Structure Support Balancing

[rulerofiron99]

The pun in the title unintended.

Although Ace of Spades is no where near as ridiculous as Minecraft, where entire structures just stay airborne because f*** gravity, it is still ridiculous to the point where one lone support beam can hold up the entire map.

I suggest that each block can only hold up X amount of blocks above it. It's hard to say exactly what X should be, but let's say it's 30 for starters. The more armoured you want your tower, the bigger supports you must make for it.

A problem this creates (or rather worsens) is the griefing problem, since this will make everything easier to grief. But I suppose we already deal with those by way of banlists and kicking.

[MrChucklez]

I have mixed feelings. Yes, I have thought about adding this feature to the game, thinking it would be great. Also though, one block holding up huge structures is a feature in AoS that IS a challenge. If you want to cap a flag, you can'y just take down 2 support beams. You need to take out all the arms and legs of the structure. Anyway, i would not if it was added, or if the physics stay the same. Nice bringing it up though.

[MrChucklez]

[quote="MrChucklez"]I have mixed feelings. Yes, I have thought about adding this feature to the game, thinking it would be great. Also though, one block holding up huge structures is a feature in AoS that IS a challenge. If you want to cap a flag, you can'y just take down 2 support beams. You need to take out all the arms and legs of the structure. Anyway, i would not mind if it was added, or if the physics stay the same. Nice bringing it up though.

[rulerofiron99]

Thanks for the feedback.

One thing I didn't consider when making this post was how this would affect spider towers. This does become tricky.

[Gorman]

The current system may not be the most realistic, but any other system will be overly complex and players will spend most time thinking "ok so far I have placed 30 blocks so it's ok" and then someone may accidently place a block and destroy the structure, or the players just have to stand around doing all sorts of calculations (I'm fine with maths, but not to the point where I constantly have to keep count of the number of blocks and perform calculations).

[rulerofiron99]

The current system may not be the most realistic, but any other system will be overly complex and players will spend most time thinking "ok so far I have placed 30 blocks so it's ok" and then someone may accidently place a block and destroy the structure, or the players just have to stand around doing all sorts of calculations (I'm fine with maths, but not to the point where I constantly have to keep count of the number of blocks and perform calculations).

Would it become too complicated if a notifier is added? For example, the entire structure flashes for you if its ~5% blocks from overweight.

Either way, players should be discouraged from building structures that have exactly the required number of supports.

I don't think there will be too much calculating involved. Players will quickly get a feel for what works and what doesn't.

Some new elements this brings to the game:
- Destroying enemy structures by overloading.
- "Safe" undermining would be very strong. This would entail digging out a structure's "filling" while keeping the walls intact. A few better detection methods would have to be added for this.

[Gorman]

The current system may not be the most realistic, but any other system will be overly complex and players will spend most time thinking "ok so far I have placed 30 blocks so it's ok" and then someone may accidently place a block and destroy the structure, or the players just have to stand around doing all sorts of calculations (I'm fine with maths, but not to the point where I constantly have to keep count of the number of blocks and perform calculations).

Would it become too complicated if a notifier is added? For example, the entire structure flashes for you if its ~5% blocks from overweight.

Either way, players should be discouraged from building structures that have exactly the required number of supports.

I don't think there will be too much calculating involved. Players will quickly get a feel for what works and what doesn't.

Some new elements this brings to the game:
- Destroying enemy structures by overloading.
- "Safe" undermining would be very strong. This would entail digging out a structure's "filling" while keeping the walls intact. A few better detection methods would have to be added for this.

I don't think that would help decrease the complexity, it is another visual element that isn't necessary.


I can see the new elements, but it would be catastrophic to some parts of the game. For example the map Fravella, the skyscrapers would all be destroyed - unless the limit was as high as 100 blocks (at least). Thus we would have to increase the limit to a very large limit, or otherwise we limit the height of buildings drastically. Essentially a 30 block weight limit also imposes a 30 block heigh limit.


This leads in to the technical issues. Using the aforementioned spidertower example, the internal algorithms required would have to be quite complex. Imagine a beam that follows a pattern such that it moves horizontal, then down, then horizontal, then up, then horizontal, then down to the floor. The algorithm would have to track the train of blocks on all 6 directions, and it would have to make distribution calculations and such. Another troublesome issue would be how far can blocks support weight? Imagine a 1000 long horizontal line of blocks. On one end is 34 supports, on the other is nothing. Is this sufficient to support it? Is it possible to support an "S" shaped tower? In that case is it possible to build a base of 32x32 supports, with a 1x1 tower coming up from it and then at the top 40 blocks, does this count as supported? Does the ground itself give support? How is support propagated exactly?

I think this idea is a lot more complex than it first seems.

[rulerofiron99]

Modern PCs would be more than capable of quickly doing the long calculations. Granted, your grandmother's rig might lag occasionally.

I'm thinking than any shape would be supported - doing a physics calculation with moments and torque is simply out of the question.

Whenever a block is created/destroyed, the game would calculate the support of the immediate area. For every block, it checks how many blocks are being supported by it. In your example of a 32x32 support with a 1x1 tower supporting 40 blocks, every one of the blocks in the 1x1 tower must support all blocks above it. The 32x32 base platform would be the same as the ground.

Large towers would have to be built a little like pyramids - getting smaller as they go up. If the support limit is increased to 40 or so, buildings could easily achieve maximum map height.

[Gorman]

The point is, if the support limit is 40 then it is so high that it wouldn't have much of an effect. But if it were lower it would force us to build silly pyramids for a simple tower, and it would just end up as frustrating.


I think you need to define exactly how you envision this working, I am still at a loss as to how horizontal orientated "S" structures or long horizontal bridges would work.

[rulerofiron99]

I'll make a picture to explain it better.

EDIT: You're right, this is a little bit more complex to explain with a simple sentence. I'll give the system some thought and update it with a full plan of how it would work.

[Build]

Why not just have a generic rule for the blocks? Like if a block doesn't have a block under it within 3 horizontal spaces (counting itself) it will fall.

[Gorman]

Why not just have a generic rule for the blocks? Like if a block doesn't have a block under it within 3 horizontal spaces (counting itself) it will fall.

This is essentially the current rule but with less distance (the current rule effectively is this with infinite range).

I would prefer this to any more complex rules. 3 seems a bit small to me though.

[Build]

^It would make bridges a little harder to build wouldn't it?

Well, we could tie this into the block variations suggestion and have each block have its own varying weight (or unique rule)

[Gorman]

^It would make bridges a little harder to build wouldn't it?

It would make some bridges impossible, that is for certain. Especially low bridges near the water. That would yield a height requirement of (int)(0.25x+.75). Not saying that is a bad thing, but it would definitely change things. But is making building more complex a good thing? I'm not convinced.




Block variation is a different topic all together.

[Build]

[quote"Gordon"]But is making building more complex a good thing? I'm not convinced.[/quote]
Translation: No.

Rest: duck you Build.