Unit Limit issue

[Viktor]

I made a 4 player map with a bunch on units for each team (probably as much as for each team in an ultimate team battles map) and played a 1v1 with one of my friends. Everything was fine. But then I played with two other people, and all three teams had units arbitrarily removed at the start. For example, I gave each team 4 cannons. In two player, all four showed up,but with three players, one team had four, one had 2 and another had only one cannon. This happened with other units as well. Is there some kind of unit cap option somewhere i could tweak to prevent this from happening?

[:) Da Cid (: McCl]

There is a unit limit, but I can't remember it off my head. Around 500 or something. That's units visible on the map at one given time. There's no way you can up the limit, sadly.

Hopefully in an update.
-TGP-

[Pyro]

The unit limit is 400. What the multiplayer maps with a lot of units do is have reinforments. When let's say one team goes from 100 units to 30. You can use some scripting to make 50 or so more appear. So it is possible to have more units than 400 but not all at once.

[Viktor]

Thanks. 400 is kind of low, but I guess i'll have to work around that.
I don' really have any idea how to use scripting for this type of trigger. Could someone direct me to a tutorial?

[Pyro]

One example that uses that way is Wars of Reckoning.

[Viktor]

So here is something inetersting: I edit this map, and i give each player 132 units, (3 players, 396 units total). So this should be under the limit. I have 56 of a type of unit that can be traded for one point, and a bunch of "invisbile" units that can be bought on the points i get from trading the visible unit. Apparently one of the players is unable to trade his visible tradeble unit (the unit counter says 0/0 istead of 56/56 even though there are 56 tradeable units on the map) when there are two other players present, though all players can trade if they are the only one in the game (i tested this). I know this is a complicated issue and an even more coplicated explanation, but if anyone has any solutions I'd really appreciate the help. I've never had to deal with these unit limits before.
Side question- does one regulate the number of players on a given map by editing the mesh tag in fear, or is there another setting that has to be changed too?

[Pyro]

Your side question... both... in the mesh tag you have to set the number of players... and in Loathing you have units in Team 0 (for team1), Team 1 (for team2), Team 2 (for team3), Team 3 (for team4), etc. and the observers for each team.

[Viktor]

Hmm. That's just what i have been doing. Still no idea why one player can't select units, though. I'll keep trying.

[Viktor]

Here's something- even though I changed the number of players to 3 in fear, loathing still allows me to place observers for team 4. Why is that, and could it be the problem (perhaps one of the players is starting out as the non-existant 4th player, but cannot trade units?)

[haravikk]

Loathing lets you do pretty much whatever you want, it's Myth that will then promptly ignore you =)
It's the settings in Fear that determine the maximum number of teams for net-play.

You need to beware with so many units, if you can trade any high-points units for several low-points units, then chances are you're asking for problems with unit-trading as you'll go over the limit. Even 396 is pushing it.



Edited By haravikk on 1146482507

[Viktor]

lol
I did realise that, and made sure the number of visible units never goes above 400. Do invisble units count towards the total too, perhaps?

[Graydon]

No invisible units do not count towards the total, but... the 'Bungie' total was 400. I've seen units start disappearing at 350-400 though. It highly depends how complex the map is... I think if you have tons of projectiles and scenery and stuff, that might lower the 'ACTUAL' allowable number of visible units at one time.

To be honest with you, unit sets that big just arent that much fun. You can't micromanage, which is what myth is all about in my eyes.


As for 400 being a low limit... try playing your map on a 200 mhz imac with full 1.3, and see how well it fairs. GL, GG. heh.

It could technically be upped in an update now, but you'd have to convince CIK of that.

[Viktor]

Ah, ok. So the limit is lower than 400 on occasions.
I personally love huge battles in myth because they begin to approach real world scenarios in strategic complexity.
Micromanagement often turns into clicking duels between players.
anyway, thanks

[haravikk]

Theoretically the total units you can have on your map (not all visible) is 8096 as that's the maximum allowable number of objects. However you need to have SOME spare for projectiles etc.

I had a map once where it pushed the maximum number of visible units, only slower machines it's actually the path-finding that will kill you. Myth path-finding is quite complex and 400-odd units trying to find their way about is just murder on even fairly fast old machines as it's the processor that takes the hit from it.

I think the thing with big Myth maps is that you can't really move units in formation in Myth, not without micro-managing, as you can tell them what formation to be in when they arrive at a point, but while moving they while devolve into a rabble. It can still be fun to have mass slaughterage, but you'd have to be playing on a fairly big map with a lot of players.
One thing I could recommend I suppose, cut down the units a bit so they are all visible, then set groups of them to different difficulty levels. What this does is allows you to have a varying army size depending upon the difficulty level the host selects.

ie - on timid you'd get an army for 2 or 3 people per team
simple would be 3 to 4
normal 4 to 5
heroic 5 to 6
and legendary 7 to 8 for the full whammy of troops if enough players can get online.

If you have the players for it, then yeah, I agree that the manouvering of a big army is awesome fun, as it requires really good team-work and a measure of communication to overcome a similarly organised enemy team.

[William Wallet]

We need to turn this crazy world around