![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
Mh, what are the intentions behind your ideas for buying stuff?If you want to make production buildings a more rewarding target, you could as well just give a discount on the items you could theoretically produce in the shop, for example. Destroying the enemy anvil and forcing him to buy a bow for 1.5x the price would still be pretty rewarding since you get him closer to having no money for another Clonk in case he dies.
![[gb]](/mwf/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
I did write a list already, didn't I? I still want to have no shops whatsoever. And also no cost associated with respawn (we could allow rushing it DotA-style, though).
>We have a building less
True, we indeed have a building less. We would also have less buildings if we would leave out electricity. :)
>* We don't have to build all menus two times (for building & buying). And the buying one won't be as big.
Building the menus twice will be most likely nearly no work. The big size of the buying menu is true, yes. But I don't think that it annoyed the player a lot. (Think of the way more complicated trading menu in dwarf fortress where you could only navigate with the keyboard! - And it still worked fine!)
>* We have reason to show off all our nice production buildings even in fast-paced melees
Oh, great, that enhances gameplay so much!
>* Potential of strategic gameplay, like killing the enemy forge
Would still hold true with my suggestion.
Also: The trading outpost would be an additional strategical goal - it would have to be very carefully placed by the player to be both efficient (close to the action) and well protected. Being so important it could actually draw attention from the flags so that the flags are not the only target the player has.
>* Natural delay for buying a lot of stuff (needs to be produced)
Yes, a natural delay. Whether that is a good thing or not is another question. Fast melee where you only build maybe two towers and a base-building? No, sorry. You have to wait five minutes until your equipment is ready. And another five minutes until you actually built the buildings that you need.
A fast-built outpost behind enemy lines? Yes, it was built fast. But then you had to wait five minutes for your stuff and the enemy killed the outpost before you could even get items to defend it.
>* No tent bombs
Well, the trading outpost would require you to build it in your own base-area. So you could do tent bombs in your own base area. EFFICIENT!
>And also no cost associated with respawn (we could allow rushing it DotA-style, though).
Well, I would still like the Clonks to be of value to the player. So the player actually has to think about what he does with the Clonks.
Hm, should we replicate the points from the IRC discussion here? I'll just answer to something we haven't covered there:
That point wasn't completely serious, but there is some value in this. Settlement for me is encouraging the player to build something great. A powerful base should look like one, then it is more fun building one.
> Oh, great, that enhances gameplay so much!
That point wasn't completely serious, but there is some value in this. Settlement for me is encouraging the player to build something great. A powerful base should look like one, then it is more fun building one.
>Settlement for me is encouraging the player to build something great. A powerful base should look like one, then it is more fun building one.
That is completely true and I agree with it. In melees on the other hand I think we should encourage the player to develop strategies to eliminate his opponent, rather than building a beautiful base :)
Doesn't hurt when one comes naturally with the other. I would really like to have melee bases and settlement bases look more alike.
>Doesn't hurt when one comes naturally with the other. I would really like to have melee bases and settlement bases look more alike.
Yes, it doesn't hurt if one comes naturally with the other. My point was that we should not base gameplay decisions on how it looks. (I am not valuating this very situation at the moment!!)
:)
If it looks good, it's fun. Fun is the ultimate goal of gameplay design. I'm ready to admit that it's a pretty minor thing here, but in general, we should absolutely make gameplay decisions based on looks. If there's no way we can make it look appealing, we shouldn't do it.
>If it looks good, it's fun
Then we should probably provide a screen wide Mona Lisa (or at least 200x200 that you cannot click away), I heard experts say it looks good! :]
Must be a lot of fun for the player
PS: priority on landscape shader, anyone? :)
> That point wasn't completely serious
> I'm ready to admit that it's a pretty minor thing here
> [Straw man argument exaggerating its importance]
I'm speechless.
Ok, I really like the outcome which simplyfies the whole owner stuff from ClonkRage.
But I kind of don't like the flagpole. Here is what I fear will happen:
If for example the outer castleline of a base has several buildings - let's say a flagpole and a tower for the defense - the defending team only has two things two watch: 1. Obviously the tower, it stops attacking hords pretty well. 2. The Flagpole, because the control of the tower is lost if the flagpole is destroyed or conquered.
This could destructively influence the defense of base melees: Blasting wholes into the defense, undermining or overjumping, or overconstructing (with loam) the tower now is useless. One man cannot open that tower secretly from the inside for reinforcement - it's just not possible. A single attacker in a castle also can't do much damage, because all flints and stuff would get locked away inside secure buildings, which will be controlled by the flagpole.
The flagpole itself will be either walled in or in any other cases heavily guarded. Say with an archer or worse: a cannon which already aims at the flagpole. The poor attacker has to attack that exact point to make any progress for his team - camping on that point is the most effective strategy for any defender, in theory.
My solution:
I promote flaggs instead of flagg poles. Let me explain my idea: Flags are just like the flags in CR an item, which can be attached to any building. The attacher will always control the building temporarly, if no other flags are around he would control the neighbour building as well but no more than that, the radius should be limited.
To control a whole area (like the outer castle in the example above) the flag has to be attached to a special building, the CR base would be one example - the other type of buildings I thought about are military buildings which control an area, just like in the Settlers. These area-controlling buildings behave just like the flagpoles in your concepts.
Now here comes the biggest difference: If the attackers conquer the tower, they can attach their flag to it even if they are inside the enemies area. But only the towers owner/control will be changed with that flag - the area flag of the defenders still controls all the other buildings. If the flag of the tower is removed again, the tower changes back to the ownership of it's superior flag rather than to a neutral one, it will be under the control of the defenders again which still control the whole area.
Now the next thing is this: A flag which will be attached to a random building won't have any defense at all, the defender can just collect the attackers flag. The clonks can just grab it from the building again. A military control building hower should have some base defense, like the castle in ClonkRage for example, removing the flag from it was not quite as simple as from a hut. To control a whole area the battle would still be fought about the central area flag, the ancestor of the flag pole.
Advantages:
-attackers get more possibilities, because they can use certain buildings temporarily.
-the whole battle won't be fought just around the flagpole, camping becomes less effective because other buildings and options come available for both parties. Another example for the defender here: A part of the defenders base is build like this:
Tower, B, B, Flagpole, B, B, T - our defenders (left side) all got defeated and their reinforcement currently approaches from the first B. But the attackers (coming from the right side) will control the flagpole/centre in a few seconds, the defenders could now be locked inside the two towers. But: One of the defenders attached an extra flag to the first tower, even if the central control will be lost now the defending team will still be able to retreat to their tower (which remains under control).
-In more open landscape there are now two modes to conquer an area: One is the fast mode, just capture a flag and attach it to an abondoned building. Access is fast, but the defence is poor. The other is to build a military building near that area to control it in safety. But the building will cost much time. Secure, mighty but slow method.
-all the tactics around the "Capture the flag" modes in strategy and action games can easily be included into this system. On the other hand, flags could shift ownership after some time. If let's say every team has 5 flags, and Team A lost one, Team B get's an additional flag for their conquering strategies or for the security of an additional building.
Some minor issues still remain open: Should the flagholder be visible to the enemies (even if the flag is hidden in the backpack?). Or thinking about that:
There is one weak point in that system: let's say I (the defender) build two flagpoles adjacent to each other. But only I know which one of them is the older one. Now the enemy captures only one of them, the newer one. Human logic would assume that the attackers would now control half of the area. But in your system the controller of the whole area still would be me, because my Flagpole is older!
Good luck with the further concepting. Good job till now.
But I kind of don't like the flagpole. Here is what I fear will happen:
If for example the outer castleline of a base has several buildings - let's say a flagpole and a tower for the defense - the defending team only has two things two watch: 1. Obviously the tower, it stops attacking hords pretty well. 2. The Flagpole, because the control of the tower is lost if the flagpole is destroyed or conquered.
This could destructively influence the defense of base melees: Blasting wholes into the defense, undermining or overjumping, or overconstructing (with loam) the tower now is useless. One man cannot open that tower secretly from the inside for reinforcement - it's just not possible. A single attacker in a castle also can't do much damage, because all flints and stuff would get locked away inside secure buildings, which will be controlled by the flagpole.
The flagpole itself will be either walled in or in any other cases heavily guarded. Say with an archer or worse: a cannon which already aims at the flagpole. The poor attacker has to attack that exact point to make any progress for his team - camping on that point is the most effective strategy for any defender, in theory.
My solution:
I promote flaggs instead of flagg poles. Let me explain my idea: Flags are just like the flags in CR an item, which can be attached to any building. The attacher will always control the building temporarly, if no other flags are around he would control the neighbour building as well but no more than that, the radius should be limited.
To control a whole area (like the outer castle in the example above) the flag has to be attached to a special building, the CR base would be one example - the other type of buildings I thought about are military buildings which control an area, just like in the Settlers. These area-controlling buildings behave just like the flagpoles in your concepts.
Now here comes the biggest difference: If the attackers conquer the tower, they can attach their flag to it even if they are inside the enemies area. But only the towers owner/control will be changed with that flag - the area flag of the defenders still controls all the other buildings. If the flag of the tower is removed again, the tower changes back to the ownership of it's superior flag rather than to a neutral one, it will be under the control of the defenders again which still control the whole area.
Now the next thing is this: A flag which will be attached to a random building won't have any defense at all, the defender can just collect the attackers flag. The clonks can just grab it from the building again. A military control building hower should have some base defense, like the castle in ClonkRage for example, removing the flag from it was not quite as simple as from a hut. To control a whole area the battle would still be fought about the central area flag, the ancestor of the flag pole.
Advantages:
-attackers get more possibilities, because they can use certain buildings temporarily.
-the whole battle won't be fought just around the flagpole, camping becomes less effective because other buildings and options come available for both parties. Another example for the defender here: A part of the defenders base is build like this:
Tower, B, B, Flagpole, B, B, T - our defenders (left side) all got defeated and their reinforcement currently approaches from the first B. But the attackers (coming from the right side) will control the flagpole/centre in a few seconds, the defenders could now be locked inside the two towers. But: One of the defenders attached an extra flag to the first tower, even if the central control will be lost now the defending team will still be able to retreat to their tower (which remains under control).
-In more open landscape there are now two modes to conquer an area: One is the fast mode, just capture a flag and attach it to an abondoned building. Access is fast, but the defence is poor. The other is to build a military building near that area to control it in safety. But the building will cost much time. Secure, mighty but slow method.
-all the tactics around the "Capture the flag" modes in strategy and action games can easily be included into this system. On the other hand, flags could shift ownership after some time. If let's say every team has 5 flags, and Team A lost one, Team B get's an additional flag for their conquering strategies or for the security of an additional building.
Some minor issues still remain open: Should the flagholder be visible to the enemies (even if the flag is hidden in the backpack?). Or thinking about that:
>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
There is one weak point in that system: let's say I (the defender) build two flagpoles adjacent to each other. But only I know which one of them is the older one. Now the enemy captures only one of them, the newer one. Human logic would assume that the attackers would now control half of the area. But in your system the controller of the whole area still would be me, because my Flagpole is older!
Good luck with the further concepting. Good job till now.
>Human logic would assume that the attackers would now control half of the area. But in your system the controller of the whole area still would be me, because my Flagpole is older!
No, because you do not "capture" flagpoles. You deconstruct them. And then you construct your own flagpole again. So it will be quite obvious that your new flagpole will be the new one :)
> camping on that point is the most effective strategy for any defender, in theory.
Not only in theory. Castles are by design a way to "camp" in the sense that it should allow a team to turtle for a time. For a single Clonk, a well-prepared castle will be utterly impenetrable - even if he gets inside - but that's the whole point.
Against fully equipped castles, the kind of gameplay I want to get to is that you first have to soften it up, quickly blast through anything that you fear could stop your assault, then have a team of Clonks go in, with additional explosives and means to distract enemy Clonks while one of them conquers the enemy flag(s).
In any case, note that getting to a flag will be a lot easier and more plan-able than making sure that you have killed every last Clonk hiding in some room.
>For a single Clonk, a well-prepared castle will be utterly impenetrable - even if he gets inside - but that's the whole point.
That's the point I disagree. For me the castle is a big war tool, like a tank, a cannon, a ship or a catapult. And like with every war tool, the enemy should have the possibility to turn it against it's former owner. It's not a chess piece to play with, that only destoys or will be destroyed.
Well, I agree. But the castle walls shouldn't necessarily be the last line of defense. You could have additional doors inside - or Clonks. The same as in CR, essentially. Getting inside isn't the whole story if the enemy is prepared well.
>Getting inside isn't the whole story if the enemy is prepared well.
Yes, preperation will boost the defence. In one GWE4 round against siYA and Jalo I believe, me and Darkkran used a cannon for our attack, and we walled it into metal, which is why the attacker which jumped into the castle couldn't move the cannon away from it's dominating position. However, this whole thing did cost time of course, preperation always costs so much time.. that's why it is so unpopular. I think we lost the game because we both were distracted by one enemy while the other did something really evil..
>For a single Clonk, a well-prepared castle will be utterly impenetrable - even if he gets inside - but that's the whole point.
>Against fully equipped castles, the kind of gameplay I want to get to is that you first have to soften it up, quickly blast through anything that you fear could stop your assault, then have a team of Clonks go in, with additional explosives and means to distract enemy Clonks while one of them conquers the enemy flag(s).
Another thing is this: The whole thing starts at some point to feel like some sort of tower defence in which you are a single attacking piece - alone you are nothing.. and the tower is mighty, you have to kill it first, which takes forever.
It already sucks in ClonkRage - and all the players hate it, if we currently play a game like Clepal 3on3 it often ends only because one party runs out of money (and extra clonks). There it is similar to the system you wish for: Elevators, towers and the flag can only be controlled by allies - and you can do very little alone in the enemies base. That's the same reason I don't like Cofut since it was "simplified" - all attacking things, like teraflints t-flints, metal, flag stealing, canons, explosive arrows, ballon (because of the bigger monitors though) - they all got removed! And the game became a lame tower destroy battle with one strategy: Run to the enemies tower and blast yourself up..
However, I don't think that my post is focusing too much on the offensive tower evading strategy - I like it yes, but it's not the only thing I like - but I want to keep that part of the strategy alive, and I wouldn't mind at all if it would get additional focus..
Here is another thing: Imagine 1on1? Nearly impossible for the attacker.
>and the tower is mighty, you have to kill it first, which takes forever.
Yes, in CR the strength of the towers was balanced around the construction material it would take to build one. But noone ever played with construction material which made towers (in comparison to what it needs to destroy them) way too strong
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
