![[pl]](/mwf/flags/pl.png "Poland")
My idea is quite simple. Instead of creating few scenarios with same map (for example desert) there could be few pre-defined (by developer) rule, lose condition and goal sets, like one for melee, few for settlement(normal, gold mining, gain enough money) and some misc sets like Hide & Seek (:D)
This would be configurable in lobby.
And my second suggestions is to add "feature" field for map generation scripts. When this field is empty(or not defined) layer is rendered normally, and when it is set to any string (for example "sky_islands") players hosting a game, or starting single player game see a checkbox named "Sky islands", and when it is chosen describen layer gets drawn, and when not - id is not drawn. Basically - You have a map named "Sky islands" and checkboxes "Mother island in middle", "Small islands", "Medium islands", "More medium islands.", "Caves inside islands", etc.
With these two things implemented it would be possible to create - from one scenario many different scenarios. Pros of this would be of course having map chosing menu less cluttered, more gameplay possibilities. Some of this could be done via scripts, but that - in my opinion - would be bad, because it would require first starting the game, does not allow(probably) setting it in lobby and would require special script for each random scenario, and not all people would know/remember about that script.
So in my opinion this would be huge advantage, and would probably be quite easy to implement as far as I looked into source(but I'm not an C++ expert, so I'm probably wrong)
This would be configurable in lobby.
And my second suggestions is to add "feature" field for map generation scripts. When this field is empty(or not defined) layer is rendered normally, and when it is set to any string (for example "sky_islands") players hosting a game, or starting single player game see a checkbox named "Sky islands", and when it is chosen describen layer gets drawn, and when not - id is not drawn. Basically - You have a map named "Sky islands" and checkboxes "Mother island in middle", "Small islands", "Medium islands", "More medium islands.", "Caves inside islands", etc.
With these two things implemented it would be possible to create - from one scenario many different scenarios. Pros of this would be of course having map chosing menu less cluttered, more gameplay possibilities. Some of this could be done via scripts, but that - in my opinion - would be bad, because it would require first starting the game, does not allow(probably) setting it in lobby and would require special script for each random scenario, and not all people would know/remember about that script.
So in my opinion this would be huge advantage, and would probably be quite easy to implement as far as I looked into source(but I'm not an C++ expert, so I'm probably wrong)
![[ca]](/mwf/flags/ca.png "Canada")
I really like your idea of game-modes for certain maps (the maps in the 'Worlds' folder of CR are good types for this). This would be incredibly simple via script, but changing the game mode before the scenario starts would be better, I think. Many games use this selectable game-mode; such as Soldat with Capture-The-Flag/Death-Match/Team-DM. I think this would work well in Clonk, because it would create replay for some maps without having to use the editor.Hmm, maybe selectable goals could be defined in the scenario options?
>"Hmm, maybe selectable goals could be defined in the scenario options?"
Yes, that was what I meant.
I mean in the editor, you could define which goals could be selected and which could not.
Well, editing them in editor, or editing Scenario.txt is pretty much the same from game point of view.
When you set up a property of scenario it doesnt matter if you modified it using editor or notepad.
The Editor uses notepad (or whatever program is selected in it's settings). There is no built in text-editor for the Editor.Also, I'd like to mention that I was referring to:
*Setting which Goals can be selected in Scenario.txt
*Picking from available goals before starting scenario; in game.
For instance, in scenario.txt:
SelectableGoals=GOLDMINE=1; SETTLE=40; MELEE=1; CTF_=1; (assuming IDs have longer names :p )
Then ingame, you could select any of these goals for the current map. In this way, there are still selectable goals which are designed for the map.
I would rather suggest something like this in Scenario.txt:
Set
{
Name = Race to the top;
Rules = NoMagic;
Goal = Race;
Script = Script1.txt;
PlayersStartArea=20%,60%,80%,80%;
GoalArea=0%,0%,100%,10%; //For race or something like this.
};
Set
{
Name = Race to the top;
Rules = NoMagic;
Goal = Race;
Script = Script1.txt;
PlayersStartArea=20%,60%,80%,80%;
GoalArea=0%,0%,100%,10%; //For race or something like this.
};
![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
I don't like the idea. Good scenarios are usually designed to work in one specific game mode. I'd rather have a set of well-designed worlds with a set goal than endless general-purpose worlds in which each goal just kinda works if you happen to choose your rules well.The same goes for landscapes. If you have "just" a general purpose landscape with no specific goal in mind, chances are, the game won't be as fun as on a landscape built specifically to make a certain goal interesting.
There's nothing wrong with having many scenarios. If your frontend gets "cluttered", organize them in folders.
Mh I think the same.
Well, scenarios like Desert or Arctic from CR are good both for melee and non-melee goals like mining gold/collecting oil, also this would add much more replayability. They will usually be started with default goal, but if you want - you can force another one.
Desert and Arctic are exactly the kind of scenario I'd call "not well done". You can drill oil in Desert, but there's not really a challenge in that except to discover how things work. Arctic has an interesting landscape for gold mining. Melee in Arctic, is not much different from Minor Melee without flints.Now compare this to a well-designed counterpart: Arctic in Far Worlds has a storyline and a scripted goal. Starting material, object placement, etc. is all adjusted to work well with this goal. The scenario has been tested to be played in this way. I have much more fun playing Far Worlds arctic than playing some plain, boring map.
I wouldn't want to play Melee in Far Worlds Arctic either, unless someone adjusted the scenario to actually work as a melee (e.g., adjust starting material, maybe relax hunger/freeze rules, etc.) - in which case, it would be a new scenario which deserves its own scenario file.
Well... but Arctic, Desert and other dynamic maps are designed rather for sandbox, while Arctic in Far Worlds is designed as a 'normal' scenario. Some people prefer to play Clonk without story, including me, and every single person playing Clonk I know in real life, it would be including me... ehm... 4 people :P
But for sandbox scenarios there should be possibility to choose goals. Also if there would be only predefined goals, then there could be few different stories for single map along with some simple goals for people who prefer sandbox gameplay.
But for sandbox scenarios there should be possibility to choose goals. Also if there would be only predefined goals, then there could be few different stories for single map along with some simple goals for people who prefer sandbox gameplay.
During some settlement games with a friend, I'll change the goal at the start of a game because I'd simply like to try creating a base instead of mining out every pixel of (insert material) from the map. Sometimes I like the map, but would like to try a different goal.
>I don't like the idea. Good scenarios are usually designed to work in one specific game mode. I'd rather have a set of well-designed worlds with a set goal than endless general-purpose worlds in which each goal just kinda works if you happen to choose your rules well.
This argument works pretty well for missions, and I don't see why this feature is that essential to dynamic worlds as well. However I'm hooked by the idea thinking about all the possibilities for online melee scenarios (the setting of relaunches etc.). They would end the chaos caused by all the different scenario mods as well.
Yes, lobby options for game modes specific to each scenario make sense. Downside of this is that it promotes specialization (and thus separation) of league players even more.
The (imo valid) feature request of being able to set up a small lobby-GUI (checkboxes/lists would be enough I think) with scenario specific stuff (not only goals!) is quite old. A lobby could allow the host to select whether the map will be played with relaunches or kills as a goal and give him a possibility to select the amount of relaunches/kills to win.Of course that would not be limited to such things but could also allow for more detailed game options (whether friendly-fire is enabled for example) - and of course that could also be used to set the goal.
There is a quite detailed description about that in the german bugtracker somwhere
Do you know this class? :(
Btw, I don't care whether options are set at lobby time or at runtime. Fixing that the hosts player is always Player 0 would already be fine imho.
// scenario-defined game options (2do)
class C4GameOptions
{
};Btw, I don't care whether options are set at lobby time or at runtime. Fixing that the hosts player is always Player 0 would already be fine imho.
Well I don't think freely configurable goals are a good idea. Selecting from predefined goals designed for the scenario (as said above) would be the way to go, if this is implemented.In this way, it could be possible to design a map for more than just one goal.
But if people played it with all goals, or simply want to walk around and build let them force something else.
You don't need to fulfill the scenario goal if you don't want to.
But sometimes you can do it by accident, like last monster dying. However... nobody would force anyone to use this feature.
Argh, that's not he solution :P
At least not too good one. Also what if someone for example WANTS to lets say - remove all sand from desert (or mine all sulphur on some map)?
At least not too good one. Also what if someone for example WANTS to lets say - remove all sand from desert (or mine all sulphur on some map)?
Then nobody hinders him to do so.
BTW. in addition to few selectale sets of goals, rules and lose conditions(or stories) add possibility to add "No starting here in this set" and "Players can only start here in this set" areas. In map with underground cave with lots of lava it is a bit painfull to start at big island in the middle of lava lake... also if I would add a Race set then I would like players to start only there, and race to the surface...
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
