World Conquest II

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Re: World Conquest II

Postby Xara » June 5th, 2015, 11:04 am

tekelili wrote:
Xara wrote:I turned on the "Allow Alien Era" config, but then the sides frequently start on the same keep.

Thanks for report it. I am trying to reproduce it playing with Default Era, but all looks to work well. What steps do you think lead to bug?

Edit: When reporting bugs, it helps me a lot know WC II version used, BfW version used and, if talking about a saved game, if any version was upgraded since game creation. When dealing with bugs about side placement, number of players mode used can also be meaningfull.

Sorry for omitting the information. I was using Ageless Era, and everything was of the latest version. The bug occurred in 1p, 2p and 3p with chances.
As for the steps, I saw the enemy leader transformed from a green peasant (in 2p game).
And I managed to reproduce the bug with Default+Khalifate. Savefile attached.
Attachments
WC2_2p_same_keep_bug.gz
(238.71 KiB) Downloaded 87 times
Remember to sleep early, guys.
User avatar
Xara
 
Posts: 191
Joined: December 26th, 2014, 12:23 am
Location: Beijing

Re: World Conquest II

Postby tekelili » June 5th, 2015, 11:27 am

@Xara: I have inspected map from your savegame, an enemy keep had starting position for side 4, however in my tests for 2p mode, that castle is side 3 starting position (wich spawn a dummy leader and is replaced for true side 4 one). I am guessing that dummy leader had no starting position to be spawned in your save, but I right now have no clue how generator could create a starting position for side 4 when just generated 3 castles. This would be also irrelevant for 3p mode and you say bug also happens there... so may be this is a wrong clue.

Still investigating :hmm: , let me know any other extra information you think could affect (was shuffle sides option used to host game?)

Edit: I have finally managed to reproduce it with Default+khalifate. From here should be more easy find out what is happening.
It defenitivily looks like bug is caused for generator giving a wrong number to starting position... but in theory this shouldnt be affected by other [era] :?
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II
User avatar
tekelili
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Re: World Conquest II

Postby Xara » June 5th, 2015, 12:23 pm

I failed to reproduce the bug in 3p in the last trials, I must remembered wrong.
Remember to sleep early, guys.
User avatar
Xara
 
Posts: 191
Joined: December 26th, 2014, 12:23 am
Location: Beijing

Re: World Conquest II

Postby tekelili » June 5th, 2015, 1:17 pm

Xara wrote:I failed to reproduce the bug in 3p in the last trials, I must remembered wrong.
Thanks for that info. Right now my guess is that bug is not related to [era] but is a gneral bug affectin 2p and 1p modes. This bug would be caused by my wrong asumption about how generator deals with castle generation and I will try fix it soon if I confirm it.

Edit: May be is bug related to other eras after all. I have just realized other eras has this key...
Code: Select all
[multiplayer_side]
    terrain_liked=
[/multiplayer_side]

Wich can be cause of generator "refusing to give right castle" to them.
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II
User avatar
tekelili
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Re: World Conquest II

Postby tekelili » June 6th, 2015, 3:20 pm

I am now almost sure the use of terrain_liked in other era factions is the cause of bug reported by Xara (difficult be 100% sure with a bug that happens randomly). This is not a bug easy to fix from me. I have been informed about a "secret" key not listed in wiki to disable that key interference, but it is bugged in 1.12 :(

So I think WC II 2p and 1p modes for Alien Eras will remaind bugged in 1.12. Users can workaround this bug by reloading map generation step until get a not bugged one, or they can delete the key terrain_liked inside each [multiplayer_side] of era desired to be played in WC II,

EDIT: It turned out that this bug looks very easy to fix with
Code: Select all
[side]
    terrain_liked=""
[/side]
I have uploaded version 0.6.4.4 with this bug fix. I apologize to users for previous confusing information, but use of this key in [side] was not described in wiki. In general all [generator] behavior lacks speceficications and I am often "coding in darkness".
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II
User avatar
tekelili
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Re: World Conquest II

Postby Wussel » June 13th, 2015, 10:56 am

Hi Teke, finally found your work. This is awesome. Could you make a regular campaign for one player too? It would be so much easier for people to find it in single player campaign. Moreover the code would be useful for others. I always try to make a campaign with map generator but no success.

About the pyramid: A 2 floor version would be just an exotic temple. Scaling it even smaller would be ugly. It really is supposed to be a man-made mountain. More over I did it only to see if it is possible (proof of concept). That means it is not created from scratch. Technically it should be ok, but we maintaining high standards here.

Did you ask about some mage towers or black villages some years ago (derived from some donated concept art)? I might be able to help with that.

Have you been looking for a strategic world map? There was an effort some years ago. Like a parchment map. You could walk around and pick the next island to conquer. Would be great too. I just mention since you have some custom terrain and you seem to be good at coding.
Wussel
 
Posts: 474
Joined: July 28th, 2012, 5:58 am

Re: World Conquest II

Postby tekelili » June 14th, 2015, 7:51 am

Wussel wrote:Hi Teke, finally found your work. This is awesome. Could you make a regular campaign for one player too? It would be so much easier for people to find it in single player campaign.

I am not sure what you mean, WC II already has 1p mode. If you mean change 1p mode from multiplayer to campaign menu, I dont think have different places for different modes would ease users life, they could very well wonder why they can not find 1p mode in the same place than 2p and 3p.
Wussel wrote: Have you been looking for a strategic world map? There was an effort some years ago. Like a parchment map. You could walk around and pick the next island to conquer. Would be great too. I just mention since you have some custom terrain and you seem to be good at coding.
I think World Conquest players are not interested in see that after each scenario transition, when is a campaign some of them played 100 times. I am not opposed to it, I just think not worth effort, even more when should be "static" because a "dinamic" world map with different destiny for each island, would difficult later maps additions, and I think WC should be always opened to add new alternative maps.
Wussel wrote: About the pyramid: A 2 floor version would be just an exotic temple. Scaling it even smaller would be ugly. It really is supposed to be a man-made mountain. More over I did it only to see if it is possible (proof of concept). That means it is not created from scratch. Technically it should be ok, but we maintaining high standards here.
I looking for an exotic temple rather than a piramid :D
What I am looking for is for extra alternative scenery images for the "magic points" where players get random bonus. However, kind of images that fit that role is a very subjective issue and, as i could ended rejecting it after test how it "feels", I really dont want you take effort on it. I asked because I thought you could provide a 2 floors .png with little effort.
Wussel wrote:Did you ask about some mage towers or black villages some years ago (derived from some donated concept art)? I might be able to help with that.
I dont remember have done such request in past, but maybe I did and forgot about it. Anyway, I am interested in any image valid as "magic point", and those you mentioned could work. But again I must advise is very subjective wich images work as such, so I really would never ask for a new creation (of course it is very welcome if anyone want do it).
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II
User avatar
tekelili
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Re: World Conquest II

Postby Gobling » July 14th, 2015, 8:50 am

This is a great map. I like it, but still not be able to get through map 3.

I have some thought about some low chance ability. If it's too hard to get, so people will not be able to experience it. What about allow unit to get it when leveling, with much higher chance, so more people will enjoy the fun :p.
Maybe some ability tree? Or maybe reversed tree,"tactic", "focus","doctrine"? No matter how to name, just say give you some advantage when you have some combination of abilities, or meet some conditions.
For example:
divide doctrine: skirmish, steadfast, gives move point.
drain doctrine: melee drain, ranged drain,gives melee and ranged damage.
replenish doctrine:regenerate, cure, heal, gives grass defense.

I should really stop to steal the fun of designing a game from you.
====================================================================================
What do you think about team ability?
say, we make some high level unit to be captain.
a captain can lead X low level units.
then, if those units is within Y hex from their captain, then they can get Z advantage.
For example:
woodsman: gives teammate forest defense.

====================================================================================
have you ever played a Japanese game Super Robot War? it's cool.
i suggest to add more theatrical element.
For example:
boss escape when his HP is lower than X%. so player must be able to damage him X% hp in one turn. and if success, gain a lot of gold and exp. maybe drop magic item.
Or boss will transform into something else when being hurt to X%, and release some fellow.
and the most excellent thing i ever experienced in SRW is that, the game's difficulty will rise up if the player is playing good. by "good", it means achieved some predefined goal.
Last edited by Gobling on July 15th, 2015, 12:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
all my suggestion is OK and welcome to say NO:)
Gobling
 
Posts: 77
Joined: April 28th, 2006, 5:44 pm
Location: a place ancient

Re: World Conquest II

Postby Gobling » July 14th, 2015, 9:46 pm

this map makes dwarf fighter much more powerful than in normal game.
the default era is designed for normal 1vs1 game, or n vs n game.
but when a weak force is opposing a much more powerful enemy, the balance is broken. Good defensive units are much more valuable, they can save a lot of money for you. So we can't just rely on the balance of the default era.
WC is more asymmetric.
all my suggestion is OK and welcome to say NO:)
Gobling
 
Posts: 77
Joined: April 28th, 2006, 5:44 pm
Location: a place ancient

Re: World Conquest II

Postby tekelili » July 19th, 2015, 6:20 pm

I must follow your signature advise and reject your ideas :mrgreen:
I impossed myself some design guidelines, not add features that complicate players life (aka they need know more information) if they are not targeted to solve a real problem.

I already added two "overcomplicated" mechanics with recruiting pair swaping and random trainings beneficts. None of them would have been added if they werent targeted to solve serious gameplay problems Classic World Conquest had.

Gobling wrote:this map makes dwarf fighter much more powerful than in normal game.
the default era is designed for normal 1vs1 game, or n vs n game.
but when a weak force is opposing a much more powerful enemy, the balance is broken. Good defensive units are much more valuable, they can save a lot of money for you. So we can't just rely on the balance of the default era.
WC is more asymmetric.
I am not sure why you mention this, but I totally agree... that is why I created a new era for WC II ;)
Just note supremacy of darves is even worse that just excels at asymetric defensive enverioments: Recall mechanic overpowers them a lot, none default faction can get for 20 gold such amount of overpowered units. Healers are just last nail in coffin, none faction profict as much of healing (combination of defenses and resistances do every hp worth more)
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II
User avatar
tekelili
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Re: World Conquest II

Postby Gobling » July 20th, 2015, 7:45 am

can you disclose some information about this map's developing road-map?

================================================================

what about allow recalled unit to get one of new training when leveling? of cause, you have to have that training.
maybe also when recalling, so recalled units get one more training when leveling and recalling, and newly recruited units get all trainings.
this will make those 1% abilities much more easier to get, and you must get it with very decent effort.

and further, what about allow to "retry" one of random training, so they can get those low chance abilities. say, when a unit get all trainings that the player currently has, and when it leveling or recalled, the player does not have more training for him, then he will randomly "retry" one of his training, to get some advantage that he hasn't gotten at past.
this will make exp training much more attractive.
all my suggestion is OK and welcome to say NO:)
Gobling
 
Posts: 77
Joined: April 28th, 2006, 5:44 pm
Location: a place ancient

Re: World Conquest II

Postby tekelili » July 21st, 2015, 7:43 am

Gobling wrote:can you disclose some information about this map's developing road-map?
I can try name some key concepts I always had in mind and my order of reasoning:

- I waited for years util I felt I mastered both BfW and WC. In order to balance a game you must really understand how it works. When I was a "noob" I was quite bad player with Drakes, it wouldnt have sense that I claimed they need be balanced. (As side note, if you never managed to pass scenario 3, then it is difficult you have an accurate evaluation of Experience Training power, as it shines at maps 4 and 5. It is also more usefull in hihger difficulty levels, as your units have more experiency penalty).

- When trying to find solutions to problems I detected, I always reevaluated them about how elegant and simple they were, also tried to imagine if they could have nasty side effects. In other words, I didnt start to code until I rejected a lot of my first ideas. When a idea was able to fix several issues in one hit, and was not too complicate to be understood by players, then I becomed happy about it.

- I was aware the main problem in BfW to create a good add on, is be able to test it a lot and be able to fix qickly problems. In other words, players willing to play your stuff at first steps of development ar the most lacking resource. In order to deal with this problem I decided develope first the most difficult to balance mechanics: Factions and Trainings. I took care of develope them with easy "dynamic balance"; Recruiting pairs and percentage chances are very good to do adjusments in small steps. (This means I was sure I couldnt be right at my first try, and I was ready to fix my mess).

- I delayed development of all the "flavor stuff" to be achived in a second phase. When you are doing often balance changes to fix stuff that is not working well, is more easy convince players to test again if game has also new colorfull features.

- Fix difficulty curve was also a mayor goal (working very bad in Classic WC). My personal taste is that increasing AI gold and reducing turns limit... are very bad solutions. I avoided use them as balance tools, instead I fucosed in reduce players buffs and increase AI ones. (a short explanation: AI gold increase players xp stacking for later scenarios; reduced turn limit become gameplay RNG luck dependant). In order to buff AI, I thought was more simple and elegant, give the same kind of buffs players had.

- Useless/overpowered invest options are bad. All the options should worth sometimes, at least for some players. A good measure of how well options are balanced, is when everybody complains about how bad is some option, but every player complains about diffirent one. Basically I dont expect anyone comes and says: "Hey tekelili, bonus are incredible well balanced", but instead everybody will say: "I never take X invest option, so I think is weak and should be changed".

- WC balance is based in randomess: Bad things and good things can happen to players (kind of random bonus, bonus point location, map terrain, enemy distance, enemy race, TOD). In order to change a factor, I always took the whole picture in consideration. All players seems to able to detect items, heroes, trainings, map generation, etc... that could be fixed because they look unbalanced "compared to their equals".

- For my personal taste, a faction is a definition of available units. I decided that factions should be balanced being loyal to that concept, and never have attached weird stuff like magic items. In WC II factions determine Leaders, recruits and heroes availables... and nothing more.


I guess I forgot some other ones... hope those random explanations answered a little :hmm:

Edit: One last thing I always had in mind was one of my uiversity teacher words: "No matter how good an idea can be, it can always be ruined by not taking care of little details" :eng:

Edit 2: Other concept I had clear to change was difficulty levels. I hate current computer games status, where in order to increase sales, difficulty levels design has becomed corrupted. A game is going to have lot of "compulsive purchases" if public not really interested in waste lot of time in the game, can succed in their first try at normal difficulty. In the oposite side, a well designed difficulty curve at highest levels for players that waste lot of time playing, and progress in game mastering, has a poor sales reward. In these times, for most games "normal" means tutorial, and "nightmare" means normal with badly tuned mechanics :augh:
As World Conquest is a rare campaign in BfW, beign able to be enjoyed after thousand of games, I certainly wanted give it difficulty levels that allow players enjoy it for years. So if a player just downloaded BfW and tries WC II in peasant level, he is going to be destroyed, because from my point of view, that asures him more fun in the process of mastering BfW.
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II
User avatar
tekelili
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Re: World Conquest II

Postby Gobling » July 22nd, 2015, 8:38 am

can you tell me that, you are using "enemy" and "player" inside [multiplayer] tag. why can you do that? what's the content of that? can you give me a link of documentation?

are they created by WORLD_CONQUEST_TEK_IMG_TEAM_COLORS_SETTINGS?
all my suggestion is OK and welcome to say NO:)
Gobling
 
Posts: 77
Joined: April 28th, 2006, 5:44 pm
Location: a place ancient

Re: World Conquest II

Postby tekelili » July 23rd, 2015, 7:03 am

Gobling wrote:can you tell me that, you are using "enemy" and "player" inside [multiplayer] tag. why can you do that? what's the content of that? can you give me a link of documentation?

are they created by WORLD_CONQUEST_TEK_IMG_TEAM_COLORS_SETTINGS?


I am willing to give any explanation about my code, to experienced coders involved in a real project, and have a doubt about a small part of it. However, give complete WML tutorials is far from my interest and time available. I am guessing you have not WML experience (sorry if I am wrong), as "enemy" and "player" are just arrays created as direct action at [event] level. I think you are right and they are created by that macro. If you are interested in their content, you can host a game in local player, and use ": debug" and ": inspect". I took care of give understable names to all my variables, so their fields should be quite intuitive.

Edit: To understand add on code, open utils/scenario.cfg as that file mostly control all stuff calling macros from other files. Almost all macros start their name from wich file they are written.
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II
User avatar
tekelili
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Re: World Conquest II

Postby SatHyre » September 4th, 2015, 10:28 pm

hello,
the RNG is broken : the position of the 3 sides is no longer random in map1. if AI is in north-west, side 3 is always in south-east, if AI is in south-west, side 3 is always in north-east, and etc.
User avatar
SatHyre
 
Posts: 31
Joined: March 30th, 2008, 7:06 am
Location: dago

PreviousNext

Return to Multiplayer Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests