Features for 0.8

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Locked
Eponymous-Archon
Posts: 558
Joined: February 1st, 2004, 6:17 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post by Eponymous-Archon »

Dave,

Since you don't like my preferences option, why not simply try out the option where only human players can take over villages that are owned by allies? Allies still get healing in villages, they just don't take them over.

This makes some sense because it's the human player's team that is primary in the scenario narratives, right?

If we allow allies to take over villages when they need healing, or they're "on the way" somewhere else, that will still result in a lot of take-overs, because many units get injured and need healing and villages offer good refuge, so the AI will want to stop on them when that's an option.

(Still prefer the prefs mode. :-))
The Eponymous Archon

tefkab

Re: Wisdom, learning vicariously, etc...

Post by tefkab »

Dave wrote:
tefkab wrote:
What do you think of getting xp for healing? For example a healer could get 1xp for healing more than n health points in one turn.
This idea, which has been suggested a few times before, has some merit, although it does have a major problem: it is hard to imagine that this will not make it fairly trivial for such a unit to get enough experience to level-up with little or no risk.
David
This is exactly what I meant. Why does a healer, whose main purpose is to heal, have to fight at the front to get experience in healing? If I have a healer in the second line which stands there for healing the fighters in the first line and it levels up just by healing, then it becomes better in his own profession, namely healing. It will never get so much xp to become a better fighter than a level-1 fighting unit. Therefore there is no reason to put it in the first line after it reaches level 3.
Nevertheless, IMO the speed for leveling must be balanced (as described before) so that a healer will have to heal a lot to level up.

Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

Eponymous-Archon wrote: Since you don't like my preferences option, why not simply try out the option where only human players can take over villages that are owned by allies? Allies still get healing in villages, they just don't take them over.
The main difficulty with this idea is that in a networked game, machines don't necessarily know if a remote player is AI controlled or human controlled; a good thing, I think.

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming

Eponymous-Archon
Posts: 558
Joined: February 1st, 2004, 6:17 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post by Eponymous-Archon »

Dave wrote:
Eponymous-Archon wrote: Since you don't like my preferences option, why not simply try out the option where only human players can take over villages that are owned by allies? Allies still get healing in villages, they just don't take them over.
The main difficulty with this idea is that in a networked game, machines don't necessarily know if a remote player is AI controlled or human controlled; a good thing, I think.
Ah. So the routine keeping track of village ownership is ignorant of that?

Hmmm...how about?

1. This rule could be applied only to single-player scenarios.
2. The routine could be changed to await a signal from the unit that it should own the village. AI units wouldn't send this signal if their ally owned the village already.
The Eponymous Archon

tefkab

Post by tefkab »

Eponymous-Archon wrote:
Dave wrote:
The main difficulty with this idea is that in a networked game, machines don't necessarily know if a remote player is AI controlled or human controlled; a good thing, I think.
Ah. So the routine keeping track of village ownership is ignorant of that?

Hmmm...how about?

1. This rule could be applied only to single-player scenarios.
2. The routine could be changed to await a signal from the unit that it should own the village. AI units wouldn't send this signal if their ally owned the village already.
Perhaps I didn't get the idea but where is the problem?
- A human player is asked when entering the village of an ally.
- An AI player always/never takes over an allied village (configured on startup on in the campaign).

Another possibility is that the owner of a village can set a flag at the village "may (not) be taken". The owner of the allied unit entering that town is only asked if the village was flagged to be not takeable. If the unit ignores the flag and takes the village, the player may have a little discussion :)

Ave
Posts: 221
Joined: February 28th, 2004, 4:42 pm
Location: Hungary

Post by Ave »

Lithorien wrote:
Dave wrote:I think this is a good idea. I'm working on a commit to CVS to make it so that if you move into a village of a friendly side, you can use it for defense and healing, but it will remain theirs.
I disagree. You should have the option to take the village or not, but if you forced them so that they couldn't, then that would make multiplayer AND single player with allies an incredibly crappy situation. What if they managed to gobble up all the villages before you could, and screwed you over? If you were going to do this and FORCE it on people, add in a "1/2 gold" bonus where you get exactly half the gold you would get for owning the village yourself. Otherwise you can and will get screwed.
This could be an option, also something that might be scenario dependent.

ahwayakchih
Posts: 79
Joined: February 6th, 2004, 12:41 pm
Location: Warszawa, Polska

Post by ahwayakchih »

miyo wrote:I am not sure it adds to simplicity in game, I think:

* when capturing ally village you are asked if you want to take over
* when ally captured your village you are asked if you want to give control
* donating villages

any of them adds complexity.
Yes, they add complexity, but IMHO first one (when capturing ally village you are asked if you want to take ove) is "best". That's because dialog opens itself, just like when advancing units with multiple advance paths, so it keeps things "the same way". Also it's logical, because if i ride on ally village i decide if i want to use propaganda/force and capture them or just act as a friend of their Lord :).

Second good is 3rd way (donating villages), but:
Dave wrote:One possibility is to make it that you can donate any village which your ally has a unit on top of.
that way of doing it would not be too "logical". I mean if other "army" comes to village, what power do i have to decide if people will join them or not, if i'm far away from the village? IMHO, if there will be "village donating", then it should be possible to donate any village. And block capturing ally villages, or additionally use also 1st way (when capturing ally village you are asked if you want to take over).

2nd way (when ally captured your village you are asked if you want to give control) is not possible for now, as You already said that there is no way to show dialog to player on not his/her turn. And i agree that dialogs on other players turns aren't good idea, because i would have to sit in front of the monitor all the time of multiplayer game :). Not to mention that other players would be "freezed" if they had to wait for my answer.

miyo
Posts: 2201
Joined: August 19th, 2003, 4:28 pm
Location: Finland

Post by miyo »

ahwayakchih wrote:2nd way (when ally captured your village you are asked if you want to give control) is not possible for now, as You already said that there is no way to show dialog to player on not his/her turn.
You can show the dialog when that player starts playing his/her turn... as your "conquering" unit is still in that village =)

This still adds to complexity of gameplay.

- Miyo

ahwayakchih
Posts: 79
Joined: February 6th, 2004, 12:41 pm
Location: Warszawa, Polska

Post by ahwayakchih »

miyo wrote:You can show the dialog when that player starts playing his/her turn... as your "conquering" unit is still in that village =)
ah, right, i should have thought about that :).

miyo wrote:This still adds to complexity of gameplay.
hmm.. i think that 1st mentioned before way is not so complex. It's as complex as advancing units. If implemented there could also be a "mode switch" added. So player can turn "friendly" or "traitor" mode ;), so he/she doesn't have to answer dialogs all the time (or as in other strategy games, there could be "war" panel where player can switch hes/her attitude toward each other player - but that would be really adding complexity).

As for AI: i don't know how it's written. Can it check who's village it is (and if owner is ine the same team or not)? if not than it really may be a problem to implement, and donating villages will be better option (although how AI would know when to donate village?).

Eponymous-Archon
Posts: 558
Joined: February 1st, 2004, 6:17 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post by Eponymous-Archon »

ahwayakchih wrote:As for AI: i don't know how it's written. Can it check who's village it is (and if owner is ine the same team or not)? if not than it really may be a problem to implement, and donating villages will be better option (although how AI would know when to donate village?).
Seems that the server doesn't know about player ID in multiplayer mode, so it can't tell human from AI.

My main point would be that - at least for non-multiplayer - the AI teams are supporting the human, and so shouldn't hamper play by taking over villages that are supplying gold to the human.

I am coming more and more to believe that the key to success in the later scenarios is having lots of gold.
The Eponymous Archon

quartex
Inactive Developer
Posts: 2258
Joined: December 22nd, 2003, 4:17 am
Location: Boston, MA

Post by quartex »

A minor point, but I'd love to see towns, fortresses and gold mines added to the maps. Villages are great, but some adding variety could really improve the strategy of some maps. Of course this means going back and redoing certain levels, which may be considered too much work. I think the game would be improved if we had other types of villages.

Towns: gives 2 gold and 2 support per turn
Fortresses: gives 2 support per turn, and inceases defense value to 80%
Gold Mine: gives 5 gold per turn, defense value lowered to 60%

I'm making the numbers up a bit (they obviously can be balanced as needed), I know we've discusses these types of villages a long time ago. But I like the idea of having villages that give you more gold/support, or are easier to defend, or give you lots of gold. I suppose if I really want something like this to be implemented, i should try to create some tile artwork.

miyo
Posts: 2201
Joined: August 19th, 2003, 4:28 pm
Location: Finland

Post by miyo »

quartex wrote:Towns: gives 2 gold and 2 support per turn
two or more adjacent villages form "town" or even "city"

- Miyo

User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

I know this is probably stupid, but why do we have to change village flagging at all? i am fine with it if the AI flags my village. I am also fine if he flags a village before me.I just want to be able to take it back. I don't want to have more options (as in a pref that AI never/always takes village) and i don't want to answer an option that pops up whenever you flag a village. from my point of view, all of your suggestions are, while they solve the 'problem', worse than the current 'problem'.

no 'war panel', we are not supposed to have to keep up diplomatic relations with the enemy, we are supposed to be their ally, and never be able to turn on them in the middle of a battle (unless the scenario designer wants you to :) )

i think that having new buildings would not be good. fortress; castle is a fortress, why not just have castle give upkeep? oh wait, it already gives you gold! gold mine- this is a skirmishing game. it is not like HoMM, where it is like a war, there are multiple battles in one map, and the buildings are completely separate from the map.
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm

Eponymous-Archon
Posts: 558
Joined: February 1st, 2004, 6:17 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post by Eponymous-Archon »

turin wrote:I know this is probably stupid, but why do we have to change village flagging at all?
The desire to change flagging derives from dismay at watching allies take over villages you have spent time and effort collecting to use as revenue sources.

Admittedly some of the suggestions are getting a bit complex, but it seems reasonable to me to try simply not allowing the AI team to take over allied villages, but just use them for healing.
The Eponymous Archon

Woodwizzle
Posts: 719
Joined: December 9th, 2003, 9:31 pm
Contact:

Post by Woodwizzle »

I think it would look cool if the screen faded from dawn to day, day to dusk, dusk to night, and night to dawn between the turns for about half a sec. I would also reallyreallyreally like to see animated terrain. (specifically water)

Locked