[Poll] Raising the Limit on Active Units

[Omicron]

Well, it doesn't matter what I understand to the devs, but I am confused about why increasing the limit for all maps run by the Myth application might cause a problem with broken plugins.

For example, in ARM I found that if a wave spawned 50 guys, and there was 360 on the map, it didn't spawn forty and leave the rest. It skipped the map action which spawned the wave. It just had the unit control action fail.

So if the Myth application allowed more than 400, you wouldn't get those failed actions and the wave would spawn. So how could it break something when all that happens is Myth allows the action to succeed?

[vinylrake]

So if the Myth application allowed more than 400, you wouldn't get those failed actions and the wave would spawn. So how could it break something when all that happens is Myth allows the action to succeed?

Not a scripting expert so I apologize if I am misunderstanding but the mapmaker could have planned on the action failing when the max was reached.

If the action starts succeeding and generating new units when it used to fail it will change the flow of the game and the rate at which new units appear on the map and presumably make the map more difficult if there isn't the builtin cap that kept the # of units below the current limit.

[Omicron]

Right, it would play differently. But that is not what would happen because map makers include scripting that tests for unit counts, and will not let a wave spawn before there is enough space. That is what you have to do when you might hit the 400 limit. If you didn't your map wouldn't be playable because it would start skipping all your waves until there was room. Might even brush through all your scripting and go straight to the end.

[Omicron]

If it was decided it could be changed, when is the next release?

[Omicron]

Might even brush through all your scripting and go straight to the end.

An example, in ARM the waves came too fast and the game started skipping them, so at around 8 minutes the watcher (endgame) came.

[Jon God]

Right, it would play differently. But that is not what would happen because map makers include scripting that tests for unit counts, and will not let a wave spawn before there is enough space. That is what you have to do when you might hit the 400 limit. If you didn't your map wouldn't be playable because it would start skipping all your waves until there was room. Might even brush through all your scripting and go straight to the end.

That's not how it works.

If there are 350 units, and a script says to spawn 100 more, it will try to, and spawn 50, when it hits 400, it can't make any more units visible, so it continues. Nothing fails.

If you changed this, it would change the way that old scripts work, which is to say, what's the issue of adding it as an option on new maps?

[Omicron]

I don't think you are right JG. Because I know that what was happening in ARM was that whole waves were being skipped and the scripting was going right to the end. When I included scripting for unit counts it was fixed.

However they want to do it. I will just be happy to have it.

[Jon God]

I don't think you are right JG. Because I know that what was happening in ARM was that whole waves were being skipped and the scripting was going right to the end. When I included scripting for unit counts it was fixed.

However they want to do it. I will just be happy to have it.

I do this all the time with Deadfall. Where it will spawn zombies (even when it would hit over 400) and it still works... Never had any scripting issues regarding that.

[fildred13]

I have to agree with JonGod: a mapmaking option that defaults to NO MAX UNIT INCREASE seems solid, because it won't interfere with any previously made map and it will allow new maps to choose between the old way or the greater number of units that modern myth can supposedly handle.

If any of the gurus at magma who have actually been doing the upgrades to Myth can put forth a cogent argument as to why that is a bad idea, I think we're all ears.

Also, what kind of effort does this entail? If it is a relatively easy feature to implement, AND it can be kept from interfering with old maps, it seems to me like it would open up new opportunities, especially for plugs like civil war reloaded or the battle caps idea that someone around here was talking about awhile ago. I know I'm working on a solo/coop plug right now that would greatly benefit from a unit cap closer to 800 rather than 400.

I voted 10,000 on the pole, but in reality I think based on maximum mesh sizes a limit of 1024 is more realistic. The question is: is it more work/less stable to simply remove the cap(which 10,00 is equivalent to), or would myth be better served with simply a HIGHER cap, like 1024? At first blush no limit seems easier, and it would be on the mapmaker to ensure he isn't creating a monster that no one can run.

Also, if the cap IS raised to 1000+, are projectile limits going to need to be considered also? I forget what that limit is at now, and if it is even feasible to reach a point where a line of infantry could create enough simultaneous bullets for some to not draw.

TLDR: Why not make it a mapmaking option? Opens up opportunities for design and doesn't have to affect any previous plug/mesh.

Also, I don't speak up here mush so I will just say this here: thank you all so much for everything you have done. It is a joy to have Myth continue to evolve and grow, and being able to push the limits of creation with this engine is amazing. Seeing myth at 2560x1980 was jaw dropping, and having it run hundreds of units smoothly, smoother than it ever even did before, was fantastic. I have a huge grin on my face to this day every time a dwarf screams "Wheeeee!!" while a group of thrall explodes into a red mist, and for that I thank every one of you who are a part of this very special community.

[vinylrake]

I don't understand the format of the answers.

ex. "Yes, 512<L<1024"

If I select this does it mean I am voting for a limit of 1024 or for a limit somewhere between 512 and 1024?

[Pyro]

I think the latter.

By the way, the 400 unit limit could be harder to remove than one might think. Even if the change were easy to make, a dev would need the motivation for it as they likely have a long list of things they are more interested into changing before something like that.

[ChrisP]

Assuming someone had the interest in doing the programming, why not remove all limits? I've been using the Starcraft II map editor, and one of the coolest things about it is it doesn't impose many limits on the map maker. Want 10,000+ units to spawn at once? Go for it. Need to make your script 10,000+ lines long? Fine.

Of course, the limitation that actually occurs is that inexperienced mapmakers create maps that run at less than 1 FPS. The Starcraft community doesn't implode, however. People just don't play those maps.

I think it stands to reason: start removing limitations to map making, and some map makers will make some very cool things. Some will make some bad things, but so what?

I disagree with Vinylrake's opinion that Mazzarin's Demise (his example, not mine, and nothing personal) helped kill off Myth. Vinylrake's assumption seems to be that if there was no Mazz (or whatever) everyone would stick around and play Crow's Bridge (or whatever) over and over again. Or maybe he believes that mapmakers would be content to make new maps with slight refinements to what's already been done a hundred times before. I don't know that that's entirely true.

Sure, the original design of Myth was very good, but regardless, most people eventually get bored with playing the same thing -- then they go find something new. I would venture that's what happened to 99.9% of all Myth players, and that's what has been slowly killing Myth. If there were exciting new maps released all the time that people wanted to play - even if they were nothing like traditional Myth, I don't think that would kill Myth. Myth might evolve, but that's a lot better than going extinct. Computers may have killed off typewriters, but they didn't kill typing.

While I commend Project Magma's dedication to not breaking old Myth plugins, I think they're too paranoid about it. If some of my old plugins accidentally broke for the sake of adding something really, really cool to the game, that would be fine by me. Maybe I'd come back and fix my plugins. Or maybe if it the game changes were cool enough, I'd just come back period. Who knows?

Anyway, I think the Myth community has already received more than could be reasonably asked of the programmers who have kept the game going this long. So I hate to sound critical or unappreciative, but here's the thing: every once in a while, I check in to see what's new, and while the patches are nice... they add polish, some nice little enhancements, but the end result is still essentially a typewriter.

[Jon God]

I'd definitelly try lots of new ideas, most of which would probably be terrible, but it'd be fun and exciting to mess with a backyard without walls.

[vinylrake]

... I disagree with Vinylrake's opinion that Mazzarin's Demise (his example, not mine, and nothing personal) helped kill off Myth. Vinylrake's assumption seems to be that if there was no Mazz (or whatever) everyone would stick around and play Crow's Bridge (or whatever) over and over again. Or maybe he believes that mapmakers would be content to make new maps with slight refinements to what's already been done a hundred times before. I don't know that that's entirely true.

No offense taken, but just to be clear - I didn't say, or imply, nor is it my assumption that if Mazz (or whatever) wasn't around everyone would stick around and play Crow's Bridge over and over again.

If you knew me better you would realize how ironic your assumption that I think everyone would play the same maps over and over again is - when OoH used to have regular gamenights we used to play PW protected games - not because we were elitist or were snobs(as whiners would claim), but but because we liked variety so much that we had a couple hundred maps and plugins in our standard set of maps we played with and when we got together to play Myth we liked to PLAY myth, not sit around waiting between every game while random strangers popped in and out and we had to explain where to get the plugins, then waiting 15m for people to downloaded a map and restart Myth just so we could play a 5m game.

The Myth community has been shrinking/dying ever since Bungie sold it to MS, and barring an unlikely resurrection by Bungie or some other white hat with deep pockets (note: Renwood's hat is tan, not white, and he wears a pocketless one-piece unitard) the demise of Myth has always been a given. Mazzarin didn't help kill myth, it just increased the fragmentation in an already tiny community and imo - at least when it was going through a surge in popularity - made it more difficult for the casual myther to find a game of myth to play when he logged onto mnet/gos. (by casual myther I mean someone who doesn't have 2 hours to kill every time he logs on to play myth or who isn't sufficiently known in the community to be welcomed to a Mazz team)

So I don't think Mazz helped 'kill off Myth' it just slightly sped up an already predetermined outcome. While I would never argue for only playing the Bungie standard maps, it could be argued that all 3rd party maps have the affect of splintering the community and making it harder to find a game to join - it's just that a really popular time-consuming-to-play map like Mazz has a commensuratively greater affect than a map that people play 5-10 minute FFA games on. On the other hand, new maps can help generate and maintain interest in players pretty tired of the same old maps - so it's just a matter of degrees and finding the right balance - but I don't "blame" Mazz for Myth's demise - as I've said, I think Mazz is a great addition to the Myth world and a very creative map. I've spent hours and hours playing it --- and that was all just one Mazz game! (I keed, I keed. I've spent at least dozens of hours playing Mazz)

[ChrisP]

Point taken, Vinylrake. To be clear, what I'm taking about has little to do with Mazz. I don't think the dying off of Myth has to be so inevitable. What it needs though, is a quantum change. Starcraft came out around the same time as Myth and millions of people still play the latest incarnation. Of course, Starcraft is corporately supported and that's just not the case for Myth.

What's left then, is to think outside the box. There are some incredible resources available and we can pretty much surmise what lines shouldn't be crossed with Take2. Not being active for so long, I may be speaking out of my ass, but I bet the development team is pigeonholed and stagnated in their thinking - by an obnoxious segment of the community that resists progress, and by a paranoia of a company that is only dimly aware they hold the rights to a long abandoned game.

I can go on about this, but here's just one little bit of food for thought. Blizzard is notoriously protective of their IP. Violate their ToS, and you can be sure they will crack down. And yet, the demo to Starcraft allows you to play any third party map.