Speaking about godhood in another thread sparked an idea in me. I am not sponsoring or supporting this idea, this is just a curious novelty I wanted to explore.
Basically, the idea is that in addition to having your army or horde or minions (this idea has a fantasy-tilt to it) with weapons and such, what if their were also weapons that were useable directly by the player? I'm talking about stuff like dropping meteors on your mouse cursor provided you have the resources to do so, or some variation on that (like a plain-vanilla explosion, or for more fun, a strong repulsing explosion to toss things around). Essentially, I mean weapons that are useable directlythe player, not through lesser agents (his army).
The same could also be done with building units and buildings, spawning them out of the ground at a cost. Heck, maybe even resurrection and transporting as well
Is this possible (rather, could this be possible?)? feasible? practical? nonsensical?
Player Weapons
Moderator: Moderators
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
og mkae your own wc3 mod!!!
cant stop thinking of wc3 on fps there.. something related to .. BZ
question.. even when this stuff is possible.. and some other related to "space games", "fps" games.. too
how far you think spring can make it in the wc3 field?
and in the others, like fps?.
In games like wc3 for example, there are a lot of spells, and ligth/visual effects, like magic, auras, hm, magic weapons, .. well all that must be use of a hole gamma of effects spring lacks (?), and that it should resolve to be something more than... magic making robots.. heh.
So, how much it would require for the game to... migrate (or add) of its current RTS oriented field, to others?
and would this be worth playing at the end?(having more specialized tools/games for each field out there).
cant stop thinking of wc3 on fps there.. something related to .. BZ
question.. even when this stuff is possible.. and some other related to "space games", "fps" games.. too
how far you think spring can make it in the wc3 field?
and in the others, like fps?.
In games like wc3 for example, there are a lot of spells, and ligth/visual effects, like magic, auras, hm, magic weapons, .. well all that must be use of a hole gamma of effects spring lacks (?), and that it should resolve to be something more than... magic making robots.. heh.
So, how much it would require for the game to... migrate (or add) of its current RTS oriented field, to others?
and would this be worth playing at the end?(having more specialized tools/games for each field out there).
wc3? I was thinking of something more like Magic:TG or DnD (which pwnz0rs j00r m0mm4 btw), but yeah, it's all interesting stuff.
beats me, but it will probably have at least a little appeal to some people here. I'm sticking to my robots and spaceships though.Mongus wrote:and would this be worth playing at the end?(having more specialized tools/games for each field out there).
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
wow, where did i get the FPS part out of your post fizzwizz?
ah.. magic like fantasy.. plus.. godlike powers.. that has its link to TA Kindoms? some units had "specials" that only the player could activate...
But your main post is more about player weapons, like in generals?, (not played really), ...
whats the difference of.. building a nuke silo for example.. you need the resources, and .. its mostly player side..
ah.. magic like fantasy.. plus.. godlike powers.. that has its link to TA Kindoms? some units had "specials" that only the player could activate...
But your main post is more about player weapons, like in generals?, (not played really), ...
whats the difference of.. building a nuke silo for example.. you need the resources, and .. its mostly player side..
okay, the only connection between my top post and the other thread was that I said something about maybe possessing your unit and imbuing it with godlike powers, that's all =P
I also know nothing about CC Generals, and next to nothing about TA:K, so I couldn't really say...
The difference between a nuke silo and straight-from-the-player weapons is that a Nuke Silo takes time (although maybe player weapons can have countdowns, who knows?) and more importantly, the Nuke Silo is corporeal. The player is non-corporeal and at the moment can only interact with the environment through corporeal agents (i.e. his army). What I inquired about in my top post, at it's most basic level, was whether it was possible (or feasible and so on) to make the player capable of directly intervening with the battle, even though he has no physical presence in it (and Commanders do not count as the player).
I also know nothing about CC Generals, and next to nothing about TA:K, so I couldn't really say...
The difference between a nuke silo and straight-from-the-player weapons is that a Nuke Silo takes time (although maybe player weapons can have countdowns, who knows?) and more importantly, the Nuke Silo is corporeal. The player is non-corporeal and at the moment can only interact with the environment through corporeal agents (i.e. his army). What I inquired about in my top post, at it's most basic level, was whether it was possible (or feasible and so on) to make the player capable of directly intervening with the battle, even though he has no physical presence in it (and Commanders do not count as the player).
Heheh
Play Master of Magic. Great 4X strat game where the player can cast spells in-battle.
For TA, I think the best way to have explicit player "spells" would be to have them be powers of the Commander. Just have them appear in the commander's Build menu, and work similar to building buildings, except that their range is not bound to the nanolathe range, and some of them allow you to select a living target. For the "spells" you desire, you just give him an unlimited range for those actions.
And spells would have to have a build time and suchlike for fairness (instant nukes? I'd be rapid-firing those!), I'd just say that the build time is pooled at the source, not the target.
Like "launch Nuke", "metamorphose SuperKrogoth", and "terraform field", "crater", and so on.
For TA, I think the best way to have explicit player "spells" would be to have them be powers of the Commander. Just have them appear in the commander's Build menu, and work similar to building buildings, except that their range is not bound to the nanolathe range, and some of them allow you to select a living target. For the "spells" you desire, you just give him an unlimited range for those actions.
And spells would have to have a build time and suchlike for fairness (instant nukes? I'd be rapid-firing those!), I'd just say that the build time is pooled at the source, not the target.
Like "launch Nuke", "metamorphose SuperKrogoth", and "terraform field", "crater", and so on.
I like that in TA, all abilities and special spell are linked on "corperal units", instead of being always available on the menu. IMO, C&C:G-style super-weapon is a very poor game design.
Because:
- When a weapon is mounted on a unit, it scales better with any game span: For instance in some TA games, a single nuke (ok, two in reality) is enough to end a game, in other games having nukes is simply an unrealistic objective player don't even try to reach, and in yet other games (very rare in regular games, but can be forced to happen with a few rules such as no planes & epic map). When a weapon is like a god power controlled only by the interface, then it has to be balanced for one size of game and can't scale.
- It feels artificial and break the "suspension of disbelief", it reminds me I'm playing a game on a computer, instead of living a great battle between fierce army.
- I can't give them more or less priority, for instance in Spring if I want a nuke silo fast, I'll re-route lots of builder over it. Can't do that on an icon.
- The enemy keeps his power even when 99% of his base is destroyed. Seem wrong to me that just because he played long, an enemy with only a lone peon left can use a super-power-spell that wipe half of my screen-filling army.
Well, basically, I don't like that idea because:
- It doesn't scale with battle size.
- It's not interactive enough and too much 'hard coded'. I mean, even if it's soft coded in a txt file, the reload time, the power, the area where it will unleash, etc.. can't be changed by how the game is going for eahc player).
I hate special attack spell only useable directly by players and not by a unit in C&C:G, I wouldn't like it in Spring either.
Although since it's only adding possibility that don't have to be used, and would sure open currently closed ways for mods, I won't say it must not be added. As long as it's kept at the lowest priorities in coders' to-do list, I'm fine with it.
Because:
- When a weapon is mounted on a unit, it scales better with any game span: For instance in some TA games, a single nuke (ok, two in reality) is enough to end a game, in other games having nukes is simply an unrealistic objective player don't even try to reach, and in yet other games (very rare in regular games, but can be forced to happen with a few rules such as no planes & epic map). When a weapon is like a god power controlled only by the interface, then it has to be balanced for one size of game and can't scale.
- It feels artificial and break the "suspension of disbelief", it reminds me I'm playing a game on a computer, instead of living a great battle between fierce army.
- I can't give them more or less priority, for instance in Spring if I want a nuke silo fast, I'll re-route lots of builder over it. Can't do that on an icon.
- The enemy keeps his power even when 99% of his base is destroyed. Seem wrong to me that just because he played long, an enemy with only a lone peon left can use a super-power-spell that wipe half of my screen-filling army.
Well, basically, I don't like that idea because:
- It doesn't scale with battle size.
- It's not interactive enough and too much 'hard coded'. I mean, even if it's soft coded in a txt file, the reload time, the power, the area where it will unleash, etc.. can't be changed by how the game is going for eahc player).
I hate special attack spell only useable directly by players and not by a unit in C&C:G, I wouldn't like it in Spring either.
Although since it's only adding possibility that don't have to be used, and would sure open currently closed ways for mods, I won't say it must not be added. As long as it's kept at the lowest priorities in coders' to-do list, I'm fine with it.
That's why I think "spells" should go in the build menu, and if you want "god" spells, then script them with unlimited range and give them to the command. So the Commander becomes your God. If you want an "ion cannon" spell, then you just give it to the commander. All you'd really need would be a hotkey to select the commander without focussing on him. Just a slight change to make nanolathe assistance locale for spells to be the source, rather than the target, so you can have a team of farks (or priests of your God) assist the Commander/God unit.zwzsg wrote:I like that in TA, all abilities and special spell are linked on "corperal units", instead of being always available on the menu. IMO, C&C:G-style super-weapon is a very poor game design.
Because:
- When a weapon is mounted on a unit, it scales better with any game span: For instance in some TA games, a single nuke (ok, two in reality) is enough to end a game, in other games having nukes is simply an unrealistic objective player don't even try to reach, and in yet other games (very rare in regular games, but can be forced to happen with a few rules such as no planes & epic map). When a weapon is like a god power controlled only by the interface, then it has to be balanced for one size of game and can't scale.
- It feels artificial and break the "suspension of disbelief", it reminds me I'm playing a game on a computer, instead of living a great battle between fierce army.
- I can't give them more or less priority, for instance in Spring if I want a nuke silo fast, I'll re-route lots of builder over it. Can't do that on an icon.
- The enemy keeps his power even when 99% of his base is destroyed. Seem wrong to me that just because he played long, an enemy with only a lone peon left can use a super-power-spell that wipe half of my screen-filling army.
Well, basically, I don't like that idea because:
- It doesn't scale with battle size.
- It's not interactive enough and too much 'hard coded'. I mean, even if it's soft coded in a txt file, the reload time, the power, the area where it will unleash, etc.. can't be changed by how the game is going for eahc player).
I hate special attack spell only useable directly by players and not by a unit in C&C:G, I wouldn't like it in Spring either.
Although since it's only adding possibility that don't have to be used, and would sure open currently closed ways for mods, I won't say it must not be added. As long as it's kept at the lowest priorities in coders' to-do list, I'm fine with it.
Hell, if you wanted to keep the religious theme, you could make the commander immobile and make it the "high altar" to the god, and you just cast spells from there. "Priests" can then assist the altar as normal.
So in short, I think a "spell" functionality in the build menu would be best. The trick would be generalizing the build menu to allow:
a) per-spell range
b) nano-support on the caster rather than target,
c) selecting units as targets (or having spells that are locationless)
d) linking a spell to an arbitrary LUA script or something similar to handle invoking the resultant event.
Plus, then you could have StarCraft-style "units with spells" with all the annoyance of micromanaging that. It would be a pain, but it makes the engine more generic and able to support that sort of action for the tasteless people who enjoy that sort of thing.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
I agree with alot of what zwzsg says... however, while I think this is bad for TA, I still want to see spring do it. Not all games are epic RTS, if I wanted to make a Black and White style mod in spring player spells are just something that I would need, there wouldn't even be a question about it. I honestly think it's time we stopped thinking about things in terms of "how would this work in terms of a RTS?" and started thinking in terms of "what would this bring to the capabilites of the spring platform?"
Player activated spells are nessicary for some games, and I think down the line somewhere we should look at making them possible.
Player activated spells are nessicary for some games, and I think down the line somewhere we should look at making them possible.
You all assume that any new features are features we will see in TA mods and games. You forget there're other agmes that could be ported to this engine that would make ti even more popular.
Add research and custom resources for example and you're a longway towards the support needed for AOE and AOM style games, not to mention games like warcraft, starcraft, homeworld, cc generals....
Add research and custom resources for example and you're a longway towards the support needed for AOE and AOM style games, not to mention games like warcraft, starcraft, homeworld, cc generals....
)