Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Discuss the development of other free/open-source games, as well as other games in general.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Dveman115
Posts: 122
Joined: July 26th, 2007, 3:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by Dveman115 »

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the GPL actually allows you to charge for your product. Red-hat is a perfect example of this. So I really don't understand what you mean when you say you're "limiting" yourselves by open-sourcing.

User avatar
Iris
Site Administrator
Posts: 6692
Joined: November 14th, 2006, 5:54 pm
Location: Chile
Contact:

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by Iris »

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... AllowMoney
Author of the unofficial UtBS sequels Invasion from the Unknown and After the Storm (now available for Wesnoth 1.14).

User avatar
SephiRok
Posts: 14
Joined: December 20th, 2008, 11:30 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by SephiRok »

If anyone is interested, the game received a major overhawl with the recent 0.14.0 version.

Top-down 2D became orthogonal 3D. Models became 3D and other similar shiny stuff. There's still a lot of things missing, but we wanted to release early in order to get feedback on performance, stability and compatibility. Alas, a 64-bit Linux version is now also available. For more info, the change log is a nice read.

Here's a screen shot and a link to the website.
Conquest-ScreenShot-03.jpg
We also started a small AI challenge which might give some incentive to new players.

Have fun!

P.S. All feedback is appreciated.
– Rok 足

User avatar
Kalajel
Posts: 213
Joined: March 18th, 2009, 10:42 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by Kalajel »

Looks interesting, sadly there doesn't seem to be a version for Mac… :(

Also, any reason why you changed from hex grid to square grid?

User avatar
SephiRok
Posts: 14
Joined: December 20th, 2008, 11:30 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by SephiRok »

I'd be happy to make a Mac version, but we don't own a Mac at the moment and I don't know of any cross-compiling or virtualization solution.

I think void went with squares instead of hexagons mainly because it was easier to do and didn't require annoying puzzling of meshes together. Or at least that is what he says. We're not sure hexagons are better gameplay-wise anyway. If necessary we could still change.
– Rok 足

User avatar
Kalajel
Posts: 213
Joined: March 18th, 2009, 10:42 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by Kalajel »

SephiRok wrote:I'd be happy to make a Mac version, but we don't own a Mac at the moment and I don't know of any cross-compiling or virtualization solution.
Well, I'm no programmer, I just know that the .exe extension don't work on mac… I don't know what sort of extention is required to make programs work on Macs though…
I think void went with squares instead of hexagons mainly because it was easier to do and didn't require annoying puzzling of meshes together. Or at least that is what he says. We're not sure hexagons are better gameplay-wise anyway. If necessary we could still change.
Fair enough. I just think hex grids are better at representing overworld maps than square grids; I always cringe a bit when I see square~ish coasts, mountain ranges, or lakes… As for gamplay, it's not necessarily better, but it does offer some interesting tactical possibilities… :wink:

User avatar
huntermeca31
Posts: 32
Joined: April 5th, 2009, 7:00 pm

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by huntermeca31 »

Excuse me for my bad english it is not my first language. :|

I have play with your game and I love this game :D

Simple but full strategic: fantastic!

I have only two suggestion:

More language

An otpion for see all the "world" without satellite fro people don't like the "surprise factor"

User avatar
SephiRok
Posts: 14
Joined: December 20th, 2008, 11:30 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by SephiRok »

Kalajel wrote:Well, I'm no programmer, I just know that the .exe extension don't work on mac… I don't know what sort of extention is required to make programs work on Macs though…
Yeah, it doesn't. The easiest way to make it work on mac is to buy one and compile the game on it.
Kalajel wrote:Fair enough. I just think hex grids are better at representing overworld maps than square grids; I always cringe a bit when I see square~ish coasts, mountain ranges, or lakes… As for gamplay, it's not necessarily better, but it does offer some interesting tactical possibilities… :wink:
Gameplay-wise for us it comes down to one thing: moving in 6 possible directions (hexagons) or 4/8 (squares).
huntermeca31 wrote:I have play with your game and I love this game :D

Simple but full strategic: fantastic!
Hehe, I'm glad you like it!
huntermeca31 wrote:More language
Do you mean more different languages? If so, you're free to make your own translation and share it with the rest of the community (check http://www.conquest-game.com/board/modi ... files-t84/). We already have a German translation and also had Finnish and Spanish at some point (now outdated).
– Rok 足

User avatar
appleide
Posts: 1003
Joined: November 8th, 2003, 10:03 pm
Location: Sydney,OZ

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by appleide »

There's got to be someone with a mac in the university! :evil:
This looks good so I'll wait for a mac binary.
Why did the fish laugh? Because the sea weed.

User avatar
Kalajel
Posts: 213
Joined: March 18th, 2009, 10:42 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by Kalajel »

SephiRok wrote:
Kalajel wrote:Fair enough. I just think hex grids are better at representing overworld maps than square grids; I always cringe a bit when I see square~ish coasts, mountain ranges, or lakes… As for gamplay, it's not necessarily better, but it does offer some interesting tactical possibilities… :wink:
Gameplay-wise for us it comes down to one thing: moving in 6 possible directions (hexagons) or 4/8 (squares).
Hmm, well, I took a shot in the dark here; since I can't play the game on my Mac, I don't know how you handled diagonals, so I assumed you used the popular methods of "Etch-a sketch-stair-like-zig-zagging-diagonals"…

User avatar
SephiRok
Posts: 14
Joined: December 20th, 2008, 11:30 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by SephiRok »

A shot showing graphics progress of Conquest throughout development so far:
Conquest-Wallpaper-Graphics-WS.jpg
We went to closed beta a while back since we weren't getting much playtime outside of a small community and received the feedback we needed, but I'll be getting a Macbook Pro when Apple decides to update them (fasteeeeeeeeeeeeer), so that's that.

Now I'm eagerly waiting on IGF (http://www.igf.com) main and student competition results (we entered) while being busy with Uni.
– Rok 足

User avatar
Jetrel
Art Director
Posts: 7242
Joined: February 23rd, 2004, 3:36 am
Location: Midwest US

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by Jetrel »

SephiRok wrote:A shot showing graphics progress of Conquest throughout development so far:
That latest version actually looks really impressive. :o
SephiRok wrote:We went to closed beta a while back since we weren't getting much playtime outside of a small community and received the feedback we needed, but I'll be getting a Macbook Pro when Apple decides to update them (fasteeeeeeeeeeeeer), so that's that.
/me tips his hat towards the implicit mac version. It's appreciated.

From one dev to another: PPC support is nice, but the installed base is rapidly shrinking, and will be negligible in a year or two. Likewise, the same is true of system versions; virtually everyone (except the PPC guys) will be on 10.6 in a year or so.

Targeting any of these is trivially changed inside XCode (and can also be done in a much more complicated way via GCC and special compiler options, if you're not using XCode to compile. I don't know how to do the latter, I just know it's possible). The big caveats of course are making the code architecture-agnostic.

Anyways, it's all probably not worth wasting time on - if you target 10.6 (and thus, just intel), your game is probably going to playable on virtually all macs out there by the time you're done. As a bonus, those who haven't upgraded have a statistical correlation with not paying for software, since they're usually quite short on cash. I'm not sure if you were intending to go commercial with it, I'm just saying.
shadowmaster wrote:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... AllowMoney
In fact, people might care to know that I'd decided quite some time ago that I'm going to use a "open source code, closed-source assets" model for any of my future projects; instead of doing the traditional 'purely closed+commercial' model that I'd previously expected to use when I was younger. Mostly because 1] I'm not John Carmack, and my code isn't a state secret, 2] I want people to have the help of other source to look at that I never had when I was a teenager, and 3] the virality of the GPL is a good thing; the more stuff people have to build off of, the richer the community gets. I'd rather not be a big fish in a small pond.

:eng: Others might not feel comfortable doing the same with their projects, but if that's the case, then they can't use my (or many other people's) code. Can't have double standards.
Play Frogatto & Friends - a finished, open-source adventure game!

User avatar
Zarel
Posts: 700
Joined: July 15th, 2009, 8:24 am
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by Zarel »

SephiRok wrote:Yeah, cheating isn't really the reason. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that.

We use the model described by zookeeper. The Conquest server is a standalone application separated from the client which sends clients only the information they need. This way, even with OS, we can prevent cheating 99.99% (someone could still sniff packets) on the official servers.
You can eliminate the other 0.01% with public-key cryptography. ;) Imagine Conquest-over-SSL! :D
SephiRok wrote:In such a game (turn-based), spectators are a much bigger cheating issue.
One suggestion was to have an option to only allow spectators to see what all players can see. This works for two-player or two-team games rather well, since most of the action is where both players can see, anyway.
SephiRok wrote:The real reason for not wanting to go OS is because it limits us. Even if we decide to not charge money for Conquest (which is the main reason for no OS), we might use this engine to make another game. If it were to go open-source now and others make changes to it, we would be unable to go commercial with the next game without redoing things. Right now we love doing everything ourselves, it's like our little baby, so we really don't mind. Plus, it's a really nice learning experience. But even with all that said, we are keeping the OS possibility on our list. Perhaps we get tired of it, or see it as a good choice when we reach 1.0.0.
Remember, you are not bound by the license of anything you own the copyright of. In other words, even if you release Conquest under the GPL, while others have to open-source anything they make using its engine, you can go commercial for your next game with the same engine.

(Note that this only works if you make sure that all contributors assign copyright of their patches to you, which you should probably make very clear, if you accept outside contributions.)

(By the way, can you use the abbreviation "OSS" - "open-source software"? "OS" already means "operating system", so we don't use "OS" to refer to open-source, or it gets confusing.)
Dveman115 wrote:If I'm not mistaken, I believe the GPL actually allows you to charge for your product. Red-hat is a perfect example of this. So I really don't understand what you mean when you say you're "limiting" yourselves by open-sourcing.
However, the GPL also allows others not to charge for your product. So if you were planning on earning money from selling the game directly, the GPL is a bad idea.
SephiRok wrote:Gameplay-wise for us it comes down to one thing: moving in 6 possible directions (hexagons) or 4/8 (squares).
I would recommend hexagons in nearly all cases. It makes movement much more realistic. The best way is to take a look at the area a unit can move, on a map with even terrain. With a square grid, the area is square (regardless of if it's 4 or 8 directions). On a hex grid, the area is hexagonal, which is much closer to a circle.

Plus, it makes terrain look better. Square rivers, etc just look "wrong". Hexagons look a bit more natural.
Proud creator of the :whistle: smiley | I prefer the CC-0 license.

User avatar
LemonTea
Posts: 138
Joined: September 24th, 2008, 4:56 am
Location: Brisbane, Dumb State, Australia

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by LemonTea »

Is it still available for download? I couldn't find a link on the website.
JW's Wesnoth personality quiz wrote:You are a Skeleton: a lifeless animation of bone controlled by a necromancer. See a therapist.
:augh:

User avatar
SephiRok
Posts: 14
Joined: December 20th, 2008, 11:30 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: Conquest Public Beta (indie student game project)

Post by SephiRok »

Jetrel wrote:That latest version actually looks really impressive. :o
Thanks. It's actually still evolving a lot. We're experimenting with randomly placed units (so they look more natural) and making units placed on the actual ground, which also makes them go up and down slopes if the terrain beneath them is elevated -- so far we cheated with the z-buffer and just drew the units in front of other objects, even if they were on the same height.
Jetrel wrote:/me tips his hat towards the implicit mac version. It's appreciated.
I'm a bit sad because I couldn't find a way to cross-compile for mac, though on the other hand one should have a machine to properly test it on anyway. I have pretty much zero previous experience with Macs and OS X, so I hope I'm not disappointed. :)
Jetrel wrote:From one dev to another: PPC support is nice, but the installed base is rapidly shrinking, and will be negligible in a year or two. Likewise, the same is true of system versions; virtually everyone (except the PPC guys) will be on 10.6 in a year or so.
Thanks for the insight, I can imagine that the first version will be for 10.6 and then depending on the difficulty, need and time also on eariler OS X versions and PPC. It sounds pretty annoying to have to take OS versions into account so much. I see games needing versions like 10.5.4 or above, is that because of driver (OpenGL) versions or some other changes to the OS? I have to say it would be pretty exciting to see it run on another architecture as well though, but then again I'd need a PPC mac, or can you use Rosetta to run the PPC executable built on 10.6? Hehe.
Jetrel wrote:In fact, people might care to know that I'd decided quite some time ago that I'm going to use a "open source code, closed-source assets" model for any of my future projects;
We're big fans of OSS, hell, without OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL, boost etc. we wouldn't have a game, but we don't feel like this is the right opportunity for us to give back to the community, at least right now.
Zarel wrote:You can eliminate the other 0.01% with public-key cryptography. ;) Imagine Conquest-over-SSL! :D
Actually I think that would be insanely easy to do thanks to boost::asio supporting SSL. <3
Zarel wrote:One suggestion was to have an option to only allow spectators to see what all players can see. This works for two-player or two-team games rather well, since most of the action is where both players can see, anyway.
I'm afraid that wouldn't work too well, what's exciting to witness as a spectator is exactly the things that are the biggest spoils. For example two people dropping pods close to each other or in the case when one is in mountains and other in plains the spec would only see the one in plains (because you can't see into mountains from outside).
Zarel wrote:(By the way, can you use the abbreviation "OSS" - "open-source software"? "OS" already means "operating system", so we don't use "OS" to refer to open-source, or it gets confusing.)
I apologize. :)
Zarel wrote:I would recommend hexagons in nearly all cases. It makes movement much more realistic. The best way is to take a look at the area a unit can move, on a map with even terrain. With a square grid, the area is square (regardless of if it's 4 or 8 directions). On a hex grid, the area is hexagonal, which is much closer to a circle.
That's a good point, distance-wise it's closer to a circle, but otherwise having more directions to go means going more towards a circle's flexibility. The reason we don't have hexagons is because the code would be a pain in the ass compared to now, at least that's what I hear (I'm not personally working on the graphics). It can be changed later on, but it's quite some difference.
Zarel wrote:Plus, it makes terrain look better. Square rivers, etc just look "wrong". Hexagons look a bit more natural.
True, though we now anyway smoothen and round lakes which looks better than a full hexagon as well.
Conquest005.jpg
LemonTea wrote:Is it still available for download? I couldn't find a link on the website.
No, it's not, I'm sorry. I hate saying no, but we decided we'd give game development a more serious try and as it was Conquest wasn't really going anywhere in terms of players. People were slowly flowing in and it never reached the critical mass a multiplayer game needs so they just dropped it because there was no one to play against. So we thought it would be wiser to close it (having already gotten the feedback we needed) and try to get that critical mass with the release of 1.0.
– Rok 足

Post Reply