hoijui wrote:would it not be easier to simply use a cross platform language? or do you trust in that new stuff working well, and in the same way in all browsers?
just asking, i do not know about it.
Cross platform has already been sacrificed - Mono's Windows.Forms implementation is a complete mess, so SpringDownloader is unusable under Mono.
However, WPF is crossing a line. At some future date, somebody could crack open SD and get it running under Mono. However, putting in WPF when there's no guarantee of WPF support means committing yourself to a lot more work if you ever want linux.
And after all, people use C# for a reason. Javascript+xhtml or C++ take a lot more work to get things going.
Yeah what pxtl says is true. SD was maintained for linux for some time, but winforms bugs made it annoying bugfixing work. Move to WPF means giving up linux compatibility completely.
It could be coded in say Java - but Java is not exactly popular in windows and coding for it is not as fun for me (if you are used to latest features of C# and .NET).
So basically if I have to code it, I'm picking .NET, if someone else, I don't care :)
Probably not the desired help, but i donate this concept art. oh, pretty colours :)
I started it before PW was mentioned.
Furthermore I think Master-Athmos makes some good points, and not all properly refuted. In an opensource community it should be possible to communicate ideas openly. Of course projects have to watch out for trolls, and things like that. But I think a project doesn't fall or stand because of the negative side effects of towing everything out there.
I'm a commercial web developer. I could help out if wanted. I'm highly experienced with PHP, JavaScript, HTML5, and XML. The websites I build are designed to be supported by legacy browsers, such as IE6 FF2 etc (with disabled features) so cross platform is not an issue. I also use Windows 7, Mac OS X, and Debian/Ubuntu Linux.
I'm not a designer so I wont be able to make the pretty concept art, but I can build the web system then integrate designs into them.
PM me if interested. I can supply samples.
Last edited by Petah on 22 Sep 2010, 21:50, edited 1 time in total.
FireStorm - yeah, I will try to rectify it and provide proper information. In retrospect this post seems premature :)
Regarding concept art- we actually need something like that for GUI design/layout. Thinking over through all that GUI can and should provide and making mockup of it.
Its complex and there are many possibilities - like regarding PW map and its function - so people who can think big, absorb it all and help design the stuff are welcome.
Considering that PW is going to be integrated into the SDLobby, it's hard to imagine it being implemented in anything other than a webapp or a C# application.
Has the new PW gameplay even been hammered out? Will it be a continuation of the classic PW gameplay, or will there be a new approach? The classic problem of repeated 1v1s conquering the galaxy because they were weigthed the same as large 8v8 games seemed to be an intrinsic flaw in classic PW.
There was PW2 in the meantime. Prototype in which its working differently. RTS game on planet has only effect on "ground combat" - the more people involved the bigger effect.
There is also more reverse impact - in RTS you can destroy structure which you built on the planet.
I'm seeking to find more meaningful "side quests" which impact PW but wont screw RTS too much.
Its a shame planet wars didn't persist. It was fun but had some pretty obvious flaws like instant spawning reinforcement and 1 person 1v1 creeping the whole galaxy.
I would love to see the concept developed further :].
I'm not really familiar with planet-wars but it raises some questions.
Also it makes me think of "Star Wars: Empire at War"
_Ground combat details_
players on autohost can vote to join any of existing "battles"
people from factions not engaged in (PW)battle or unregistered people can still play
people gain XP from winning. Base XP is 20 and its increased by 1/win% chance
_Ground combat RTS mode_
commanders can move instantly to any colony in universe
Probably getting ahead of things, so feel free to ignore, but a few questions.
Does a map on witch battle takes place represent a colony site?
XP goes to your commander?
Do the commanders of PW players fly to imminent battles to? Or is one sooner helped by a unregistered 'passing-by mercenary' than by a know ally in your (star)system?
FireStorm_ wrote:
Does a map on witch battle takes place represent a colony site?
Yes. Map will match planet/asteroid and will contain colony structures, like power factories, cities, planetary defenses which belong to planet-wars.
Those are mostly game neutral (can be destroyed though) and will probably appear near middle of map.
FireStorm_ wrote:
XP goes to your commander?
Yes, XP goes to player. In the document there is talk about mothership, this will probably be removed, as XP goes directly to player/commander.
Do the commanders of PW players fly to imminent battles to? Or is one sooner helped by a unregistered 'passing-by mercenary' than by a know ally in your (star)system?
I dont understand it here.
Basically you can join battles anywhere where is "ground combat" - that means fleet is trying to conquer planet. This event can take several hours or even days of real time.
During this time you can choose to fight on this planet.
Planet is always contested between 2 sides, and system makes sure those two sides (and their allies) are on enemy sides in game.
All other players can join whatever side they like.
1. The pay-for-bling aspect is a good idea. I'd go ahead and make it so that people who pay for their bling get better Commanders, period.
It's a formula that's worked over and over again to induce people to pay a micro-payment to improve their chances or enhance their experience.
People here will whine, but that's too bad. Either do the stuff designed to make revenue in a serious way (i.e., make it so that serious players will definitely have to pay up) or don't bother.
2. Com-bling needs to be experience-based, but only to a point.
There needs to be some sort of points system so that you can only stack so many force multipliers, and they're real choices (i.e., this bling allows your com to summon 10 free bots every 5 minutes after the first 3 minutes, but eats 10 points of your "chassis", etc.).
This gives you guys the ability to have different coms with totally different stuff (and more opportunities to induce people to pay for the good stuff). For example, one com might have 10 points to spend, another 20, but the one with 10 is a lot more durable / deadly / fast / whatever. People would probably dig a system where the units are always the same, but different com buildouts meant that the real experience was considerably different.
Moreover, then you can have different-looking character art for the different commanders, etc., which would be a big draw- "see the new Com, Death Zero, with his mighty Freeze Ray", etc.
3. I know you guys are pretty convinced that CA's overall design is where you want, but to make com-bling work, coms will inevitably become more central (or else you're doing it wrong). How can that be reconciled with the current design of 1fac?
Moreover, I know you guys are convinced that CA's got the right formula, but frankly, for that kind of game, something with lower unit counts, more twitch and more automation may be a more realistic option.
CA is bloody complicated. It's not exactly a, "hey, I found this website, the bling system sounds neat, the characters are cool, and now I can play semi-competently after an hour" sort of game.
Practically all of the really big success stories in the arena of persistent-world games have been either turn-based systems with a server-side time limit or movement "storage" for people who can't sign on every day (which may be amazingly complicated, but hey, you've got time) or they're games with a lot of action and twitch but a fairly low learning curve.
CA isn't either, frankly- it's a game with a ton of complexity and it's UI still isn't at a commercial par, documentation and other things like that aren't at a professional level, nor is the SP side developed enough to really serve as a good concepts trainer. I'm really not sure that this is the right game for the idea.
If you guys were talking about taking CA and making a full-fledged commercial product- SP campaign and the whole works... that's another story entirely. I suspect that that would do OK, if you built the rest of the stuff you'd need.
If you guys were talking about taking CA assets and and building something more deliberately constructed for the pay-for-bling casual gamer market, I think that would work too.
Anyhow, I hope that doesn't offend anybody, it's just my opinion about the business strategy.
Hey, I'd love to contribute to a project like this!
I decided to give designing the webinterface a go. I'm not sure exactly what functionality is needed, but I have tried to include everything the design document mentions. Still needs works in a lot of areas.
raginmagnets wrote:Hey, I'd love to contribute to a project like this!
I decided to give designing the webinterface a go. I'm not sure exactly what functionality is needed, but I have tried to include everything the design document mentions. Still needs works in a lot of areas.
(give it few secs to load map data and then use preview)
I will make couple of shots for Linuxers.
Note - all planets actually move and you can shift time to see where they are going to be in future. This is meant to play some role in coordinating attacks and having times which are feasible for surprise attacks.
@pxtl
of course it would be easiest for SD to do it in C# with WPF, but with Java for example, it would be usable on other platforms too, and could be integrated on a web-page. so no real technical problem there.
