Not logged inOpenClonk Forum
Up Topic General / General / Different Ownership concept
- - By MrBeast [de] Date 2011-02-24 02:06
In strategy games ownership is an effective and simple essential game mechanics. This is neccessary because in strategy games you usually just command the units, not directly controlling them. But in clonk thats not the case. You directly control your units and you have to bring your units to the certain structure to use the structure. Thus there is no need for ownership except for some few things like the clonks, winning goals (for example the Flag in CTF) or automated structures.
However I think there is a "non-magic" way of ownership for automated structures which could turn out as pretty good. AI-Guards. When you build an structure like, maybe, an tower from which you can shot enemies from far. The tower is completly neutral. Whoever gets on the tower can use it. However you (others can do that, too, if they are near enough) can grab the tower and choose in an menu to hire archers for the tower (costs gold). Those will now automatically attack enemies. To get in control of the tower your enemy now needs to kill your AI-Archers and hire some own archers for it.
This idea can be used for other structures, too. The guards of an elevator could automatically drive the elevator to waiting friendly Clonks. The guards of an bridge-tower could automaticly lower it to let friends in.
One could even expand this concept to production structures. An "guard" of an weaponsmith could automatically smith weapons if the neccessary materials are delivered. Or an "guard" of an sawmill could automatically cut down trees.

As overview:
* Buildings are always neutral when build. Anyone can use them and they have no (ownership related) automation.
* You can spend gold on hiring clonk controlled by an AI. How the AI acts like is different from building to building. (Examples: AI on top of tower shoots arrows at enemies, AI assigned to watchpost patrols, AI assigned to blacksmith builds swords [or any other assigned product] when the material for that is delivered)
* You hire the clonks directly at the building.
** You can only hire clonks for that building if no clonk of the enemy is hired for it.
* (Ownership related) Automation is done by the AI's. (For example the AI of an elevator could drive the elevator to waiting friendly clonks)
** Attackers can stop the automation by killing the AI's.
Reply
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-24 20:23
That's mostly what I think Güther had in mind here. My reason for not liking this is that it "distributes" the ownership of something too much. If you really have to hunt down every single AI in your castle, it will take you forever to truly claim ownership. Basically, in all that time your enemy has a huge fighting advantage, even though he actually "lost" the castle.

Also personally I want to keep the usage of "AI" low. From a design point of view it always feels like a "here a miracle occurs" kind of move. Even though you might think you would know exactly how it should behave, it's often the case that you have actually just overlooked an important corner-case that will end up defining the whole game because everybody starts abusing it (see also: My opposition to Clonkonaut's intelligent lorries ;) ).
Parent - - By Günther [de] Date 2011-02-24 22:46
Well, there are two largely orthogonal questions: What are the rules of ownership, and how are they enforced? I still feel that they should a) have some plausible ingame representation, and b) not limit your Clonk. That's largely not some aspect of the actual rules, but of how they are communicated to the player. For example, the reason that an enemy elevator doesn't move for your Clonk should be that the elevator is intelligent enough to discriminate between hostile and friendly Clonks, instead of your Clonk being too polite to use enemy equipment. Because most players aren't too polite to use enemy equipment, and whenever possible, the player's avatar shouldn't disagree with the player. In this case, the distinction is purely a user interface issue, maybe even just an issue of phrasing, but in cases like the question of whether a Clonk can raise a flag, it's more substantial.
Reply
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-25 13:27
Well, we already removed most of the restrictions from the concept, didn't we? I agree though that "positive" passive bonuses are probably easier to accept than "negative" passive bonuses.

Hm, just found another fun way of looking at it: Castles are effectively the equivalent of big boss monsters in a Clonk game. The flag forces players (or scenario designers) to design a "weak spot" into these monsters.
Parent - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-25 15:30

>The flag forces players (or scenario designers) to design a "weak spot" into these monsters.


..or game designers :)
Parent - - By Kizzurazzgabi [us] Date 2011-02-25 06:27
1
I don't really support the AI clonk idea. I ALSO would like to keep the AI to a minimum when it comes to clonks.

I say that if you give a clonk a sword, gun, or bow, they shoot or swing at anything near (if left idle) and chase for a limited time
(but doesn't blindly walk into pits). The AI should be similar to whats in the tutorials, wimpy, clumsy, conquerable. but they don't just sit around and do nothing. I think this would make the player feel like he's superior to simple AI, and can outmatch(with a little skill) a uncontrolled clonk.

but if anything i think the clonk should at least know how to use a shield and block the enemy. giving the player time to react before it dies.

2- I'm a little skeptical about the ownership part, but ill have to see how it all pans out.(personally i don't see why everything cant be neutral, especially in melees. never had a problem with it(is sealing off parts of the castle from the enemy not good enough anymore? it just seems like a complicated mess right now) BUT like i said ill have to see how it all pans out)

Personally i think castles should be a large "thing" that people fight over. If someone hasn't killed every unit inside then the castle isn't "truly" conquered. Whether you have ownership or not, the rogue units inside can still perform a counter attack.

Basically, in all that time your enemy has a huge fighting advantage, even though he actually "lost" the castle.

-but YOU have a fighting advantage as well, you are IN the castle with all the other clonks. If ownership is something fought over then
i see no problem with having the castle take a while to "truly" own it.
-IF the previous owner had fortified it with a few units then BAM! their preparation has paid off because they have the # advantage.
-Castles are made(at least when i make them) to be breached. Meaning that once 1 spot is taken over, i can seal the spot from the other parts of the castle. Breaching a castle(thanks to the grapple gun and other things) is much more probable now, so they will find a way in anyways (Not a bad thing, i love it)...

Having the advantage never means that their victory is written in stone, it means the others will have to work harder, or think faster to overcome that obstacle.
I don't like fighting being too simple. having one clonk seems to do just that. The clonk dies, you wait for respawn(or whatever the case is) and by the time you return to the castle, its taken over. As complicated as things seem to get, that seems to be what it comes down to.

My two cents
Reply
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-25 13:38

> Is sealing off parts of the castle from the enemy not good enough anymore?


With neutral buildings, it's impossible to seal anything off without denying you access as well. I started thinking about this idea when people started preemptively sealing off parts of their own castle in CoFuT in order to make it impossible for enemies to lock themselves in later. At this point, in-castle doors were actually more valuable to the attacker than the defender, which is just ridiculous.

> thanks to the grapple gun and other things


Yes, that will probably become a problem. It's possible to shoot at Clonks coming at the sides of your castle, but once a Clonk is on top of your castle, there's little you can do. But well, that's what testing is for.
Parent - - By Newton [de] Date 2011-02-25 11:35
Just to add my 5 cents:
AI defenders in the form of AI clonks will be problematic to implement - we already learnt from past clonk titles that this kind of AI can be easily outwitted. Hazard AI for example only worked because a waypoint-network had to be defined beforehand, plus the landscape was not changeable plus there were very limited possibilities in the game world (walk and shoot).
Parent - - By Kizzurazzgabi [us] Date 2011-02-28 06:37
How about inactive clonks? if they were given a simple AI to block(with a shield) or shoot at something what would be the drawbacks to that?

If they are easily outwitted then i see no problem with allowing it. It seems that it would simply buy the clonk more time(so the player doesnt switch through his people and realise that one is missing(and then stress about which one died(a problem i had in previous games lol))). Instead of just sitting there waiting to die, they actually do something.
Reply
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-28 06:47

>(so the player doesnt switch through his people and realise that one is missing(and then stress about which one died(a problem i had in previous games lol)))


That should be taken care of with the new crew interface (to-come™)
Parent - By Kizzurazzgabi [us] Date 2011-02-28 06:51
!:O
Reply
Parent - - By Caesar [de] Date 2011-02-28 14:39
Ihmo, it's not too much fun to fight an AI.
Parent - - By MrBeast [de] Date 2011-02-28 15:05
It's more fun than not fighting at all, and it also strongly depends on the AI. The ones present in CR were unfortuanlly very bad (very unfun).
Reply
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-28 17:06
If you fight nothing at all in a melee that you started with two players, you should really ask your opponent whether he is afk.
Parent - - By MrBeast [de] Date 2011-02-28 19:22
It's a difference if you play an settlement melee or an other melee. In settlement melees it's fairly common that the player has better things to do than fight you off.
Reply
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-28 21:09

>In settlement melees it's fairly common that the player has better things to do than fight you off.


What better since? I thought fighting you off efficiently would win him the game.
I would like to win the game.
Parent - By MrBeast [de] Date 2011-02-28 21:16
Getting ore to beeing able to smith a sword to have better chances killing my opponent?
Reply
Parent - - By Kizzurazzgabi [us] Date 2011-03-23 18:41
id rather fight a retarded AI than kill something that doesn't fight back, thats no fun at all.
Reply
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-03-23 21:17
And I'd rather have my Clonk stand around waiting for me to control him and maybe take a bit of damage (before the player gets the huge "YER CLONK BE DAMAGED") than him activating some AI and jumping over the control tower into the lava :)
Parent - - By Ringwaul [ca] Date 2011-03-23 22:16
I agree fully. :X
Reply
Parent - - By Gurkenglas [de] Date 2011-03-25 11:16
Before I forget that, how about every Clonk-HUD-representation whose clonk has an enemy in sight showing the distance of the Clonk to the nearest enemy (with the number represantation growing in size as the distance gets smaller?)?

That would also bring the gameplay element in, that sneaking through the areas the other clonk cant see wont alarm his player in the HUD.
Reply
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-03-25 11:28
Danger level? I once proposed binding the zoom level to something like that...
Parent - - By Gurkenglas [de] Date 2011-03-25 12:08
I mean, if you have selected another clonk, the HUD tells you for each clonk how near the nearest enemy is (if in sight)
Reply
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-03-25 13:01
Oh, that's easy to fix: Just don't have more than one Clonk :P
Parent - - By Gurkenglas [de] Date 2011-03-27 11:34

>And I'd rather have my Clonk stand around waiting for me to control him


That kinda contradicts with that :|
Reply
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-03-27 11:45
Yeah, kind of lost context there. Sorry. Carry on :)
Up Topic General / General / Different Ownership concept

Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill