Glest development philosophy

[John.d.h]

both of these ideas are present in other RTS's, why not Glest?

Glest is not "Age of Warcraft and Conquer for Middle-Earth".  Glest is Glest.  Megaglest, specifically, is a particular kind of Glest with its own development philosophy, and there's no intrinsic reason to simply copy what others have done.

[Gabbe]

both of these ideas are present in other RTS's, why not Glest?

Glest is not "Age of Warcraft and Conquer for Middle-Earth".  Glest is Glest.  Megaglest, specifically, is a particular kind of Glest with its own development philosophy, and there's no intrinsic reason to simply copy what others have done.

But those games do have WAAAAAY more succes than glest?

[Zoythrus]

both of these ideas are present in other RTS's, why not Glest?

Glest is not "Age of Warcraft and Conquer for Middle-Earth".  Glest is Glest.  Megaglest, specifically, is a particular kind of Glest with its own development philosophy, and there's no intrinsic reason to simply copy what others have done.

But those games do have WAAAAAY more succes than glest?

good point. you see, John, there are certain standards and trends that today's RTS's are following, and if we dont catch up, we will be trampled.
for example, the original Starcraft allowed you to select 12 or so units at once, much like Glest and it's 16; but in SC2 they realized it was a stupid idea and allowed players to select as many units as they want. another trend we might want to follow would be squad based infantry. not a bunch of units that follow one animation, but a nexus of units that all work together as a cohesive unit.

We need to move on, and not just stay in the past.

[John.d.h]

There's a difference between being on the same level as another game, and indiscriminately copying all their features.  If that's what you try to do, you'll be in a perpetual game of catchup without a single compelling reason for gamers to play this instead of some high-end commercial game.  GAE has a handful of coders.  Megaglest has a handful of coders.  Blizzard, EA, and Microsoft can have hundreds working on a single game if they want to.  We can't compete on equal terms with companies who have hundreds of professionals devoting an entire 40-hour work week when we've only a dozen or so volunteers working in their spare time.  Even giving it away for free isn't going to matter, because if the hardcore strategy gamers are already going to have their high-end commercial game anyway, then there is no incentive whatsoever to download a game that is completely inferior even if it doesn't cost them anything (because it obviously doesn't cost them anything to play the game they already own either).  When they've already got Starcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Battle for Middle Earth 2, and Age of Empires 3, why bother with some indie ripoff?  We're going against giants here, and you can't beat a giant by punching him in the face, because face-punching is something he's going to be infinitely better at than you are.  Thus, you have to out-think him and come up with a different approach using your own skill set.  We can never hope to out-code, out-model, or out-market EA, Microsoft, or Blizzard, but maybe we can come up with something that they don't have.  Glest needs features that are innovative and unique, features that aren't available elsewhere, something that makes our game stand out as different and worth playing instead of looking like a poor substitute that tries and fails to live up to the industry standards.  Obviously there are a lot of things that other RTS games have that Glest lacks and that it really needs, but whole-hog copying is not the way to make a successful and popular indie game.

[Zoythrus]

There's a difference between being on the same level as another game, and indiscriminately copying all their features.  If that's what you try to do, you'll be in a perpetual game of catchup without a single compelling reason for gamers to play this instead of some high-end commercial game.  GAE has a handful of coders.  Megaglest has a handful of coders.  Blizzard, EA, and Microsoft can have hundreds working on a single game if they want to.  We can't compete on equal terms with companies who have hundreds of professionals devoting an entire 40-hour work week when we've only a dozen or so volunteers working in their spare time.  Even giving it away for free isn't going to matter, because if the hardcore strategy gamers are already going to have their high-end commercial game anyway, then there is no incentive whatsoever to download a game that is completely inferior even if it doesn't cost them anything (because it obviously doesn't cost them anything to play the game they already own either).  When they've already got Starcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Battle for Middle Earth 2, and Age of Empires 3, why bother with some indie ripoff?  We're going against giants here, and you can't beat a giant by punching him in the face, because face-punching is something he's going to be infinitely better at than you are.  Thus, you have to out-think him and come up with a different approach using your own skill set.  We can never hope to out-code, out-model, or out-market EA, Microsoft, or Blizzard, but maybe we can come up with something that they don't have.  Glest needs features that are innovative and unique, features that aren't available elsewhere, something that makes our game stand out as different and worth playing instead of looking like a poor substitute that tries and fails to live up to the industry standards.  Obviously there are a lot of things that other RTS games have that Glest lacks and that it really needs, but whole-hog copying is not the way to make a successful and popular indie game.

well, yes, we shouldnt copy everything that they have, but there are certain standards and trends that we should know about. What makes games successful? the features that they have. and if the features are concepts that barely worked 10 years ago, they probably wont work today. we cant just say that our ignorance to the growing trends are just things that sets Glest apart from the rest. if we dont conform, we will die. no one's going to want to play a game that neglects the trends. if you have any business experience, you would know that. if you dont swim, you drown. and yes, large companies have more people working for them, but that doesnt mean we cant take some of their ideas and try to make them work.  im just tired of us being in the RTS stone-age!

now, if we merged the two versions of Glest (take the features from one and implement them in the other), then we would have more coders working on the same thing; and this would speed up production. i hear that GAE is taking MG's particle and multiplayer support, and those are the only things that really make MG special. if they did that, they would render MG obsolete, and that would make GAE the only Glest. in short, i just told us how to effectively merge to two. it can be done, if you guys actually tried to make it happen.

[Gabbe]

You do know, when GAE was said to have 16~ players or something, there were some flame because it wasnt used to be in RTSes, sure glest needs to be special, but now it only offers development training and coll particles that no other RTS have () but when glest doesnt have the things Commercials used to have 3 years ago, i would say it is a bit behind. + Zoys stuff...

No, it would not be wise to back of because "if you dont like it dont play it" because I think the key to progression here is only critisicm, downright or positive, it all helps. Also, is all were to do this, glest wouldn`t exist. Simple as that.

Wikipedia wants to say

In an RTS, as in other wargames, the participants position and maneuver units and structures under their control to secure areas of the map and/or destroy their opponents' assets. In a typical RTS it is possible to create additional units and structures during the course of a game. This is generally limited by a requirement to expend accumulated resources. These resources are in turn garnered by controlling special points on the map and/or possessing certain types of units and structures devoted to this purpose. More specifically, the typical game of the RTS genre features resource gathering, base building, in-game technological development and indirect control of units.

Is this not glest in a nutshell?

Also, even though C&C is OLDER THAN OLDEST GRAND DADDY GAME it can even still match glest in all except GFX! i mean common, how many years back in time? 5? 9? 7?

[wyvern]

You do know, when GAE was said to have 16~ players or something, there were some flame because it wasnt used to be in RTSes, sure glest needs to be special, but now it only offers development training and coll particles that no other RTS have () but when glest doesnt have the things Commercials used to have 3 years ago, i would say it is a bit behind. + Zoys stuff...

No, it would not be wise to back of because "if you dont like it dont play it" because I think the key to progression here is only critisicm, downright or positive, it all helps. Also, is all were to do this, glest wouldn`t exist. Simple as that.

Wikipedia wants to say

In an RTS, as in other wargames, the participants position and maneuver units and structures under their control to secure areas of the map and/or destroy their opponents' assets. In a typical RTS it is possible to create additional units and structures during the course of a game. This is generally limited by a requirement to expend accumulated resources. These resources are in turn garnered by controlling special points on the map and/or possessing certain types of units and structures devoted to this purpose. More specifically, the typical game of the RTS genre features resource gathering, base building, in-game technological development and indirect control of units.

Is this not glest in a nutshell?

Also, even though C&C is OLDER THAN OLDEST GRAND DADDY GAME it can even still match glest in all except GFX! i mean common, how many years back in time? 5? 9? 7?

Sad but true, one thing however, that makes glest fun to play is the variety of mods and factions, especially some of the majorly unique ones, like tech, many of the V-bros factions, the nature series and probably WW1 mod. Also the factions that are in other commercial games such as norsemen, indians, persians and so on are given a certain flavor by the fact that glest does not necessarily bind itself to historic units but also allows fictional, mythological and so on units. The fact that people do this as a hobby increases the variation of factions and features by a persons preferences though it undoubtedly slows development. I would like to see squad combat introduced though in more of a style like Warzone 2100, which is probably one of my favorite games, where you can have individual units but with a single command unit, in warzone this is a tank with a command turret, a squad of relatively independent units is created, also some units such as antiaircraft and artillery can be assigned to radar sets to increase accuracy. If it is a mobile unit you can detach it at any time so you can change your squads according to the needs at the time and so on.

[John.d.h]

if we dont conform, we will die.

If we try to conform, we will fail and continue to fall behind, because we can't conform.  We simply don't have the manpower.  However, if we try to innovate, we may fail or we may succeed.  A possible success is better than a certain failure any day of the week.  See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

no one's going to want to play a game that neglects the trends. if you have any business experience, you would know that.

Oh really?  I'm pretty sure neglecting trends can be quite successful at times.  Those who only follow the trends are interchangeable and therefore disposable.  I'd rather see Glest become the RTS version of Chuck Berry, not O-Town.

if you dont swim, you drown. and yes, large companies have more people working for them, but that doesnt mean we cant take some of their ideas and try to make them work.  im just tired of us being in the RTS stone-age!

Look at how much more popular Wesnoth is than Glest.  What game did they copy?  None.  Sure, at the core it's similar to many hex-based TBS games, but it is most definitely a different game and thus is stands out and is fairly successful.  You seem to be looking at progress as unilinear.  Some things present in other RTS games are good, and I'd like to see them in Glest, but "Other games have this, so that means we should too" is a bogus argument, as there's a ton of crap we don't need or want.

i hear that GAE is taking MG's particle and multiplayer support, and those are the only things that really make MG special. if they did that, they would render MG obsolete

Already done in trunk, I believe.

[Zoythrus]

k, then, your opinion has been noted. im just opposed to the thought of Glest being neglected because there's nothing new or exciting. yeah, the factions and mods are cool and all, but they will only get us so far. maybe some updates, but not all; just enough to keep people on their toes.

you know, look at Spring. they are awesome, and they have a huge fan base! not only do they have concepts that really work, but they also do things which no one else does. maybe we should be more like them. (a good example would be to take the TASClient multiplayer lobby [which is losing popularity for some stupid reason] and integrate it into Glest. it is much more streamlined than what we have now).

and about merging, if GAE already has the stuff from MG, then shouldnt MG just be disbanded? we've already merged, so lets keep it that way!

[Psychedelic_hands]

Problem is it's hard to be original in today's market; and when you do make something original it's hard to make it play good.
The one thing that's make it even harder is not having a defined style, glest is one of the most generic RTS games out there. So it's hard to come up with more features that won't change everything up too much.

What we need is really to have some brainstorming and try to figure out ways to make glest special. But it does still need basic RTS features.

[John.d.h]

you know, look at Spring. they are awesome, and they have a huge fan base! not only do they have concepts that really work, but they also do things which no one else does. maybe we should be more like them. (a good example would be to take the TASClient multiplayer lobby [which is losing popularity for some stupid reason] and integrate it into Glest. it is much more streamlined than what we have now).

So... they're original, and their originality is a good thing, so we should copy them?  What.

[Gabbe]

When you see a game doing good, will you not then try to see what makes the game good? lets say we have ABD (glest) and another game have ABC (spring) why wouldn`t you want C in your game?

[Zoythrus]

When you see a game doing good, will you not then try to see what makes the game good? lets say we have ABD (glest) and another game have ABC (spring) why wouldn`t you want C in your game?

good point.

John, we can only stay generic for so long, we need a niche - something that makes us special (staying old-fashioned doesnt count as being special...)

[John.d.h]

John, we can only stay generic for so long, we need a niche - something that makes us special (staying old-fashioned doesnt count as being special...)

Exactly, and copying what others have done is the opposite of that.

[Gabbe]

(click to show/hide)

John, we can only stay generic for so long, we need a niche - something that makes us special (staying old-fashioned doesnt count as being special...)

Exactly, and copying what others have done is the opposite of that.

We are copying stuff thats in another game no matter what, glest has resource gathering! OMG! we are copying warcraft starcraft age of empires and loadtrux of other games too!! I am for this: copying what others haven done and twist it into so it fits with the other features.

[Zoythrus]

but at the same time, we need to update some stuff. do you know why things like a limit to selected units was done away with? its outdated and frustrating. we should take a look at other games and see what they are doing so we can update some things (not copy everything of theirs)

[John.d.h]

but at the same time, we need to update some stuff.

Not the same thing at all.

do you know why things like a limit to selected units was done away with? its outdated and frustrating.

Maybe to you it's frustrating, and that's a matter of opinion and style, as a lot of people would disagree with you.  I wouldn't say it's been "done away with", considering a lot of modern RTS have unit selection limits.  The ones that don't have limits are generally much larger in scale and deal with hundreds of units at a time.  Glest is a small-scale skirmish game.  What are you going to do with 100 units at a time anyway?  You likely can't produce or support that many at a time, and you certainly can't maneuver them through the woods as a coherent unit.  A selection limit keeps things in manageable groups.  Maybe it should be a little higher than it is now, but any higher than about 20 and you hit severely diminishing returns.  I don't expect any group larger than 32 to be manageable at all.

we should take a look at other games and see what they are doing so we can update some things (not copy everything of theirs)

I'm not sure you understand what "update" means if you think it's equivalent to copying every other game out there.  You may say that you don't want to copy them, but I seem to recall the majority of your ideas are in the format of "game A has feature B, so Glest should have it too!"  Battle for Middle Earth has squads; let's have squads! (Pretty sure that was you...)  Spring has a lobby; let's have a lobby!  Unspecified other games allow you to zoom out more; let's be able to zoom out more!  Maybe some of those features are good ideas and maybe they're not, but their existence in other games in no way indicates that we have a need for them here.

[hailstone]

but at the same time, we need to update some stuff. do you know why things like a limit to selected units was done away with? its outdated and frustrating.

I don't see this in the tracker. Must not want it enough. 

[Gabbe]

Most small skirmish games today, doesnt have resource gathering, base building (at the scale glest has) and in general, the only thing you do is micro manage one or two squads through the entire game. Maybe its time to choose between small scale and large scale? I feel like Glest is in the middle kinda.

[Zoythrus]

the reason i have been suggesting stuff from other games is because they work! i have used them, and i have seen how good they can be. if we had some new stuff, stuff that people are familiar with, then maybe our fan base might be higher.

[Psychedelic_hands]

Well, ideas have to come from somewhere. They just don't appear.

What if we take features from other games but change it to make it different/better/appealing.
We also need to decide what type of game we want Glest to be; otherwise nothing new in gameplay will change and Glest, as we know it will die.

[Gabbe]

I feel divided, but i want a larger scale, i vote for large scale, if there is such a poll...

[Zoythrus]

a larger scale would be nice, i think. not Spring-large, but larger.

[wyvern]

I feel divided, but i want a larger scale, i vote for large scale, if there is such a poll...

WW1 mod will be far larger