Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Did you create a mod, map, music, or a tool? Present them here and earn feedback!
Note: addon requests do not belong here.
Note, everything uploaded to this forum, MUST have a license!
User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC » 15 Jun 2012, 17:36

Goth Zagog-Thou wrote:Hang on, what content am I using that is licence-incompatible? Just read that and I was like 'huh?!' I haven't used anything that isn't GPL. :annoyed:
Well, you did say in your Campaign 4 thread, and I quote:
Goth Zagog-Thou wrote:Mine has to be GPL 2, as one of the music tracks is a 'Derivative Work', and because I use a little bit of Cam 1's 'Structure Under Attack' code. Those are two reasons I can think of right off the top of my head.
So I thought that you were using something that MIGHT (meaning I might be wrong) be incompatable, so I later said:
Shadow Wolf TJC wrote:@Goth: Are you still interested in using the Contingency mod? I wouldn't mind at all if you did. In fact, I'm giving you my explicit permission to do so, even if you can't release your Campaign under the CC-BY-SA license. ;)
------
aubergine wrote:@Shadow - In another topic, the idea of factions was raised. I believe such a feature could be implemented in same way as, and in conjunction with, "research eras" or "tier limiting".

There could be 3 factions (initially):

* The Project
* New Paradigm
* The Collective
No thanks. I never thought that Warzone 2100 needed more than 1 faction since players could just choose what research to pursue (and there's A LOT of research options) for the playstyle they'd want to adopt. Speaking of, wasn't the concept of rts "factions" originally developed as a means to give players a choice between different playstyles anyways (though StarCraft took it a bit further with how the 3 factions got things done), such as the raw power of GDI or the Soviets, or the hit-and-run and stealthy capabilities of the Brotherhood of Nod and the Allies, in the Command & Conquer series?
Tyzler wrote:There needs to be some one to program a AI that will user the vast majority of the tech in this.

So far of the 3 AI's that I have tried nullbot is the best but still limits it's self to weapons that are in the original.
The beta was released only recently, and I didn't bother to develop a new AI since I didn't feel that one was needed for the beta's release. Although I am thinking about starting work on developing my own AI, NoQ currently has far more experience in that field than I do, so I let him work on adapting his nullbot AI for Contingency, and I'm thankful for that.
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

User avatar
Goth Zagog-Thou
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1582
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 08:08
Location: Delta Base
Contact:

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Goth Zagog-Thou » 15 Jun 2012, 22:09

Ahh gotcha, ok. Yeah that would qualify :lol2:

User avatar
Kih-ap-hiih
Trained
Trained
Posts: 45
Joined: 02 May 2010, 18:00

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Kih-ap-hiih » 16 Jun 2012, 01:16

Bee good please. :?
No questions, no work? O_o
But haw can one player know, what is 5the game? 8)
Or should bee drunk every time, he finished the story. :augh:

User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by NoQ » 16 Jun 2012, 10:55

Contingency AI v1.34: includes new Turtle AI. It now uses different sorts of artillery, including Sureshot and Plasma mortar and howitzer superforts and TBMs. It also uses rocket towers as anti-tank defense. The usual note: Turtle AI plays much better on master (than on 3.1) on maps with well-placed gateways. There were also some minor fixes in the upstream and in the rocket AI.

If anybody still uses Light AI, please let me know. I just didn't want to upload, but the code is still present. I'm just not sure if it's of any use.

User avatar
Goth Zagog-Thou
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1582
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 08:08
Location: Delta Base
Contact:

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Goth Zagog-Thou » 17 Jun 2012, 07:07

NoQ ShadowWolf, I love this mod. And I want it to be the absolute best it can be. Some points to consider (call it constructive and objective criticism, in the best possible spirit :) ) ..

I finally played through the entire tech tree you've set up. Calling it large and expansive is an understatement. It begins to feel quite repetitive halfway through. In my view (and this is just my view), you've got too much going on. If this is meant to be a preview of what the player can expect when we get designable structures (and I truly hope that's still happening) and the final structures are simply there as placeholders, then that's great and it nullifies this particular point for the most part. I feel that it could be abridged a bit (maybe 20%) because a lot of the technologies seem repetitive in their own right. And I know you still have more to add.

The idea (and remember, this is purely objective and meant to provide direction) is to provide meaningful play, and variety is great -- but not so much that it become repetitive. I am of the opinion that Mark 1 and Mark 3 of almost everything in the tech tree needs to go (and this includes the stock tree as well). You have a technology, then a nice middle-of-the-road upgrade to it, then the "next level" technology to replace it when applicable. Some Mark 3 upgrades are fine -- but for nearly everything it becomes a "time sink", repetitive, and eventually an annoyance.

Likewise with the number of weapons available in Contingency. There's way more than are needed, in my view. Especially when we get to Railgun tech. Needle Gun, Rail Gun, Gauss Cannon, it just keeps going. Then we mix with the 5 or 6 types of Mortars. Remember, it's not to nit pick. I am of the opinion that it needs to be scaled back, is all.

Please consider what I've said in the best possible light and objectivity, as it's intended to be. I want this mod to succeed.

Cheers!

[EDIT] Excuse me! :oops: Insomnia meds. And no, they don't really work either. Sorry!
Last edited by Goth Zagog-Thou on 17 Jun 2012, 09:06, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by NoQ » 17 Jun 2012, 07:19

NoQ
:oops: lol i didn't make all the mods around there :oops:

User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC » 17 Jun 2012, 19:55

@Goth: I see your point. Too many weapons and defenses from T1 play too similarly to their counterparts in T2, which in turn play too similarly to their counterparts in T3. Sadly, I needed to make this distinction between the different tiers of weapons and defenses if I'm to keep the different tiers of bodies around and balanced, not just in terms of stats, but also to keep prices more uniform between tiers. If I couldn't do that, then the different bodies would've had to go as well (and that's something that I didn't want to do for something that's designed as an expansion pack for Warzone 2100). :(

I also wanted to develop all these different sizes of different weapons so that heavier vehicles could have access to more powerful weaponry that's so heavy that only they could mount them (such as Twin and Quad Minipods, Heavy Flamers, etc.). Most of the weapons in vanilla Warzone 2100 seemed so lightweight that I sometimes felt that what's the point of heavier vehicles, when I could just spam lighter vehicles armed with those weapons?

While most of the tech tree, including heavier and more advanced versions of existing turrets in one's weapon line of choice, are completely optional (in fact, it's possible to research all T3 upgrades in a weapon line before researching such T2 weapons as Assault Guns, Hyper-Velocity Cannons, and Tank Killers for example), the sheer variety of things that are available would indeed flood one's research tree with so many options to choose from to research. It just seems overwhelming.

Thanks for the constructive criticism though. I do appreciate it.

P.S.: I wish that we had designable structures as well. Then I could get rid of all those defenses that cost nothing to research. :3

P.P.S.: If I was developing a spiritual sequel of Warzone 2100 though, I would've almost certainly done what you proposed though. I agree in that all that redundant tech needs to go, though not for this mod. :wink:
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC » 18 Jun 2012, 01:33

I have a new balance concern, this time about how quickly trucks can build structures compared to how quickly factories can produce units. For example, a Truck and a Viper Body together currently costs about $20 and 100 BP (build points), and a Truck can build structures at a base rate of 10 BP/s, while a Factory with no modules costs about $60 and 300 BP, but can only produce units at a base rate of 18 BP/s. Because of this, I'm now considering reducing all construction speeds by 40% for the next update.

I'm also concerned about how quickly Repair Turrets and Repair Facilities can repair units, so I'm considering reducing their repair speeds by 40% as well, and reducing Auto-Repair speeds by up to 90%.
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

User avatar
Goth Zagog-Thou
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1582
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 08:08
Location: Delta Base
Contact:

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Goth Zagog-Thou » 18 Jun 2012, 02:41

Shadow Wolf TJC wrote:P.S.: I wish that we had designable structures as well. Then I could get rid of all those defenses that cost nothing to research.
That would be one of the single largest boons ever in Warzone. The different bunkers and turrets and things you've brought forth in Contingency would make this particular feature a godsend.

Hopefully that's still being worked on.

User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1803
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Iluvalar » 18 Jun 2012, 06:04

Shadow Wolf TJC wrote:I have a new balance concern, this time about how quickly trucks can build structures compared to how quickly factories can produce units. For example, a Truck and a Viper Body together currently costs about $20 and 100 BP (build points), and a Truck can build structures at a base rate of 10 BP/s, while a Factory with no modules costs about $60 and 300 BP, but can only produce units at a base rate of 18 BP/s. Because of this, I'm now considering reducing all construction speeds by 40% for the next update.
.
Bad idea. Here 4 reasons :
1- Players hate slow start. I know they told me. :lol2: .
2- Production upgrades (research, factory, engineering) do not progress at the same speed than other upgrades. That 40% change is very small comparatively. The chokepoint being the power, not the BPs, you could make structures insta-build that it would not upset the balance much...
3- The structures have less upgrade possible, they need some tiny boost here and there. Not a big deal...
4- You need to balance the BP of trucks with the DPS of the early weapons. Ultimately they might be used for repair... Not with factories.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC » 18 Jun 2012, 16:21

@Iluvalar:

1. I'm sure that the players wouldn't mind building a couple extra trucks if need be. They've got enough power at the start. Besides, it would make starting build orders more important again, right?
2. They're based around price rather than weapon or defense upgrades. Every time I double the dps of a weapon, or the HP of a body (assuming that all other components are equal), I increase the price by about 2.3x. As I've stated before, this is so that forces of roughly equal price could have the same chance against eachother.
3. Currently, it seems as if factory upgrades don't seem to be of much importance due to the lack of must-have technologies that require them, though this may change soon with the addition of a few bodies...
4. True. If a single truck turret that costed $10 could repair a hardpoint at the same rate as, or higher than, (or perhaps even close to) the dps of a weapon of the same price that's optimized or semi-optimized for taking down said hardpoints, then we may have a balance problem. (For example, in Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath, they had to nerf the Scrin faction's Corrupters' Tiberium healing ability because it was so powerful that just 2 of them could repair an Eradicator Hexapod (the Scrin's strongest unit) and eachother of an army's worth of dps.) Also, I wish that trucks could repair and construct at different rates, and that upgrades could affect each of them individually, since modders and balancers may wish to use different pricing:HP or pricing:dps ratios than a simple 1:1 ratio. Currently, if I have to nerf their repair capabilities, then I'd have to either increase every single unit's and structure's HP and every single weapon's dps, or reduce every single truck's repair capabilities, which would also affect construction capabilities, meaning that I'd also have to reduce every structure's build points.
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1803
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Iluvalar » 18 Jun 2012, 17:14

Shadow Wolf TJC wrote: 1. I'm sure that the players wouldn't mind building a couple extra trucks if need be. They've got enough power at the start. Besides, it would make starting build orders more important again, right?
Wrong, the answer is in your own sentence : if the players desire more trucks, they gonna build more factories first. duh !

And wrong again, they WILL mind. Here is experience talking, not opinions...
Shadow Wolf TJC wrote: 2. They're based around price rather than weapon or defense upgrades. Every time I double the dps of a weapon, or the HP of a body (assuming that all other components are equal), I increase the price by about 2.3x. As I've stated before, this is so that forces of roughly equal price could have the same chance against eachother.
I'm saying : conversion between direct DPS and factory production is absolutely not 1:1 .

IE. If you pit a double damage player against a double production player. The double production player will die like a little sh*t. He will need a lot more production bonus to stay competitive. In NRS havefunian's have a +347% production bonus and they are still considered a weak faction compared to the +75% power production of the utites.

All I want to point here is 40% engineering upgrade do not worth 10% power upgrade... 40% would be a big change for power, but it's tiny for production upgrades. Not worth bothering.
Shadow Wolf TJC wrote: 3. Currently, it seems as if factory upgrades don't seem to be of much importance due to the lack of must-have technologies that require them, though this may change soon with the addition of a few bodies...
There is one less structure upgrade line ! There is a possibility for droid players to evolve faster. That was my point 3. I dont know what you are talking about.
Shadow Wolf TJC wrote: 4. True. If a single truck turret...
If trucks were stronger than machine guns in vanilla, it would be a known trick to spam trucks as much as possible... But it's not the case... someone must have done a good balance job before you.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC » 18 Jun 2012, 19:41

@Iluvalar: While I have been taking your viewpoints into consideration (even though I couldn't guarantee that I'd always follow your advice), we need to talk about how condescending and disrespectful your tone is. :banned: Throughout Contingency's entire development cycle, you've been the least respectful out of my vocal critics. Case in point:
Iluvalar wrote:Wrong, the answer is in your own sentence : if the players desire more trucks, they gonna build more factories first. duh !

And wrong again, they WILL mind. Here is experience talking, not opinions...
There's something about flatly spouting out the word "wrong" that seems rather condescending, or disrespectful. "Duh" is an obvious red flag.

I realize that I can't please everybody, so if Contingency isn't your cup of tea, but is a whole lot of others', then I suggest that you go look elsewhere for your dream rts experience, or create one yourself as you've tried to do before. In other words (and forgive me for saying this guys, but I normally reserve this kind of language for someone who's been quite disrespectful to me), if you want to bitch about this project, then GET THE HELL OFF THIS THREAD! :ireful:

In any case, I suggest that you watch your tone. While you may very well be trying to give out advice, my respect for you is already in poor standing (and my blood pressure is too high for my own good :augh: ) because of the tone that you give to how you word your "advice", and because of this, I'm less likely to want to follow your "advice", since it seems more like the ranting of some stupid n00b than helpful advice. :annoyed:

I don't like getting into flame wars, but if you keep this up, I'll just ignore you and your "advice" altogether.
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100

mobius1qwe
Greenhorn
Posts: 15
Joined: 18 Jun 2012, 21:56

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by mobius1qwe » 18 Jun 2012, 22:06

This 40% delay is great! reduces the rating of the enemy AI overpower u in their building rates. But makes the game easier too.

For me, a strategy game should not be as fast as an FPS game since u have to work advanced in time like a chess match.

Also, that dude who wishes a faster start... just change the mode from "no bases" to "start with advanced bases". Don't go threatening those who want to improve the game.

User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Warzone 2100: Contingency (Beta now released)

Post by Rman Virgil » 19 Jun 2012, 02:36

.

I have to say it's 100% Shadow's perogative how he chooses to develope his work. :3

And to repeat ground already covered, there are 2 entirely different audiences: MP with humans and SKI vs. BOTs. Its a huge undertaking to dev for both such a complex and ambituous creation.

Plus, this should remain a joyful undertaking and not a grueling job without pay werein the creator is treated badly to boot. That's just plain wrong.

My 2 cents.

.

Post Reply