as good at programming things as well as the next guy. I know the guys working on this game don't owe me anything.
I don't get what your problem is.
I'm just trying to get the point across that I shouldn't have to program something into a map type that should have come naturally before it was even made available (referring just to the Interior theme).
Sure, I would understand if it's still something that's being worked on but, I'm new here and even if I've only started trying to keep up with the development side of OpenRA, I haven't seen any talk about the issue in even the stuff that came out the same month I joined the community.
I don't get why me trying to make the argument that aircraft shouldn't be allowed inside of a building or underground facility is something that even needs to be debated.
I mean, an option in the Map Editor for Interiors like:
"Allow Aircraft in Interior Maps? Toggle On/Off"
Good stuff! How convenient!
But just by default allowing aircraft to exist inside of Interior maps? That's just silly.
Not everyone knows how to program stuff.
Last time I tried messing with lines of code, I couldn't launch Red Alert 2 or YR again (still can't but, that's mostly EA's fault for not actually trying to run quality assurance on older software when they make it available on Origin). Since then, I've been hesitant to tamper with anything I don't know. Normally I would but, I'm not that adept in coding stuff to trust myself with it just yet.
Granted, I'll probably try messing with coding once I'm done making the map I mentioned but, I still don't think leaving the game with planes inside of buildings phasing through solid layers of Earth is something that should be looked at as "fine" (even in a game where Einstein turned a Pink Floyd album cover into a tower that shoots lasers).
Could imagine how different the game would have been if that stuff flew in Westwood?
First mission of Retaliation:
Topolov: The Allied forces are working on a new Chronosphere technology. Infiltrate the facility and destroy it and kill the scientists involved with the project.
Player: Nah, son! I got this! I'm gonna fly this cargo plane full of guys with AVS-36s and RGDs and a single Yak into the mountain hiding the facility! It'll take like 40 seconds! ... Nah, Nah the planes can go through solid concrete! Trust me, it won't blow up and kill them all when it hits the side of the mountain! We're good!
The real issue here is that you are trying to use the tileset for something it is not supposed to be used for. The interior theme is used in the singleplayer campaign, and was never (and still isn't) designed for creating conquest-style maps with bases, vehicles, or aircraft.RadicalEdward2 wrote: ↑I don't get what your problem is.
I'm just trying to get the point across that I shouldn't have to program something into a map type that should have come naturally before it was even made available (referring just to the Interior theme).
-
RadicalEdward2
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:34 am
- Location: NJ
That is true but, it doesn't hurt to try.Sleipnir wrote: ↑The real issue here is that you are trying to use the tileset for something it is not supposed to be used for. The interior theme is used in the singleplayer campaign, and was never (and still isn't) designed for creating conquest-style maps with bases, vehicles, or aircraft.RadicalEdward2 wrote: ↑I don't get what your problem is.
I'm just trying to get the point across that I shouldn't have to program something into a map type that should have come naturally before it was even made available (referring just to the Interior theme).
-
RadicalEdward2
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:34 am
- Location: NJ
touché
But, the only I say remove the theme is because it doesn't seem like anyone really cares that the theme can't even function as intended (planes not allowed underground). When I said that it didn't hurt to try, that didn't apply for trying to come up with an excuse as to why planes should be allowed underground. It's not even so much as to having it "my way" it's just common sense like 1+1=2, touching a stove = get burnt, etc. Planes belonging in the sky and not in claustrophobic tunnels miles below the Earth's surface.
When I said "it doesn't hurt to try", I meant making the Interior theme function like it would in single player but, at the same time try not to break the illusion that the theme was designed to work a certain way based on how it was used in-game (in the original).
Stuff like artillery units that can't arc over what is implied as being an impassable concrete barrier with an ceiling (artillery units and V2s can actually fire over tunnel walls as though they were cliffs) and infantry/tanks trying to peek around tight corners to see if they'll be shot at (all ground units both vehicles and infantry shoot through the walls like they don't exist).
That way there could be maps outside of the standard open outdoor skirmish maps where players would be forced out of their comfort zone of who can build the biggest rush force fast enough and instead have to pick what units they need for each section of a maps; essentially using the fact that "corridors" can be clogged as a feature and not a weakness.
I'm just bothered that I have to take a chance at potentially mistyping something in the maps code and losing literally days of work. However, I was sort of flustered by how OmNom initially responded to my post because it came off as a confrontation even though I genuinely was curious and didn't think my question was as trivial as he made it out to be.
Also, I crashed the game on my first attempt relaunching it after editing the file. I think I got it to work but, now I'm curious as to what other stuff I can mess with now lol
Once I figure out how to disable nukes (regardless of if Superweapons are on or off), I'll post a link for the map.
Listen...I agree that aircraft shouldn't be in interior maps -- we all do.
But what you said here ...
1. You think that making a poorly-constructed argument based upon infallible logic and your own personal feelings, on a forum where 99% of the users aren't developers, will somehow prompt one of the developers to listen to you.
Are you going to pay one of the developers for their time to implement your suggestion, or are you going to learn how to code and make your own pull request? What are you contributing besides this idea? Is there an easier way to stop aircraft from being built on interior maps? If the developers were to implement your suggestion fully, how long would it take to code it? Who is going to make the new sprites? Which developer would volunteer for this suggestion?
2. You're using your lack of coding knowledge to form a misconceived notion that since coding difficult for you, it must be easier for other people. In reality, you have no idea how annoying or how long it would take to code your suggestion.
Why do you think this hasn't been "fixed" yet (hint: a developer of this game just told you already)? Have you even worked out the logistics of how many lines of code would needed to be added? How many lines of code would they have to rewrite?
Oh wait, since you don't know how to code, it shouldn't be that bad right? But hey, since you're so dedicated to contributing your feedback, it's okay that you don't need to know how basic coding works /sarcasm.
And this quote...
People think that the outlash against these "idea threads" is directed at the fact people keep coming up with new ideas. To be perfectly clear: Making a well-constructed thread with a new idea or suggestion is perfectly fine and welcome. It's when low-impact, poorly-constructed, or poorly-thought out ideas keep flooding the forum and derailing threads that causes tempers to flare. Wouldn't you agree that an "Additional Map Editor Features" thread would create more fruitful discussion that actually might get implemented than "Aircraft in Interior Maps?"
You tried to compel people to empathize, or, at the very least, sympathize with your struggles trying to comprehend aircraft in an underground map. Instead of trying to get people to understand your point of view, why don't you try to look at this game from the developer's point of view for a change?
Get out of the mentality of, "This doesn't make sense...fix it" and look at it from the perspective of, "This doesn't make sense...how would one fix it." I too, at one point, was in your shoes, having all these crazy suggestions. And then when I took a look at how the the game was designed, I immediately had way more respect for this game and what the developers do for us. It was at that point, I realized that if I wanted to contribute to this game, I had to stop tweeting out ideas and actually do something about it.
But what you said here ...
...in combination with what you're asking for here...RadicalEdward2 wrote: ↑ You say that like I know how to program. I get I sound like I'm whining but, I'm not trying to.
I just want to help improve the game by giving my feedback because I know I'm not as good at programming things as well as the next guy. I know the guys working on this game don't owe me anything.
I don't get what your problem is.
I'm just trying to get the point across that I shouldn't have to program something into a map type that should have come naturally before it was even made available
...along with this compilation of images trying to provoke feelings of empathy for your wasted time...RadicalEdward2 wrote: ↑When I said that it didn't hurt to try, that didn't apply for trying to come up with an excuse as to why planes should be allowed underground. It's not even so much as to having it "my way" it's just common sense like 1+1=2, touching a stove = get burnt, etc. Planes belonging in the sky and not in claustrophobic tunnels miles below the Earth's surface.
When I said "it doesn't hurt to try", I meant making the Interior theme function like it would in single player but, at the same time try not to break the illusion that the theme was designed to work a certain way based on how it was used in-game (in the original).
Stuff like artillery units that can't arc over what is implied as being an impassable concrete barrier with an ceiling (artillery units and V2s can actually fire over tunnel walls as though they were cliffs) and infantry/tanks trying to peek around tight corners to see if they'll be shot at (all ground units both vehicles and infantry shoot through the walls like they don't exist).
...leads me to believe two things:RadicalEdward2 wrote: ↑Tanks in Interior maps make sense because Underground facilities being used to transfer heavy vehicles existed both in-game and in real-life. Aircraft zip zooming underground is a completely different spectrum.Doomsday wrote: ↑Tanks moving in interior space is also quite sketchy. I would imagine interior maps are bit of a lost cause and reserved for stuff like single player campaigns.
If aircraft are going to allowed in underground maps, might as well remove the theme entirely because it's on-par with imaginary Army Men toy battles.
I can't even finish this map I spent days on because now I'm too occupied with placing AI AA guns all over the place because Interior maps can't behave as intended.
Now I have a quarter of the map squared off for what would have been power supplies for environment base defenses dedicated solely to meet the needs of several dozen AA guns. It looks awful.
If I actually have to tamper with the maps code just to make it function like it would, how do I ever do that? I'm by no means a programmer but, I don't want this map to go to waste because a weird majority prefers to exploit having aircraft phasing through the Earth like Tiberian Sun subterranean units.
1. You think that making a poorly-constructed argument based upon infallible logic and your own personal feelings, on a forum where 99% of the users aren't developers, will somehow prompt one of the developers to listen to you.
Are you going to pay one of the developers for their time to implement your suggestion, or are you going to learn how to code and make your own pull request? What are you contributing besides this idea? Is there an easier way to stop aircraft from being built on interior maps? If the developers were to implement your suggestion fully, how long would it take to code it? Who is going to make the new sprites? Which developer would volunteer for this suggestion?
2. You're using your lack of coding knowledge to form a misconceived notion that since coding difficult for you, it must be easier for other people. In reality, you have no idea how annoying or how long it would take to code your suggestion.
Why do you think this hasn't been "fixed" yet (hint: a developer of this game just told you already)? Have you even worked out the logistics of how many lines of code would needed to be added? How many lines of code would they have to rewrite?
Oh wait, since you don't know how to code, it shouldn't be that bad right? But hey, since you're so dedicated to contributing your feedback, it's okay that you don't need to know how basic coding works /sarcasm.
And this quote...
...leads me to believe that, while you may have good intentions, you clearly have never heard of concrete walls and pillboxes.That way there could be maps outside of the standard open outdoor skirmish maps where players would be forced out of their comfort zone of who can build the biggest rush force fast enough and instead have to pick what units they need for each section of a maps; essentially using the fact that "corridors" can be clogged as a feature and not a weakness.
People think that the outlash against these "idea threads" is directed at the fact people keep coming up with new ideas. To be perfectly clear: Making a well-constructed thread with a new idea or suggestion is perfectly fine and welcome. It's when low-impact, poorly-constructed, or poorly-thought out ideas keep flooding the forum and derailing threads that causes tempers to flare. Wouldn't you agree that an "Additional Map Editor Features" thread would create more fruitful discussion that actually might get implemented than "Aircraft in Interior Maps?"
You tried to compel people to empathize, or, at the very least, sympathize with your struggles trying to comprehend aircraft in an underground map. Instead of trying to get people to understand your point of view, why don't you try to look at this game from the developer's point of view for a change?
Get out of the mentality of, "This doesn't make sense...fix it" and look at it from the perspective of, "This doesn't make sense...how would one fix it." I too, at one point, was in your shoes, having all these crazy suggestions. And then when I took a look at how the the game was designed, I immediately had way more respect for this game and what the developers do for us. It was at that point, I realized that if I wanted to contribute to this game, I had to stop tweeting out ideas and actually do something about it.
-
RadicalEdward2
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:34 am
- Location: NJ
I will admit I did sound like I was whining.
Using images though, that's just something I do on a regular basis because I feel like visuals help. I'm one of those type of people that follow landmarks more that street names (if that makes sense). I wasn't by any means trying to push my views further with visuals.
I also realized the screenshots I posted were WAY larger than I initially thought they would be. I'm used to how some forums compress images down to smaller sizes like clickable thumbnails. I didn't mean to make the images take up entire pages.
As for the programming side, I totally understand that it's easier said than done. That's why I posted about it to begin with.
I would never take the work of a dev for granted either. I've actually shown OpenRA to a friend of mine that used to play the original games and actually does programming as an occupation and he was amazed that there were fans dedicated enough to make a version of C&C that could not only be played between Windows and OS X but, Linux as well. I love the amount of work and effort put into this game.
I'll also say that once I looked at the code you provided, it wasn't as bad as I had initially thought it would be (me somehow managing to break the game to the point that it wouldn't launch again). Once I took some time to look into the stuff, I managed to get it to work. So I definitely appreciate the help.
As for the notion that things have to be done the moment I request it, goodness no! lol
I never said anything along the lines of "this needs to be fixed ASAP otherwise it's a shit game".
I only said it seemed like a "big issue" because I thought the issue was somehow just overlooked because people don't mess around with Interior as much as maybe Temperate or Snow.
Granted, I didn't really explicitly ask "how it could be fixed" but, that was before I even considered messing with the map's code. I thought it was an even bigger task that required messing with the actual game's code (and not the map file) because I've never done anything like this before.
So I thought I was just bringing attention to an entirely new issue that could be looked into when more pressing ones were taken care of; not demanding it became priority number one. I never was the type to demand anything from anyone but, I understand if people thought I was the latter since I'm still relatively new here with no history with this community until recently. Same goes for my sense of humor. I was messing around with the Death Star trench run picture but, I have a feeling it was taken seriously instead of as a joke.
I also wanted apologize for being a bit uppity and cynical with you (OmNom). After your blunt first comment, I was convinced that any comment from you from that point on was going to be shit-stirring (outside of the reply in the linked thread) because you were taking out your frustrations with trivial question posts on me because you dealt with that with other people on more than one occasion.
Sorry (again) if that was misinterpreted
In retrospect, you did help but, there was definitely more instigating from you before you actually provided the lines of code (responding with a link to a thread for throwaway questions and posts you deemed as a waste of time (I wouldn't pool my Tech and Bio Lab post with the two sentence posts though because I was trying to suggest ways to make use of existing assets with functions that had already been established in existing C&C games), calling for the thread to end, etc).
I hope that clears things up.
Using images though, that's just something I do on a regular basis because I feel like visuals help. I'm one of those type of people that follow landmarks more that street names (if that makes sense). I wasn't by any means trying to push my views further with visuals.
I also realized the screenshots I posted were WAY larger than I initially thought they would be. I'm used to how some forums compress images down to smaller sizes like clickable thumbnails. I didn't mean to make the images take up entire pages.
As for the programming side, I totally understand that it's easier said than done. That's why I posted about it to begin with.
I would never take the work of a dev for granted either. I've actually shown OpenRA to a friend of mine that used to play the original games and actually does programming as an occupation and he was amazed that there were fans dedicated enough to make a version of C&C that could not only be played between Windows and OS X but, Linux as well. I love the amount of work and effort put into this game.
I'll also say that once I looked at the code you provided, it wasn't as bad as I had initially thought it would be (me somehow managing to break the game to the point that it wouldn't launch again). Once I took some time to look into the stuff, I managed to get it to work. So I definitely appreciate the help.
As for the notion that things have to be done the moment I request it, goodness no! lol
I never said anything along the lines of "this needs to be fixed ASAP otherwise it's a shit game".
I only said it seemed like a "big issue" because I thought the issue was somehow just overlooked because people don't mess around with Interior as much as maybe Temperate or Snow.
Granted, I didn't really explicitly ask "how it could be fixed" but, that was before I even considered messing with the map's code. I thought it was an even bigger task that required messing with the actual game's code (and not the map file) because I've never done anything like this before.
So I thought I was just bringing attention to an entirely new issue that could be looked into when more pressing ones were taken care of; not demanding it became priority number one. I never was the type to demand anything from anyone but, I understand if people thought I was the latter since I'm still relatively new here with no history with this community until recently. Same goes for my sense of humor. I was messing around with the Death Star trench run picture but, I have a feeling it was taken seriously instead of as a joke.
I also wanted apologize for being a bit uppity and cynical with you (OmNom). After your blunt first comment, I was convinced that any comment from you from that point on was going to be shit-stirring (outside of the reply in the linked thread) because you were taking out your frustrations with trivial question posts on me because you dealt with that with other people on more than one occasion.
Sorry (again) if that was misinterpreted
In retrospect, you did help but, there was definitely more instigating from you before you actually provided the lines of code (responding with a link to a thread for throwaway questions and posts you deemed as a waste of time (I wouldn't pool my Tech and Bio Lab post with the two sentence posts though because I was trying to suggest ways to make use of existing assets with functions that had already been established in existing C&C games), calling for the thread to end, etc).
I hope that clears things up.
The reason I posted the general discussion link is because I foresaw this topic ending in a few, simple posts :
"Can you build aircraft on interior maps?"
"Yes"
"Well thats dumb...is there any way for me to make an interior map without aircraft?"
"Yes, edit the yaml of the map"
"I tried to do that, but I can't find anything...help?"
"Try this [...]"
"Cool thanks"
Stuff like that, in my opinion, belongs in the general discussion thread. Quick, simple, easy, and keeps the forum clean.
I'm a blunt and very literal person to begin with...its easier to communicate over the internet that way (as long as no one trolls me). If you took any of my comments as me raging or instigating something, it wasn't meant that way, and I'm sorry if you thought I was.
The only person who types mean stuff and actually means it is JuiceBox.
>.>
"Can you build aircraft on interior maps?"
"Yes"
"Well thats dumb...is there any way for me to make an interior map without aircraft?"
"Yes, edit the yaml of the map"
"I tried to do that, but I can't find anything...help?"
"Try this [...]"
"Cool thanks"
Stuff like that, in my opinion, belongs in the general discussion thread. Quick, simple, easy, and keeps the forum clean.
I'm a blunt and very literal person to begin with...its easier to communicate over the internet that way (as long as no one trolls me). If you took any of my comments as me raging or instigating something, it wasn't meant that way, and I'm sorry if you thought I was.
The only person who types mean stuff and actually means it is JuiceBox.
>.>
-
RadicalEdward2
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:34 am
- Location: NJ
Thanks for the apology. I thought I actually did something to get on your bad side.
At least we have an understanding now.
Sure I know how to edit the rules for maps now but, the Interior theme (skirmish or not) still needs some polishing.
I LOVE the tile sets but, when I tested the map, I noticed that all units can shoot at ones in other rooms as if the wall separating them didn't exist.
Aside from depicting a visual representation as to where units can't move. It behaves like a river tile piece:
Can't be walked over or driven through but, projectiles could care less. The same goes for the flame towers (and Tesla bolts). The fire flies through the walls and hits their targets instead of splashing against the walls like normal.
I guess the thread did get kind of derailed but, it's only because there's more issues with the Interior theme than I initial thought.
Here's a link for the map if you want to try it out:
http://resource.openra.net/maps/20441/
The only other things I can really say is that the enemy player AI disregards it's behaviors (Normal, Rush, Turtle, Naval) on Interior maps and stagnates like the old ones once it's finished building its base (if the Creeps don't pick a fight with their roving Ore Trucks). I know this is (again) probably because the map theme isn't intended for skirmish.
It works better as an online map if you can ignore how unavoidable projectiles are.
At least we have an understanding now.
Sure I know how to edit the rules for maps now but, the Interior theme (skirmish or not) still needs some polishing.
I LOVE the tile sets but, when I tested the map, I noticed that all units can shoot at ones in other rooms as if the wall separating them didn't exist.
Aside from depicting a visual representation as to where units can't move. It behaves like a river tile piece:
Can't be walked over or driven through but, projectiles could care less. The same goes for the flame towers (and Tesla bolts). The fire flies through the walls and hits their targets instead of splashing against the walls like normal.
I guess the thread did get kind of derailed but, it's only because there's more issues with the Interior theme than I initial thought.
Here's a link for the map if you want to try it out:
http://resource.openra.net/maps/20441/
The only other things I can really say is that the enemy player AI disregards it's behaviors (Normal, Rush, Turtle, Naval) on Interior maps and stagnates like the old ones once it's finished building its base (if the Creeps don't pick a fight with their roving Ore Trucks). I know this is (again) probably because the map theme isn't intended for skirmish.
It works better as an online map if you can ignore how unavoidable projectiles are.
-
lovalmidas
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:23 am
Just remove INTERIOR. RA2 survived well without that anyway
On that note, remove LUNAR from Yuri's Revenge when we get there as well. Westwood's devs as so weak they had to resort to map-modding for that. We don't want to follow Westwood's footsteps, do we?
Problem(s) solved. /s
(Rules editing is a very good skill to learn if you want atypical stuff (even stuff you had assumed typical) from the engine.)
On that note, remove LUNAR from Yuri's Revenge when we get there as well. Westwood's devs as so weak they had to resort to map-modding for that. We don't want to follow Westwood's footsteps, do we?
Problem(s) solved. /s
(Rules editing is a very good skill to learn if you want atypical stuff (even stuff you had assumed typical) from the engine.)