Topic Discussion: The Base
This board is threaded (i.e. has a tree structure). Please use the Reply button of the specific post you are referring to, not just any random button. If you want to reply to the topic in general, use the Post button near the top and bottom of the page.
In Response to PeterW
That's why I restarted the discussion with the top-level post - I felt we were getting lost in details and lost track of the core issue. I thought we were already on the same page here, and obviously I was wrong.
Right now, I'm only interested in how many are willing to follow me with making this the basis upon which we build settlement melees.
There are two options here:
* Represent ownership directly - a flag tells you "this belongs to team X"
* Represent ownership indirectly - whoever happens to have access to something owns it
It's a pretty subtle issue. Here's an even more cleared up list of my arguments:
* Flags allow you to have passive bonuses (say, healing, doors opening, or buildings blocks), while access pretty much limits you to active bonuses - you have to walk there to prove access.
* Ownership is more stable in combat situations. Access can change quickly and uncontrollably, often leading to chaos. With flags, you control complexity: You have "won" at a discrete point in time and you don't have to look hard at a few blocking pixels in order to check whether something truly belongs to you.
* We can attach other stuff to flags or ownership as appropriate, like goals: "Hold ownership of point X for Y minutes", or "Each team has 3 flags, whoever conquers all enemy flags wins". We get a lot of stuff for free that scenarios have been reimplementing over and over again.
Why am I making such a fuss? Pretty much everything can be done with access rules, and Zapper has certainly shown that - like healing = access to medical buildings, doors opening = access to locks, buildings block = unhindered access to build location, buying/selling = access to trade depot. So at this point, we either add ownership and make enough of these mechanism passive that flags are actually worth something (the more the better), or we remove it and have to make them all active. For the way I approach this, this is pretty much an all-or-nothing issue.
Right now, I'm only interested in how many are willing to follow me with making this the basis upon which we build settlement melees.
There are two options here:
* Represent ownership directly - a flag tells you "this belongs to team X"
* Represent ownership indirectly - whoever happens to have access to something owns it
It's a pretty subtle issue. Here's an even more cleared up list of my arguments:
* Flags allow you to have passive bonuses (say, healing, doors opening, or buildings blocks), while access pretty much limits you to active bonuses - you have to walk there to prove access.
* Ownership is more stable in combat situations. Access can change quickly and uncontrollably, often leading to chaos. With flags, you control complexity: You have "won" at a discrete point in time and you don't have to look hard at a few blocking pixels in order to check whether something truly belongs to you.
* We can attach other stuff to flags or ownership as appropriate, like goals: "Hold ownership of point X for Y minutes", or "Each team has 3 flags, whoever conquers all enemy flags wins". We get a lot of stuff for free that scenarios have been reimplementing over and over again.
Why am I making such a fuss? Pretty much everything can be done with access rules, and Zapper has certainly shown that - like healing = access to medical buildings, doors opening = access to locks, buildings block = unhindered access to build location, buying/selling = access to trade depot. So at this point, we either add ownership and make enough of these mechanism passive that flags are actually worth something (the more the better), or we remove it and have to make them all active. For the way I approach this, this is pretty much an all-or-nothing issue.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill