[Poll] Raising the Limit on Active Units

[Omicron]

Currently, while units counts up to ~8000 can be waiting on a map, only 400 can be active. This means that in games like Civil War Reloaded you are severely limited in your map designs. Also for games like Gladiators or Mazzarin's Demise.

But you could also have a game with regular units, and you cannot have large armies, to simulate the experience of other games. One way to look at this is the active unit limit limits Myth's ability to appeal to other gamers. But that is my opinion.

[capital]

I would propose a game branch, Myth II Classic Mode and Myth II Giga-Battle Mode.

That way hosts and players can choose their own type of game play.

Giga-Battle Mode should be spec'd for modern computers.

[vinylrake]

If there are lots of other huge-army war-games, why is there a need to make Myth like them?

I am not a large army war gamer, but my impression is that a large part of Myth's appeal was in large part due to it's focus on small squad tactics and not massive army battles. Can't people wanting more massive battles just play a different game? Not being callous, I just don't see any need to make Myth into every other game out there. This isn't large-army specific, I feel similarly about some other changes like the inventory and allowing units to use multiple artifacts/weapons. It just feels like people are trying to turn Myth into something it' not, and aren't focusing on it's strengths and the changes instead try to make Myth do something it doesn't do well - and can't do as well as other games since they were designed from the ground up to do those other things and Myth wasn't and as talented as the Myth devs are (and they are) it's not easy to shoe-horn in or tack on changes that modify the game so extensively - imo. Just my opinion of course.

I think forking the Myth development is a really bad idea which will just increase the speed at which Myth dies. I like Mazz, I think it's a fun game but I think it's also helped speed up the demise of Myth as it tends to be very polarizing and a bunch of players glom onto it and only want to play and the rest of the community wants to play anything but so it's harder to find people to play games with and people stop logging on and looking for games. The same could be said for 3rd party maps in general I guess, but I guess there is always a tension between something new/different that keeps interest alive because anything other than standard Myth tends to divide the community to some extent.

[capital]

If there are lots of other huge-army war-games, why is there a need to make Myth like them?

it's focus on small squad tactics and not massive army battles. Can't people wanting more massive battles just play a different game? Not being callous,

Well... actually if Myth allowed 64-128 slots in a game with 1k to 10 k troops might actually be an interesting thing.

Branching Myth wont kill Myth though other things might ... like time.

[Omicron]

I understand VR. But, we all have changed in a changing world. And if you want myth to stay the same, just run 1.3 and when you want to play with others just connect directly to their IP. Shouldn't be that hard, you could even use something like ventrilo at the same time so if someone shows up mid game you will know.

I personally would like that, except for not having the caps lock shows all units feature. I need that.

[William Wallet]

*shrug* I always wanted more units in my Myth back in the day, but I'm not even sure there'd be a point to it now. In your average strategy game that lets you throw around 10k units, the interface is designed to cater to that. It's not like you're moving them individually or anything. Selecting the right guys in a battle that big could get messy.

I could see it working for co-op, perhaps.

[erileykc]

Myth does a much better job of company sized strategy play than any of the other war games I've seen. The squad level play that is the basic Myth play scales well up to about 100 units per player as in CWR games. Add six players and the need for more units comes to the fore. I realize that a great many Myth players seem to violently resent the idea of company level play but why the anger? If people don't like CWR just don't play it.

If there are lots of other huge-army war-games, why is there a need to make Myth like them?

[vinylrake]

I understand VR. But, we all have changed in a changing world. And if you want myth to stay the same, just run 1.3 and when you want to play with others just connect directly to their IP.

If you have a real point or want to discuss WHY you think having more units is important please do so - so far all you've said is that in your OPINION it will bring in more gamers. Great. I disagree and tried to explain WHY I think that is not true.

But IF you want to counter my points surely you do better than create this incredibly stupid straw man 'argument' about me not wanting Myth to change. This is so ridiculous it's insulting because anyone who isn't comatose would know I regularly give props to the Magma devs for all they've done to keep Myth going and to add enhancements and I've RAVED about enhancements like detail textures, improving the rendering engine, the zoomed out camera for replays, being able to rehost a game without going back to lobby, the plugin finder feature, etc. etc. etc. So if you want to make a case step up and make a coherent argument and stop this juvenile crap.

[Jon God]

I think in the end, having it an option on the mesh tags would be enough for me.

Sure it's a little out of the way, but it wouldn't break anything existing, and it wouldn't apply to everything.

Anyone with me on that?

[Omicron]

But IF you want to counter my points surely you do better than create this incredibly stupid straw man 'argument' about me not wanting Myth to change. This is so ridiculous it's insulting because anyone who isn't comatose would know I regularly give props to the Magma devs for all they've done to keep Myth going and to add enhancements and I've RAVED about enhancements like detail textures, improving the rendering engine, the zoomed out camera for replays, being able to rehost a game without going back to lobby, the plugin finder feature, etc. etc. etc. So if you want to make a case step up and make a coherent argument and stop this juvenile crap.

This isn't large-army specific, I feel similarly about some other changes like the inventory and allowing units to use multiple artifacts/weapons. It just feels like people are trying to turn Myth into something it' not, and aren't focusing on it's strengths and the changes instead try to make Myth do something it doesn't do well

Clearly, you say that you don't like changes that change the way myth is supposed to be. And I suppose that the way it is supposed to be is 1.3. All I can say is that I should not have said, "And if you want myth to stay the same". Rather, "And if you want myth to stay the same".

I wasn't countering anything. This is a poll to see what others think.

I have no idea why you are acting the way you are, nothing I said was mean spirited or meant in any derogatory way. I don't want myth to stop being myth. I like high quality sprites, especially when they are optional, but I hate high quality dwarf bottle explosions or contrails. So I was speaking to what I thought was a fellow with similar beliefs, though possibly not with the same likes or dislikes.

You are coming here in a very hostile manner. You are claiming insult and then insulting when there was nothing before you started typing.

You are being very irrational. I will not be replying to any more messages such as these.

EDIT: Engesh error.

[Omicron]

I think in the end, having it an option on the mesh tags would be enough for me.

Sure it's a little out of the way, but it wouldn't break anything existing, and it wouldn't apply to everything.

Anyone with me on that?

Well, increasing the limit wouldn't break old plugs, because if they had the possibility of going up to 400, the designer would have included scripting testing for unit counts. So they would still play like they have the 400 limit.

You could make an option that only affects the mesh tag, but I don't think it is necessary. If my lack of programming knowledge prevented me from seeing some error in that, then I guess I was wrong.

[Jon God]

I think in the end, having it an option on the mesh tags would be enough for me.

Sure it's a little out of the way, but it wouldn't break anything existing, and it wouldn't apply to everything.

Anyone with me on that?

Well, increasing the limit wouldn't break old plugs, because if they had the possibility of going up to 400, the designer would have included scripting testing for unit counts. So they would still play like they have the 400 limit.

You could make an option that only affects the mesh tag, but I don't think it is necessary. If my lack of programming knowledge prevented me from seeing some error in that, then I guess I was wrong.

Untrue, if a map previously was set to spawn over 400 units it simply would not. If the limit was changed, those maps would too. Who knows what it would do to them.

I am all for this change, but like I said, just make it a mapmaking option, not built into every map.

[vinylrake]

Clearly, you say that you don't like changes that change the way myth is supposed to be. And I suppose that the way it is supposed to be is 1.3. All I can say is that I should not have said, "And if you want myth to stay the same". Rather, "And if you want myth to stay the same".

Clearly you have no idea what I like and what I don't like, but keep on "supposing" all you want.

I have no idea why you are acting the way you are, nothing I said was mean spirited or meant in any derogatory way.

Then stop dismissing my opinion as the ravings of someone who doesn't want anything in Myth to change and telling me to go back to Myth 1.3 - when that clearly isn't how I feel about Myth. We can disagree about what makes Myth good or what would make it better, but you aren't going to win anyone over to your point of view if you dismiss anyone who merely asks a question.

For what it's worth, I asked a QUESTION why large scale armies were needed if there were so many other games that already had large scale battle and asked why doing that would bring in more players IF THERE WERE ALREADY other (presumably more recent) large scale wargames. You jumped to the conclusion that because I don't think raising the limits is going to bring in new players that I am against raising the limits. That's not true at all. I don't think Myth with two 1000 unit armies is really Myth anymore, but I also don't think the current maximum is some carved-in-stone absolute value that should never be changed/raised. If you really think I said that, I'd love to hear where you got that idea.

[Omicron]

Untrue, if a map previously was set to spawn over 400 units it simply would not. If the limit was changed, those maps would too. Who knows what it would do to them.

I am all for this change, but like I said, just make it a mapmaking option, not built into every map.

So the unit limit is in the mesh file you are saying? Not in the myth application?

[Jon God]

Untrue, if a map previously was set to spawn over 400 units it simply would not. If the limit was changed, those maps would too. Who knows what it would do to them.

I am all for this change, but like I said, just make it a mapmaking option, not built into every map.

So the unit limit is in the mesh file you are saying? Not in the myth application?

No, what I am saying, is if this was enabled, the best way to do it would be to have it added via a mapmaking option. That would prevent it from making older maps not work as intended.