Setting Screen Features

Post ideas and suggestions on new features or improvements here.
1, 2, 3
posted on December 27th, 2010, 9:56 pm
I was thinking that in the game settings screen, there could be an option to enable/disable stock A2 features like warp, physics, and map height.  For map height, the player could choose which is the default height settings.  Then have options to revert back to the fleet-ops settings.

Example:
-------------------------------------------------
Settings Enabled:  Stock Armada 2
Default Map Height:  Deep Space

Example 2:
-------------------------------------------------
Settings Enabled:  Fleet-Ops Defaults
Default Map Height:  Map Height Disabled
posted on December 27th, 2010, 10:08 pm
As i understand the map height was disabled because it caused issues with some of the FO features.
Perhaps someone of the staff can explain it in more detail.
posted on December 27th, 2010, 10:16 pm
I thought it was disabled because it was easy to bypass enemy defenses.
posted on December 27th, 2010, 10:20 pm
According to the guide FAQ, it was the 'bypass defenses' version. A pointlessly complex solution to something that could be fixed by just putting turrets inside a base instead of around since they still need to be in range.

The Fleet Ops team has removed the 3D space box from the game. This means that all actions are done at one level in height and depth (“zero” level). The result is that there is no more pointless building in height/depth and flying over defensive structures without harm.
posted on December 27th, 2010, 10:24 pm
Yes, since people want to put about 5x as many turrets then in order to cover the same amount of area 1 turret can cover currently, not to mention totally screwing up fleet combat, screwing over ranges, and making some abilities utterly useless due to being too short ranged.
posted on December 27th, 2010, 10:28 pm
That makes no sense, you don't need 5 to cover a 360 degree sphere that a single turret covers. An extra dimention doesn't alter the range and arc of an unrestricted turret.
posted on December 27th, 2010, 10:47 pm
Last edited by TChapman500 on December 27th, 2010, 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Turrets required on a 3,000-unit high map (describes required altitude):
Code: Select all
Artillery Range:  -500 +500
Long Range:       -700 +700
Medium Range:     -900   +0 +900
Short Range:     -1100 -300 +300 +1100


Really, it won't require very much work until you get into the medium and short-ranged turrets.  You wouldn't require more turrets because of the firing arc, just a couple more to keep your base well guarded.  Besides, a host would be able to choose what depth the map is.
posted on December 27th, 2010, 11:03 pm
Tyler wrote:That makes no sense, you don't need 5 to cover a 360 degree sphere that a single turret covers. An extra dimention doesn't alter the range and arc of an unrestricted turret.


So you're telling me if you place a long ranged turret at zero level and I attack your mining installation with a long ranged ship at + or - long range from any angle that isn't on the attack vector, you'll be able to use the same number of turrets? It's incredibly easy for ships to move slightly outside of the attack radius of a turret if you have three dimensions to work with, and if you want to go and attack them, you're going to have to go down to that level. However, that starts to cover what I said already about screwing over differently ranged ships.
posted on December 28th, 2010, 1:16 am
such options are not planned.
the 'height' is a useless feature in our opinion. that has been discussed in more detail in other threads before. 'height' can be modded back in the game for SP games if desired.
posted on December 28th, 2010, 1:52 am
How?  I never got that question answered other than it's "hard coded."  That doesn't say anything about what is needed to change that.
posted on December 28th, 2010, 5:32 pm
What you have to do is find the section in the rts_cfg(at the bottom of the ai section) and increase the number to what you want. Same with the camera(you'll see it right away when you open it) if it doesn't scroll enough in or out just mess around with different numbers until you get what you want. And don't forget to snoop around art_cfg aswell. Though ofcourse that wont make that option in the setup screen reappear.
posted on December 28th, 2010, 6:26 pm
I'm not going to mess with the RTS_CFG file until I can get the height options to appear.
posted on December 28th, 2010, 6:38 pm
As already mentioned, FO isn't designed to have map height, so why should there be a game setup option to enable something which is guaranteed to mess things up? Likewise if you want map heigh re-enabled, you will have to mod it back yourself. If you are not going to edit the necessary files, you won't be able to get map height feature.
posted on December 28th, 2010, 7:03 pm
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.

The RTS_CFG file does not effect which options are visible.  Therefore, it is not necessary to modify that file to enable the options I'm trying to enable.  I can change that RTS_CFG file to allow whatever height I want, but it won't enable the option to change the map height or the option to send ships to different heights.

The ART_CFG file doesn't have any effect either.  It just effects the detail level of the game.  I don't need to modify it.
posted on December 28th, 2010, 7:17 pm
Last edited by Zebh on December 28th, 2010, 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TCR_500 wrote:The RTS_CFG file does not effect which options are visible.

True, but as already stated, the options you suggest are not planned to be added.

TCR_500 wrote: I can change that RTS_CFG file to allow whatever height I want, but it won't enable the option to change the map height --

Fascinating? (If you mean map specific height, I think that vanilla A2 didn't support map specific height settings either.)

TCR_500 wrote:-- or the option to send ships to different heights.

It could be useful if RTS_CFG config file would have option for enabling vanilla A2 3D movement behaviour. I don't think it is possible on the currently.
1, 2, 3
Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests