Idea: - Modular Research & Design

[Avestron]

Good afternoon to all. I am interested in modding for WZ though am lacking on most of the skills necessary to do so.

However I am rarely short on ideas and the following is one that I would like to share. Due to my style of discussing my ideas I shall be selecting a colour to emphasize more important or core points.

In short I refer to it as modular research and design - a deepening of the user interface for the purpose of more dynamicism than even WZ currently provides.

I shall organize this into two aspects:

- Modular Research
- Modular Design

- - - - - - -

Modular Research:

As virtually all players of WZ are aware, the vehicle design feature can be divided into three modules - body, propulsion and mount (utility device or weapon) - as an aside I would propose that this order be changed to propulsion, body and mount in the spirit of designing vehicles from the ground up - but this is a cosmetic detail.

What I propose (and though I haven't noticed reference to it I would be surprised if I were alone in this) is that this modularity be expanded towards almost all manner of units and structures.

For the sake of example I shall look at defensive structures.

Let us suppose that we have a player who has researched a light cannon as an armament. The normal way to continue is to research a light cannon bunker, a light cannon hardpoint, etc.

What I propose is that defensive structures (towers, gates, bunkers, pits, silos, hardpoints, fortresses, etc.) be investigated seperately as researches in their own right and seperately from the weapons mounted. I similarly propose that the same be true of cyborgs. (body can be based upon vehicle types (perhaps different scales), different classes of legs or jets can be factored in, mount can result in variety)



- - - - - - -

Modular Design:

With an increase in complexity to an already complex game it can be argued that the 'too many details' card may be invoked. I'd suggest that many players thrive on details and would welcome the increased costomization. The obvious solution is the incorporation of stop-time or bullet time, where game speed slows by a factor of 10 (or other - depending on player settings).

An immediate problem that springs to mind is multiplayer - it 'may' be boring for a player to experience bullet time when any one of the human players is using it. A potential solution here is to allow players to build a profile based upon their progress in campaign mode.

Put very simply if you happen to be in the middle of dealings with the New Paradigm then the program knows that you have access to a specific research tree (based on what you have already researched (and replaying campaign mode would not reset this - it merely records max research in all branches)). Based upon this information in options the game allows a player profile to pre-design units and structures for reference to in multiplayer and skirmish modes (perhaps also subsequent campaign modes).

This would mean that a multi-player game would not slow down for a player who has to design a 'half-track light cannon Mantis' if that player has chosen not to go for campaign mode, and would provide further incentive to play that mode at least the one time.

This also provides opportunities in game design - towers may not be particularly durable but could feature enhanced range of fire (though a tower may have its limitations in terms of recoil stress load - which is why a heavy cannon tower would be unlikely).

- - - - - - -

Well these are just a few initial thoughts. If anybody needs anything clarified feel free to do so. ^_^

[scorpion9]

"What I propose is that defensive structures (towers, gates, bunkers, pits, silos, hardpoints, fortresses, etc.) be investigated seperately as researches in their own right and seperately from the weapons mounted"

thats something ive thought about myself. it kind of seems weird that it takes scientists as much time to figure out how to put a howitzer into a pit, as it takes them to find out how to make the howitzer itself.

once u know how to dig a pit(shouldnt be hard in the year 2100), it shouldnt matter what u put in there.pit is a pit. or at least research time should be taken down significantly.

[Avestron]

Thanks for the comment.

I am adding more info so early since I forgot to include it. I am also proposing that players decide what sorts of defensive structures they need. In other words the structures are designed in the same way that vehicles are.

For instance - bunker or camauflage bunker - one looks like a a concrete stand while the other looks a lot like a pillbox with some texturing - you might be able to fit a light cannon in a camauflage bunker - but not a howitzer (scale problems).

- - -

I 'do' see purpose in the adaptation of a weapon for a platform - such as research towards miniaturization or weight reduction or recoil reduction of certain weapons so as to be carried upon platforms with insufficient ability to cope with it (heavy cannon hover bug? Light cannon cyborg?) but it requires a degree of rebalancing.

[Zarel]

However I am rarely short on ideas and the following is one that I would like to share. Due to my style of discussing my ideas I shall be selecting a colour to emphasize more important or core points.

Although I warn you I'm going to be criticizing some aspects of this one, feel free to suggest others.

What I propose (and though I haven't noticed reference to it I would be surprised if I were alone in this) is that this modularity be expanded towards almost all manner of units and structures.

Yes, pretty much half of all Warzone players have suggested this, and the other half are thinking of suggesting it. It's on our long-term to-do list.

With an increase in complexity to an already complex game it can be argued that the 'too many details' card may be invoked. I'd suggest that many players thrive on details and would welcome the increased costomization. The obvious solution is the incorporation of stop-time or bullet time, where game speed slows by a factor of 10 (or other - depending on player settings).

I don't know what your definition of "obvious solution" is, but mine is something more like "Don't make the game so complex". Most players would rather play the game than bother with most minutiae. In the case of simply adding more design interfaces, bullet time is unnecessary: The game pauses in design mode in singleplayer, and in multiplayer people don't spend enough time designing for it to really matter.

One thing that would be useful would be an interface to preemptively design units you plan on using in multiplayer, and have those automatically designed once all its components are researched. That's also on the long-term to-do list.

An immediate problem that springs to mind is multiplayer - it 'may' be boring for a player to experience bullet time when any one of the human players is using it. A potential solution here is to allow players to build a profile based upon their progress in campaign mode.

...um, are you suggesting that players should have MP advantages based on their campaign progress? That is a bad idea on so many levels.

This also provides opportunities in game design - towers may not be particularly durable but could feature enhanced range of fire (though a tower may have its limitations in terms of recoil stress load - which is why a heavy cannon tower would be unlikely).

Towers already feature enhanced range of fire, and are not very durable. And that's already why there are no heavy cannon towers.

Well these are just a few initial thoughts. If anybody needs anything clarified feel free to do so. ^_^

As always, don't mind my criticism and feel free to make other suggestions.

[Avestron]

Although I warn you I'm going to be criticizing some aspects of this one, feel free to suggest others.

I have little to fear from criticism other than the development of an inferiority complex ^_~

Yes, pretty much half of all Warzone players have suggested this, and the other half are thinking of suggesting it. It's on our long-term to-do list.

Great to know that I can bleat as well as the rest of 'em. :cP

I don't know what your definition of "obvious solution" is, but mine is something more like "Don't make the game so complex". Most players would rather play the game than bother with most minutiae. In the case of simply adding more design interfaces, bullet time is unnecessary: The game pauses in design mode in singleplayer, and in multiplayer people don't spend enough time designing for it to really matter.

I was unaware that the game actually pauses. I guess I spent too little time designing while having mine handed to me.

One thing that would be useful would be an interface to preemptively design units you plan on using in multiplayer, and have those automatically designed once all its components are researched. That's also on the long-term to-do list.

...

...um, are you suggesting that players should have MP advantages based on their campaign progress? That is a bad idea on so many levels.

I am suggesting that players who go through the campaign mode work towards a 'discovered research profile' The advantage that these players have over those who simply go straight into skirmish mode is the ability to predefine units using this virtual inventory of discovered researches.

Would you feel majorly disadvantaged if your opponent had a dozen or so predefined vehicle designs in MP mode?

Towers already feature enhanced range of fire, and are not very durable. And that's already why there are no heavy cannon towers.

Ah - well thats great. Perhaps relevant to this particular point would be the adding of 'recoil' and recoil absorbance' to weapons and vehicle bodies and structure mounts respectively - that however is straying off-topic.

As always, don't mind my criticism and feel free to make other suggestions.

I don't mind criticism - I mind being wrong - I'll be around

[Zarel]

I am suggesting that players who go through the campaign mode work towards a 'discovered research profile' The advantage that these players have over those who simply go straight into skirmish mode is the ability to predefine units using this virtual inventory of discovered researches.

Would you feel majorly disadvantaged if your opponent had a dozen or so predefined vehicle designs in MP mode?

I suppose it wouldn't be a big deal, then, but MP discoveries should also work towards a "discovered research profile" - I know many expert MP players who rarely play campaign. And there should be a reasonably easy way to simply reveal everything for use in predefined designs, so players who reinstall Warzone, etc, don't have to go through the work of discovering all their research again (It still takes around 40 minutes to get to T3 on an oil-rich map).

Ah - well thats great. Perhaps relevant to this particular point would be the adding of 'recoil' and recoil absorbance' to weapons and vehicle bodies and structure mounts respectively - that however is straying off-topic.

We have recoil, but it currently doesn't affect anything but animations. Adding actual recoil to weapons would be a bit difficult, and weight is usually a good enough approximation (high recoil weapons are usually heavier).

[Avestron]

I suppose it wouldn't be a big deal, then, but MP discoveries should also work towards a "discovered research profile" - I know many expert MP players who rarely play campaign. And there should be a reasonably easy way to simply reveal everything for use in predefined designs, so players who reinstall Warzone, etc, don't have to go through the work of discovering all their research again (It still takes around 40 minutes to get to T3 on an oil-rich map).

You make a very good point about reinstalls and such - especially with version updates and the like. One way of reducing the inconvenience factor would be to have the uninstall process not include save-game folders (or provide the option to retain savegames and profiles).

We have recoil, but it currently doesn't affect anything but animations. Adding actual recoil to weapons would be a bit difficult, and weight is usually a good enough approximation (high recoil weapons are usually heavier).

I see. I've been looking around for an indication of the variables involved with various weapons, parts and techs - with limited success. Would you recommend any particular link to look at?

[Zarel]

You make a very good point about reinstalls and such - especially with version updates and the like. One way of reducing the inconvenience factor would be to have the uninstall process not include save-game folders (or provide the option to retain savegames and profiles).

I said "reinstalls, etc", and that "etc" includes things such as playing at a friend's house, or getting a new computer...

I see. I've been looking around for an indication of the variables involved with various weapons, parts and techs - with limited success. Would you recommend any particular link to look at?

http://guide.wz2100.net/ contains charts of everything relevant to a typical game. Its weapon table is particularly useful.

If you want more detailed information, http://developer.wz2100.net/wiki/TxtEditing will tell you the format of the game's data files, which can be found by making a copy of mp.wz, renaming it to mp.zip, extracting it, and navigating to stats/.

[Avestron]

I said "reinstalls, etc", and that "etc" includes things such as playing at a friend's house, or getting a new computer...

For that degree of portability I would suggest interfacing with online profiles - an aspect of the online servers which allows players to log in under a particular profile. The WZ 2100 program allows players to download and upload profile information on a max basis (i.e. upwards revisable only in the case of techs and campaign progress)

This would solve all the problems you foresee with the idea expressed as even if the server dies a player can re-update information easily.

For further security's sake a 2nd removed username could be used to prevent hacking of passwords. Lets say that a player chooses the name 'mantis' in-game. In order to play as 'mantis' he has to log in as 'cobra' - this meaning that players attempting to hack mantis would fail because it simply doesn't exist (for that player anyway).

But this is an unnecessary upping of complexity.

http://guide.wz2100.net/ contains charts of everything relevant to a typical game. Its weapon table is particularly useful.

If you want more detailed information, http://developer.wz2100.net/wiki/TxtEditing will tell you the format of the game's data files, which can be found by making a copy of mp.wz, renaming it to mp.zip, extracting it, and navigating to stats/.

Thank you - I had missed all of this ^_^