Fire and Buildings.

[Radiotraining]

best effect I think is on Ancestor Legacy (here at 9:22 for example)

 

Beside the really good fire effect, another element would be for the building to revert to its own skeleton structure, when it gets completely eaten by the fire. Any suggestion on how to make it? Maybe add a scaffolding as a prop in the "death" variation?

[Radiotraining]

Okay, I was experimenting a bit with fire / damage (only on an aesthetical level, not as "burning" mechanic), and I have a couple of feedbacks:

- The effect, while artisanal, is pretty good! Is very nice to see the damage progression that you inflict to the buildings and it really adds a layer of depth in the gameplay

- Flames and smoke are also a nice touch. It works well with rams too, without looking so "weird" as some people feared (that's my impression..) 

- - - - - - -  - However: 

- Rams are, as usual, too fast/strong in destroying buildings. It takes a couple of thrusts and any building already collapses. This is nothing new in the game but I always found it a bit "weird", because buildings seems super fragile with rams. While they should be a bit more "sturdy".

- I think the strength of rams comes from a gameplay necessity: it can't take too long to destroy a building for obvious reasons. But the mechanic comes off as weird and unrealistic

- - - - - - -  -  So I thought of a compromise:

- What if, instead of destroying buildings so fast, you just need to reach a critical point (25% of health?) and the building then is "de-activated" (gaia?). Fortress/towers won't shoot arrows and barracks can't be used to train soldiers. Then, only at this point, is possible to capture it. Or you have to repair it to regain functions. (or burn it mercilessly to the ground)

- I think that, by using visual cues of damage it could actually make sense to have this sort of distinction.

- This way, buildings can have more resistance to ram thrusts (more realistic), but at the same time this won't compromise the gameplay, as you don't need so much extra time to get a building and change the whole balancing during sieges.

- I think it could be both realistic and also it could be an alternative to the weird mechanic of conquer + demolish that I, among many, find annoying.

 

I don't know if it's the right place to discuss it. But I thought it may be relevant connected with visual improvements of damaged buildings. And also it could be integrated with the idea of "burning" the buildings (maybe after 25% of health the building health slowly depletes itself anyway?)

 

EDIT: attached a video of my experiments with building damage

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Radiotraining

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 hours ago, Radiotraining said:

What if, instead of destroying buildings so fast, you just need to reach a critical point (25% of health?) and the building then is "de-activated" (gaia?).

the problem is the influence of territory.

It is like creating a negative influence or Gaia.

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 hours ago, Radiotraining said:

 

 

I don't know if it's the right place to discuss it. But I thought it may be relevant connected with visual improvements of damaged buildings. And also it could be integrated with the idea of "burning" the buildings (maybe after 25% of health the building health slowly depletes itself anyway?

There should be several types of damage to the structures.

 

Fire. — It could be that only ruins remain. But it is unusable.

Structural.— this damage is because it can collapse.

[Freagarach]

8 hours ago, Radiotraining said:

What if, instead of destroying buildings so fast, you just need to reach a critical point (25% of health?) and the building then is "de-activated" (gaia?)

One could try using the controllability (in cmpIdentity) of a structure for this, but I think there are still some caveats with that.

[Radiotraining]

3 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

the problem is the influence of territory.

Is not a problem, because you want to have that critical advantage during a siege. So is okay if the player would lose functionalities and territory when the building is attacked.

(Or maybe I understood the problem wrong?) 

My only concern was to not alter too much the current gameplay: if you have a turret, you want to knock it off rapidly with a ram. And that's okay. But maybe, by adding more layers to it, you can make the building more steady and resistant, so it takes another 25% to really demolish it to the ground. 

The reason would be mainly better realism. In addition, it could make the attack the primary choice of units (instead of the clunky conquering) and, as defender, you may have more chance to save a collapsing building by repairing it.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Radiotraining

[Radiotraining]

2 hours ago, Freagarach said:

One could try using the controllability (in cmpIdentity) of a structure for this, but I think there are still some caveats with that.

Thanks!

Yeah! No idea on a technical level.. I thought it could be theoretically feasible, but gotta check your suggestion!

would be cool to try! 

[Nullus]

10 hours ago, Radiotraining said:

Okay, I was experimenting a bit with fire / damage (only on an aesthetical level, not as "burning" mechanic), and I have a couple of feedbacks:

- The effect, while artisanal, is pretty good! Is very nice to see the damage progression that you inflict to the buildings and it really adds a layer of depth in the gameplay

- Flames and smoke are also a nice touch. It works well with rams too, without looking so "weird" as some people feared (that's my impression..) 

That sounds really nice, good job! However, it looks like the link to the video of the experiments is broken, could you update that please?

[Radiotraining]

5 minutes ago, Nullus said:

That sounds really nice, good job! However, it looks like the link to the video of the experiments is broken, could you update that please?

True! It was working just fine on my laptop but from the phone I have issues. But I thought it was only me. 

Maybe is the .mov format.. I'll convert and post it again! 

[Radiotraining]

That was it!

 

 

[Radiotraining]

So yeah.. it takes a couple of hits to give critical damage. Nothing new, but maybe the mechanic can be optimized a bit better. 

I think that, by having a visual appearance of damage, you can really add more depth and maybe, as I suggested, add different features 

[Nullus]

It looks very nice! Do you know if there is a way to cause the fire animation to only be triggered by certain attacks, e.g. flaming arrows?

[Radiotraining]

1 hour ago, Nullus said:

It looks very nice! Do you know if there is a way to cause the fire animation to only be triggered by certain attacks, e.g. flaming arrows?

Eh, you're asking too much from me!  I'm only exploiting the functionalities available, but I wouldn't know at such deeper level. As I'm aware no, there isn't a functionality to distinguish types of attack > different damage and it would require some re-coding of some mechanics, I guess. 

We can leave the fire aside, if too unrealistic. I get it is a bit random, but to me it doesn't looks too bad. It looks like a structural failure of the building when it comes from inside. 

> Maybe someone inside has left the gas open in the hurry of defending the building 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Radiotraining

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 hours ago, Radiotraining said:

The reason would be mainly better realism. In addition, it could make the attack the primary choice of units (instead of the clunky conquering) and, as defender, you may have more chance to save a collapsing building by repairing it.

That remind me... there should be more technologies to repair buildings.

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 hours ago, Radiotraining said:

That was it!

 

looks interesting It should start with smoke.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 hours ago, Radiotraining said:

Eh, you're asking too much from me!  I'm only exploiting the functionalities available, but I wouldn't know at such deeper level. As I'm aware no, there isn't a functionality to distinguish types of attack > different damage and it would require some re-coding of some mechanics, I guess. 

We can leave the fire aside, if too unrealistic. I get it is a bit random, but to me it doesn't looks too bad. It looks like a structural failure of the building when it comes from inside. 

> Maybe someone inside has left the gas open in the hurry of defending the building 

Our programmers can give us some hints.

[Radiotraining]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

looks interesting It should start with smoke.

 

good advice!! Definitely!! It needs some tweaks

[Radiotraining]

58 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Our programmers can give us some hints.

I'm sure! but, another issue is how to implement it: it's already a bit of an hassle, and it would require double the work for each building to assign a a different response each time to different attacks, so i would go with a solution that can be standard (with fire? no fire? only smoke? only demolishion..?) and leave this a little bit as a secondary priority, at least for now!

But hey! Obviously if some of the programmers have suggestions or want to collaborate closely, I welcome that! it would make everything much easier anyway!

[Radiotraining]

To do a really -really- good job, the best thing would be to have animations with physics. So you see actual pieces falling down etc..

But this is a bit beyond my skills/knowledge at the moment and again, it requires some serious dedicated work. So I would opt for simple solutions that can implemented more easily. The texture degradation is one of those!

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Radiotraining said:

good advice!! Definitely!! It needs some tweaks

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Radiotraining said:

I'm sure! but, another issue is how to implement it: it's already a bit of an hassle, and it would require double the work for each building to assign a a different response each time to different attacks, so i would go with a solution that can be standard (with fire? no fire? only smoke? only demolishion..?) and leave this a little bit as a secondary priority, at least for now!

But hey! Obviously if some of the programmers have suggestions or want to collaborate closely, I welcome that! it would make everything much easier anyway!

you need always start with the standard to go the specific.

 

You start with small buildings. Those of phase 1 civilians-economic.

many  of them are similar in size.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Radiotraining said:

But this is a bit beyond my skills/knowledge at the moment and again, it requires some serious dedicated work. So I would opt for simple solutions that can implemented more easily. The texture degradation is one of those!

 

For structural dame I have ideas.

 

Some inspiration. it can be done to full texture.

 

 

I'm not asking for  full realistic that bring the buildings broken into particles.

 

With only deterioration textures, you get the idea when you see it.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Lion.Kanzen

[Radiotraining]

Speaking of destruction, I got a curiosity on something I've seen on DE @wowgetoffyourcellphone : i noticed since the first time I played that the primary choice of units is for attack and not conquering as in Vanilla. How you did that? 

I actually tried to look a bit into the files, but couldn't understand much from the JavaScript jargon  ahaha i didn't know where to put my hands

 

Well, anyway, I think that this discussion around fire, hell and destruction could make better sense if the attack mode is privileged over the conquest

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Radiotraining said:

Speaking of destruction, I got a curiosity on something I've seen on DE @wowgetoffyourcellphone : i noticed since the first time I played that the primary choice of units is for attack and not conquering as in Vanilla. How you did that? 

I actually tried to look a bit into the files, but couldn't understand much from the JavaScript jargon  ahaha i didn't know where to put my hands

 

Well, anyway, I think that this discussion around fire, hell and destruction could make better sense if the attack mode is privileged over the conquest

I don't remember, I think it was a setting in the templates files.

[Radiotraining]

Aaah.. possible! 

I hoped not ehehe i hoped it was maybe a general function somewhere to not twist every file lol but is a good hint! I'll try that way