Not logged inOpenClonk Forum
Up Topic General / General / Discussion: The Base
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-15 17:38

>Note that this kind of gameplay is very usual for strategy games: We have "magic borders" in Settlers, where a tower will keep you from building. Same thing in Civilization, where it's the cultural borders or the pretty arbitrary "x tiles apart" rule. Or the creep in Starcraft.


That is true, and it is also true that this is widely accepted.
But there are as many games that use the free approach (AoE, WCIII) where building a base right into the face of your opponent (if you can actually pull it off) is a very valid strategy and also widely accepted :)

>The strategic angle: If you can't build at a location, it's a position that you haven't currently claimed with your flag


The other viewpoint would be: If your enemy can build at a position your don't like (in front of your base) it is a position that you did not protect enough - since it usually takes more effort for the enemy to get there than it would take you to prevent the enemy from doing that. (It only worked in CR because the construction-material-rule was not usable for melees and therefore deactivated -> you could build hard to destroy stuff with only a conkit)
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-15 18:04
The reason that this works in WC3 is because physical access doesn't give you ownership. Your base can and will still defend itself when there's another one directly besides it. On the other hand, a base without a functioning front door is completely useless, because anyone can just come in and repurpose everything.

But okay, if the only issue here is the building block extending to normal buildings, I am willing to go back on that.
Parent - - By Günther [de] Date 2011-02-16 17:17

> Or the creep in Starcraft.


Starcraft is an interesting example as it combines both (or three? I'm unsure whether Protoss can build in the radius of enemy protoss energy suppliers) approaches. It also has only very few exceptions to the eternally loyal robots.

In Settlers, you have to imagine that your people are frightened by the enemy soldiers, and then you have your ingame explanation. Clonk has only soldier that are directly controlled by the player, so restricting their ability to raise a flag feels wrong. Sure, make the robots in the buildings keep their allegiance to the flag that was there first. But what is gained by requiring the player to first destroy, then raise instead of letting them choose the order? That way, the defending player can sometimes also have the choice between destroying the attackers flag and defending their own.
Reply
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-17 12:39

> so restricting their ability to raise a flag feels wrong.


Doesn't really hold to me... The flag isn't as much as a building as it is a symbol: This belongs to me. And it feels intuitive to me that once something belongs to someone else, you can't claim it at the same time.
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-17 14:15
I'd suggest the second one:

I think that's even the way it works in Settlers. And I want as few artificial restrictions as possible :)
..You could actually prepare "aggressive" flags that way, if the enemy lets you, yay!
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-17 14:47
Hm. Not sure. That way we really have to have a region visualization onscreen the whole time, otherwise it might get unclear which flag actually claims the overlap region.
Parent - - By Günther [de] Date 2011-02-17 15:18
I think it'd be enough to mark every robot that obeys the flag. That would be helpful in any case to distinguish between dumb objects which can be used by any Clonks and smart objects which cooperate only with a select few. Depending on how new robots that are built in reach of multiple flags choose their allegiance, a region visualization during building placement might or might not be needed.
Reply
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-17 15:29
Robot is a strange term for pretty much every production building, door or shaft... Do we want small markers on all of them? I suppose it wouldn't hurt as long as it doesn't get into the way of how things look.
Parent - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-17 15:56
Small color-by-owner regions could even look good on most of the buildings :)
And if not: Seeing the outline the whole time would also not hurt / be too much, if done correctly, imo
Parent - - By Günther [de] Date 2011-02-18 00:12
Well, do you have a better term? Robot is a nice term for something that actively does stuff as a reaction to changes in the environment. The only other term I can think of is automat. But that is apparently seldom enough in English to be considered wrong by the spelling correction. :-)

And yes, I think it is important that one can know how something is going to react just by looking at it. Other games do that with player-color-markers on everything as well.
Reply
Parent - By Ringwaul [ca] Date 2011-02-18 08:10

>The only other term I can think of is automat. But that is apparently seldom enough in English to be considered wrong by the spelling correction. :-)


In Canadian English at least, that would be 'automaton'. Google doesn't turn up any similar results for 'automat' in English (to mean a 'robot', or something similar, anyways). :/
Reply
Parent - - By Caesar [de] Date 2011-02-17 15:16
With a minimum distance?
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-17 15:55
No, why?
Parent - By Caesar [de] Date 2011-02-17 16:05
Because you could abuse a small, accidentally uncovered place in the base.
Parent - - By B_E [de] Date 2011-02-17 16:00
Why not forbid building flags in double the flag-radius of another flag?
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-17 17:23
That was what I proposed to begin with, but building restrictions aren't very popular it seems. Also see Günther's argument: Otherwise flag areas can only touch in points, leaving areas above and below that are in fact impossible to claim.
Parent - - By Günther [de] Date 2011-02-17 15:28
In a wargame, of course you can claim stuff that belongs to someone else, that's the whole point! ;-)

But a more practical aspect is that you should be able to claim the region just outside the enemies base. It's unclaimed territory, after all. You shouldn't have to place the flag precisely at the exact minimum distance in a certain angle to another flag, maybe even build a tower or dig a hole to reach that spot, just to claim a good position for a tower that just happens to be near the enemies border.
Reply
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-17 15:33
Yes, I see. Still, we could have at least some minimum distance between all flags. Maybe the above-mentioned X? It would feel strange to me to build a flag directly next to the enemy flag in order to claim essentially nothing.
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-17 15:58

>It would feel strange to me to build a flag directly next to the enemy flag in order to claim essentially nothing.


It would feel strange to me to build an anvil right next to another of my anvils. Should be implement minimum distances for anvils, too? :)
The player knows what the flag will claim. If he still decides to build it there he better make that part of a good plan - but he should still be able to do that if he really wants to.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-17 17:09
There's a point where we need to start saving the the player from himself. Oh well, luckily this is the kind of thing that we can safely try out once we have an implementation.
Parent - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-17 18:01
..also you could just deconstruct the flag again :)
but yeah, trying here
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-15 18:06 Edited 2011-02-15 18:09
My idea of ownership would be the following:
Where do you actually need behavior that changes according to your owner?
Do you actually have to "own" that anvil? What is different if you "own" that anvil? The enemy is magically blocked from using it? Why?
That much for the easy part: I would not link any behavior of production buildings to ownership (actually like it was in CR, except for some special cases).

Harder to fit in are: Defensive structures, CR-like bases and the placement of buildings (especially towers etc).

I will start with the easiest again: The bases. In CR they would be the place in the game where you noticed ownership most: Your enemys were denied entrance while you were healed and could buy stuff.
My current suggestion would be to replace the "base" with some sort of "trading outpost" - removing the healing part. The outpost could be marked with a flag (CR-style) and that flag would mark the player who is currently allowed to trade there (CR). The flag/outpost could be a lot more vulnerable to attacks, though, because the flags would not have to be as rare as in CR (=you start with one and every new one costs a fortune).
The flag could even be removable from the outside resulting in kicking your traders (your Clonks in the outpost) out, so that you could not hide there from enemies (but would still have some shelter from e.g. monsters).

now defensive structures:
Towers/gates/drawbridges/turrets would be the next thing where ownership would make "sense" (compared to e.g. an anvil): Enemies could be denied access while allies could freely use them. But why? I really don't see more necessity of that here than there is with the anvil.
The defensive structures should be used by everyone who actually gets into the position of using them - classically that would be standing in front of them. You argued that it would give more tactical depth if you have to think about the placement and defense of your flag - that is true, but in my opinion it would even result in more tactical depth if you would have to think about the layout of your whole base.

Now to the tricky part: The I-build-a-tower-into-your-face strategy from CR.
I really think that the reason why it was possible in CR was the following: the strength of buildings was balanced around the construction material. BUT you would probably have construction material deactivated in melees because it was uneralistic to build a proper castle if you would have to put 1000 rocks into it.
Another important point is that buildings had their full defensive potential from the moment when you selected the from the conkit-menu: Even if the tower was only 1% constructed you already needed a dozen flints to destroy it.
Imagine the following changed circumstances: construction material is rebalanced so that it is suitable for melees, unfinished contruction sited can easily be destroyed or even just deconstructed.
How are you going to build a tower right in front of my tower without me sleeping?
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-15 19:59
Yeah, proper ownership would be a new feature. I feel it makes sense, and can give only lame long-shot and design-smell arguments. I want to see a whole castle changing colors. I want to think about colored game maps that actually mean something. You obviously don't. The question is: How do we proceed from here? Make a poll out of it?
Parent - - By Maikel Date 2011-02-15 22:33

>Make a poll out of it?


If you decide to do so, you should clarify - read summarize - the discussion so far. I completely lost track of it and I don't really feel like reading through the numerous threads, where this topic and related issues are discussed, again.
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-16 12:24 Edited 2011-02-16 12:28
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.
Parent - - By Newton [de] Date 2011-02-15 23:13 Edited 2011-02-15 23:18
No. That's not how it works. I won't vote on some theoretical concepts of ownership without actually seeing it in action, in the gameplay. We will try out whatever gets implemented (as prototype) and see what becomes accepted in the long run.

That is why this whole discussion looks a bit senseless to me (and others, probably, you and Zapper wrote 90% of all posts here). You seem to be in search for the in your eyes "perfect concept" and frankly, to me it appears like you think you have to defend your thesis against other people now.
This is no disputation.
Concepts like this can only act as a source of inspiration (and thus must be written like that), never as a specification, because after all, it is up to the guys that implement it. Currently, it doesn't look like that will be you. Of course you can try to force people on a concept (including by "democratically" voting about it) but you will find out quickly that this is a bad idea.

A senior project manager at my work once said: "Überraschenderweise wird der Erfolg eines Projektes nicht an der Qualität des Produktes, an der Güte des Konzeptes oder der termingerechten Abgabe gemessen sondern daran wie glücklich alle Beteiligten damit am Ende sind." ("Surprisingly, the success of a project is not measured on the quality of the product, the concept or the delivery on schedule but on how happy all involved people are at the end.") That is valid of course for the process of project development too.
If you think you have a really good concept, you can only either implement it yourself or find people who do it for you.
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-16 12:56
Yes, we are trying to develop a common vision here, that's the idea? Obviously it won't be implemented exactly like this, but I can't put "ideally" in every sentence I write. The clearer the plan is now, the better the chances that we can work out fundamental misunderstandings instead of having developers going "uh, this is actually not what I wanted" in the end.
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-16 19:32
I am currently trying to see the positive aspects about your system, but some issues still remain:

How would you control e.g. the gates of a tower? I really dislike automatization there because it tends to open your gates when you are fighting with an enemy in front of it (or to not open them when you need it most).
My favourite would be to let the player control the buildings with the mouse (modifier+click tower->select "open left gate". done.) You would also be able to control "automatic" defense structures yourself (anti air cannon from CR). Defending your base when you can control only one Clonk would be a lot easier. (Game would have to be rebalanced of course - don't imagine CR with a stronger defense)

You don't need physical access to "use" the flag. "fighting for the enemy flag" would mean "blast through a lot of concrete". How to solve that? How do you actually "conquer" a flag? (stand in front of it/blow it up?)

What happens to powerlines/pneumatic tubes when they are connecting two buildings that do not belong to the same owner (one was conquered)? Imo they should just cease to function and not disconnect - that would mean that you would have to rebuild your whole base after every fight.

What happens if the enemy (player A) conquers a flag that covers buildings that are still covered by another player (player B)? It cannot be a "radius" here. It would have to be an area like in Settlers, right? So you could protect your outer towers by just having more than one flag.
If you have more than one flag - how could the enemy expect to conquer them all without dying at least once at losing what he had gained? After having blast through the concrete to conquer the flag he would have to do that two more times to actually gain anything

(I still don't like the healing stuff, but that is another question that does not directly belong to the ownership part ;)   )
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-16 23:08 Edited 2011-02-16 23:12

> I really dislike automatization there because it tends to open your gates when you are fighting with an enemy in front of it


Hence you should use manually-controlled drawbridges for that. This way, we might also get away without having to ask "which door do you mean?"

> You would also be able to control "automatic" defense structures yourself


Hm, doesn't that kind of kill the point of them being automatic? They don't strike me as essential to the design though, so I would like to keep details open.

> What happens to powerlines


We would have none. Currently I'm toying with the thought of having the base aggregate the energy for you - with the upside of no "Kabelsalat" and a nice central location to show your energy statistics. Overlapping base areas could transfer power.

> pneumatic tubes


What should these do?

> when they are connecting two buildings that do not belong to the same owner (one was conquered)?


Hence replacing everything with implicit (magical!) connections using the flag.

> What happens if the enemy (player A) conquers a flag that covers buildings that are still covered by another player (player B)?


Okay, here are a few more details:
* To build a flag, its construction must be initiated and it must be grabbed by a Clonk until construction finishes.
* If no Clonk grabs it at a point during construction or its position becomes covered by an enemy base, it automatically start deconstructing.
* When an (enemy) Clonk grabs the flag after full construction, it deconstructs. If he stops or gets interrupted, the flags starts reconstructing.

Therefore, conquering is actuall a two-step process: First remove the enemy flag, then install your own. The second step might actually be impossible if another flag is nearby.

> After having blast through the concrete


Yeah, that's a problem. Somehow physical access to the flag must be important for the defending player as well. Hm, healing? ;)
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-16 23:22

>What should these do?


Well, for example transport items between buildings. Or let's say we are going to have (dwarf fortress) mechanisms that link two structures where ownership is important. Something like that.

>Yeah, that's a problem. Somehow physical access to the flag must be important for the defending player as well. Hm, healing? ;)


If you would have to stand directly in front of it to heal it would not even achieve what you wanted it to achieve in the beginning :P
Also: I imagine the base to have more than 1 flag. So it can be nothing that access to one flag could solve. ("I cannot heal at my defense flag? Well, whatever, I got 1000 more")

>Therefore, conquering is actuall a two-step process: First remove the enemy flag, then install your own. The second step might actually be impossible if another flag is nearby.


So you cannot blow it up with explosives?

>We would have none. Currently I'm toying with the thought of having the base aggregate the energy for you


Could work

>Hence you should use manually-controlled drawbridges for that. This way, we might also get away without having to ask "which door do you mean?"


Mhmh, but you DO have the concept of opening/using stuff with mouseclicks, right? So let's say we have automatic doors you could for example still lock the door (dwarf fortress like)?

>They don't strike me as essential to the design though


Essential would be the following questions (that's what I aimed at): Can you control stuff without physical access and only using the mouse? But from what I understood until now that would be the case
Parent - - By Randrian [de] Date 2011-02-16 23:45
What about not being able to build a new flag in a given radius to your old flag? That would solve the 1000 Flag issue.

Why not both? Explosives and manuall deconstruction? Btw. I like the concept of manual deconstructing. I always hated the fact that being in the enemy base without expolsives seemd in some cases very pointless. So the enemy should at least have a urge to get you out.
Reply
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-17 11:07

> Why not both? Explosives and manuall deconstruction?


Because you will use explosives to blow through the surrounding structural and production buildings. Say, with a cannon. That's already powerful enough - I feel that forcing the attacker to have a Clonk there to deal the final blow might make it more interesting.
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-17 14:17

>I feel that forcing the attacker to have a Clonk there to deal the final blow might make it more interesting.


On the other hand it would probably be "easier" to blast a tiny hole into the block of concrete that contains the flag than completely getting rid of it so that you can place one of your Clonks there :)
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-17 14:48
Let's just assume we find a way to get rid of the concrete strategy, shall we? :)
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-17 16:10
Well, that is still the point that annoys me most about that concept (except for the still-unclear automatization). Even in Clonk Rage you would fuse your flag (on a small castle) in metal so that the enemy can't reach it.

If you have a good idea how to solve that, tell me - until then I will remain sceptical :)
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-17 17:35
Yes, it also annoys me the most currently. I thought of it before and had kind of forgot about it. This is essentially the Paxhill thing, only now even more problematic.

Brainstorming:
* Built flags could be very large and hard-to-cover. At least harder than the old flags or crowns (<- won't be more than a minor factor).
* Make it necessary for players to visit their flags at regular intervals. Priority on flags in contested territory.
* Make Clonks respawn at the nearest flags (<- my favorite right now).
* Making flags rare might make them so precious that you would want to be able to retrieve them when going back (<- long shot, needs tricky balancing)
* Clonks standing by the flag strengthen its "aura", therefore overpowering an existing flag (<- Clonks standing around are lame)
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-17 18:17

>* Built flags could be very large and hard-to-cover. At least harder than the old flags or crowns (<- won't be more than a minor factor).


At the moment I imagine them to fit into one castle wall

>* Make Clonks respawn at the nearest flags (<- my favorite right now).


No, thanks. How are you actually going to deconstruct the enemy flag if not after killing his Clonks?

I don't really like your suggestions regarding that but I honestly have no better solution at the moment. Maybe we don't even need to protect it that much if blowing it free is "easy" enough. I mean: You have 10 inventory slots for explosives
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-17 18:51

> No, thanks. How are you actually going to deconstruct the enemy flag if not after killing his Clonks?


Respawns would have a timer, obviously. And having a naked Clonk spawning now and then really won't make that much of a difference for your attack.
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-17 18:55
..Implying that you only have one Clonk.. :)

How would you control the drawbridge from the inside if you only have one Clonk and can't control it with the mouse from the outside? :)

PS: Also I still think that you should have a limited amount of Clonks rather than lose if the enemy conquers all your flags (+kills you=no respawn).
Just because I think that the Clonk-to-Clonk fights should have priority and so that you don't just constantly do suicide attacks on the enemy (trying to avoid direct combat).
See also the Caedes experience :)
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-18 16:12
Not really implying anything, but everything should be doable with only one Clonk, yes. Drawbridges are for large bases, where you can ask a teammate to open the drawbridge.

> Just because I think that the Clonk-to-Clonk fights should have priority and so that you don't just constantly do suicide attacks on the enemy (trying to avoid direct combat).


I completely disagree. If we want Clonk-to-Clonk fights, we should make simple melees. If we're doing settlement melees, the settlement aspect must mean something. We have a number of variable we can tweak once suicide attacks become a problem (time required to deconstruct flag, cost of structural buildings, respawn time...). That it turned out to be hard in Caedes doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-18 17:44

>where you can ask a teammate to open the drawbridge.


..implying you have teammates in your base :)
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-18 17:52
Obviously. If you plan on many return trips, you should either make sure that's the case - or use a normal door.
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-18 16:19

> conquers all your flags (+kills you=no respawn).


And to prevent misunderstandings: That would be logical, yes, but I wouldn't force all scenarios to work that way. They could declare flags as permanent, for example, and then provide other means of winning the round.
Parent - - By Nachtschatten Date 2011-02-17 18:39 Edited 2011-02-17 18:42

> Brainstorming:


- Flags might only have an effect on objects that are "in sight" (not blocked by solid material, except solid masks so that the flag still works for castles)
- Flags might deconstruct/break down when covered with solid material (from the weight, so to say); this would also introduce a way to attack and remove the enemy flag.
Reply
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-17 18:46

>this would also introduce a way to attack and remove the enemy flag.


By entering the enemy base with a lorry and 50 Earth? :D

>- Flags might only have an effect on objects that are "in sight" (not blocked by solid material, except solid masks so that the flag still works for castles)


Seems to overcomplicate stuff and limits possible defenses

>- Flags might deconstruct/break down when covered with solid material (from the weight, so to say); this would also introduce a way to attack and remove the enemy flag.


Sounds better, but by now I really doubt we will need that at all: Wheter I blast through one layer of metal or a bit thicker layer of concrete does not really make a difference
Parent - - By Clonkonaut [de] Date 2011-02-18 15:37

> Seems to overcomplicate stuff and limits possible defenses


In fact, this only limits the possible defence of surrounding the whole flag with stuff and leave not a single access point ;)
Reply
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-18 17:48
It actually also prevents your from extending a tower with a loam wall or sealing a completely unrelated part of your base with metal, because both would block the line of sight ;)

Hell, it actually prevents your from extending your base with a subterranean area (=a cave) if you do not want to make a huge effort to dig a line of sight to your own flag
Parent - By Clonkonaut [de] Date 2011-02-18 18:26
Okay, I missread Nachtschatten's suggestion. I thought he just wanted to limit the healing/'whatever Clonks cand do there' effect of the flag not everything it does.
Reply
Parent - By Nachtschatten Date 2011-02-22 16:29 Edited 2011-02-22 16:32

> It actually also prevents your from extending a tower with a loam wall or sealing a completely unrelated part of your base with metal


I must admit that I'd welcome that. I have a memory of a melee round (very faint, though. Perhaps it was CoFuT?) where I made my way into my opponent's castle, only to find that I couldn't do a thing. It was like a maze of concrete and metal and stuff. That's wasn't fun. I guess, as Günther noted similarly before, the landscape can be turned into a much too terrible opponent.

> Hell, it actually prevents your from extending your base with a subterranean area (=a cave)


If you have a second base in a cave, why not put a second flag there?
Reply
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-17 18:55

> - Flags might deconstruct/break down when covered with solid material


Doesn't really solve covering the surroundings with solid material. I mean, as an enemy only needs to touch it in order to remove it, there's actually no point filling the interior with concrete.
Up Topic General / General / Discussion: The Base
1 2 3 4 Previous Next

Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill