MegaGlest Forum
Archives (read only) => Vanilla Glest => General discussion => Topic started by: Zoythrus on 28 April 2011, 15:37:16
-
since the Merge is coming soon, i wanted to get us thinking about some of the possible new things that it could have. one main example is the inclusion of multiple gametypes.
here's a list of possible gametypes that could be included.
Assassination: the standard "kill the hero" gametype. this can work in 2 ways:
1. the hero is weak and has no attack whatsoever, his survival is based solely on your ability to defend him.
2. the hero has an attack, and can defend himself from light-medium attacks. he still requires defending, but he can kinda take care of himself, too. (i prefer this one, it's much more interesting, not to mention logical!)
with both of these (especially no.2), the hero should be upgradeable, just like the rest of your units.
Capture the Flag: pretty self-explanatory. i also have two variations of this too:
1. any unit can pick up the enemy's flag, and bring it back to your flag.
2. only a unique unit called a "Runner" can pick it up, the other units have to defend him (i would go with this one!)
i was thinking about people who'd spam defenses and units around their flags, and my solution is this: around every flag is a "no go" zone where you cant build in or move units to (but your enemy can go in there, just not you or your allies).
King of the Hill: also pretty self-explanatory. i would suggest that it be some building or relic or something in the middle of the map that people have to "capture" and defend from everyone else. the longer you have it captured (by having troops around it), the more points you accumulate until you win.
1-CTF: a combination of CTF and KotH. instead of everyone having a flag they have to defend, there is one flag smack-dab in the middle of the map. the no-go zone around it would disappear after a set period of time (like, 10 minutes or something, preferably adjustable), so people cant just rush it. (also uses the same variations as normal CTF)
Assault: simple - one team plays defense, one team plays offense. offense wins if they can destroy a special artifact or building or something, defense wins if they can defend it for a specific amount of time (adjustable).
that's all the gametypes i can think of....any other suggestions?
-Zoy
-
All great ideas hope they will be implemented some day. :)
-
possibly expanding on the defense vs attacker idea, defender has to protect several small objectives, and one large objective. The small objectives would somehow be tied to capturing the final large objective. For example, a mission where the main objective is capture a woodland clearing and destroy the library there. smaller objectives would include capturing a bridge to get in which the enemy may destroy after a while, forcing you to find smaller less efficient fording sites, and capturing a supply base with large gold and stone reserves. Then as a third small objective you would have to destroy an enemy fort. doing these would not only increase you points but make the capture of the clearing far easier. This is just an example and I hope this and other partial scenarios as previously mentioned will be included
-
Or an even easier idea, the ability to create multiplayer scenarios. So we could do the above plus more.
-
Absolutely - gametypes equates to a scripting challenge and a discussion about what additionql hooks and delegation are needed, and lua ai perhaps
-
You forgot DoTA and tower defense :P. Combining DoTA and CTF might be interesting.
-
You forgot DoTA and tower defense :P. Combining DoTA and CTF might be interesting.
baby steps, hailstone. one thing at a time...
-
Dont include gametypes, atleast not before tools to make them. If included coded into the game engine, we will regret it when we want other gametypes. Custom made gamtypes ftw.
-
Nice ideas, of course, but I'd see these would be implemented after the merge. I guess it would still be good to get a list prepared.
-
Or an even easier idea, the ability to create multiplayer scenarios. So we could do the above plus more.
We are thinking about adding the eventually in MG.
-
Dont include gametypes, atleast not before tools to make them. If included coded into the game engine, we will regret it when we want other gametypes. Custom made gamtypes ftw.
Gabbe, ive seen this done before, and for the most part, the user-made ones were just horrid. i think that they should be hard coded, but we should allow users to make their own. if they are good enough, then that new gametype would be coded into into the game as well.
-
Starcraft game modes are certainly not horrid, they are just plain out awesome and the new GSL maps for GSL tournaments are BETTER than what blizzard spits out. Also GE can make risk and phantom.
-
Gabbe, ive seen this done before, and for the most part, the user-made ones were just horrid. i think that they should be hard coded, but we should allow users to make their own. if they are good enough, then that new gametype would be coded into into the game as well.
Terrible idea I think, ANYTHING hard coded in a OPEN SOURCE, MODABLE game is bad.
I say gametypes should be techtree specific, because what if a faction litterally can't support a gametype because of how different it is in design?
This would lead to again mods just being tech clones so they'll work in engine.... which is bad! Making it tech specific would also lead to more creative mods out there with their own gametypes!
Gametypes should be in Lua anyway, Seeings how Lua is an actually scripting language. Of course this would need is a lot of new Lua functions which could have variables such as which map is playing, how many players, etcera. Which I'm unsure is possible because I'm not a coder... But I'm hoping it is.
Then we would just need a box in the Custom games Menu where you can select which Lua script you want to run.
-
im just afraid of a bunch of crappy gametypes. people should have some way of knowing what's quality and what's not.
and about some mods not being compatible, every mod is compatible in some way.
-
As a rule of thumb, if it doesn't need to be hardcoded, it shouldn't be. Not being hardcoded will NOT affect quality!! It's perfectly easy to have something not hard coded and have it very high quality, even the "default" from the developers doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) hardcoded. For example, Glest's factions could have been hard coded, but no, they aren't. The high quality magitech, the default techtree made by the developers, is not hardcoded, nor any mods. And if the default magitech was hardcoded, it would have been very hard to make a mod, without the example set by magitech.
The same applies here. Please don't confuse "not-hardcoded" for "poor quality" or always player made.
-
Limiting the engine would only make Glest worse, Glest modability is the only thing it stands out with at the moment to other games.
-
Limiting the engine would only make Glest worse, Glest modability is the only thing it stands out with at the moment to other games.
Just another reason to why I will love Lua AIs (besides the fact we can improve the AI easier and optimize it for each mod), though let's not go offtopic there.
Others:
-Domination: Set a time limit on the game and create multiple "flags". Which ever team holds the flags for the longest period of time wins.
-Time match: A match with a time limit. If the game isn't won within a certain amount of time, the winners are picked by score. Those who are defeated automatically get their score reset to zero (though placing can be picked based on when they were defeated. So in a game of four players where one defeats all the others, the first player to be defeated would be last place, etc). This could double as being very useful for multiplayer matches when players don't have much time to spare (or even single player matches with limited time).
-Killcount: First team to reach a certain number of kills wins. Or perhaps units can be assigned points based on their HP, etc, so people don't always gang up on the vulnerable ones.
-Juggernaut give large stat and resource bonuses to a random team at startup. All other teams must fight against that juggernaut. Variety 2: Once that juggernaut is defeated, let the player who had the most kills against it be the next juggernaut, continuing for a certain amount of time.
-
Those gametypes sound awesome! Another good thing about modable gametypes is we get an endless amount! :)
-
im just afraid of a bunch of crappy gametypes. people should have some way of knowing what's quality and what's not.
Ninety percent of everything is crud. Much like faction mods, the ones that are no fun will hopefully fade into obscurity while the good ones get popular. (Maybe we need a user rating system for add-ons at some point.)
-
im just afraid of a bunch of crappy gametypes. people should have some way of knowing what's quality and what's not.
Ninety percent of everything is crud. Much like faction mods, the ones that are no fun will hopefully fade into obscurity while the good ones get popular. (Maybe we need a user rating system for add-ons at some point.)
i was thinking this too.
and when i said "hard-coded," i meant that it would be shipped with every new version of the engine (to show the standard of gametype quality).
and @Omega: i looked at your Juggernaut idea, and it's interesting (kinda reminds me of Halo :P). but i found a problem with it. as the Juggs get killed, the game becomes harder for the remaining teams. so, here's my solution: make the "Juggernaut Powers" only temporary throughout the entire game, so it switches players multiple times. the player who did the most damage to the Jugg at the end of the timer becomes the new Jugg
-
Phantom Mode
6+ player preferably. There will be so that all FoW is removed at the start of the game. Two players will be paladins. Those players receive 1 1/4 of normal resource income. Then there will be Phantoms. Those players receive double the income. Both, including phantoms and paladins have their bonus starting at the 2 minute mark of a game. The rest of the players are slayers. Those have normal health and plays just like a normal faction would in any other game. In the beggining of every game, all paladins get to know who the other paladin is, and the phantoms get to know who the other phantom is. The point of this game mode is for the paladins and slayers to figure out who the phantoms are and kill them off, therefore it is vital for the phantoms to not use all their resources at once, or they will stand out as phantoms all at once, then again, the slayers have to figure out who is paladins and who is slayers. The paladins have to figure out who is phantom among the other given slayers. A game ends when the phantoms are gone or they killed of all the slayers and paladins.
The upper information is standard, and here are some changes depending on how many players there are and how skilled they are:
- Choosable amount of paladins, slayers and phantoms.
- Choosable amount of income boost to both slayers and phantoms.
- Ability to merge modes, example; Phantom Capture the Flag, Phantom Treasure hunting.
Treasure hunting
2+ players preferably. The game mode consists of only one "class", Pirates. It`s timed at 30min-60min depending on number of players. First everyone starts out normally, but with a unique unit, a explorer. Then a treasure is automatically spawned somewere random on the map, revealing a small area around it. So all the players will most likely send out a scouting party including their explorer to take the treasure. The point of the game mode is to capture as many treasuries as possible but at the same time stay alive. Example; A treasure is located on the eastern island, player A moves explorer to capture, brings with 1/4 of army in case of other player doing the same thing and thus having the possibility of getting explorer home. Player B decides to launch full scale attack on Player A base. Player B wins because his force had greater numbers and vaporises Player A base. Player B wins even though Player A had the treasure count in his favour.
Including the given information, some customization that the players can decide on themselves:
- Time limit; 10 minutes, 20 minutes, unlimited
- Starting resources; Ability to have "Deathmatch", wich is giving players a large amount of resources, hence large battles and lots of early tech and upgrades.
- Spawn rate for treasures, example; spawning multiple treasures at once, like to or maximum three, and the speed of treasure spawning like 1 every treasure captured or wait 5 minutes for next.
I have also ideas like diplomacy mode, hardcore mode, and advanced treasure modes. but wait to post untill these two disguissed.[/list]
-
honestly Gabbe, your ideas sound really hard to make....and kinda limited.....
but, i liked the idea of a Deathmatch!
-
Well If the idea is going through I thought then it might atleast be made as customizable as possible.
What im thinking while making this possible would be these systems;
- Trigger system
- Territory system
To change all aspects of the game, including "model swapping", "FoW controlling", "Ai difficulty level or behavior", play cinematics. Both of these actually overlap eachother, for example, you do in a editor mark of certain parts of the map and then assign different triggers to make something happens if something happens within that territory. This could be done in the map editor.
Also what would be very usefull for further development is a in-game voting system, or in lobby, to vote for changes to different gametypes.
-
Well If the idea is going through I thought then it might atleast be made as customizable as possible.
What im thinking while making this possible would be these systems;
- Trigger system
- Territory system
To change all aspects of the game, including "model swapping", "FoW controlling", "Ai difficulty level or behavior", play cinematics. Both of these actually overlap eachother, for example, you do in a editor mark of certain parts of the map and then assign different triggers to make something happens if something happens within that territory. This could be done in the map editor.
I disagree about those being in game types. They belong as scenarios. There's no guarentee a game-type would have even be one player, along with other limitations. Gametypes should largely be based on how you win the game, not what happens during the game.
-
Well If the idea is going through I thought then it might atleast be made as customizable as possible.
What im thinking while making this possible would be these systems;
- Trigger system
- Territory system
To change all aspects of the game, including "model swapping", "FoW controlling", "Ai difficulty level or behavior", play cinematics. Both of these actually overlap eachother, for example, you do in a editor mark of certain parts of the map and then assign different triggers to make something happens if something happens within that territory. This could be done in the map editor.
I disagree about those being in game types. They belong as scenarios. There's no guarentee a game-type would have even be one player, along with other limitations. Gametypes should largely be based on how you win the game, not what happens during the game.
agreed
gametypes and multiplayer scenarios are two different things. gametypes are rules that are similar to the basic "Conquest" rules (what Glest is now), but with a few changes; multiplayer scenarios are just that, scenarios that can have multiple people (and everything that you just said, Gabbe). the main difference is that gametypes are not as limiting as scenarios, they are designed to be manipulated (via rule changes, like how long the CTF no-go zone lasts); while scenarios are designed very rigidly.
we are looking for new gametypes, gabbe
-
The ones i listed are gametypes. They are not scenarios.
How'd you suppose to have it customizable?
-
just like in any other RTS, in the pre-game menu. i would suggest that there be a "gametype" dropdown that lists all of your gametypes. then, when you choose one, specific options pop up
-
Because there will be so little room when such a thing is implemented (if it is implemented), I think that the custom game menu should be multiple screens. One way would be to use tabs (eg: one tab would be the player factions, teams, etc, another would be the map, with a full sized map preview, the tileset, fog of war, etc, another could be game types, and so on. This would also make further expansion easier) alternatively, a "next" and "back" system would be virtually the same as tabs, though instead of having tabs on the top or bottom, there would be a simpler next and back button that would take you through each of the submenus.
That'd, of course, be a thing for Glest 4, of course, in the distant future.
-
Hard coded game types may not work with mods. Hard coded ones should be more simple like capture flag, or king of the hill so they will be more compatible with mods. It would be cool to make custom game types for standalone mods.
-
Hard coded game types may not work with mods. Hard coded ones should be more simple like capture flag, or king of the hill so they will be more compatible with mods. It would be cool to make custom game types for standalone mods.
i figured that the ones that are deemed "Official Glest Gametypes" (hardcoded) would be the rather simple ones, so that all mods can play them.
The problem with mod-specific gametypes is that limiting them to one or two mods is bad for the community. i dont want to play a really intricately-made (but really fun) mod for one mod if i cant play it for the rest.
-
Hard coded game types may not work with mods. Hard coded ones should be more simple like capture flag, or king of the hill so they will be more compatible with mods. It would be cool to make custom game types for standalone mods.
i figured that the ones that are deemed "Official Glest Gametypes" (hardcoded) would be the rather simple ones, so that all mods can play them.
The problem with mod-specific gametypes is that limiting them to one or two mods is bad for the community. i dont want to play a really intricately-made (but really fun) mod for one mod if i cant play it for the rest.
That's a very bad idea. As I stressed before, there needs to be as many examples as possible anyway. If we don't have the "default" game types available for us to see, it's gonna be a hell of a lot harder to make a custom one. And while it may be better to have non-mod specific gametypes, please take into aspect that some game types may only be of use to a specific mod. For example, a "tycoon" based gametype that might only work with one faction intending to do something Glest normally cannot, and only possible with a custom gametype for that mod only.
Bottom line: hardcode as little as possible, leave options open, whether you like it or not.
-
I think there should be basic gametypes such as FFA(Free-For-All) and TDM(Team DeathMatch) shipped with the game in Lua or XML, not hardcoded. Then in the custom game, you could select a gametype with a nice dropdown menu. Mod specific gametypes would come with the mod, so when you select a mod the mods custom gametypes are added to the gametype menu.
-
I think there should be basic gametypes such as FFA(Free-For-All) and TDM(Team DeathMatch) shipped with the game in Lua or XML, not hardcoded. Then in the custom game, you could select a gametype with a nice dropdown menu. Mod specific gametypes would come with the mod, so when you select a mod the mods custom gametypes are added to the gametype menu.
Um free-for-all and team death match = custom game, so they don't need there own option, unless its pre set armies or something.
-
Hey heres an idea, What gametypes a techtree can play is defined in the .xml.
Say,
<gametype value="true">
<gametype path="glestae\gametypes\capture_the_flag" />
<gametype path="glestae\gametypes\king_of_the_hill.xml" />
<gametype path="glestae\gametypes\assassination.xml" />Or something like that.
This way we don't have any compatibility issues and is much cleaner, does anyone have a way to improve on this?
-
Hey heres an idea, What gametypes a techtree can play is defined in the .xml.
Say,
<gametype value="true">
<gametype path="glestae\gametypes\capture_the_flag" />
<gametype path="glestae\gametypes\king_of_the_hill.xml" />
<gametype path="glestae\gametypes\assassination.xml" />Or something like that.
This way we don't have any compatibility issues and is much cleaner, does anyone have a way to improve on this?
That would end up too limited though, as every time a new game type is released, the mod would have to be updated.
-
It wouldn't HAVE to be updated, but moders should be conscious about new popular gametypes and test if it works in their mod.
Either way, I still say it is a much better option than anything else. (or atlest, what has been said in this thread).