Creating a standard for checkpoint-based maps

[KDR_11k]

I think several mods are trying to replace the mex system currently in place with a checkpoint-based territory system. For this purpose I suggest that we define a standard way of marking these points so you don't need to have different maps for every mod and checkpoint-based mods have a lower threshold of development.

For this we'd have to agree on a way to define the checkpoint positions. I'd propose two types of points, rare points and common points with rare points being victory ponts for mods that want them or rare resources in others. Sure, this won't cover multiple point types but I think it's a start.

The easy way would be to use features, the flexible way would be to use some sort of Lua call to the map's Lua to get the positions (to allow varying them) but I'm not sure that's possible.

[Otherside]

i think a system similar to dawn of wars could work

with capture points and relic points (for spring it could work as low priority control point and high priority control point) like you said

imo the way it should be done is the easiest way to do it for map makers which would be lua i guess ??

[KDR_11k]

Features are easier.

[pktm]

Means, that something like Z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_(computer_game)) will be possible?

[KDR_11k]

It's already possible, the point is that we can't place flags randomly, the map has to dictate where those go. If everyone has his maps using different mechanisms for marking those positions then each mod will only be compatible with a few of the maps it could theoretically use.

[SinbadEV]

My best idea was to have a map lua function ( with no other purpose ) that returns these points... I think we might want to come up with a couple other things for the list to contain, I would suggest high, medium and low priority just to give flexibility... weather the control point is in water or not maybe...maybe have 2 (or more... maybe 4) control point types evenly distributed so that mods who want two (or more) styles of equally important resources.

You would need a way of selecting a lua-file of this type for a map without it's own (or as an override) to make it work completely right.

[Gnomre]

We already have this basically entirely working for SWIW, except there are no 'priorities' used. There's a simple profile system which you can use to manually define points, and if that's absent, it just scans the metal map and goes nuts. It can even spawn a feature (a different one for each point if the mapper wants), though we personally have that disabled now for a few reasons:

1) Many maps have metal spots on rough ground, which can look rather shitty with a feature there (regardless of its upright status)

2) Spawning the features seemed unreliable. I had to spawn them up in the air a bit to even get them to spawn at all (so someone with a sharp eye could see them quickly falling), and even then it didn't work sometimes. And there were places where it didn't work, but only some of the time, with a feature being spawned perfectly fine other times. The units spawned always worked fine though.

3) Ground decals, ghost mode, and a 30-frame LOS trick (turning the unit to alwaysvisible for 30 frames, then off) make it easier to see the points anyway.

Besides a priority system though, the only thing missing that I don't know how to code is a display on the minimap. A simple colored dot like dawn of war would be suitable.

Here's what one of our manual profiles look like:

Code: Select all

local resources = {
	{
		x = 300,
		y = 315,
		feature = nil
	},
	{
		x = 445,
		y = 1030,
		feature = nil
	},
	{
		x = 1050,
		y = 510,
		feature = nil
	},
	{
		x = 1650,
		y = 385,
		feature = nil
	} ...
}

My only problem with including a feature that way is that it may become too mod-specific, though I guess any mod could just take the profile, do a quick batch replace, and be fine.

[FLOZi]

/me thinks this may be the next bit of SW magic we steal

[Saktoth]

Honestly, i think the best and only practical way to do this is with random control point generation.

Yes, this takes the control of the resources out of the hands of the mapper, but resources and economy are mod aspects, and most mappers dont even understand the economic flow of the primary OTA mods (how many maps out there are unplayable due to economy craziness?). You cant really expect them to understand the flow of a theoretically, yet-to-be-created mod. So putting the economy and resources in the hands of the modder is where it should be.

It also adds a random element, allowing for more replayability of maps.

[Gota]

Otherside,fix your snow map.

[Pxtl]

No mapper will ever bother. Best to make an easy-to-use Lua script that automatically constructs such a map out of the metal/geo map.

[Erom]

Distributing a key point list, in whatever format (lua is fine), in the map archive is definitely the easiest way to do this.

I would think there should be a way for a mod maker to override the map 's selection (to override a poor keyfile or to put a keyfile in place for a map that was missing one), and it would also be up to the mod to define a standard fallback behavior if the map is lacking a keypoint lua file (random or not, mod's choice).

[KDR_11k]

Honestly, i think the best and only practical way to do this is with random control point generation.

Yes, this takes the control of the resources out of the hands of the mapper, but resources and economy are mod aspects, and most mappers dont even understand the economic flow of the primary OTA mods (how many maps out there are unplayable due to economy craziness?). You cant really expect them to understand the flow of a theoretically, yet-to-be-created mod. So putting the economy and resources in the hands of the modder is where it should be.

It also adds a random element, allowing for more replayability of maps.

Randomness is fail. Would you like it if the control points were placed so one team can easily reach a bunch within their porc line while the other has to go out and hold them? Control points in areas you cannot reach without planes or not at all? Only the map knows which spots are interesting and if the mod wants it can ignore any number of points.

[lurker]

I would suggest that each point gets the following:
{
x = mandatory
y = mandatory
z = mandatory
feature = optional
value = optional
rarity = optional
}

Value would be a multiplier that defaults to 1 if nil.
I'm not sure what the values for rarity should be, but they need to be standardized.
Should y be optional?

This system would be usable by IW with a one letter change (as it uses the term y for the z coordinate in the definition file) and is usable by the system in Evolution. I've made a widget to place control points and output a def file that I will pastebin soon, and I'm working on a system to use the following fallback:
1. A def file in the mod is used.
2. It uses a map file or runs a map function or something.
3. It streams definitions from the host's computer to all players.
4. It streams definitions from a player's computer to everyone.
5. It runs a built-in function.
This behavior should probably be partially dependent on mod options too.

[AF]

Are we forgetting world builder?

[rattle]

Obviously

[KDR_11k]

If I wanted to randomly place my points I'd do so (in fact I'm doing so for THIS).

[Saktoth]

Randomness is fail. Would you like it if the control points were placed so one team can easily reach a bunch within their porc line while the other has to go out and hold them? Control points in areas you cannot reach without planes or not at all? Only the map knows which spots are interesting and if the mod wants it can ignore any number of points.

A. There are plenty of maps with resources that are hard/impossible to reach without air or sea, say Tartarus, othersides snow map (the geo), bluebend, frostbite, Charlie, etc.
B. As long as the control points are evenly distributed, no side should get any particular favour.
C. There are a lot of asymmetrical maps- Geyser, Battle for Planet, Cooper. Some might say they are more in favour of one side (Left side on cooper, top on planet). These are popular competitive maps, even. This is considered ok as both players have an equal chance of getting either spot.

Distributing a key point list, in whatever format (lua is fine), in the map archive is definitely the easiest way to do this.

Not easy if no mapper does it. Okay, you want a standard for deliberately placed control points beyond just mexes and geos. But most mappers wont be doing this though, even if you arrive at a standard acceptable to most modders, and restricting yourself to playing the few maps that might include it is really limiting. Profiles for each map, made by modders, mappers or third parties and packaged with the mod is probably the route to take as it preserves backwards compatability with all the great spring maps, and all the maps made for BA..

[KDR_11k]

A symmetric point pattern doesn't mean equal chances though, what's within a fort wall on one side can be in a lake on the other or something.

Also randomness won't allow for placing points so they're easy or hard to hold. Would you want to play a TA mod when all metal spots were moved randomly?

[zwzsg]

The first mod to implement it becomes the de-facto standard. So go with Gnome's SWS standard.