Balance Chronotank

[Raap]

So here is something I haven't seen brought up yet: When you Chrono Shift, your opponent is going to be more prepared for you, than you are for them, due to two reasons:

1. As you select your destination, the target area is already highlighted by a shifting effect before you actually appear there. Unfortunately this is required for a lot of game logic.
2. You shift in facing the direction and angle you shifted out at, this can lead to some disorientation while you try to determine where your opponent is in relation to your new location. 

So you shift in with a paper tank to an enemy (or more enemies - you cannot see infantry on the map), possibly facing the opposing direction of an enemy camping your shift-in spot. Naturally this means you're not going to have a fun time.

So if for some reason a general armor buff is off the table, then how about applying a short duration armor buff (~4 seconds) to a recently shifted Chrono Tank? It sort of makes sense in a science fiction way, the space distortion caused by teleportation could result in a moment of not being fully present in the location of the teleportation, so while your Chrono Tank is "stabilizing", it is more resilient to damage (perhaps excluding Tesla/non-physical weaponry here which would also make it not a cheese counter to Tesla Coils).

I imagine 4 seconds being enough to shift in, get spotted, finish the shift, get shot at, rotate to face your enemy and fire - and then the buff wears off.

Edit: To state it in case I wasn't clear, the buff should only apply after shifting into a location, not during the departure of the previous location, else that would make getting out of a fight too easy.

Lastly, bonus issue: The Chrono Tank map for Siege does not fit, a large amount of the map is not present in the screen, which makes shifting behind the Airfield impossible for example. Is this a limitation of the map system?

Edited August 19, 2018 by Raap

[Pushwall]

6 hours ago, Raap said:

Lastly, bonus issue: The Chrono Tank map for Siege does not fit, a large amount of the map is not present in the screen, which makes shifting behind the Airfield impossible for example. Is this a limitation of the map system?

Just scroll the map. It's kind of unfortunate that it has to be that way but I can only make dds files with power-of-2 sizes.

• 512x map? No scrolling necessary but you'll have a hard time seeing stuff and getting your mouse to land on the small ok zones, and a lot of space in the window will be wasted.
• 2048x map? High fidelity, sure, but enjoy being forced to scroll a lot more. Also this isn't even possible unless someone gives me the means to capture a 2048 pixel tall Mammoth window.
• 1024x? Good enough fidelity and only requires scrolling in very niche circumstances.

Alternatively, I'd be able to fit the airfield onto the overhead map with no scrolling necessary if I move the entire gameplay area about 100-150 metres west to get the out of bounds moat off the overhead map. Notice how the overhead map is centered around the game map's origin point? That's right, levels have to be recentred around the centre of the play area just to get the overhead map to provide the appropriate coverage. But there are a million and one problems with this. Every single editor object (building controllers, waypaths, etc) also has to be shifted the same distance. VIS, pathfinding and culling will completely break and need redoing. Fortunately the only map I ever had to recentre for this Coastal Influence and it wasn't such a big deal because CI is a much simpler map with a much smaller amount of editor objects and doesn't perform terribly without VIS, and the only issue is that for the past month the war factory spawns have been completely broken (but they'll be fixed next build).

[Raap]

On the screenshots thing.

Would it not be possible to create stylized maps from a 3DS RENDER? A basic color coded mesh with some 2D style enhancements? I could think of a lot of ways to make this look appealing, the only drawback would be that you lose the ability to see finer details, notably transparency objects, but those are not relevant information to shifting anyway right?

Maybe I'll do a test of this the coming week.

Either way if you go down this path and say, you make 2048 a standard resolution for this, then perhaps Romanov could tweak the map system to always fit a 2048x2048 image perfectly?

Edited August 19, 2018 by Raap

[Pushwall]

18 minutes ago, Raap said:

Either way if you go down this path and say, you make 2048 a standard resolution for this, then perhaps Romanov could tweak the map system to always fit a 2048x2048 image perfectly?

This'll have to wait until whatever undefined point in the future where everyone is running resolutions taller than 2048 pixels.

[ChopBam]

7 hours ago, Pushwall said:

Also this isn't even possible unless someone gives me the means to capture a 2048 pixel tall Mammoth window.

Doable by image stitching.

[Pushwall]

19 minutes ago, ChopBam said:

Doable by image stitching.

Not really. See these snippets? They're taken at the exact same "top" angle, I just panned the camera to the right for the right one. You cannot stitch these due to the way the camera works - unless you want the silo (or whatever objects happen to be at the seams of any given stitched overhead map) to be a perspective nightmare.

And even if we stitch maps together, you're never going to get the finished product to line up properly on the teleport dialog so that where you end up teleporting actually matches up with where you click. We simply can't do it any way other than what Romanov suggested: one screenshot taken using top view - which also conveniently centres your camera precisely over the map origin.

[ChopBam]

Oh it's perspective. For some reason I had assumed it was using the RTS viewer.

[Raap]

Well, here is a map... Have a map, tell me your thoughts, in words.

 

Edit:

GIMP source: (updated) https://drive.google.com/open?id=1W82bOvz8dbgf_SkWTXf-8io330L6j93f

3DS source: (updated) https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ag1_dJnb8TKuFkewCegXyExN1-EBH_ag

Texture files for 3DS component: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yWjvwp0LKCzmdHMycGLLR9dfutSsQNTF

Edited August 22, 2018 by Raap

[thedisclaimitory]

32 minutes ago, Raap said:

Well, here is a map... Have a map, tell me your thoughts, in words.

 

Edit:

GIMP source: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pAZ5pIwJzokFTQniIG3QRQ1B-TE12ea5

3DS source: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HAW69jCcJlqbqIHfkcL6RbLxGMjaHlX4

Texture files for 3DS component: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yWjvwp0LKCzmdHMycGLLR9dfutSsQNTF

why cant I preview the maps weird 

[Raap]

It's a 2D map example, to replace screenshots made in Mammoth as @Pushwall is currently doing.

It is not an actual level - it's just Guard Duty.

[Pushwall]

9 minutes ago, Raap said:

It is not an actual level - it's just Guard Duty.

[Raap]

13 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

Oh you know what I mean! 

Anyhow it is a concept, and easily reproducible for all maps. Most time was used on making the stylized textures but they are done now.

The rest follows basic rules:

1. Delete anything not relevant to collisions, like bushes, as they clutter the screen too much. Also delete anything not relevant to the 2D map such as collision meshes.
2. Reduce the number of main terrain meshes to 4; rocks, grass, sand, water, and apply the materials as suitable. If a map has a darker shade of grass, just alter the material instead of creating another specific stylized grass (you'd end up having to make a lot of textures if you keep making new ones for each regular texture version). The process of creating the stylized textures is not a one click effort.
3. Attach rocks to the 'rock' terrain mesh.
4. Apply RGB green material to trees.
5. Apply RNG blue and red to Allied and Soviet buildings respectively.
6. Apply RNG grey to neutral buildings and misc props that do not belong in any of the above categories.
7. Add a static scene camera, for detailed settings see the 3DS sample.
8. For effect, add a skylight and enable ray tracing during rendering.
9. In GIMP (or Photoshop), open the render result output, and if applicable, select bodies of water to add depth. For an example how to do this, see the GIMP sample.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Raap

[Pushwall]

Anyway, that map is certainly a lot easier to decipher than the overhead Mammoth screenshots. Something I was considering doing, especially if I get around to using overhead map logic for more stuff, was dividing the overhead map into landmarked segments for the sake of encouraging better chat callouts, like so (except obviously with much, much smaller text).

Seems pretty hard to pull off while continuing to let the map itself be readable though, may be better to find some way to get radio commands or something to report what "sector" you're in via script zones

[Raap]

Yeah I was thinking of using some icons as well like gem and ore icons for those fields. The buildings could also be changed to have a building icon fitting within the building radius, but I decided to leave that in case the building status page ever ends up having that information presented on a map screen.

Adding zones makes it confusing but adding "Attack Lane A" and "Attack Lane B" sign directions are certainly possible.

You typically want to avoid image-baked full-sentence texts in the event you ever want to support localisation.

Edit: @Romanov Is it possible to use 2048x2048 map images but when you open the map the image is centered around your current location? This way you wouldn't need to fit the whole image in your screen but just a ~500m radius, and by having the view centered around your position, you can then retain the graphical clarity that comes from having a high resolution map. Would be interesting to know?

Edited August 19, 2018 by Raap

[Romanov]

52 minutes ago, Raap said:

Is it possible to use 2048x2048 map images but when you open the map the image is centered around your current location? This way you wouldn't need to fit the whole image in your screen but just a ~500m radius, and by having the view centered around your position, you can then retain the graphical clarity that comes from having a high resolution map. Would be interesting to know? 

Centering the map around the player is on my todo list. There is no problem in using a 2k x 2k texture except the pixel per meter must be manually recalculated.

[Raap]

4 minutes ago, Romanov said:

Centering the map around the player is on my todo list. There is no problem in using a 2k x 2k texture except the pixel per meter must be manually recalculated.

Well I have no idea how the actual logic works as I never touched it.

I just think that using anything below 2k makes the images (as well as any 'texture') scale very poorly on most common resolutions. 

I believe it was also Pushwall who mentioned that higher resolution images result in more accurate selecting, so I figured I'd make a 2k stylized map as an example.

If you can make the image centered then I cannot see any problems with this resolution any longer, and if 2048x2048 becomes the standard for all APB maps then this calculation thing you mention only has to happen once, right?

[Romanov]

4 minutes ago, Raap said:

If you can make the image centered then I cannot see any problems with this resolution any longer, and if 2048x2048 becomes the standard for all APB maps then this calculation thing you mention only has to happen once, right?

Correct.

[Raap]

So about map sectors, how is this? I tried to keep it as non-intrusive as possible.

It is a set of GIMP layers suited for 2048x2048, so whatever I do here is fully re-usable so you do not have to spend time setting this up again.

Question is, will call-outs like "Enemies spotted in sector F7!" be a thing, and will they be useful? Maybe they would be useful if such a call-out also HIGHLIGHTED that sector on the map (when a map is implemented)?

Edit: This is entirely assuming the MAP is full-screen. For abilities like the Chrono Tank shifting you want the map centered on your position to fit in a smaller window, and then you wouldn't see the grid names, and the lines might look confusing... So yeah, I don't know. Maybe this is one of those cases where "less is more".

Edit2: I can see the sector call-outs working with recon tools; Divide your level up in 8x8 script zones that match the image grid, when your recon device projectile lands it checks in what zone it landed and sends a message to your team. Quite a bit of work though setting up those zones and fitting them into the grid, but I guess it is an option.

Edit77: The more I think on this topic, the more I find myself leaning towards just having a clean map with no drawings, and encouraging players just communicate properly to do their teamwork. Perhaps all these drawings are just there to make the game [too] easy, and are more trouble than they are worth when it comes to hooking gameplay to them.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Raap

[catting]

heh

old times

client_2-25-2017
[12:35:21] catting: the mods once showed us chronos and yaks
[12:35:44] Host: (Pushwall@IRC): it'll act somewhat like the underground vehicles in reborn, but it will go much faster when "shifted" and will forcibly unshift after a while
[12:35:53] Host: (Pushwall@IRC): so it can't perma-camp like a devils tongue can
[12:36:04] catting: i was thinking of a map
[12:36:13] catting: a minimap with xy coords
[12:36:24] Host: (Pushwall@IRC): well we're just working with what we have
[12:36:47] catting: you can preset destinations
[12:36:59] catting: say 3 destinations
[12:37:07] Host: (Alstar@IRC): sounds cool
[12:37:20] Host: (Pushwall@IRC): it's also possible that if you screw up, your chronotank may die in the void... but due to how the game works
[12:37:28] Host: (Pushwall@IRC): this leaves your infantry alive for just under a second
[12:37:32] Host: (Alstar@IRC): RETURN OF BLUEGELL
[12:37:38] catting: it can be encoded in the minimap
[12:37:40] Host: (Alstar@IRC): BLUEHELL*
[12:37:45] Host: (Pushwall@IRC): this is the big reason why i had to add a delay on C4 deployment
[12:37:48] catting: the minimap has Z allready included
 

Edited August 21, 2018 by catting

[Pushwall]

Even with the new chrono logic we still kind of need a delay on C4s for reasons completely unconnected to the new chrono tank. Firing a weapon and selecting something on the sidebar are both assigned to the same mouse button, which means if the C4 has no firing delay then you can refill an empty C4 and throw it at the same time, which kinda gets the client confused - you'll still have C4 ammo, but if you actually try to use this C4 ammo, nothing will happen. Which is pretty shitty when you've had to do so much just to get into the enemy base safely to plant that C4 that you thought you had. It's happened to me many, many times in Gamma.

As for how the old "devil's tongue" chrono tank could create C4 abuse which also encouraged me to add the delay: you could move it through ore silos, tesla coils, etc. but if your "phased out" time limit expired and you were in a position where you couldn't phase back in (i.e. moving through a unit or ore silo etc), your chrono tank took gradual damage. If you got your chrono tank killed by doing this, your infantry would also die, but they'd stay alive just long enough to be able to throw a no-delay C4. Which could be undisarmable if planted inside a silo/coil. In hindsight, the delayed infantry death of the old chrono tank just seems to be lax coding on the part of the old coder, as the code for planes and "open water" naval units seems to be pretty watertight in making sure that the infantry pilots of those die before they can fire their weapon.

[catting]

ok so thats why C4 has the delay.

did you notice the minimap idea?

i was thinking you click on the map to have pre set locations that later you activate in the chronotank, like q1 or q2 etc

[Pushwall]

33 minutes ago, catting said:

ok so thats why C4 has the delay.

On top of this, back when the "devils tongue" Chrono Tank was being devised, that's when C4 had a whopping 1 second delay - since that's how long it would take at maximum for the infantry death to kick in. Ever since that chrono tank concept got canned, the C4's delay has been brought down to only 0.25 seconds - so still enough to mitigate ammo bugs but not so much that it becomes impossible to stick C4 on moving vehicles. I may drop it to 0.1 seconds or something like that too, but it may throw off some people who are used to the 0.25 delay.

33 minutes ago, catting said:

did you notice the minimap idea?

No, and frankly that's another thing that at the time I would have considered impossible. Romanov wouldn't have been around ingame to notice it either and he originally set minimap stuff up with Apocalypse Rising in mind.

 

 

[catting]

oh

[Raap]

The 'casting time' makes sense the way it is, it gives other players a moment to kill the C4 user before it is thrown. Rarely more time than a single shot, but it can be enough.

Think about it, if anything 0.25s is too fast for placing and arming a timed explosive device. 

[Pushwall]

35 minutes ago, Raap said:

The 'casting time' makes sense the way it is, it gives other players a moment to kill the C4 user before it is thrown. Rarely more time than a single shot, but it can be enough.

Think about it, if anything 0.25s is too fast for placing and arming a timed explosive device. 

A casting time makes it exceedingly difficult to place C4 on vehicles though, which is the main concern that I've seen about it.

[Threve]

I think the Crono Tank has been pretty balanced honestly. But it could be due to not seeing it be used how it was supposed to thereby not giving me or anyone else any problems.

Mostly 1 or 2 people buy the tank late game and treat it as a scout/glass cannon and don’t really do anything with it and if they do their skill level let’s them get it blown up.

since intro i’ve only bought it once or twice out of choice to see it in action but really it’s not my style of unit so I don’t bother. 

The missle damage is fairly potent and great for finishing off anything retreating. The armor is pretty damn good for what it is to. I thought it was going to be some Tesla Tank shit box but it holds up pretty well in my opinion. The speed is very good to because it accelerates like crazy fast. Also the cool ability of teleporting into the enemy base with a Tanya is a very special ability brilliantly balanced with Mines.

 

The only time the Cronotank was a threat was on siege when 3 or so were rushed by Silverlight and his gang which almost succeeding in killing our airfield but couldn’t. The cronotank also kills YAK’s pretty good to.

For the first time in video game history if not APB I think you made a unit that is perfectly balanced and doesn’t need any work. I know other people will disagree and I can see why but the unit has been pretty good thus far I think. Honestly I can’t think of anything else it needs, it could be that it’s a new unit and people are still figuring out their way with it. The tank holds a Tanya that can then blow up mines and teleport into the enemy’s base for Christ sake. What more do you want.

[Raap]

47 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

A casting time makes it exceedingly difficult to place C4 on vehicles though, which is the main concern that I've seen about it.

Meh, I do it all the time, especially on Under I pretty much only play Engineer when I'm Soviet due to the the hilarity of killing Allied vehicles with their own mines. I've gotten a ~90% accuracy on C4-tossing simply because I know I need to walk towards where I anticipate the enemy to be in 0.25s. This is a needed 'difficulty curve' because honestly C4 versus vehicles is extremely powerful, it one-shots most of them, and because very few people bring Engineers in their rides the drivers can often do nothing besides just considering the vehicle a loss.

As for the CT (back on topic!), even after more usage I find it lacks sustainability and it makes the unit stressful to play as it is effectively a paper $2400 toy. It is horrible at dealing with buildings, even on Siege where this unit shines the most, 3-4 CT's can fail at destroying the Airfield as it takes about 45 seconds to blow it up without non-CY repairs (and from there no it gets progressively harder for each technician repairing the airfield). 

I remain fine with this, the idea that CT's just aren't meant for dealing with structures unless in overwhelming numbers, but it does need a survivability boost, either through a plain armor buff, or through a temporarily stronger buff for several seconds after chrono shifting, as I mentioned before. Anyhow, I absolutely am just repeating myself at this point so I leave it at this now!

Edit: @Pushwall any more thoughts on the whole map thing?

Edited August 21, 2018 by Raap

[catting]

Just now, Raap said:

very few people bring Engineers in their rides 

i usually go engi in ht when soviet because no one else does

im amazed that most experienced players dont go engi in their demo trucks when soviet, i usually do

[Raap]

Based on some feedback I have updated the map render itself, to fix a few small oversights, add some extrusion to the airfield so it is more visibly the airfield and not a giant box, removed a large portion of the extremely jagged cliffs, and up-scaled the terrain textures significantly to reduce the 'noise' and make the map more clear. I also wanted to have depth layers based on request, unfortunately Max 8 has no way of rendering them intelligently, and manually drawing them would be inaccurate and very time consuming.

This is my last submission on this map topic because this is where the proof of concept has to either, well, prove the concept, or not. 

[Kicken]

Just piggybacking on Raap's work and with his collaboration...