Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Other talk that doesn't fit elsewhere.
This is for General Discussion, not General chat.
User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by Watermelon » 09 May 2007, 15:55

Just asking if the community likes the ideas or not,most of the ideas are from RTS.net,I did read the most replied posts in its forum but I was too lazy to register on that forum,I'll bin the ideas if most ppl think they are useless/dont fit for warzone's style of gameplay

1.finite ammo,rearm turret etc
2.the ability to disable techshare and design completely via script function
3.selectable factions in mp screen,defined in .slo/.vlo
4.infantry/navy/jet/helicopter units/propulsion/buildings
5.component armor(increases HP and armor) and component brain(advanced AI for commander and individual units)
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.

Per
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 3775
Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 19:39

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by Per » 09 May 2007, 18:41

I like the sound of navy and shipyards. Unsure about the usefulness and/or desirability of the other points.

About point 3, what would be really awesome would be to be able to multiplay the campaign... I think that would be an instant hit with our local LAN party, at least. (It would also be somewhat innovative. What RTS games can do this?)
"Make a man a fire, you keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire, you keep him warm for the rest of his life."

User avatar
lav_coyote25
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3434
Joined: 08 Aug 2006, 23:18

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by lav_coyote25 » 09 May 2007, 19:04

Per wrote: I like the sound of navy and shipyards. Unsure about the usefulness and/or desirability of the other points.

About point 3, what would be really awesome would be to be able to multiplay the campaign... I think that would be an instant hit with our local LAN party, at least. (It would also be somewhat innovative. What RTS games can do this?)
as to all your todo's yes, please... would be good.

and i second the "about point 3" from per...  YES!! that would be awesome.
‎"to prepare for disaster is to invite it, to not prepare for disaster is a fools choice" -me (kim-lav_coyote25-metcalfe) - it used to be attributed to unknown - but adding the last bit , it now makes sense.

Kyor
Trained
Trained
Posts: 73
Joined: 03 Apr 2007, 15:28

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by Kyor » 09 May 2007, 19:42

Yeah, it would be great =)

But, navyforces may use the same design system

themousemaster
Regular
Regular
Posts: 601
Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by themousemaster » 10 May 2007, 14:06

Watermelon wrote: Just asking if the community likes the ideas or not,most of the ideas are from RTS.net,I did read the most replied posts in its forum but I was too lazy to register on that forum,I'll bin the ideas if most ppl think they are useless/dont fit for warzone's style of gameplay

1.finite ammo,rearm turret etc
2.the ability to disable techshare and design completely via script function
3.selectable factions in mp screen,defined in .slo/.vlo
4.infantry/navy/jet/helicopter units/propulsion/buildings
5.component armor(increases HP and armor) and component brain(advanced AI for commander and individual units)

1)  Sounds like a pain to those unused to it; that said, using it as a balance feature, in that only some of the weapons are limited ammo (cough*scourge*cough), might be a nice idea.
2)  I'm a bit out of date to even know what that means :(.
3)  I'm not sure what effect this would have.  Would "factions" get like specific bonuses to stuff?  Because visually, since in MP you have access to all bodies, you can basically look like any of them.
4)  All sound cool, though I imagine navy and helicopter types are the only ones that wouldn't be a nightmare to implement
5)  I like high-durability units, so my opinion on this one may be skewed ;p.  But as for smarter commanders, most definitely.

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by Watermelon » 10 May 2007, 14:49

themousemaster wrote:
1)  Sounds like a pain to those unused to it; that said, using it as a balance feature, in that only some of the weapons are limited ammo (cough*scourge*cough), might be a nice idea.
2)  I'm a bit out of date to even know what that means :(.
3)  I'm not sure what effect this would have.  Would "factions" get like specific bonuses to stuff?  Because visually, since in MP you have access to all bodies, you can basically look like any of them.
4)  All sound cool, though I imagine navy and helicopter types are the only ones that wouldn't be a nightmare to implement
5)  I like high-durability units, so my opinion on this one may be skewed ;p.  But as for smarter commanders, most definitely.
1. it can be enabled/disabled via a new field in weapons.txt called 'numMags'(number of magzines,since numRounds is already used by clipped weapon like ripple),default weapons will have all 'numMags' field set to -1(negative 1,means infinite),and you can change it to any positive number to make its ammo finite.
It's almost working,I just need an exchange rate for ammo unit and weapon ammo(rearming mg should cost less 'ammo units' than rearming heavy missile ones) and to figure out whether structures need finite ammo or not.

2.the design button and the techshare in mp(auto-get tech researched by allies),and I need to find out how to disable that 'leak tech' button as well,so players wont be able to gain access to ally's faction units with this 'exploit'...

3.you can have different bodies/weapons with some .slo/.vlo scripts in different faction,and it's selectable in mp setup screen.

4.they are relatively easy to implement,since basically navy is just another type of droid with blocking tile reversed(water accessible and ground inaccessible) and helicopter is just a 'floating' droid.

5.personally I found most late game bodies useless,cos they are just a little bit more durable than 'snake'/'insect' family ones,and it takes forever to reach them via research/to build...COMP_BRAIN/squardron AI will be the hardest thing to implement,since it requires decent knowledge in almost every field of computer science,which was the unfinished task of a full team of pumpkin senior SE's for the expansion...
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.

Kamaze
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1017
Joined: 30 Jul 2006, 15:23

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by Kamaze » 11 May 2007, 17:33

5,3,2,1,4. I would prefer this order.
We all have the same heaven, but not the same horizon.

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by Watermelon » 12 May 2007, 17:23

Kamaze wrote: 5,3,2,1,4. I would prefer this order.
1 is almost done,I am merging '1' with svn head and trying to squash any bugs introduced by it.

2,3,4 are 50%,just need to separate them into single-purpose patches and do a bit of clean-up to the changes.

5 COMP_ARMOUR should be implemented by changing a few lines,but COMP_BRAIN requires heavy changes to AI/movement/formation system,so it's not going to happen in the near future...
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.

User avatar
DevUrandom
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1690
Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 23:14

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by DevUrandom » 13 May 2007, 11:21

Question: I guess it is not possible to make the components completely steered by scripts? So we can up new components more easily, without modifying the source...

User avatar
Terminator
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1069
Joined: 05 Aug 2006, 13:46
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by Terminator » 13 May 2007, 11:44

may be I repeat myself ... I always wants that someone will fix that thing in chat (& everywhere where need to enter a text.More correctly deleting using Backspace or delete buttons. When you press hold text dowsnt automaticly deleting, it must be pressed for each letter...Its too bad when deleting string is toooo big.(& also in wz impossible to select multiple sections using mouse, like in text editors)
Death is the only way out... sh*t Happens !

Russian-speaking Social network Group http://vk.com/warzone2100

Kyor
Trained
Trained
Posts: 73
Joined: 03 Apr 2007, 15:28

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by Kyor » 13 May 2007, 14:31

I agree with you terminator.

And there should be a text navigation using the arrow keys (to change errors without backspacing)

And support to new characters like áéíóúâêîôûãõäëïöüç¹²³

By the way, i cant use the "??", because my keyboard is ABNT2 (Normal American Keyboard with some added buttons), and wz does not recognize them.

jeff_sadowski
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 20
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 04:18

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by jeff_sadowski » 19 May 2007, 19:42

Finite ammo idea sounds kind of cool how about ammo supply units as well

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by Watermelon » 20 May 2007, 13:05

jeff_sadowski wrote: Finite ammo idea sounds kind of cool how about ammo supply units as well
There will be a new component called 'rearm turret',which can be used to design/create supply units.

It's almost working,I'll finish it as soon as I get the pie format float point support sorted.
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.

Solitaire
Trained
Trained
Posts: 32
Joined: 05 Dec 2006, 22:47

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by Solitaire » 31 May 2007, 20:20

I'm not worried about the ammo too much; I've been down that road with the Earth series, we'll either end up emulating it quite closely or making a bit of a hash of it (or a bit of both!). Yes, it could help kill ScourgeSpam but so could a more general rebalancing and fleshing-out of the existing techtree; both would have to be considered mods and thus deselectable anyway to avoid messing with the existing game.

Factions would be nice but a chore in and of themselves as you'd have to make separate factions unique, and seeing as they won't have very different methodologies barring MASSIVE recoding (unlike Earth 2160 - four VERY different factions) you'd have to use the research to differentiate them, thus x-number of different techtrees, and even then they'll be very similar unless (again in the vein of an Earth title) we really go crazy with new concepts, abilities and items for each unique side. One of WZs strengths was its usage of a single faction and methodology which allows a single player to play with more stuff and have a much wider techtree while avoiding the one deadliest problem of multiple factions: game balance. Think Dawn Of War: Dark Crusade - seven factions, constant patching and incessant complaints of imbalance making team x too strong versus team y. Even now the screams of "IMBA!!!1!1!" ring in my ears... ::)

I do agree with expanding the current propulsion portfolio and adding supporting structures as necessary - this is a seriously weak area in WZ currently. After just a couple of researches you have Hover and Tracks, and you ain't gonna be using anything else! Adding more propulsions makes for more varied and unique units, gives a new dimension to all the different weapons (weapon x may not be so hot against props a, b or c etc.) and really helps build on the ideas of hit locations, multiple weapons and unit/weapon size classes. IMHO there are two ways an RTS can go - spam war or rock-paper-scissors. You need a good and interesting balance for the game to work, and WZ remains a bit too close to a spam-war ATM. Of course, getting cyborgs and buildings to act like vehicles and go through a design process is vital too ;)

The last idea is also good, but will require lots of code and hacking away at the GUI to boot.

Off-topic but once again, can I please recommend the devs hack out the goddamn GUI code and replace it with something more eye-pleasing and, most importantly, easy to mod? That alone (while a largish job) could bring a lot more modders (probably not source devs unfortunately) ovre to the WZ camp while "prettifying" WZ a bit more to boot :)

User avatar
Watermelon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 551
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 09:37

Re: Do you want these features to be implemented in warzone?

Post by Watermelon » 01 Jun 2007, 16:19

Solitaire wrote: I'm not worried about the ammo too much; I've been down that road with the Earth series, we'll either end up emulating it quite closely or making a bit of a hash of it (or a bit of both!). Yes, it could help kill ScourgeSpam but so could a more general rebalancing and fleshing-out of the existing techtree; both would have to be considered mods and thus deselectable anyway to avoid messing with the existing game.

Factions would be nice but a chore in and of themselves as you'd have to make separate factions unique, and seeing as they won't have very different methodologies barring MASSIVE recoding (unlike Earth 2160 - four VERY different factions) you'd have to use the research to differentiate them, thus x-number of different techtrees, and even then they'll be very similar unless (again in the vein of an Earth title) we really go crazy with new concepts, abilities and items for each unique side. One of WZs strengths was its usage of a single faction and methodology which allows a single player to play with more stuff and have a much wider techtree while avoiding the one deadliest problem of multiple factions: game balance. Think Dawn Of War: Dark Crusade - seven factions, constant patching and incessant complaints of imbalance making team x too strong versus team y. Even now the screams of "IMBA!!!1!1!" ring in my ears... ::)
both will be made into mods,but tons of changes to the source are still inevitable.

I think wz's mp is too exotic to be popular,with such a huge tech tree visualized as 2 ugly arrays in in-game gui...you will never know which ones are required to unlock the one you want to get without looking up the uber long tech tree manual.
I do agree with expanding the current propulsion portfolio and adding supporting structures as necessary - this is a seriously weak area in WZ currently. After just a couple of researches you have Hover and Tracks, and you ain't gonna be using anything else! Adding more propulsions makes for more varied and unique units, gives a new dimension to all the different weapons (weapon x may not be so hot against props a, b or c etc.) and really helps build on the ideas of hit locations, multiple weapons and unit/weapon size classes. IMHO there are two ways an RTS can go - spam war or rock-paper-scissors. You need a good and interesting balance for the game to work, and WZ remains a bit too close to a spam-war ATM. Of course, getting cyborgs and buildings to act like vehicles and go through a design process is vital too ;)

The last idea is also good, but will require lots of code and hacking away at the GUI to boot.

Off-topic but once again, can I please recommend the devs hack out the goddamn GUI code and replace it with something more eye-pleasing and, most importantly, easy to mod? That alone (while a largish job) could bring a lot more modders (probably not source devs unfortunately) ovre to the WZ camp while "prettifying" WZ a bit more to boot :)
mayb exposing gui functions to wz scripting(.vlo,.slo) might help,since rewriting/replacing current GUI will take too much,which is not something most developers can afford.
tasks postponed until the trunk is relatively stable again.

Post Reply