![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
Hey guys.
This idea was invented at an small Clonk Meeting.
It was a try to connect the advantages from the functional advantages of the "Black-door"-Buildings without interior( like CR Buildings) with Often wished Buildings with interior. We tried avoiding possibilities for dangerous camping inside of houses.
Buildings get two layers. Inside and outside. From outside you normally should not be able to see whats going on in a Building. A clonk can enter a building by pressing the "Enter-the-building-button" in front of the door. Inside of buildings are some functional zones(comparable with Ego-Shooter games like Couter strike where Buying and selling is only allowed in a specific area) The "market"-Zone could be visualized by a chest, a storage rack or a magic glowing crystal which works like the Star Trek replicator ;). A Workshop gets a construction-zone with strange looking machines and a laboratory gets a zone for producing flints etc. This could be a desk with lot of horror-film-like glass stuff.
But a loads of buildings of the Clonk universe do not need to be accessible. eg. a saw mill, a furnance or even the laboratory? (Am I right recognizing that there was an idea to create only not-accessible buildings?)
Those are no brand new Ideas, it should be easy to understand.
For avoiding that an enemy is waiting indoor with two big MEGA-BOOOM-Flints, there must be the possibility for attacing clonks inside a building from outdoor.
Maybe this way:
A clonk can dicide if it want to throw objects, shoot weapons, ... into a house or in front of it. Therefore the player can use a "turn"-Button (turning to the foreground or to the background - not left or right) A outdoor beeing clonk gets hit by an arrow which is shot in background direction and in foreground-direction - it doesn't matter. A clonk standing in front of a Building gets only hit by arrows in foreground direction, and a clonk beeing inside only by an arrow in background direction. If both clonks are inside of houses the direction does not matter.
It is nesseary that those accessible buildings have a window at each side ;)
for a better understanding: two (very easy) scetches: http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9861/foreground.jpg and http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1742/backgroundlom.jpg
This idea was invented at an small Clonk Meeting.
It was a try to connect the advantages from the functional advantages of the "Black-door"-Buildings without interior( like CR Buildings) with Often wished Buildings with interior. We tried avoiding possibilities for dangerous camping inside of houses.
Buildings get two layers. Inside and outside. From outside you normally should not be able to see whats going on in a Building. A clonk can enter a building by pressing the "Enter-the-building-button" in front of the door. Inside of buildings are some functional zones(comparable with Ego-Shooter games like Couter strike where Buying and selling is only allowed in a specific area) The "market"-Zone could be visualized by a chest, a storage rack or a magic glowing crystal which works like the Star Trek replicator ;). A Workshop gets a construction-zone with strange looking machines and a laboratory gets a zone for producing flints etc. This could be a desk with lot of horror-film-like glass stuff.
But a loads of buildings of the Clonk universe do not need to be accessible. eg. a saw mill, a furnance or even the laboratory? (Am I right recognizing that there was an idea to create only not-accessible buildings?)
Those are no brand new Ideas, it should be easy to understand.
For avoiding that an enemy is waiting indoor with two big MEGA-BOOOM-Flints, there must be the possibility for attacing clonks inside a building from outdoor.
Maybe this way:
A clonk can dicide if it want to throw objects, shoot weapons, ... into a house or in front of it. Therefore the player can use a "turn"-Button (turning to the foreground or to the background - not left or right) A outdoor beeing clonk gets hit by an arrow which is shot in background direction and in foreground-direction - it doesn't matter. A clonk standing in front of a Building gets only hit by arrows in foreground direction, and a clonk beeing inside only by an arrow in background direction. If both clonks are inside of houses the direction does not matter.
It is nesseary that those accessible buildings have a window at each side ;)
for a better understanding: two (very easy) scetches: http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9861/foreground.jpg and http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1742/backgroundlom.jpg
Sounds interesting, but: Why?Why do you think this extra-complexity has to be introduced? Whats fun about it?
No not more fun, but a better gameplay. In other words: I think it's nessecary.
Problem in CR is, Clonks can enter and leave buildings fast. So they can flee, or hide. Is an enemy clonk (e.g. with your flag) in a building, it is hard to fight against him, because he's (it?) is leaves the Building, if you are entering it, and he enters a house and waits in there, until you stands in front of the door with bow/flint. Such fights are not really fun-faktor-pushing, they often boost the frustration level of both player. That's not our goal, is it?
But I also think there is a need for some accesible Buildings if you have more than one Clonk. You will need a place where clonks are a save. (not a godmode, but little saver than standing somewhere on the map) or a place where it is possible to buy things without getting disturbed by enemys.
Problem in CR is, Clonks can enter and leave buildings fast. So they can flee, or hide. Is an enemy clonk (e.g. with your flag) in a building, it is hard to fight against him, because he's (it?) is leaves the Building, if you are entering it, and he enters a house and waits in there, until you stands in front of the door with bow/flint. Such fights are not really fun-faktor-pushing, they often boost the frustration level of both player. That's not our goal, is it?
But I also think there is a need for some accesible Buildings if you have more than one Clonk. You will need a place where clonks are a save. (not a godmode, but little saver than standing somewhere on the map) or a place where it is possible to buy things without getting disturbed by enemys.
>Problem in CR is, Clonks can enter and leave buildings fast. So they can flee, or hide
And in OpenClonk you will not be able to enter any buildings (besides maybe your main base) so that problem does not really play an important role anymore.
And if you want to take away the safe-house character of your homebase by making the enemy able to attack you while you are in the building, you could even take away the possibility to enter your main base, too. That would have the same outcome and would save us one button ([turn to background]) and probably a lot of confusion, no?
>And in OpenClonk you will not be able to enter any buildings (besides maybe your main base)
That has not really been decided yet but I too see the benefits of this. Though, your formulation sounds so negative. "In OpenClonk, you will be able to use the buildings from the outside so that entering is not necessary anymore". This takes care of all those hiding-in-building issues which pluto refers to.
in "my" building you would be safer than beeing somewhere on the map, but not unkillable. primary you need a useful weapon for attacing clonks inside of a house and secondary you need to aim through a window or whatever.
And another positiv effect would be creating a basement for later RPG projects (OK, this is far far away)
And another positiv effect would be creating a basement for later RPG projects (OK, this is far far away)
>in "my" building you would be safer than beeing somwhere on the map, but not unkillable. primary you need a useful weapon, and secondary you need to aim trough window or whatever.
Okay, my answer would be, because I still would not want to introduce a totally new button just for that one thing: Why not give being in buildings other disadvantages? For example: If the building is hit by explosives, the Clonks inside could also be damaged. That would actually make hiding in a building against an attacker (who carries explosives) a bad idea, since he could hit all of your Clonks with just one bomb - on the other hand it would still protect from other stuff (like monsters) and some weapons like the bow. I think if you are inside a house you would not want the enemy to shoot you from a huge distance with a musket.
To quote you: "No not more fun, but a better gameplay."
I'd rather keep the fun wherever possible. Even if that means that you have one place in your base where you are protected against an hostile archer
![[us]](/mwf/flags/us.png "United States")
Sure this might be cool and all, but technically, it's a nightmare to realize. Right now, scripts of interacting objects can just search for stuff nearby and need not worry about inside/outside. If building insides are realized, just about any object script would have to do specific layer checks. Anything that affects the landscape, such as SolidMasks, pumps, etc. would need new engine features to work. And things get worse when several buildings can overlap.What I could imagine would be purely visual features for larger buildings, such as e.g. castles that are closed when you're outside, but the inside is revealed once you step in (I think a mod exists to do that with CR castles). Clonks could still be "inside those buildings", protected just by a SolidMask and being visually hidden.
This sounds like the limits of the CR Engine, and even for the CR Engine Ranrian found solutions(hacks? :-) ) for similar problems. Ok I'm not sure because I'm not a scripter. I'm really confused hearing phrases like with this Engine it sound like big trouble. Wasn't the OC Engine built, to create really brand new contents? :-(
It's of course possible with some hacks. E.g., layers were introduced when matthes wanted to implement the very same thing. It's just that having that feature complicates the creation (and possibly balancing) of all future objects. Plus, as already mentioned, makes the game more complicated in general.Yes, it would be possible. I just don't see the benefit that offsets the implementation cost.
Well you've been some sort of a driving force behind the RPG-Projects in Clonk (with the Dialogues and especially the Scenario Sections and a lot of smaller things).
Why don't we give this Projects a huge bit of focus in the new title? After all the M&M Adventure which was a nightmare of work itself was stated unfixable because of all the hacks that made it cool in the first place. A lot of players (including lot's of people involved in this discussion) have already build their own small Rpg-System in their life - a big generalized one with all the features required squeals to be made since several years.
Why don't we give this Projects a huge bit of focus in the new title? After all the M&M Adventure which was a nightmare of work itself was stated unfixable because of all the hacks that made it cool in the first place. A lot of players (including lot's of people involved in this discussion) have already build their own small Rpg-System in their life - a big generalized one with all the features required squeals to be made since several years.
![[ua]](/mwf/flags/ua.png "Ukraine")
Excuse me, but I can't understand how your post is related to the topic discussed in this thread.I'm afraid that if am not able to get it in a day or two, I will have to move your post somewhere else (this thead is already big enough even without offtopic posts).
I'm talking about the positive side effect of the idea (the use for RPG projects).
as mentioned by pluto above:
Because Sven2 is the expert here I tried to convince him that an approach in this direction might be cumbersome, but worth another consideration.
as mentioned by pluto above:
>And another positiv effect would be creating a basement for later RPG projects (OK, this is far far away)
Because Sven2 is the expert here I tried to convince him that an approach in this direction might be cumbersome, but worth another consideration.
> Excuse me, but I can't understand how your post is related to the topic discussed in this thread.
So? If this post turns out to be a starting point for a new discussion about a OpenClonk subproject lead by Sven2 for creating castles/RPG elements, then this can still be promoted into a new topic. In any case, you shouldn't warn people that if they don't stick to that topic, "they will have to face relocation of their posts".
I wanted to find out if there is my misunderstanding or there is going to be another big discussion another current one.Alright, now everything is perfectly clear and this branch can move to offtopic =)
Have you read my thread about a similar topic?
If you want to restrict people looking "inside", I would propose structures like castle walls to have top masks that hide whatever is going on inside. Obviously hiding automatically for allies or Clonks inside the castle. This might:
a) Make attacking a castle much more of a gamble, because you don't know what kind of defense you will meet
b) Provide additional defense for Clonks inside, because the Clonk outside can't tell what he might hit with a flint
c) But on the other hand, castles might start to look really boring from outside...
If you want to restrict people looking "inside", I would propose structures like castle walls to have top masks that hide whatever is going on inside. Obviously hiding automatically for allies or Clonks inside the castle. This might:
a) Make attacking a castle much more of a gamble, because you don't know what kind of defense you will meet
b) Provide additional defense for Clonks inside, because the Clonk outside can't tell what he might hit with a flint
c) But on the other hand, castles might start to look really boring from outside...
I read this thread some time ago. By overviewing your thread I got the idea it is time to overthink the need of having more than one clonk at the same time, because the only need of more than on Clonk is that you can "teleport" if nessecary. Somebody is attacking your base?-> switch to the defendig clonk. it was successful, well?, play the other clonk again for any other actions. apart from thet, the only other use of more than two clonks are the amout of "lifes", that could be realized with relaunces as well. But thats another discussion (maybe this discussion is to late(by looking to the tutorial with more clonks)
I guess you're talking about the modular CR Knight castles. I'm sure I've enough possible solutions to prevent this problem, I will give an overviwe when it becomes nessecary.
a) Make attacking a castle much more of a gamble, because you don't know what kind of defense you will meet
Sure, that's a challenge for balancing-systems. I recognize old GWE-Cofut rounds, where defenders even had the advantage that they were able shoot arrows through the basement at clonks standing under the castle. But the rounds have never taken more than around 15 minuits, because the damage was not as overkill like now. so attackers had more time to do things around the enemy's castle. Defenders had the only action to shoot arrows arround (or react offensive with attacing the attacer's castle or try to kill the enemies from outside (and loose the protection of the castle)).
So, I believe in possibilities to find a solution for those problems, that attacking and defense are balanced. to see not every time, whats going on everywhere on maps can be exciting as well. Many computergames use the so called fog of war very successful.(= you now the map, but not whats going on everywhere).
>c) But on the other hand, castles might start to look really boring from outside...
I guess you're talking about the modular CR Knight castles. I'm sure I've enough possible solutions to prevent this problem, I will give an overviwe when it becomes nessecary.
a) Make attacking a castle much more of a gamble, because you don't know what kind of defense you will meet
Sure, that's a challenge for balancing-systems. I recognize old GWE-Cofut rounds, where defenders even had the advantage that they were able shoot arrows through the basement at clonks standing under the castle. But the rounds have never taken more than around 15 minuits, because the damage was not as overkill like now. so attackers had more time to do things around the enemy's castle. Defenders had the only action to shoot arrows arround (or react offensive with attacing the attacer's castle or try to kill the enemies from outside (and loose the protection of the castle)).
So, I believe in possibilities to find a solution for those problems, that attacking and defense are balanced. to see not every time, whats going on everywhere on maps can be exciting as well. Many computergames use the so called fog of war very successful.(= you now the map, but not whats going on everywhere).
> I got the idea it is time to overthink the need of having more than one clonk at the same time
That sounds like you might be interested in this other very recent thread.
> I guess you're talking about the modular CR Knight castles.
Our version of it, whatever it might end up to be. As I mentioned (or hinted at?) in the linked thread, I would like to split buildings in
a) functional - no defensive function whatsoever, might even start burning on the first hit. No fundament, no solid mask, nothing. Think forge.
b) structural - strong defensive, up to a point protect against everything under the sun, be it Clonks, flints or lightning. And maybe even enemy eyes.
As the latter requires you to build some type of tactical framework for your defense, reusing the castle buildings approach seems like a good idea to me.
Plus I just like castles.
> I will give an overviwe when it becomes nessecary.
Yeah, well, please do?
Okay.
A picture says a thousand words! So here is an unfinished scetch: http://img833.imageshack.us/i/castleoutside.jpg/
I try to discribe what's my intention.
Lets start at the battlement, It is not well drawn but something like this comes to my mind(could be placed on each castle module at the top.): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Bellinzona_Stadtmauer.JPG
Next the staircases at the towers. I like those small "towers on towers" which could be used for locking the stairs( could be placed automatically(if there is enough space, or by asking "Do you want a lockable Staircase? y/n"
Lets take this photo for a better imagination: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Castell_de_Bodiam_-_Interior.JPG
Then it should be possible to create (randomly? , with a little intellegence) those parapat walks. They could made of stone, or wood, or they could be build half timbered.
some photos are there:
a clinkered parapat walk: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Alte_Wasserkunst_Bautzen_102.jpg
such a walk made of natural stones: http://www.burgenkunde.at/niederoesterreich/kreuzenstein/kreuzenstein16.jpg
there is a wooden parapat walk: http://lh6.ggpht.com/_0W4_UGtimCQ/R0Cs68_mTdI/AAAAAAAADNQ/fJ1WFgBFcZU/Glurns+-+Tauferer+Tor+mit+Wehrgang.jpg
and this is a half timbered one: http://www.heiligenlexikon.de/Fotos/Martin_Luther-Wartburg.jpg
On the top of some towers there could be placed a roof. (im guess it is known what a roof means, but there is another photo: http://www.schlernlorit.it/DE/Burgen_Und_Schlosser/tirol/Bilder/Bergfried_1.gif <- yay, thats a roof!, great! isn't it???)
those big windows could be part of a hall. those crenes could be placed at some modules randomly. there are different forms like a cross ( for bow and crossbow, the classic slit or other variations. they could get a "frame" of salient stones.
at the basement i would like to see different types of those stronger wallparts (for stabilization of high buildings, I don't know the right word for that :S ) It's often seen at old romanic churches
the dimension of those things could depend on how many levels the castle has.
I think about something like that: http://web58.p15166456.pureserver.info/justorange.cms/198_Bennert%20Dachsanierung%20GmbH/auswahl/198_5-090320090411/neuseite/inhaltgfx/TN/TN198_5-090320090411_0_12375405229.jpg
I'm sure i can get more of those "design"elements, eg. some plants like ivy...
A picture says a thousand words! So here is an unfinished scetch: http://img833.imageshack.us/i/castleoutside.jpg/
I try to discribe what's my intention.
Lets start at the battlement, It is not well drawn but something like this comes to my mind(could be placed on each castle module at the top.): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Bellinzona_Stadtmauer.JPG
Next the staircases at the towers. I like those small "towers on towers" which could be used for locking the stairs( could be placed automatically(if there is enough space, or by asking "Do you want a lockable Staircase? y/n"
Lets take this photo for a better imagination: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Castell_de_Bodiam_-_Interior.JPG
Then it should be possible to create (randomly? , with a little intellegence) those parapat walks. They could made of stone, or wood, or they could be build half timbered.
some photos are there:
a clinkered parapat walk: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Alte_Wasserkunst_Bautzen_102.jpg
such a walk made of natural stones: http://www.burgenkunde.at/niederoesterreich/kreuzenstein/kreuzenstein16.jpg
there is a wooden parapat walk: http://lh6.ggpht.com/_0W4_UGtimCQ/R0Cs68_mTdI/AAAAAAAADNQ/fJ1WFgBFcZU/Glurns+-+Tauferer+Tor+mit+Wehrgang.jpg
and this is a half timbered one: http://www.heiligenlexikon.de/Fotos/Martin_Luther-Wartburg.jpg
On the top of some towers there could be placed a roof. (im guess it is known what a roof means, but there is another photo: http://www.schlernlorit.it/DE/Burgen_Und_Schlosser/tirol/Bilder/Bergfried_1.gif <- yay, thats a roof!, great! isn't it???)
those big windows could be part of a hall. those crenes could be placed at some modules randomly. there are different forms like a cross ( for bow and crossbow, the classic slit or other variations. they could get a "frame" of salient stones.
at the basement i would like to see different types of those stronger wallparts (for stabilization of high buildings, I don't know the right word for that :S ) It's often seen at old romanic churches
the dimension of those things could depend on how many levels the castle has.
I think about something like that: http://web58.p15166456.pureserver.info/justorange.cms/198_Bennert%20Dachsanierung%20GmbH/auswahl/198_5-090320090411/neuseite/inhaltgfx/TN/TN198_5-090320090411_0_12375405229.jpg
I'm sure i can get more of those "design"elements, eg. some plants like ivy...
Yay, pictures of castles. I love castles.I think the point you wanted to make is that this
> c) But on the other hand, castles might start to look really boring from outside...
can be avoided because there are many interesting features and overall design that can be included into an outside design of a castle. Yeah, I agree. Your sketch, on the other hand, looks IMO still pretty undynamic and CP-like.
>looks IMO still pretty undynamic and CP-like.
well, those designelements can be placed at those castlemodules randomly. Okay, there must be some rules for placing some of those elements.I guess its possible that a castle gets more than a boring gray outside, without any details.
Uh, okay, that was a bit too much detail. So you want to place random items on the wall to make it more interesting?
The problem with randomness is that I think it is hard to get right in all cases. I was thinking more along the lines of having the decoration implicitly reflect the general architecture - like giving the big hall windows, or the castle elevators vertical bars, maybe even with a hint where the elevator currently is.
That way people outside get a glimpse, yet can't properly tell what is going on. This way of giving away only a bit of information sounds like more fun to me.
Btw on the topic of random decorations: In case we do it, I would like to generalize it to also cover interiors and the top of the castle. In normal games you never get a chance to place crests or banners, which is a shame because they make everything look nicer. So if we could just place them automatically, that could be a serious improvement in overall look. Especially banners - should always show the color of the owner, for the extra-sweet "mine" moment after a successful conquest.
The problem with randomness is that I think it is hard to get right in all cases. I was thinking more along the lines of having the decoration implicitly reflect the general architecture - like giving the big hall windows, or the castle elevators vertical bars, maybe even with a hint where the elevator currently is.
That way people outside get a glimpse, yet can't properly tell what is going on. This way of giving away only a bit of information sounds like more fun to me.
Btw on the topic of random decorations: In case we do it, I would like to generalize it to also cover interiors and the top of the castle. In normal games you never get a chance to place crests or banners, which is a shame because they make everything look nicer. So if we could just place them automatically, that could be a serious improvement in overall look. Especially banners - should always show the color of the owner, for the extra-sweet "mine" moment after a successful conquest.
Is there somewhere a thread about castles? it can be worth to start a new one, to get other ideas, feedback or impressions. to my mind reflecting general architecture sounds nice. But some nice looking "decoration" which offers each castle his own look would be very nice. Of course the randomly placed decoration will need some rules preventing a shitty looking castle.
that's great!
>just place them automatically (the deco e.g. banners)
that's great!
By Anonymous ![[gb]](/mwf/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Date 2010-08-24 14:02
(PeterW, not logged in)
No, not yet. I have mentioned it a few times but nobody has been willing to discuss it in-depth yet. Some more issues here, from the top of my mind:
* Don't forget to incorporate the wood-type castles as well. Making it the "cheaper" castle might lead to the optimal tactical choice being "heterogenous" castles, which would look bad. Maybe have it construct from radical different material so circumstance dictates the type of castle to build?
* I would very much like to drop staircases and replace them with either camp-style ladders (we have some code that goes into that direction, don't we?) or castle elevators. For the latter we need a good concept how to make them compatible with incremental castle building - it should be possible to extend it both up and down without too much hassle.
* Castle entrances should open and close automatically when a friendly Clonk approaches and no enemy is around. Somebody might sneak in a shot, but that's life?
No, not yet. I have mentioned it a few times but nobody has been willing to discuss it in-depth yet. Some more issues here, from the top of my mind:
* Don't forget to incorporate the wood-type castles as well. Making it the "cheaper" castle might lead to the optimal tactical choice being "heterogenous" castles, which would look bad. Maybe have it construct from radical different material so circumstance dictates the type of castle to build?
* I would very much like to drop staircases and replace them with either camp-style ladders (we have some code that goes into that direction, don't we?) or castle elevators. For the latter we need a good concept how to make them compatible with incremental castle building - it should be possible to extend it both up and down without too much hassle.
* Castle entrances should open and close automatically when a friendly Clonk approaches and no enemy is around. Somebody might sneak in a shot, but that's life?
>Our version of it, whatever it might end up to be. As I mentioned (or hinted at?) in the linked thread, I would like to split buildings
You're only speaking about those castlebuildingstuff? Or is the concept only to have those "functional" buildings and the possibility to "upgrade" them with a castlewall behind (and towers left and right?)
Am I understandig this the right way?
Then there is no need for the accesible building ideas of mine.
Well, I can only speak about my concept here. And that's an ever-shifting target, especially in the details. My take is that we should wait until after the release to really write it up and call it "concept". For now, we're talking about ideas.
And yes, my idea would be to be able to build castle walls "after the fact". If you can build buildings inside castle walls, why not the other way round? Why should you be prevented from reconstructing it after it was burned down...?
And yes, my idea would be to be able to build castle walls "after the fact". If you can build buildings inside castle walls, why not the other way round? Why should you be prevented from reconstructing it after it was burned down...?
After reading this thread, I wanted to introduce my concept for buildings.Basic thoughts
I like Peter's idea of having only non accessible buildings. I also like the old knight's castles. To seize pluto's idea I'd like call the castles the "accessible" buildings (not exactly what he wanted, I know).
All production buildings should be designed without the need to enter them (and so eliminate the known "hide and seek" problem).
I'd also like to improve the construction of a castle, more on that later.
Support your settlement - production facilities
These are all building needed to settle and produce needed items (tools, explosives, food, etc.). All of them are controlled by grabbing not entering. Like the forge e.g.:
img removed
(Small foundry, anvil, fantasy cauldron, ...)
What buildings are needed, what they are called and so on was already discussed in another thread. This is just a categorisation as "non defense constructions". They may be scattered all around the scenario like it pleases the player. And they are easy to destroy by enemies.
Defend your settlement - defensive structures
These buildings are the strong ones and the ones accessible (accessible like the knight's castles). Whether or not the enemy may look inside is not part of my idea. It is possible to have both.
These constructions provide the possibility to cover your production facilities with a "castle frame". The most basic defense as always is the tower.
img removed
But that's only the beginning.
Construct your castle
Planing castles is fun, having a castle is fun. Constructing a castle is awful. You have to buy/produce lots of construction kits (we've already eliminated this problem by introducing the hammer) and you have to provide lots of material (constructing your castle should be relatively cheap). Constructing a castle in a hectic melee game is impossible because it takes time to construct every wall frame and if the enemy advances before you finished your last tower your castle is always wide open to attack (constructing a castle has to be more or less save and fast).
My idea is to start with a basic outpost and then upgrade your castle to let it grow.
Enlarge your castle
The basic construction is this:
img removed
We may call it 'Outpost' or just 'Castle'. These three parts are the most basic ones you need to have a functional castle. They are constructed at once (and they are the most expensive part).
Now you want to enlarge the castle. You walk to one tower, select your hammer and it gives you the possibility to 'construct a wall' (or 'transform into wall', 'enlarge castle'). What you get is this:
img removed
The tower is moved by instance (assumed there is space and enough material - like 1 or 2 rocks - is lying around [! ding - another concept, you don't have to carry material and 'put' it into a construction zone but the construction process just consumes the material lying around]) and a new wall appeares, providing more space inside the castle. Enlargement doesn't need 'open ends'.
Think 2D
Standing in front of a wall, using your hammer does not only bring the normal construction menu (i.e. the possibility to construct a production facility) but some special castle options to transform the wall.
By selecting 'construct staircase' ('transform into staircase') you get this:
img removed
(or whatever Peter above mentioned to use for vertical traveling)
The main problem by designing the staircase is how to prevent the player from hiding inside. Maybe with a little animation so that the waiting enemy can time his deadly shot or whatever - ideas welcome.
Now you are able to go upstairs and advance your castle:
img removed
(open ends automatically get towers)
Productive castle
Just a little note on the production facility design: they have to look good outside and inside a castle. Because now you are able to protect by constructing them inside:
img removed
Think of clever 2D tricks to make them look like they fit into a wall but also as a whole construction outside.
Grow wider - on the top!
It is also possible to upgrade your towers. Create a drawbridge, a roof or construct a nose (or whatever we want to call it).
Stand in front of the tower, select the hammer, open the menu:
img removed
Affirm:
img removed
(this is just a sketch, the designer will surely make this look pretty).
Go upstairs, construct a tower:
img removed
Also possible: advance a single tower to the left and the right and then construct an outpost on top!
Combining production and defense
War demands good logistics. Producing while combating is disliked in Clonk. Scenarios often provide enough starting material to finish the fight.
To make this old idea palatable, castles boost production. I have two ideas on this:
Manual transformingTransform the normal wall into a facility wall - giving up some structural resistance (the wall is easier to destroy):
img removed
(design: think of power sockets in the wall, cables, gears, tools hanging on hooks, pipes, ...)
When building a production facility in front of this, it gets an automatic boost, like
- faster production
- reduced material need
- improved production (e.g. 2 flints instead of 1 from the same material)
- ...
To keep the strong defense it is still possible to construct the facility in front of a normal wall.
Automatic transformingThe facility wall appears automatically when constructing a production facility - without any disadvantages.
This would speed the whole thing up.
Attack with your castle? - Zone of Control
Castles should provide a Zone of Control to hinder your enemy to build defensive structures in a certain radius. This would eliminate the problem that your enemy may enlarge his castle until it reaches yours - ending up with two facing castles and no defense (jumping from one castle to the other one...).
To not destroy the 'jump-in tower' tactic we still could allow the construction of a single tower (wooden tower?) near castles but not the advancement of this single tower.
Second line of defense - towers inside the castle
It is possible to transform a wall into a tower to have a second defense in the case your enemy storms the castle.
Closing thoughts
- adaption of the enlargement concept to the wooden castles? Will there be wooden castles?
- find a solution for the 'hole' problem - what if the enemy blasts holes in the castle - what does advancement do, is it a problem?
- concept of randomly appearing decoration?
To be honest, I prefer the completely free building of castles. Being restrained to a "proper" castle (e.g.: All walls aligned. Automatic towers at the outer walls) limits the possibilities to build creative stuff. You sometimes build castles underwater, castles hanging around a cliff, etc.I think a special "castle-building-hammer" could be introduced, or castles become a submenu of the normal hammer. Whenever you activate that hammer, castle building options are made available depending on how you stand in the castle. The options you described (outpost, castle extension, etc.) are available, but custom parts - like just a left wall in the middle of nowhere - can also be placed. More importantly, castle parts also need to be placed behind existing buildings. It's really annoying that you cannot extend your castle in CR sometimes, because you happened to build an anvil somewhere.
I'm also a big fan of slow castle construction that needs lots of materials. We sometimes spent nights just building castles in CE/CR. But I guess that can be optional and would be used in hardcore settlement scenarios only. Construction materials are still possible in the engine, but currently the rule is not used. We might revive it if demand arises.
![[fr]](/mwf/flags/fr.png "France")
Hmm, anyways building a castle on a cliff is a strange concept... and it's won't be difficult underwater i thinkI never liked the concept ''buillding a huge tower near the castle to invade it'', control zone would be nice, flagpoles and flags on structures (ex : office) would extend the player's area of effect, blocking others from building here or using buildings (like a elevator).
If a flagpole block you, grab it, and turn it to your color (this would take a while, 15 seconds), but you obtain everything in the huge radius
For the castle's outside, windows would be nice. The player who own the castle zone is able to see the castle's interior, but if a ennemy clonk enter, the ennemy is not blind anymore, he can see the entire's castle interior
Except that, i find the castle extending idea good, it's would be easier to build.
>I never liked the concept ''buillding a huge tower near the castle to invade it'',
>If a flagpole block you, grab it, and turn it to your color (this would take a while, 15 seconds), but you obtain everything in the huge radius
So, building a huge tower, that will take a lot more than 15 seconds and is a lot more susceptible to enemy attacks, is not okay; while, basically, grabbing some flagpole in the enemy's castle that makes you the owner of all the castle structures, is okay? I don't really see how that is better yet :)
> grabbing some flagpole in the enemy's castle
The whole point of castles is that they are really hard to invade - they are a defensive structure. So you conquer them by beating this defensive. Counter-building, on the other hand, is trying to turn something defensive into a slow and boring offensive weapon. We should definetely get rid of that.
>The whole point of castles is that they are really hard to invade - they are a defensive structure.
Castles do protect, yes. You cannot go into the enemy's base and destroy everything because even if you are inside (terajumping or using the jar of winds is not _that_ difficult) you need explosives to do something. But I think it would be neither fun for the attacker nor for the defender if you lose your base to the first enemy who gets in there.
I mean, I would really make interior parts a lot weaker than the towers. But I would not give control about the whole castle to the first enemy to get in.
Uhm, only if we chose to make it work like that. Why should we? My current notes say that in order to gain ownership, you have to
a) bring your own flag
b) spend a good number of seconds (10?) removing the old flag and hoisting the new one. If you get interrupted, you have to start from scratch.
That should make it sufficiently hard to gain ownership, even if you somehow sneak through all the locked doors that should be between you and the flag in a well-designed castle.
a) bring your own flag
b) spend a good number of seconds (10?) removing the old flag and hoisting the new one. If you get interrupted, you have to start from scratch.
That should make it sufficiently hard to gain ownership, even if you somehow sneak through all the locked doors that should be between you and the flag in a well-designed castle.
>That should make it sufficiently hard to gain ownership, even if you somehow sneak through all the locked doors that should be between you and the flag in a well-designed castle.
I still have some doubts there but nothing that can be proven correct or wrong without testing. So I'll just wait for the moment, since I am not _all_ against that flagpole thing. I think it's worth trying at least
By Anonymous
Date 2010-08-25 12:52
(PeterW again here)
Well, do you have any alternative ideas? The above is essentially ripped straight from typical RTS mechanics, I won't mind using something more original.
Well, do you have any alternative ideas? The above is essentially ripped straight from typical RTS mechanics, I won't mind using something more original.
that was not all the time a problem. I recognize great AND short Cofut rounds from GWE4 times. there the Defense of a castle was not overpowered (okay, there were those strange nearly never hiting arrows which has lowered the defense forces)
So a easy way would be, not to overpower rangeweapons. so enemies have more time to act at the castle.
So a easy way would be, not to overpower rangeweapons. so enemies have more time to act at the castle.
Hm, I don't really agree with Sven's viewpoint. I mean, underwater castles will be even easier this way - and misaligned parts are just a pain on top of being ugly to look at. And simplifying the large amount of different castle parts would also be a good idea. Especially with all the right/left stuff and the subtle errors you can make there.
But Sven is right with remarking that this bare-bones approach somewhat lacks in flexibility. It's not possible to introduce inside doors or walls here, for example. And maybe I want to have one side completely closed or open? And what about drawbridges?
Let's split this consideration again for the moment. On one hand there's the issue of the presence of some kind of structural wall there. And then there's the issue of what "features" it has. Such features could be:
* Nothing
* Door(s)
* Wall(s)
* Drawbridge
* Ladder (to get one level higher)
* Castle elevator
* Production specialisation? (only because you mentioned it, I don't quite understand that particular idea)
You should be able to add/remove/repair these kind of things after the fact, so you have total freedom over how to build your castle. This also makes for a nice building process:
a) Outside the castle, you can build castle walls (with/without moving feature) and maybe only-make-sense-outside things like the drawbridge
b) Inside the castle, you can build castle features.
But on the other hand, I'm not completely sure, especially how to best "seed" your castle. You might or might not want doors, or a drawbridge, or a ladder, or whatever. Having to make four constructions just to get your basic save lookout tower would kind of suck.
Oh yeah, and I would speak against building things from "below" or that nose idea. For extending your castle, you *should* have to go outside, that's a tactical issue. And the nose thing isn't really something that I feel we should encourage.
But Sven is right with remarking that this bare-bones approach somewhat lacks in flexibility. It's not possible to introduce inside doors or walls here, for example. And maybe I want to have one side completely closed or open? And what about drawbridges?
Let's split this consideration again for the moment. On one hand there's the issue of the presence of some kind of structural wall there. And then there's the issue of what "features" it has. Such features could be:
* Nothing
* Door(s)
* Wall(s)
* Drawbridge
* Ladder (to get one level higher)
* Castle elevator
* Production specialisation? (only because you mentioned it, I don't quite understand that particular idea)
You should be able to add/remove/repair these kind of things after the fact, so you have total freedom over how to build your castle. This also makes for a nice building process:
a) Outside the castle, you can build castle walls (with/without moving feature) and maybe only-make-sense-outside things like the drawbridge
b) Inside the castle, you can build castle features.
But on the other hand, I'm not completely sure, especially how to best "seed" your castle. You might or might not want doors, or a drawbridge, or a ladder, or whatever. Having to make four constructions just to get your basic save lookout tower would kind of suck.
Oh yeah, and I would speak against building things from "below" or that nose idea. For extending your castle, you *should* have to go outside, that's a tactical issue. And the nose thing isn't really something that I feel we should encourage.
> It's not possible to introduce inside doors or walls here, for example.
I don't understand. Inside doors? And this could be possible by transforming already built walls.
> And maybe I want to have one side completely closed or open?
I really don't see the sense in this. The only advantage is transportation. On the other hand we could just design the towers with wider doors.
> And what about drawbridges?
That's a transformation of a tower, I mentioned that ;)
> Door(s)
Again, what doors?
> Ladder (to get one level higher)
> Castle elevator
Well, no problem with that.
> Production specialisation? (only because you mentioned it, I don't quite understand that particular idea)
You create this one, construct e.g. a forge in front of it and then the forge is boosted. Just because production in a melee is so unpopular (to much time, to less effect).
> For extending your castle, you *should* have to go outside, that's a tactical issue.
Well, it's a tactical issue which totally destroyed the setting that you build your castle while fighting the enemy.
> And the nose thing isn't really something that I feel we should encourage.
It's already possible to make this (and it's done) in CR, by using 2 chunks of loam. This will just make it easier.
> I don't understand. Inside doors? And this could be possible by transforming already built walls.
What's not to understand? It's pretty common to have the "tower" castle parts inside - specifically so you can lock up parts of the castle in case of invasion. With auto-locking doors, this should be a standard security precaution to make it harder to quickly get to the flag.
> I really don't see the sense in this
It's not that hard to think up a few cases. Maybe you want to have a work area where the door doesn't open every five seconds, subjecting you to arrow fire from outside? Maybe you want to fire a cannon from inside and need a bigger opening? And I feel like it is a good idea anyway to have some kind of "smashed door" state, separate from having killed the whole wall.
Plus a lot of things that might come up in future. I don't know, in this point I think I feel like Sven: It feels like this might limit your tactical options somewhere along the way. We need a modification system anyway, let's just make this a part of it.
> Again, what doors?
The ones from the tower building?
> Just because production in a melee is so unpopular (to much time, to less effect).
So how is this helping? Restricting this kind of improvement to melees would feel arbitrary. And why not just boost all production in melees directly? That way you don't have the hassle of having to build this modification. I really don't see the point.
> Well, it's a tactical issue which totally destroyed the setting that you build your castle while fighting the enemy.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.
> It's already possible to make this (and it's done) in CR, by using 2 chunks of loam. This will just make it easier.
I know. And I'm saying that I don't want it to become easier :)
> What's not to understand? It's pretty common to have the "tower" castle parts inside
Yes, I've mentioned that:
> Second line of defense - towers inside the castle
> It is possible to transform a wall into a tower to have a second defense in the case your enemy storms the castle.
> Maybe you want to have a work area where the door doesn't open every five seconds, subjecting you to arrow fire from outside?
Assuming your automatic door concept is accepted. And even if it is, there definitely should be an option to permamently lock the door.
> So how is this helping? Restricting this kind of improvement to melees would feel arbitrary.
Well, it is possible to construct a castle in a settlement scenario.
> And why not just boost all production in melees directly?
Okay, yeah. Was just a sidekick idea ;)
>> Well, it's a tactical issue which totally destroyed the setting that you build your castle while fighting the enemy.
> Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.
I refer to the "construction melee" scenario. First you construct your very own base and then go fight the enemy. With old knights this kind of scenario is more or less useless because unless you built your castle very quick, your enemy can just walk in.
> I know. And I'm saying that I don't want it to become easier :)
I don't think that's a valid argument. :>
> Assuming your automatic door concept is accepted. And even if it is, there definitely should be an option to permamently lock the door.
Should there? I was thinking about it some more - and came to the conclusion that I would like it best if it was a tactical property of the feature. We have the following selection in terms of side features:
* Drawbridge: Needs to be operated manually, can't be shot through
* Door: Opens automatically, therefore unusable for cover while shooting
* Wall: Closed permanently, can be shot through from inside
Could make for interesting gameplay, I think.
> I refer to the "construction melee" scenario.
I was talking about building stuff from "inside" the castle, especially your idea to extend vertically this way. For that, imo you should have to first go onto the roof - which isn't that big of a problem, as that's a semi-protected zone.
> I don't think that's a valid argument. :>
It is. We don't want to make everything easier, just the fun parts. I argue that this nose thing isn't fun and should be discouraged, if not forbidden.
>* Drawbridge: Needs to be operated manually, can't be shot through
* Door: Opens automatically, therefore unusable for cover while shooting
* Wall: Closed permanently, can be shot through from inside
I'd rather have the same behavior for all kinds of walls btw. (Being able to shoot through, that is)
Being able to shoot through anything is both unrealistic and could remove a possible tactical element. I mean, this would make it three-tier:
* door - easy to break through, defense from roof
* drawbridge - hard to break through, defense from roof
* drawbridge + wall - best defense, with cover
Being able to shoot through anything would make it two-tier, locked doors would remove the most important reasons for building a drawbridge where it is supposed to be (front door).
* door - easy to break through, defense from roof
* drawbridge - hard to break through, defense from roof
* drawbridge + wall - best defense, with cover
Being able to shoot through anything would make it two-tier, locked doors would remove the most important reasons for building a drawbridge where it is supposed to be (front door).
>Being able to shoot through anything is both unrealistic and could remove a possible tactical element. I mean, this would make it three-tier:
I won't comment on you saying it would be unrealistic.
It could remove possible tactical elements as well as it could add possible tactical elements, since you would actually have to have a moat in front of your drawbridge. If you have one, the enemy can not shoot through your drawbridge while you can. If you don't have one.. why do you have a drawbridge?
>Being able to shoot through anything would make it two-tier, locked doors would remove the most important reasons for building a drawbridge where it is supposed to be (front door).
Well, there was the idea that doors could be destroyed easier than the whole tower, - just as an example. We probably have plenty other ways to make drawbridges more attractive as an outer defense.
> If you don't have one.. why do you have a drawbridge?
So it's harder to break down? And a moat still has the upside that it makes it a lot harder to throw flints at the drawbridge. You know, like in real life.
> We probably have plenty other ways to make drawbridges more attractive as an outer defense.
Do tell.
(Why do I always have to ask?)
> Do tell.
If we discard the idea of having bigger doors, drawbridges could provide a wider opening (which is - in fact - realistic!)
And drawbridges provide tactical superior positioning just because of their design:
img removed
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
