GAE 0.3 planning

[modman]

I think that there's a lot of great relavent ideas in the game Stronghold 2.  You can download a free demo of it here.  The one thing I do like about it is that all of the buildings have housing capabilities.  For instance, the walls all can have military standing on them, and if the wall is hit with a catapult (or something similar) your units fly off it and lose considerable HP.  That's a nice feature, because the units standing on walls cannot be attacked by melee until that section of the wall is distroyed.  And when the unit (pretty much archers) are in towers, they have little windows (cannot remember what they're called) to shoot from and they can hardly ever get hit.

[mictes]

What about different attack and die - models ?
For example:
A bear kills an initate -> initiate flung around the air.
A Swordman kills an initiate -> initate tumbles.
Swordman attacks initiate -> Sword cutting.
Swordman attacks castle -> Sword panging.

You can setup which model is used in the xml, depending on the unit that causes the death / the attack.

[daniel.santos]

I said to elaborate on them, not copy and paste >;(

Items 3 and 4 are noteworthy.  Why don't you elaborate on those concepts? Except, post it to the GAE 0.3 planning thread.  Specifically, think of how in the XML code such relationships should be expressed.  Should there be a collection of sounds for each type of object a skill is attacking (metal, organic, leather, etc.)?  Should these be specified at the unit.xml level or should there be something that defines collections of these sounds defined in faction.xml?  Same item 3, the selection of an appropriate death animation -- how should such a selection be made and specified in the XML?

Think this through and post your thoughts here please: https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=3387.0

[mictes]

Hey what to say more ?
Is this not clear enough ?!

[gameboy]

I'll be happy to.

A bear kills an initate -> initiate flung around the air.

Or say My Ent uses his oversized hand to hit a unit, the unit dies instantly but he crumples to the floor like some kind of fabric, what would be nice is that the unit really is hit so hard that it is flung through the air landing say about 20 feet away.

A Swordman kills an initiate -> initate tumbles.

Basic death animation

Swordman attacks initiate -> Sword cutting.
Swordman attacks castle -> Sword panging.

I think what he trying to say if the swordsman is attacking flesh he slashes, cutting through the flesh, but if he attack something like stone, the swordsman's sword bounces of, personally i see no use if a soldier uses a sword to attack a building unless he wants to scratch his name on it, instead he should throw flaming torches to burn down the building, then the fire would make more sense than it does right now, in fact i don't see how the building catches fire when you use a sword or a arrow or even a stone, unless of course the friction caused the metal when it hits causes
some sparks and then it catches on the thatched roof and causes a fire.

[mictes]

Yes, that it's !
Thank you gameboy, I'm really bad at explaining ^^

[John.d.h]

I'll be happy to.

Swordman attacks initiate -> Sword cutting.
Swordman attacks castle -> Sword panging.

I think what he trying to say if the swordsman is attacking flesh he slashes, cutting through the flesh, but if he attack something like stone, the swordsman's sword bounces of, personally i see no use if a soldier uses a sword to attack a building unless he wants to scratch his name on it, instead he should throw flaming torches to burn down the building, then the fire would make more sense than it does right now

Yes!  That's something that has bothered me ever since Warcraft 2 was new. You can hack at a stone wall all day and it won't catch fire, but in video games it always does!  GRR!  The only game I can think of where units actually attack buildings differently than other units is Medieval: Total War.  Also, different sounds for different armor types would be nice.  For example, in Morrowind (and I'm assuming in Oblivion as well, but my computer won't run it *serious sad face here, kids*) getting hit while you're wearing heavy armor produces a "ting!" sound like metal on metal and hitting someone's unarmored flesh produces a much more visceral, meaty sound.  It kind of hurts to listen to it because it sounds really brutal and painful. :lol:

Speaking of which, knock-downs would be nice.

[modman]

How about a different animation for a death by each of the origanal 4 (I think) attack types.  This is where having less attack types makes things a lot easier.  Slashing could be the guy chopped in half, impact could have the unit flung a foot backwards, piercing would be a blood fountain etc. (You get the idea)

I think that's what you're getting at.

[mictes]

Yes maybee, but I would prefer to set it up in the units.xmls (cause it is more precise)
If no spezial animation is given it will use the standart-animation,
special animation could look in the xml's like that for example:

<special-animation>
<name="whatever" />
<type="dead" />
<file-path="../whatever" />

<case-units>
<unit name="swordman">
</case-units>

</special-animation>

[modman]

Probably one of those features that exists but is used sparsely...like rotated climb.

[gameboy]

Yes!  That's something that has bothered me ever since Warcraft 2 was new. You can hack at a stone wall all day and it won't catch fire, but in video games it always does!  GRR!  The only game I can think of where units actually attack buildings differently than other units is Medieval: Total War.  Also, different sounds for different armor types would be nice.  For example, in Morrowind (and I'm assuming in Oblivion as well, but my computer won't run it *serious sad face here, kids*) getting hit while you're wearing heavy armor produces a "ting!" sound like metal on metal and hitting someone's unarmored flesh produces a much more visceral, meaty sound.  It kind of hurts to listen to it because it sounds really brutal and painful. :lol:

Speaking of which, knock-downs would be nice.

I think AOE3 also has that feature, when attacking buildings they automatically switch to siege attack where they throw flaming torches at the building

[ZaggyDad]

I don't think there should be death animations for each type of attack or for each unit's attack. That would mean each unit would have to have the number of units there are in the Tech tree+1/3. And that would mean all the animators would conk out and quit. It should just have the ability to do random animations, so that units aren't attacking the same old way all the time, and dying the same old way, too. But making all the animations would take too much work. Especially, Modman, if the animators were required to make the people fall in half, or have blood squirting half the way to Mars. Keep is simple, stupid!

[wciow]

I agree with the KISS principle.

Death animations should be soft-body

Other types of action should allow multiple animations. Each animation should have an XML specified chance of occurring.

As for matching attacker/defender sounds, I think this would be VERY complicated for relatively little benefit.

[charlieg]

Just a quickie: why ODE instead of the alternatives?  I have heard of a lot of projects trying ODE then moving to Bullet because Bullet performs better and is easier to integrate and work with.

www.bulletphysics.com

[Omega]

I agree with the KISS principle.

Somebodies been reading Tom Clancy...

While multiple animations would be nice, they are just too hard for animators like myself. Modman, if you'd take the time to learn Blender and tried to make an animation sutible of glest, you'd agree.

[mictes]

But a units dies the way it simply melt like an ice-scream in summer when it is hit by a rocket, for example?
Same to the Battlemachines with their big Axes!
This is totally nonsens. The hit unit should fly to mars!

[charlieg]

What about a basic framework for providing a story-based version of Glest?

All that is required is:
- to link a set of levels
- a way to display story text and images inbetween levels
- a way to save progress (level passwords maybe?)

Further discussion here:
https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=4112.0

[Idanwin]

No level passwords!
You have to remember them.
Instead use save files.

For campaigns there should be a campaign screen.
A select box, with scroll bar, is the best method to select maps, scenarios and campaigns.
You can select the campaign you want to play and all it's scenarios that are available (you finished the previous scen) are displayed.

The system to know what scenarios have been finished should be a kind of save file with something like:

Code: [Select]

<campaign>
name=a_campaign
current_scenario=5;
total_score=139274;
</campaign>
<campaign>
name=another_campaign
current_scenario=2;
total_score=15834;
</campaign>
The "current_scenario" is the next scenario you have to play.
The Total Score is a nice thing to look at, if it is high that is.

It could further include:

Code: [Select]

<stored_unit>
description="the usual hero";
unit-type="some_kind_of_holy_warrior";
kills=37; //good job!!! (kills count as experience)
    <bonus>
    description="holy_sword";
        <effect>
        affects=attack-strenght;
        amount=10;
        </effect>
        <effect>
        affects=attack-type;
        amount="holy";
        </effect>
    </bonus>
</stored_unit>

This would allow a hero being leveled up in multiple scenarios.

other ideas:
-Gold bonusses (start next scenario with + x gold, + x stone and + x wood);
-Time elapsed (Total and per scenario)
-Best Scenario Scores (these would be saved for every scenario)

Note: The codes are just fast written without really thinking (it isn't written in any known programming language)

[Omega]

Get real! We can't have a save file in XML format. THat would be way to easy for people to cheat with. The save files would have to be binary (like the glest map format). This would reduce filesize drastically too.

All we need is a modified save feature (which is already in GAE). Of course, there should be a message or something saying that your game has been saved. And perhaps it should be save and quit to prevent people from cheating. (basically, it saves the game and returns to the title screen)

[jrepan]

Get real! We can't have a save file in XML format. THat would be way to easy for people to cheat with. The save files would have to be binary (like the glest map format). This would reduce filesize drastically too.

All we need is a modified save feature (which is already in GAE). Of course, there should be a message or something saying that your game has been saved. And perhaps it should be save and quit to prevent people from cheating. (basically, it saves the game and returns to the title screen)

Savegame is also XML. And why would it be bad if someone cheated? It would affect only cheater.

[modman]

Yes, the savegame is in XML, but is very complex.  This is because of all the things that need to be accounted for.

[@kukac@]

I don't really care about cheating. They don't reach many things. And in multiplayer, saving is not a common event.

Other games have cheating option too, and they just wreck the gameplay, but if people wish to cheat, do as they want.

[modman]

I want to bring the discussion back to this...
It would be best if you use the attack types to determine which animation to use.  That cuts the number of die animations to about  (I think).

Lets get real.  All impact deaths on a...Swordsman will probably include falling backwards.  All piercing and slashing deaths will include blood, with more from piercing damage.  Energy is the tricky one, but it would be cool if it made the Swordsman start on fire or desintegrate or something of that nature.  Don't make this harder than it has to be.

[maxpower]

I think here's the best place to ask the following. There are rumours (or are they already facts?) that Glest development is dead, and GAE will be the new "official" Glest.
I posted something about this there: https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=4126.0

Can a GAE team member please say some words about the situation in the Glest 3.2.0 announcment thread? A lot of people were confused by the sudden, but already deleted, anouncment of the death of Glest.

[John.d.h]

I want to bring the discussion back to this...
It would be best if you use the attack types to determine which animation to use.

If possible, the animations should depend on the strength of the attack as well as the type.  If a unit only has 25hp left and then an attack does 26 damage to him, then it's just barely a finger prick that sent him over the threshold between "not dead" and "dead", so the standard "collapse on the ground" animation would do just fine.  However, if the attack is especially powerful (if damage>max_hp) then the special animation would be put into effect.  The idea is to add some variety to battles without making them ridiculous.  I don't think any of us want every death animation to be over-the-top and spectacular, like if every time two Swordsman went at it, one of them got cut in half.  If one gets hit by a lucky Static Fire for 650 damage, on the other hand, then it would be pretty reasonable to have him vanish into a puff of smoke and ash or something like that.  Also, this makes it so that each unit would only need one death animation per damage type plus one standard death.  Some units, like the Dragon and the Battle Machine wouldn't even need any special animations since there's (as far as I know) nothing powerful enough to kill them in one hit anyway.