![[gb]](/mwf/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
> - 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)
I had also thought about that but don't really like it either. It means that an enemy can disable a whole part of the castle with simple loam - the opposite of the stability the flag should provide. Also it doesn't really solve the problem: All the defender needs to do is leave a few hole so the important buildings are covered, but Clonks don't get through.
> Also it doesn't really solve the problem: All the defender needs to do is leave a few hole so the important buildings are covered, but Clonks don't get through.
The attacker might be able to throw an earth chunk through the holes, but, yes. That argument pretty much kills the idea. :(
Covering the flag with landscape objects is just one problem of the larger problem of the neutral landscape that hinders everybody. Whether you have to use flints to free an enemy flag or loam to reach the enemy - once both sides don't have enough resources to conquer the landscape, the game is a stalemate. I think we should ensure that Clonks can deal with any changes other Clonks can do to the landscape, whether or not a flag is involved.
Not sure what you a proposing. Removing concrete and metal bridges, perhaps? I would say that normal games could simply solve the stalemate problem by having a gold supply...
Possibly only making concrete and metal bridges easier to destroy. Or introducing mightier destruction tools.
Well, following your line of thought, it would have to cheap. Maybe make showels penetrate rock and conrete, but just very slowly?
>Or introducing mightier destruction tools.
We actually have mightier deconstruction tools: A ten slot inventory.
I really think that could even be enough to prevent that issue
> Well, for example transport items between buildings
I'm still not convinced that this would fit well. It's yet another "second layer" in the game, and currently I can neither imagine how I would build it nor a way that it might look good. Could someone write this up?
> Or let's say we are going to have (dwarf fortress) mechanisms that link two structures where ownership is important.
Well, I think I would then go for Dwarf Fortress rules: A door that's linked to a mechanism overrides ownership rules (doesn't open automatically anymore etc). You'd have to remove the link - which should be relatively easy - in order to break it.
By the way - weren't we talking earlier about that we need something that a gear could do? They could actually be our version of mechanics: Use it like a line kit, linked gears on both sides.
> So let's say we have automatic doors you could for example still lock the door (dwarf fortress like)?
Hm, had not really planned on it... But with mechanics, you could probably attach gears and never attach the other end to get a "lock". That way we don't need to introduce another system. Would that sound okay?
> Can you control stuff without physical access and only using the mouse?
I think for active control you still would need to walk there, then maybe use the mouse there in order to select what you want from the menu. The flag is magical, not the Clonk.
>Would that sound okay?
Well, you would not need flags for that.. :)
The advantage of your flag thing is ownership - that actually defines who can use stuff WITHOUT having physical access. Attaching gears would be physical access
I have no problem with enabling the player to override the default rules where he sees fit - and is willing to put time and material into it. I see this having a place with really heavily fortified castles, where you would operate the drawbridge from a central location in order to not lose it to the enemy as quickly. Or have trap doors opening, flooding conquered parts of the castle.
As I saw it the main advantage was that you could "remote-control" your buildings.You yourself said that on the outside of the castle you would have drawbridges that would not open automatically. Also you said that the flag thing would solve the issue that you could lock yourself out of your own base. How so if you will have only drawbridges there?
Well, if the player actively chooses to lock himself out, he can do so. Being afraid that the enemy might sneak up on him is a valid point, after all.
But I thought earlier that was one argument FOR the ownership because you could control your gates from the outside <.<
PS: I really do want to control the buildings with a mouse. Right now that is the strongest pro-argument I can see (because handling a base is a lot easier and organizing the defense is a lot easier -> therefore the attacker can also be equipped with stronger stuff and hopefully the fights will be more interesting because we have less stalemates)
PS:Where could you actually build buildings?
Only in your flag area or just not in the enemy area? I would prefer if you could build "neutral" buildings if you feel like doing so. (They would not have access to e.g. power of course, though)
Yes, everywhere but in the enemies' base area. Though it might be harder, because only with a flag nearby you can (rush-?)buy the building.
I don't like being able to buy buildings, make them easier to build, sure. But not simply buy them :/
Hm, getting side-tracked again here. But to cite yourself:
How would you do that without buying buildings?
The reasoning is easy: With a base nearby, in CR you would buy the base materials, carry them a few meters and build. I'm just cutting out the middle men, so to speak. Don't forget that I intend gold to be a very scarce resource. Many settlement scenarios might have no way of earning gold whatsoever, effectively making it your embark kit.
> But one plus that the old base functionality had should not be forgotten: You could actually drop the player right into any landscape.
How would you do that without buying buildings?
The reasoning is easy: With a base nearby, in CR you would buy the base materials, carry them a few meters and build. I'm just cutting out the middle men, so to speak. Don't forget that I intend gold to be a very scarce resource. Many settlement scenarios might have no way of earning gold whatsoever, effectively making it your embark kit.
>How would you do that without buying buildings?
Well, as I said (in the very post where you got the quote from btw):
You start with some sort of temporary trading outpost (tent) where you could buy stuff to get your base going. Buying stuff should be made a lot more unpleasant for the player, though.
But that would not need the additional concept of buying buildings. And you could only buy, for example, one type of material: Building A needs 1 wood and 1 rock. You have plenty of wood but no rocks. With my suggestion you would buy one rock and take your own wood. With your suggestion you would have to buy the whole building, right?
And if not: Wouldn't that make it even more complicated and actually be a "bad" substitute for buying the material itself?
> You start with some sort of temporary trading outpost (tent)
Like with the supply waggons in Western? Hm, not sure I like it too much. I really want to keep the possibility of having a quick hybrid settlement-melee where you get gold per minute and can do crazy stuff like dropping behind the enemy with just a hammer and a flag and rushbuy a whole base from you savings.
> With your suggestion you would have to buy the whole building, right?
Well, half right. You could still buy the remaining material at the production building. If you have rocks but no wood, you can get the remaining wood at the sawmill. Won't work the other way round though without the rock-equivalent having a preprocessing building (which I would suggest).
Sure, it forces you to build a sawmill, that's the obvious weakness. But wouldn't you want that one sooner or later anyway once you're starting to build stuff from raw material? It is kind of pushing you into a state where it works better, not the worst thing in a design.
>rushbuy a whole base from you savings.
I really want the buildings to be pretty cheap - maybe one block of stone for one tower/wall (made out of let's say three rocks at your base). So you could carry a flag, a hammer and 8 blocks of stone. Enough for a pretty decent base - and don't forget that you could also setup a tent there (or something similar to the CR "office": trading office for a castle wall)! If you have savings you could still buy supplies there
>But wouldn't you want that one sooner or later anyway once you're starting to build stuff from raw material?
I see how your system works, but I really don't see the benefits of it at the moment. Some sort of trading outpost would do basically all your buying-at-buildings would do but just more free: You could start the scenario, instantly build an anvil and produce your first spear (with one bought metal) in case there are monsters, for example
What exactly do you mean by "cheap"? I am all in favour of stuff constructing from, say, only one stone block and wood - as long as those are expensive enough.
Uhm. If I now start listing the benefits I see, Newton will again start making fun of me. We might want to do this in another thread or something. Let's just say my favourite argument is that you can keep the enemy from having access to, say, flints, by destroying his chemical lab.
> but I really don't see the benefits of it at the moment
Uhm. If I now start listing the benefits I see, Newton will again start making fun of me. We might want to do this in another thread or something. Let's just say my favourite argument is that you can keep the enemy from having access to, say, flints, by destroying his chemical lab.
>What exactly do you mean by "cheap"?
On the one hand "cheap" to carry around (do not require a lot of ways (after you have produced e.g. the block of stone from three rocks) and on the other hand actually cheap (three rocks are not that expensive). Note that I am talking about the defense structures (aka castle walls) here!!!
That is, buildings that you are going to build over and over again. In my imagination you can build, let's say a wall, for one block of stone and then upgrade it to a stronger wall, a tower, an outer wall, whatever for another block of stone - keeping it simple and extensible at the same time
>Let's just say my favourite argument is that you can keep the enemy from having access to, say, flints, by destroying his chemical lab.
I don't like that, but yes, we should discuss that at another point..mh, i will write down the system as I imagine it now to have another root for a discussion (and to clear up my mind :) )
I will summarize my current idea of the settlement (aka castle-building and base-having) concept here. To clear up my mind and to have another start for a discussion (because I think if you start to read this thread you will most likely get lost at some point.. :) )And hey, the discussion was useful! My idea of the concept changed a lot from the last time I summarized it.. :)
Okay, let’s start:
Flags:
Every player starts with a flag, that flag has a certain radius. Every building in that radius belongs to you: Enemies can for example not open chests, use workshops or open towers in that area.
You can extent that area by building more flags. I will call it the base-area from now on.
The only building restriction that you have is that you cannot construct buildings in the enemies’ base-area. That implies that you can build “neutral” buildings that can be used by every player. Certain buildings where the usages is restricted to allies like towers and drawbridges will do nothing when they are neutral and are therefore not functional.
You can conquer neutral buildings if you extent your base-area so that it covers those buildings.
You can take down enemy flags manually (deconstruct them) to reduce the enemy’s base-area. Buildings that are no longer part of the base-area due to the loss of a flag become neutral and can be conquered again.
Flags are also buildings and can therefore not be build in enemy area.
If two base-areas of opponents intersect, the area that the newer flag would give to it’s owner will be reduced to the border of the older area. See http://h-3.abload.de/img/flagexampledgzx.jpg
Shopping (aka trading):
I imagine the player to start with a temporary trading outpost (a tent e.g.) where he can buy starting materials for his journey. Buying stuff will be only feasible in the beginning of a game since the cost of certain goods rise the more of that kind you buy. You can however lower the cost again by selling goods of that certain type (probably not for the full price, though).
This should help the player to get started in any possible situation - even if he, for example, does not instantly have access to wood/rocks/ore that are required to build a certain building which he needs to proceed.
Note: Such a trading outpost would not automatically heal the player. Automatic healing would be replaced by another production line for food (and of course food to buy in the trading outpost, to get your game going).
Raw materials:
I imagine that every raw material should have at least one production step to make it usable (at least for construction) - I will show an example of why this makes sense later. (3 rocks -> block of stone, 3 wood -> wooden board, etc.)
[PS: also, importance of automatic production lines!]
Castles - the “hull” of your base:
All production buildings should be able to be built in front of a castle wall. The player will no longer have the possibility to chose between a workshop and a castle-workshop.
In fact, the only castle buildings he can directly select from the construction menu will be the wall. Standard walls are pretty cheap (1 block of stone f.e.), fast to build and can be upgraded to towers, drawbridges, stronger walls, outer walls, etc. by using additional material.
The place where you would notice the base-areas most will be controllable/automatic structures like doors (automatic, single door in front of a wall as opposed to doors on both sides) or drawbridges (only manual control).
[PS: The "ownership" aspect of the flag only propagates to structures. Not to, for example, cannons or blimps.]
The player will be able to control allied structures (in an allied base-area) with his mouse. That means that he can remotely opening e.g. a drawbridge by using some modifier key (Space, the “interact” key, would work) and clicking on the drawbridge. Doors (that are automatic) can be locked in the same way.
Why does it make sense to remove the need of physical access (=standing in front of your building) to use said building?:
It makes the base a lot easier to manage by one person, who can commit to the fights without having to worry about opening a backdoor so that he can get back into his base or running around the whole time, strengthening the defensive abilities of a base a lot.
A stronger defense with a quicker construction of buildings also implies that the offensive possibilities of the players have to be stronger, leading to more dynamic fights that can actually gain or lose parts of a base and also solving the issue that you could either fight or construct stuff (implying construction material is activated) in CR: Once the enemy was putting pressure on your base you could no longer reconstruct parts of it or try to build up a new defense because it would take too long so that you could not fight the enemy at the same time.
[PS: Also the interaction would be easier when you have 10 lorries in front of your tower!!]
The quicker construction of castle parts would also have the effect that you could quickly build up a base behind enemy lines, for example! Don’t forget that you can carry 10 items of which 8 can probably be blocks of stones. (as opposed to carrying 30 single rocks)
Other thoughts:
The base area could also define the area where your buildings have access to, for example, electricity as opposed to electric lines.
Sounds neat. But it's only as good as what the scenarios/campaigns make out of it. The flag, the trade outpost etc. might just as well end up as a rarity in some specific "base-melee" scenario.> The player will be able to control allied structures (in an allied base-area) with his mouse.
Hm, don't know about that...
> electricity as opposed to electric lines.
I liked to build up this kind of infrastructure though.
>The flag, the trade outpost etc. might just as well end up as a rarity in some specific "base-melee" scenario.
The goal is to design it so that it works with both pure settlement and settlement melees.
Without a trading outpost, for example, you would not be able to buy stuff. Sure, there might be a special settlement melee where the author does not want the players to buy stuff - but I guess that will be rare.
>I liked to build up this kind of infrastructure though.
This kind of infrastructure should most likely be replaced with actual infrastructure to automatize your production lines. (also the CR interface for electric lines was horrible!)
>Hm, don't know about that...
Well, that post should be a new base for a discussion: What don't you like about it? What problems does it create in your opinion? :)
> I liked to build up this kind of infrastructure though.
I also kind of liked it for the first two buildings. I started hating it for the next dozen. Especially when you have some buildings and lines that might get destroyed at some point, at which point the wiring often becomes pure trial-and-error.
I really don't see any gameplay value here worth keeping. All I see is that we have finally killed the underground base running on windmills.
Hey, I liked it as well. Yes, the lines went chaotic in settlement melees or really large settlements.
But we shouldn't remove them. I'm all for changing / simplifying the system. But the problem is that cabels are already a mess in real life, it's kind of naturally that they always are a mess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFXoe8WEWXU - I so wanna build electricity lines.
But we shouldn't remove them. I'm all for changing / simplifying the system. But the problem is that cabels are already a mess in real life, it's kind of naturally that they always are a mess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFXoe8WEWXU - I so wanna build electricity lines.
Oh, now you are trying to bring something into the design on the grounds that it is not fun? Clever ;)
Please try to find out what aspect of the power lines you found fun, maybe we can bring it back in another form. For example, I would kind of like to retain lines for mechanisms.
Please try to find out what aspect of the power lines you found fun, maybe we can bring it back in another form. For example, I would kind of like to retain lines for mechanisms.
>I would kind of like to retain lines for mechanisms.
Yepp, and imaginary lines to set up your production routes. Sounds a lot more promising than the electric lines. :)
>Oh, now you are trying to bring something into the design on the grounds that it is not fun? Clever ;)
>Please try to find out what aspect of the power lines you found fun, maybe we can bring it back in another form
Very bad attitude, scientist. Feelings are something to consider because they often feature a true core underneath them, even if I don't know why I still write them down - rather than mocking you could think about that yourself, it's you after all who wants to remove a system which no one ever complained about.
1. Energy currently is a building attribut, without lines it sort of becomes an area attribute. This means I could for example cut several buildings off power with one simple klick if I wished to, if I installed such a connection line. It's a strategical issue, I can connect the elevator which my enemy might conquer, as well as the chemical labor and the electric cannon (made up) to one building, and all the other essentiell ones to another. It's as well a strategy issue for the enemy inside your base - the reinforcement uses the elevator? Just cut it off!
2. The length of the lines: Well it was nearly unlimited in CR but I remember it to be quite a challange earlier (broke around corners). Clonk often features a sort of Settler-Feelings, like conquering the wild west, eh, you conquer the map bit for bit, energyline after energyline - building after building. Apart from that what I would call style I actually planned several scenarios which would feature the "short line" idea. Transport and progress both get more challenging if you have to watch your landscape and if you have to construct a power tole every few hundred Clonkmeters. The idea was also featured in western, and proved to be quite nice to me.
3. The power plants are my last big argument. With an area system well, they would mostly feature just the area as an attribute to distinguish them. With the former system I can control my power - the elevator always will be connected to the coal plant, because it's important. The reasearch lab and the pump for example are not that important and can rely on wind power alone. More plants - that's something to consider as well, something like the dynamo or a smaller solar, water, windmillplant or some crystal battery stuff (whatever will suit the style) for quick and small bases (near enemy territories) versus big windmill farms and power plants for the production lines.
I see your point however, that the lines are quite a hassle. And of course they should be simplified, but they shall not be removed. If you remove every aspect which is just a bit complicated the game might become much more easier, but very boring at the end.
>it's you after all who wants to remove a system which no one ever complained about.
Because noone every played melees with construction material and power activated :)
>3. The power plants are my last big argument..
That's the one argument that really makes sense. Mh.
It's bad attitude that I suggest we could introduce them in another form? The "true core" is what we're after here, yes. I was just amused by the structure of your initial argument :)
I believe the flags pretty much cover this already. Now your enemy won't be able to use your elevators, no matter whether it has power or not.
I think I would also prefer planting flags to spreading powerline webs... Also you probably realize that such webs would be very prone to attack, and probably wouldn't really work in melees.
Hm. Maybe we could give buildings close to the flag priority with energy? That way we still allow the player control over these kinds of things. Might have to think about what happens when we have a chain of flags, though.
Phew, careful there. This is a detour, but two points:
* Firstly, the best games are those with very simple concepts, but very complex gameplay. Think Go or Tetris or whatever. This is the optimal state for games: Easy to learn, hard to master.
* Secondly, I don't even want to remove lines. I just want to apply the concept to something else that I deem more appropriate. We keep energy, we keep lines, we add zones of control, we add mechanisms. If anything, we are making the system more complex here.
> Strategic use
I believe the flags pretty much cover this already. Now your enemy won't be able to use your elevators, no matter whether it has power or not.
> Conquer the landscape
I think I would also prefer planting flags to spreading powerline webs... Also you probably realize that such webs would be very prone to attack, and probably wouldn't really work in melees.
> Power priority
Hm. Maybe we could give buildings close to the flag priority with energy? That way we still allow the player control over these kinds of things. Might have to think about what happens when we have a chain of flags, though.
> If you remove every aspect which is just a bit complicated the game might become much more easier, but very boring at the end.
Phew, careful there. This is a detour, but two points:
* Firstly, the best games are those with very simple concepts, but very complex gameplay. Think Go or Tetris or whatever. This is the optimal state for games: Easy to learn, hard to master.
* Secondly, I don't even want to remove lines. I just want to apply the concept to something else that I deem more appropriate. We keep energy, we keep lines, we add zones of control, we add mechanisms. If anything, we are making the system more complex here.
"Neutral" buildings would have no means to get energy then (if energy can only be transmitted in a base).Additionally, I think power lines are just some part of the infrastructure (which IMO is fun to build up) which has a big potential being used in many situations if it is further carved out - similar to the "Red stone dust"-cables in minecraft.
A power network that just needs one line to (or from) the building from anywhere in the power network is not really chaotic or hard to set up.
>"Neutral" buildings would have no means to get energy then (if energy can only be transmitted in a base).
Yes. That does not mean that this is bad, though. :)
>I think power lines are just some part of the infrastructure (which IMO is fun to build up)
I really think we should keep the fun part of the power lines about building up a working infrastructure. I also think that we should apply that to production lines and not to electric lines. :)
(How would you imagine electric lines to work in a castle? Through staircases?)
By Anonymous ![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
Date 2011-02-20 18:13
No need for staircases if there are ladders (wasn't Peter against enterable buildings?)
Well, that's just more or less where we were with the discussion, but I guess it helps for people that didn't follow it.
For final writeup: Needs clarification what happens when one of the flags is deconstructed. Implementation will have to cover cases where more than two flags overlap.
As a rule of thumb, yes, but I'm not sure whether some "kits" won't be useful anyhow. It would be nice to have a one-step-process to, say, a guard tower or an elevator. These kind of "kits" could be special for castle seeding, where we have more space in the menu anyway.
I would kind of like to keep the "Clonks are not magical" part. Not strictly against it, though - but I didn't plan that kind of thing because I would never had thought that we could agree on it. So let's call this list "observations":
* That effectively makes mechanism mostly unnecessary. I was just starting to like the idea ;)
* Theoretically, this would enable you to control castles on the whole landscape. In practice, though, you have limits what you can do with your mouse: You have (most likely) scrolling limitations and Fog of War. If the new FoW ends at solid masks, you won't be able to see into your own castle and open a drawbridge.
* Stronger defense doesn't automatically equal better gameplay. It also means that more subtle defenses and attacks loose significance. Now it's not possible anymore to make, say, a mock attack on one side so the defender completely forgets to secure the other side.
Oh yeah, and please let's not call them "castles". I would like to keep at least the theoretical possibility for the player to be able to build them from wood as well, so we can revive the chronically-underused camps in CR. This could even be the default choice: First build the wall using wood, then make it more stable using a rock.
> If two base-areas of opponents intersect, the area that the newer flag would give to it’s owner will be reduced to the border of the older area. See http://h-3.abload.de/img/flagexampledgzx.jpg
For final writeup: Needs clarification what happens when one of the flags is deconstructed. Implementation will have to cover cases where more than two flags overlap.
> In fact, the only castle buildings he can directly select from the construction menu will be the wall.
As a rule of thumb, yes, but I'm not sure whether some "kits" won't be useful anyhow. It would be nice to have a one-step-process to, say, a guard tower or an elevator. These kind of "kits" could be special for castle seeding, where we have more space in the menu anyway.
> The player will be able to control allied structures (in an allied base-area) with his mouse. That means that he can remotely opening e.g. a drawbridge by using some modifier key (Space, the “interact” key, would work) and clicking on the drawbridge. Doors (that are automatic) can be locked in the same way.
I would kind of like to keep the "Clonks are not magical" part. Not strictly against it, though - but I didn't plan that kind of thing because I would never had thought that we could agree on it. So let's call this list "observations":
* That effectively makes mechanism mostly unnecessary. I was just starting to like the idea ;)
* Theoretically, this would enable you to control castles on the whole landscape. In practice, though, you have limits what you can do with your mouse: You have (most likely) scrolling limitations and Fog of War. If the new FoW ends at solid masks, you won't be able to see into your own castle and open a drawbridge.
* Stronger defense doesn't automatically equal better gameplay. It also means that more subtle defenses and attacks loose significance. Now it's not possible anymore to make, say, a mock attack on one side so the defender completely forgets to secure the other side.
Oh yeah, and please let's not call them "castles". I would like to keep at least the theoretical possibility for the player to be able to build them from wood as well, so we can revive the chronically-underused camps in CR. This could even be the default choice: First build the wall using wood, then make it more stable using a rock.
>Well, that's just more or less where we were with the discussion, but I guess it helps for people that didn't follow it.
Yepp, that was the idea (also ala wanted me to summarize the current point of the discussion for him - so I figured I could write it in English and just copy&paste it here :) )
>For final writeup: Needs clarification what happens when one of the flags is deconstructed. Implementation will have to cover cases where more than two flags overlap
My current thinking would be that the "older" area always persists - even if the other flag might be newer. So in this example that the green area will never be preferred over red area (in case there might be another flag around and the "first flag" labeled flag is deconstructed)
>It would be nice to have a one-step-process to, say, a guard tower or an elevator. These kind of "kits" could be special for castle seeding, where we have more space in the menu anyway.
Mh, true. One idea would be to allow the player to use the time where he is actually constructing the building: So that he can already select the future upgrade then and thus not lose time when building it
>* That effectively makes mechanism mostly unnecessary. I was just starting to like the idea ;)
Mh, yes, that's what I also thought about. My solution would be to only use the mouse control for defensive buildings - mechanisms could still be used for all other kind of stuff (traps as you mentioned). Just not the door control. (That even feels a bit inconsistent for me, but I really liked that you could open your drawbridges from the outside - that was one of the major advantages for the ownership thing for me. Maybe make the stuff only controllable when your Clonk is next to or in front of the building?)
>* Theoretically, this would enable you to control castles on the whole landscape. In practice, though, you have limits what you can do with your mouse: You have (most likely) scrolling limitations and Fog of War. If the new FoW ends at solid masks, you won't be able to see into your own castle and open a drawbridge.
That's true. I have to admit that I didn't think about FoW there. Something that would come into my mind now would be that flags grant unobstructed vision - so that you could always see your base-area. Doesn't even look that far-fetched to me :)
>* Stronger defense doesn't automatically equal better gameplay. It also means that more subtle defenses and attacks loose significance. Now it's not possible anymore to make, say, a mock attack on one side so the defender completely forgets to secure the other side.
Well, what is a subtle defense? Putting up loam/metal somewhere instead of a building? That would still work well.
And what is a subtle attack? Terajumping into the enemy base just to create some havoc? That is a bit harder, true. But let's say you took two flints with you into the enemy base: You could for example blow up the chest in front of the Chemical Lab and steal the enemy's flints!
Don't forget that it currently looks like we have for example a Grappling Hook - conquering castles/camps IS going to be a lot easier than it was in CR
>Oh yeah, and please let's not call them "castles". I would like to keep at least the theoretical possibility for the player to be able to build them from wood as well, so we can revive the chronically-underused camps in CR. This could even be the default choice: First build the wall using wood, then make it more stable using a rock.
Yeah, sure, nothing against camps
> Buying stuff will be only feasible in the beginning of a game since the cost of certain goods rise the more of that kind you buy.
You kill here something I actively planned on: The completely-based-on-gold settlement melee. Say, we have gold refill and a few locations in the landscape that when owned give you additional gold per minute. No raw material whatsoever. That would be an easy way to have a really easy and solid strategical melee. Note that this is effectively the norm right now - ever built anything from raw material in CoFuT? - we need this to work well.
I really wouldn't bother with things getting more expensive. You have two things working for you already:
* The easiest way to earn gold is have it at the start of the game, afterwards it gets more "expensive" to generate it.
* With larger bases and higher-tier weaponry, the cost of useful investments naturally climbs.
Apart from that, I see nothing that speaks against buying at buildings? I really would like the eliminate the dedicated buying building...
> The quicker construction of castle parts would also have the effect that you could quickly build up a base behind enemy lines, for example!
However you would not be able to buy flints there, making it a pretty toothless tiger, right? In my mind, this new base would allow you to go attack, then respawn and resupply afterwards - really making an impact on the game.
>we need this to work well.
Well, for those special case scenarios we could provide some rules to adjust the behavior of the trading system. So that stuff keeps the same value.
Don't forget that the CoFuT towers were balanced around construction material and still CoFuT didn't use that "standard" behavior but allowed you to build a tower for 15 gold. Rules where always standard in Clonk and kind of worked until now :)
>I really would like the eliminate the dedicated buying building...
Why? Let me rephrase your first sentence: You would probably kill something that worked pretty well in Clonk Rage: The completely-based-on-gold melee where you would not do a lot of settlement. You would build your base, two towers, maybe a cannon tower and start fighting. You would not bother to build a whole infrastructure just so that you can buy a bow or a shield.
>However you would not be able to buy flints there, making it a pretty toothless tiger, right?
Okay: One hammer, one flag, one tentpack and 7 blocks of stone would allow you to quickly build up a base behind enemy lines with the ability to buy stuff there ;)
> You would not bother to build a whole infrastructure just so that you can buy a bow or a shield.
We're talking about a forge here. That's hardly a crippling investment :P
> Okay: One hammer, one flag, one tentpack and 7 blocks of stone would allow you to quickly build up a base behind enemy lines with the ability to buy stuff there ;)
What's the point then to have a tent, when you would always construct it right next to your flag? If you have a tentpack, it even works mostly the same as flags.
Sorry, so far you don't have me convinced in the slightest. Here's another one of my spontaneous list of arguments for buying-at-building:
* We have a building less
* We don't have to build all menus two times (for building & buying). And the buying one won't be as big.
* We have reason to show off all our nice production buildings even in fast-paced melees
* Potential of strategic gameplay, like killing the enemy forge
* Natural delay for buying a lot of stuff (needs to be produced)
* No tent bombs
And last but not least:
* Generalizes naturally to buying buildings :)
Your idea strikes me as more conservative, which is okay, but I would really like to try this.
>We're talking about a forge here. That's hardly a crippling investment :P
Well, we are talking about the fast base that you put up behind enemy lines and where you would need to buy a mason (so that you can make your towers stronger/repair them), a forge (for a shield), an archery/carpentry for the bow and a chemical lab for the flints.
As I understood you now you would have to go to your buildings to buy the stuff, right?
Where would you sell stuff? Would selling stuff become more expensive as the game goes? Would the stuff becoming more expensive be linked to the building or would it stay the same between all your anvils?
PS: And you would have to run around your whole base to equip yourself / have no centralized place where you could get your stuff, right?
> you would need to buy a mason (so that you can make your towers stronger/repair them),
Yeah, that's the part I don't quite like about the castle/camp difference: It might make it more laborious to make actual castle. On the other hand: Camps should still have their place, and what place would be better than such throw-away bases? Once you have a few cannons throwing flints at you, it will probably be lost anyway.
> a forge (for a shield), an archery/carpentry for the bow and a chemical lab for the flints.
Well, you would most likely try to settle for one kind of attack and only buy the infrastructure for that. I am not afraid to admit that this is inspired by Starcraft: Lock the player into certain types of attack, so the enemy can in turn make strategic decisions how to counter them.
> Where would you sell stuff?
At the flag. Just bring the lorry near it, ka-ching, all valuables sold.
>n the other hand: Camps should still have their place, and what place would be better than such throw-away bases?
Yepp, I also think that if the player decides that it would make sense to leave that base weak, he should be allowed to do so. I also think the alternative should also be rewarding and easy enough to pull off, though.
>Well, you would most likely try to settle for one kind of attack and only buy the infrastructure for that.
Uh, I consider a bow/arrows/shield for the combat and flints/grappling hook to actually get behind the enemy tower to be "one kind of attack". It's not like I suggested using blimps ;)
>At the flag. Just bring the lorry near it, ka-ching, all valuables sold.
So you could not sell goods/material other than gold at all?
> So you could not sell goods/material other than gold at all?
Well, yes. Isn't it pretty well-known that I try to push for that pretty much everywhere I get a chance? ;)
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
