Idea: Territory mode (optional game feature)

[aubergine]

This is just a random ponder:

When setting up skirmish games, there is an option to enable/disable scavengers.

What if there was a similar option that would allow you to enable/disable "territory mode".

When disabled, game works how it currently does.

When enabled, a concept of "player territory" comes in to play. Player territory is defined as "land that's lit-up by structure-based sensors". If I understand correctly, all buildings have some amount of sensor ability - build something and it "lights up" part of the map around it. Proper sensors obviously light up much more of the map than, say, an MG bunker, and Satellite Uplink lights up the entire map.

In territory mode, droids would not be able to travel more than X distance from player territory. The value of X could be increased with certain research, such as CRC (which could double X), sensor upgrades (obviously) and so on. Unit propulsion/body type could also have an effect on the value of X.

This would forcibly prevent rush tactics - players would first need to expand their territory before they could get droids all the way to an enemy base or distant oil resources.

While this wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea (not to everyone's liking), hence the option to turn it on or off at game set-up, I feel it would make skirmishes and MP games work to a different dynamic because it encourages players to use more of the game features from the very start of the game.

When you now factor in things like the ECM (radar jammers, radar detectors) I feel "territory mode" will lead to more diverse gameplay. For those that have played the campaigns, you'll remember having to sort of creep your way around the map searching for threats - imagine that sort of thing happening in skirmish/MP games...

What do you think?

[aubergine]

Anyone?

[IgorBrehm]

Or something like in empire earth 2 =D

[aubergine]

I've not played Empire Earth 2 - what is their approach?

[IgorBrehm]

You start with one territory and then you must build a town center or a fortress in the other territories to gain control over it =D

[Corporal Punishment]

Look at my posts and you will discover I am not at all a fan of rush tactics. Still, the concept of "territory mode" as proposed here can not be the solution in my oppinion.
The necessity to maintain structures wherever you wish to send field units would have a drastic impact on game dynamics. Well-timed surprise attacks, commando-style if you will, become impossible under such premises. Imagine you want to sneak a fast backstabber group behind a enemy outpost to destroy it after you lured the defenders away with some die-hards that feint a frontal attack. But now you need to build bunkers or whatever along the route the backstabbers need to take to circumvent the enemy first. This will take too long to keep up with changing situations.
Another problem that must be addressed is what happens when the structures in an area are destroyed. What are the units in said area supposed to do then? Stay put, unable to move? Auto-retreat to the closest friendly structure?

[aubergine]

Hrm, good point.

[zydonk]

The Settlers franchise used this method of expansion in early versions. In effect it was abandoned from v3 onwards, so that while you needed to build or capture a fort to take control of territory, you could then destroy that fort and continue to hold the territory - at least until another player built a fort there. The effect was that you could concentrate your forces around a single fort deep inside your territory and dare your enemies to attack - which is an option in WZ.

Time constraints will always prompt rush tactics in mp, which suggests that strategies for dealing with them are more useful than attempts to prevent them in the first place.

[Corporal Punishment]

Time constraints will always prompt rush tactics in mp, which suggests that strategies for dealing with them are more useful than attempts to prevent them in the first place.

Only WZ has no inherent time constraints. Any such constraint is introduced by the players but not by the game. I can not stress this enough: Players familiar with RTS games of the SC/C&C type instinctively play WZ in a fashion the original developers did not intend it to be played.
Hence maybe all that it needs is to educate players on how a game of WZ can be so much more then a primitive rush.
As far as technical measures are concerned, giving more weight to experience and commanders could be a way to accomplish the desired changes. Talking concrete, this means making units weaker and increasing the bonuses from ranks and commanders. Possibly even increase the commander limit and reduce maximum number of units a commander can lead.

[aubergine]

I wouldn't want to mess around with unit stats as that could be a very messy task that throws out the whole balance of the game. I'm also not sure that "educating users" is of any use - someone who wants to pwn the enemy will still rush them.

By having an optional "territory mode" it allows the person who sets up a game to decide what sort of game they want (and this could apply to skirmishes and challenges, not just MP).

In terms of implementation, there's already something in the game that remembers which bits of the map the player has unveiled with either units or structures (sensors). Even when those areas are no longer "lit up", they still appear differently on the map (you can see the terrain more clearly and any buildings that were there are still visible). So, the implementation could re-use some of that code.

It could be implemented using a sort of map overlay that remembers which tiles have been "lit up" by the players' buildings (not droids). The value of "X" (distance a droid can move outside your territory) would be added in to this. So, if a building lights up 10 tiles and X is 5, the territory "overlay" would be extended for 15 tiles around the building.

If a building gets destroyed, the territory it had claimed remains even if enemy builds in that territory - they are merely extending their own territory, they are not stealing it from their opponents. Any upgrades that might affect the value of X would only be applied to existing and new buildings, not previously destroyed buildings.

If an ally claims some territory, all members of their team get that territory added to their territory so they can move there freely (if they can reach it). This also means that with dynamic alliances, if an ally switches to another team, their territory (at the time of changing team) is still accessible to their former allies, but any additional territory they claim thereafter won't be.

This territory overlay could be treated like a "continent" (WZ already uses continents, as far as I can tell, to work out where droids can move to). Droids could only move in their territory continent, further restricted by land continents (defined by cliffs, water, etc). So, I could still tell a droid to move deep in to the fog of war, but it will only travel so far as my territory permits.

[Rman Virgil]

Time constraints will always prompt rush tactics in mp, which suggests that strategies for dealing with them are more useful than attempts to prevent them in the first place.

Only WZ has no inherent time constraints. Any such constraint is introduced by the players but not by the game. I can not stress this enough:

Players familiar with RTS games of the SC/C&C type instinctively play WZ in a fashion the original developers did not intend it to be played.

Vigorous

Hence maybe all that it needs is to educate players on how a game of WZ can be so much more then a primitive rush.

Agree, but only AFTER an implementation change either to Core or as a Mod.

As far as technical measures are concerned, giving more weight to experience and commanders could be a way to accomplish the desired changes. Talking concrete, this means making units weaker and increasing the bonuses from ranks and commanders. Possibly even increase the commander limit and reduce maximum number of units a commander can lead.

All my experiments since 2007 along these lines (supported by extensive play-testing with LAN Club members) leads me to the conviction that these proposals are on a worthwhile continuum of change. I say continuum because I see supporting Command UI changes as an important, even integral, part of it. Project artist Elio made New Command UI Mockups that illustrate what I mean here.

Should also be clear that I am speaking to WZ MP Mode. (Not SKI, in other words.)

(For fuller scope details SEE artist Elios fabulous GUI mock-ups HERE) and whippersnapper's Commander Unit enhancement aggregation HERE)

- Regards, RV.

.

[aubergine]

URL to those mockups / more info?

[Rman Virgil]

URL to those mockups / more info?

(For fuller scope details SEE artist Elios fabulous GUI mock-ups HERE) and whippersnapper's Commander Unit enhancement aggregation HERE)

.

[Corporal Punishment]

Maybe the thoughts I compiled here can be of use to this discussion. Quoted writings present some insight into the concept of space in WZ among other things and provide pointers as to where inspiration on methods to fixing some issues with the current gameplay can be found. They also hint to the perspective behind the changes to WZ I have advocated in the past and will advocate in the future.

[Rman Virgil]

------------------------------------>


And from whipper's Commander Unit enhancement aggregation thread link above you will find the following communication with WZ 2100 A.I. Creator / Guru Alex Lee of special interest perhaps (among the many other nuggets to be mined therein)..

.
Couldn't resist after just reading Alex Lee's (On original Pumpkin Team, aka WZ Creators & A.I. Guru) answer to a question posed by Per....(The italics and bolding of the text are mine...)

• Was there many things that you were planning to do with commanders that you never got around to ? The source code certainly gave that impression

Yes, commanders did a bunch of extra things during development, but they got scaled back, both the control mechanism and ui got very complicated. We wanted them to order units realistically, not just become a grouping with a bonus and a common goal.

And in answer to this question:

.

Hello Alex... One thing that would be cool, I think, is if you could speak to Pumpkin's design idea behind WZ 2100 being a "living product", to quote Nick Cooke (I recall Jim B. and A. McLean referring to it as such as well). With the original Pumpkin comments lost along with the original bbs this was a key generative commitment that merits re-exposure, from the "horses mouth", you could say. Thanks.

Regards, whipper (aka, Rman)
.

* Again, the italics and bolding of the text are mine...

I don’t remember if we ever used those words, but it was definitely something we were aware of. We played a lot of quake (and later unreal tournament) in the office and one of the things that really struck us about it was the vibrant community. Maps, mods and genuine improvements were everywhere. When working on warzone as engineers we made decisions to leave openings so that people could make changes where they saw fit. Examples including using a scripting language (the slo,vlo’s) that wasn’t compiled into the game so users could edit them, or choosing zip as our packing format instead of something proprietary. I still think it’s a positive thing to do on pc titles, am I’m busy still doing it today!

This ended up benefiting us too. While we always intended to do multiplayer, skirmish started as a bit of a hobby for me. It grew into something fun because the flexibility of the scripting language really opened up the possibilities (thanks to John Elliot)

By demonstrating our commitment to the users through the various rapid patches after release we were trying to build a community of people who would be able to keep making changes to the product. There was an intention to make warzone2120, so it was the feedback from you guys that would have really driven that title.

You can read Alex Lee's postings in their entirety HERE..

The game's cultural continuity is really important, ergo -

- Regards, RV.

.