Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby hwoarangmy » 12 Sep 2014, 17:38

I've seen in many parts of the code signs that color is used for defining teams. For example at map write time, where it is pretty clear that seat color is not meant to be unique :
https://github.com/OpenDungeons/OpenDun ... r.cpp#L532

In the actual code, color is used to identify players, which is not the initial expected behaviour. As I am currently fixing the editor (it's almost done), I will remove the quoted part of the code as currently, duplicated color for seats would not work (and in this case, I don't see why we would force players with same color to have the same spawn pool).
But I think we should add a seat parameter ID meant to be unique and used to identify seat/player.
In the actual code, color is checked to allow or not picking up a creature. That would mean 2 allied players could pickup each others creatures. I don't think it is the expected behaviour (at least, not the default one). IMHO, players should only be able to pickup there creatures. Allies should share vision and be able to drop creatures on each others claimed tiles.

Do you agree with this ? If so, I will open an issue on github.
hwoarangmy
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 16 Apr 2014, 19:13

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Bertram » 13 Sep 2014, 08:41

Hi hwoarangmy,

I think we already discussed this but as we tend to discuss things everywhere, it's not bad to have a proper topic as you already said. :)

The seat color id integer value (for everyone, it's different from the color seen in game even if linked to it), is not that badly named and used, IMHO.
I mean I'm quite sure we decided that two seats could be allies in game but shouldn't share color (or seat id), and thus be allies even if having a different color.
So alliances and team id/colors are two different notions to me.
It will be even better if you're allied wth someone else and have a different color since it will help you separate your creatures from his/hers.

Later on, if it's useful and desired, we could add support for two seats sharing their color (or seat id) and thus sharing creatures, resources, ...

Are you ok with this?

Best regards,
User avatar
Bertram
VT Moderator
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 12:26

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby hwoarangmy » 13 Sep 2014, 10:16

Bertram {l Wrote}:I think we already discussed this but as we tend to discuss things everywhere, it's not bad to have a proper topic as you already said. :)
Yes. But it's good to have everybody's opinion. Especially when changing something.

Bertram {l Wrote}:So alliances and team id/colors are two different notions to me.
It will be even better if you're allied wth someone else and have a different color since it will help you separate your creatures from his/hers.
We agree. BTW, that's how RTS games handle that...

Bertram {l Wrote}:Later on, if it's useful and desired, we could add support for two seats sharing their color (or seat id) and thus sharing creatures, resources, ...
Yes, for me, seat id should be unique whatever we do and allow to identify a player. Same color means allies.

If everybody agrees, I will do that as it is not a big deal and I believe it will make multiplayer games much more interesting :)
hwoarangmy
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 16 Apr 2014, 19:13

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Bertram » 13 Sep 2014, 10:20

If everybody agrees, I will do that as it is not a big deal and I believe it will make multiplayer games much more interesting :)

Are you speaking about adding alliances support or sharing colors, or both?

Whatever the answer is, I think it's cool! :)
User avatar
Bertram
VT Moderator
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 12:26

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby oln » 13 Sep 2014, 11:53

Sounds good to me.
User avatar
oln
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 22:16
Location: Norway

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby hwoarangmy » 13 Sep 2014, 22:34

Bertram {l Wrote}:Are you speaking about adding alliances support or sharing colors, or both?
IMHO, displayed color (the color of the tiles) should never be shared. Even if we share ressources/creatures, I think it is better to have different displayed color.
From a coding point of view, I will try in the code to relate entities to players (some are related to seats, which is a mistake in my opinion). Then, I will add an ID to seats and, to have allies, you will need to set the same color to seats. As a first try, I will allow to drop creatures on ally tiles. But it will not be possible to pickup allies creatures. And, of course, allied creature will not fight each other :)

Bertram {l Wrote}:Whatever the answer is, I think it's cool! :)
I think so :)

oln {l Wrote}:Sounds good to me.
Good to have your validation :)
hwoarangmy
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 16 Apr 2014, 19:13

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Bertram » 14 Sep 2014, 15:49

IMHO, displayed color (the color of the tiles) should never be shared. Even if we share ressources/creatures, I think it is better to have different displayed color.
From a coding point of view, I will try in the code to relate entities to players (some are related to seats, which is a mistake in my opinion). Then, I will add an ID to seats and, to have allies, you will need to set the same color to seats. As a first try, I will allow to drop creatures on ally tiles. But it will not be possible to pickup allies creatures. And, of course, allied creature will not fight each other :)


Sounds fine to me. :)

@oln:
Glad you're around keeping an eye open. :)
User avatar
Bertram
VT Moderator
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 12:26

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby hwoarangmy » 15 Sep 2014, 16:44

To summarize what I am going to do :
- Add a seat id (unique) in every level file (knowing that there is one seat per player so the
- Try to relate everything actually related to color to seat
- As much as possible, I will try to add the alliance stuff into the Seat class to not spread related code everywhere
- Allied players cannot pickup each other creatures
- Allied players can drop their creatures on every allied tile
- Allied players do not share gold
- Allied players do not share claimed tiles (I mean for goals) - should be changed ?
- Allied players can build on each other claimed tiles
- Creatures do not use allied rooms (cannot go to sleep in allied dormitory for example)
- Allied players can dig through each other claimed walls
- A player can claim a wall next to an allied tile
hwoarangmy
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 16 Apr 2014, 19:13

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Bertram » 16 Sep 2014, 09:01

Heya hwoarangmy, :)

Sorry, even if most of it makes sense, I disagree with several points listed above. I hope you didn't put too much energy in those already. :S

Let me explain:

- Add a seat id (unique) in every level file (knowing that there is one seat per player so the

--> ?? I think the end of the sentence died unexpectedly.

- Try to relate everything actually related to color to seat
- As much as possible, I will try to add the alliance stuff into the Seat class to not spread related code everywhere

-> Sounds fine.

Allied game rules:

- Allied players cannot pickup each other creatures
- Allied players can drop their creatures on every allied tile
- Allied players do not share gold
- Creatures do not use allied rooms (cannot go to sleep in allied dormitory for example)

Fine to me.

- Allied players do not share claimed tiles (I mean for goals) - should be changed ?

Nope. To make it simple and as many RTS do. When either one ally has reached his objectives, both win.
It's then on the mapper shoulders to make the objectives relevant accordingly.

- Allied players can build on each other claimed tiles
- Allied players can dig through each other claimed walls
- A player can claim a wall next to an allied tile

--> Please, no !!
This isn't what the player would expect, especially after playing some single-player scenario.
Allied players shouldn't share anything, and should trust one another when it comes to build stuff and claim territory.

If I'm allied with another player, I'm expecting that my creatures won't attack his and vice versa. I'm also expecting that I can help him with my creatures.
But I certainly won't like him to claim walls in my place, weaken my defense by digging where he shouldn't, and build rooms in the middle of my tiles.

Also, such rules will complicate a lot the alliance logic uselessly, IMHO.

I hope you'll understand my position. :)

Regards,
User avatar
Bertram
VT Moderator
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 12:26

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby hwoarangmy » 16 Sep 2014, 09:32

Hi Bertram,

Bertram {l Wrote}:Sorry, even if most of it makes sense, I disagree with several points listed above. I hope you didn't put too much energy in those already. :S
No problem. I am trying to gather the code concerning that in the Seat class so it is not too hard to change. Moreover, I believe this might be things that can be changed in game (to allow enabling/disabling sharing control) like in RTS games like Starcraft 2.

Bertram {l Wrote}:--> ?? I think the end of the sentence died unexpectedly.
Yes the sentence was : Add a seat id (unique) in every level file (knowing that there is one seat per player so the seat id can allow to identify the player using the seat - which is not the case for the color)

Bertram {l Wrote}:Nope. To make it simple and as many RTS do. When either one ally has reached his objectives, both win.
It's then on the mapper shoulders to make the objectives relevant accordingly.
that joins the thread I've open about win/loose condition :
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5830
The problem with this logic is that we can reach a point where 2 allies won a map but don't reach the objectives. Lets take an example. We are both allies and you started well the game by gathering much gold reaching the gold minning goal. I started not so well and I don't reach gold objectives. Then, Danimal and Akien send their minions to crush you. You have a hard time but after an epic battle, we kill them. You lost nearly all your kobolds but you survived. During that time, my kobolds take all the tiles in the map (because I didn't loose any) so I reach the tile claiming objective. Because we are allies, your kobolds will not try to claim my tiles and you won't have the opportunity to reach claiming tile goal. So, we won the map but neither you or me have reached all objectives.
For this problem, we can assume that the mapper will not use golas that cannot be reached. But that would almost limit goals to "kill ennemy creatures" in multiplayer.

Bertram {l Wrote}:--> Please, no !!
This isn't what the player would expect, especially after playing some single-player scenario.
Allied players shouldn't share anything, and should trust one another when it comes to build stuff and claim territory.

If I'm allied with another player, I'm expecting that my creatures won't attack his and vice versa. I'm also expecting that I can help him with my creatures.
But I certainly won't like him to claim walls in my place, weaken my defense by digging where he shouldn't, and build rooms in the middle of my tiles.

Also, such rules will complicate a lot the alliance logic uselessly, IMHO.
I understand your point of view but if we take again the previous example, that means that if my kobolds go to your dungeon and start claiming your tiles, you won't be able to build. For example, If at the game start, I drop a worker in your dungeon, you wont be able to build. I guess you are going to say that my workers should not be able to claim tiles if there is no neighboor claimed. The problem if we do that is that if we consider a map where there is a bridge with 2 allied players on 1 side and 2 allies players on the other side, if my kobolds or yours take the bridge, the other kobolds won't be able to claim anything on the other side. Which is a big problem IMHO...
I agree with your point of view (actually, I had the same before thinking about these problems) but I don't see how we can do otherwise...
hwoarangmy
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 16 Apr 2014, 19:13

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Bertram » 16 Sep 2014, 10:31

The problem with this logic is that we can reach a point where 2 allies won a map but don't reach the objectives. Lets take an example. We are both allies and you started well the game by gathering much gold reaching the gold minning goal. I started not so well and I don't reach gold objectives. Then, Danimal and Akien send their minions to crush you. You have a hard time but after an epic battle, we kill them. You lost nearly all your kobolds but you survived. During that time, my kobolds take all the tiles in the map (because I didn't loose any) so I reach the tile claiming objective. Because we are allies, your kobolds will not try to claim my tiles and you won't have the opportunity to reach claiming tile goal. So, we won the map but neither you or me have reached all objectives.
For this problem, we can assume that the mapper will not use golas that cannot be reached. But that would almost limit goals to "kill ennemy creatures" in multiplayer.


This is true. Thus, as you said:
Concerning multiplayer, I think we should only consider winning/loosing for the team and not for everyplayer. For example, if you die (your dungeon temple got destroyed) but your ally wins, you should be considered as winner.

I think you solved that one. :) How we declare that in the level file is another story, though.

I understand your point of view but if we take again the previous example, that means that if my kobolds go to your dungeon and start claiming your tiles, you won't be able to build. For example, If at the game start, I drop a worker in your dungeon, you wont be able to build. I guess you are going to say that my workers should not be able to claim tiles if there is no neighboor claimed. The problem if we do that is that if we consider a map where there is a bridge with 2 allied players on 1 side and 2 allies players on the other side, if my kobolds or yours take the bridge, the other kobolds won't be able to claim anything on the other side. Which is a big problem IMHO...
I agree with your point of view (actually, I had the same before thinking about these problems) but I don't see how we can do otherwise...

A valid point raised...

Yet, for simplicity purpose, I'd rather propose this:
- Kobold should still not be able to claim over allies tiles and when there are no own team tiles next.
- Add a spell, or room icon that permits to change one own claimed tile to allies color (one button per ally color). This way, if you blocked one ally, you can unblock him with that button. (enabled in allied games only).
--> This solution would fix issue with kobolds claiming tiles where they shouldn't, IMHO, and also fix the bridge problem, without making the allied rules tricky to maintain, and probably solve a lot of other cases not yet told.
Note that this could weaken some or your walls if you don't pay attention. And that's a cool side-effect IMHO. :>

What do you think?
User avatar
Bertram
VT Moderator
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 12:26

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby hwoarangmy » 16 Sep 2014, 11:10

Bertram {l Wrote}:I think you solved that one. :) How we declare that in the level file is another story, though.
That would mean that goals are shared. ie : if there are 2 golas and we are allied, if I fullfill goal 1 and you fullfill goal 2, we won. Is that what you want to say ?

Bertram {l Wrote}:Yet, for simplicity purpose, I'd rather propose this:
- Kobold should still not be able to claim over allies tiles and when there are no own team tiles next.
- Add a spell, or room icon that permits to change one own claimed tile to allies color (one button per ally color). This way, if you blocked one ally, you can unblock him with that button. (enabled in allied games only).
--> This solution would fix issue with kobolds claiming tiles where they shouldn't, IMHO, and also fix the bridge problem, without making the allied rules tricky to maintain, and probably solve a lot of other cases not yet told.
Note that this could weaken some or your walls if you don't pay attention. And that's a cool side-effect IMHO. :>

What do you think?
That's an interesting option. That would allow allies to give each other owned tiles. If we go for that, you could allow your ally to claim tiles. That would also resolve the claiming tiles goal problem. But if you don't want to give him one tile at the correct place, he will have no way to do it himself. I'm not sure this is acceptable because we are doing all this to avoid an "unfriendly ally" to build in your dungeon unwanted rooms or break your walls. But even with this solution, he can block you by not giving you one tile...
hwoarangmy
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 16 Apr 2014, 19:13

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Bertram » 16 Sep 2014, 11:33

That would mean that goals are shared. ie : if there are 2 golas and we are allied, if I fullfill goal 1 and you fullfill goal 2, we won. Is that what you want to say ?

Better than that, I think that goals should be defined per "team" aka set of allies in the level file.
But that would mean allies are fixed per maps. Would this be ok for you?

That's an interesting option. That would allow allies to give each other owned tiles. If we go for that, you could allow your ally to claim tiles. That would also resolve the claiming tiles goal problem. But if you don't want to give him one tile at the correct place, he will have no way to do it himself. I'm not sure this is acceptable because we are doing all this to avoid an "unfriendly ally" to build in your dungeon unwanted rooms or break your walls. But even with this solution, he can block you by not giving you one tile...

Well, from experience, there is nothing that can stop an unfriendly ally from bothering you, anyway. The solution I'm proposing will permit to solve edge cases easily, but in the facts, I'm sure people won't mingle that much, IMO.

What do you think about all that?
User avatar
Bertram
VT Moderator
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 12:26

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby hwoarangmy » 16 Sep 2014, 11:47

Bertram {l Wrote}:Better than that, I think that goals should be defined per "team" aka set of allies in the level file.
Ok. but it breaks a little bit the logic of goals being handled by seats. Anyway, this can be done later...

Bertram {l Wrote}:But that would mean allies are fixed per maps. Would this be ok for you?
I think it must be fixed per map ;)

Bertram {l Wrote}:Well, from experience, there is nothing that can stop an unfriendly ally from bothering you, anyway. The solution I'm proposing will permit to solve edge cases easily, but in the facts, I'm sure people won't mingle that much, IMO.
True. But we could say the same for being able to build/dig on allied tiles ;)

Bertram {l Wrote}:What do you think about all that?
To be honest, I can see good and bad points in both solution and I don't have a favorite one. Let's wait for others opinions to see what they prefer :)
hwoarangmy
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 16 Apr 2014, 19:13

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby hwoarangmy » 16 Sep 2014, 12:59

Bertram {l Wrote}:The solution I'm proposing will permit to solve edge cases easily, but in the facts, I'm sure people won't mingle that much, IMO.
I've been thinking that we should take care because a human allied player can be bothering but an AI allied player can be worst. If he takes strategical tiles, you are done...
hwoarangmy
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 16 Apr 2014, 19:13

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Akien » 16 Sep 2014, 13:00

Bertram {l Wrote}:Better than that, I think that goals should be defined per "team" aka set of allies in the level file.
But that would mean allies are fixed per maps. Would this be ok for you?

I agree with this, though only for key objectives. I think that there should be a possibility to define secondary objectives per seat, e.g. "Go kill that dragon to earn 3000 gold" or "Kill the princess before she kisses the Frog Prince to gain a magical wand that can change enemies into frogs" :-D
Godot Engine project manager and maintainer.
Occasional FOSS gamedev: Lugaru, OpenDungeons, Jetpaca, Minilens.
User avatar
Akien
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 22 Feb 2014, 13:14

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Bertram » 16 Sep 2014, 13:18

Hi :)

@Akien:
I agree with this, though only for key objectives. I think that there should be a possibility to define secondary objectives per seat, e.g. "Go kill that dragon to earn 3000 gold" or "Kill the princess before she kisses the Frog Prince to gain a magical wand that can change enemies into frogs" :-D

Sounds like objectives that can be common since there would be only one dragon, or one princess, IMHO.
I must say, making secondary objectives per seat looks complicated for no real use to me. But feel free to prove me wrong. :)

@hwoarangmy:
Ok. but it breaks a little bit the logic of goals being handled by seats. Anyway, this can be done later...

Sure! :)

I think it must be fixed per map ;)

We have a deal, IMHO.

True. But we could say the same for being able to build/dig on allied tiles ;)

With the solution I'm proposing, allies wouldn't be able to build/dig allies tiles, anyway, right?

I've been thinking that we should take care because a human allied player can be bothering but an AI allied player can be worst. If he takes strategical tiles, you are done...

-> True. But we could say the same for being able to build/dig on allied tiles ;) </joke>

I didn't actually thought correctly of an AI ally yet, I must say. In that case, you should have the right to demand claimed tiles, IMHO.
Maybe the same logic could be used to visually ask tiles to an ally, btw? (Instead of chatting a lot to make others understand about your request?)
AI players would automatically grant the requested tiles in that case.

I've put my points and you know how greedy I can be (Mwahaha) ;) But you're right, let's wait on other's opinions.

Regards,
User avatar
Bertram
VT Moderator
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 12:26

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Akien » 16 Sep 2014, 13:29

Bertram {l Wrote}:
I agree with this, though only for key objectives. I think that there should be a possibility to define secondary objectives per seat, e.g. "Go kill that dragon to earn 3000 gold" or "Kill the princess before she kisses the Frog Prince to gain a magical wand that can change enemies into frogs" :-D

Sounds like objectives that can be common since there would be only one dragon, or one princess, IMHO.
I must say, making secondary objectives per seat looks complicated for no real use to me. But feel free to prove me wrong. :)

There would be only one dragon or one princess, but also only one reward. The idea would be to still have some differentiation between members of a team, so that it's not just as if the team is a single entity with two bases. In my silly example of the magic wand, there would be only one wand, so it should be an "individual" secondary objectives (that becomes obsolete for all other players allied or not when one player achieves it).

But then it introduces the issue when having a team doing a unique seat-based objective together. How would the reward be split, in particular when it's an object that can't be split?

So yes, maybe at first it's not worth the trouble :-)
Godot Engine project manager and maintainer.
Occasional FOSS gamedev: Lugaru, OpenDungeons, Jetpaca, Minilens.
User avatar
Akien
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 22 Feb 2014, 13:14

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Akien » 16 Sep 2014, 13:42

Bertram {l Wrote}:Yet, for simplicity purpose, I'd rather propose this:
- Kobold should still not be able to claim over allies tiles and when there are no own team tiles next.
- Add a spell, or room icon that permits to change one own claimed tile to allies color (one button per ally color). This way, if you blocked one ally, you can unblock him with that button. (enabled in allied games only).
--> This solution would fix issue with kobolds claiming tiles where they shouldn't, IMHO, and also fix the bridge problem, without making the allied rules tricky to maintain, and probably solve a lot of other cases not yet told.
Note that this could weaken some or your walls if you don't pay attention. And that's a cool side-effect IMHO. :>

What do you think?

As hwoarangmy pointed out, the manual solution with a spell or room icon would be an issue for AIs. It sounds more like a workaround for a bad logic, so let's try to implement the right logic at first (though maybe your solution is the best compromise, I'm not 100% sure yet).

The bridge issue described by hwoarangmy actually makes things difficult. Without it, I would have proposed to define a radius around a player's claimed tiles around which an ally can't claim tiles. But this doesn't work indeed when progressing towards an enemy base together.

What about defining a "minimal base size" around a dungeon temple in which an ally can't claim tiles? Something big enough to expand your base without having an ally bothering you? Then if an ally claims tiles all around you minimal base, he's a jerk anyway and you shouldn't play with him as an ally :-p
Not sure if this proposal really improves the situation though.

Bertram {l Wrote}:I didn't actually thought correctly of an AI ally yet, I must say. In that case, you should have the right to demand claimed tiles, IMHO.
Maybe the same logic could be used to visually ask tiles to an ally, btw? (Instead of chatting a lot to make others understand about your request?)
AI players would automatically grant the requested tiles in that case.

That may be a solution yes. Do you know how this is handled in DK (if there is alliance support)?
Godot Engine project manager and maintainer.
Occasional FOSS gamedev: Lugaru, OpenDungeons, Jetpaca, Minilens.
User avatar
Akien
 
Posts: 737
Joined: 22 Feb 2014, 13:14

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby hwoarangmy » 16 Sep 2014, 14:06

Bertram {l Wrote}:
True. But we could say the same for being able to build/dig on allied tiles ;)

With the solution I'm proposing, allies wouldn't be able to build/dig allies tiles, anyway, right?
That's not what I meant. I was talking about my first solution of being able to build/dig allied stuff.
To be honest, even if being able to swap tile ownership can solve some problems, it sounds to me more like a hack than a solution, as many problems still remains. If we find a solution solving everything, even if a bit complicated, I wouldn't mind going for it. But in this case, it seems to me many work for a partial solution.
Being able to build/dig on allied tiles may not be a perfect solution but it is simple.

Akien {l Wrote}:Do you know how this is handled in DK (if there is alliance support)?
That's a good question. I've never tried multiplayer with DK/DK2. I've searched a bit but I couldn't find an answer.
hwoarangmy
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 16 Apr 2014, 19:13

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Bertram » 16 Sep 2014, 14:54

That's not what I meant. I was talking about my first solution of being able to build/dig allied stuff.
To be honest, even if being able to swap tile ownership can solve some problems, it sounds to me more like a hack than a solution, as many problems still remains. If we find a solution solving everything, even if a bit complicated, I wouldn't mind going for it. But in this case, it seems to me many work for a partial solution.
Being able to build/dig on allied tiles may not be a perfect solution but it is simple.

I never said I had the perfect solution, don't worry. I'm just trying to complete mine based on your both input. As you do for your own.

Btw, I found this DK2 multiplayer video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2CTcCKliwo
(Near the beginning at 1:12, you can see the allies screen.)
allies.png


The icon on bottom left is about tiles but I couldn't find anything about it.
EDIT: 14:00 The button is called "share map". Nothing about tiles then I guess, so far.

Maybe they did add a way to transfer ownership, maybe this was an option to permit building on one another room?
After thinking about this a bit, I think this doesn't matter that much, after all. because I realized I would be ok to let one ally build on my tiles
IF I permitted at first.

Hence, if we make it an option to let allies build/dig on one's tile at will. The solution would be ok to me.

What would you think about it?

Regards, :)
User avatar
Bertram
VT Moderator
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 12:26

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby hwoarangmy » 16 Sep 2014, 15:25

Bertram {l Wrote}:I never said I had the perfect solution, don't worry. I'm just trying to complete mine based on your both input. As you do for your own.
Yes. I also believe your solution might be a bit better. But not enough to justify the amount of work recquired :)

Bertram {l Wrote}:After thinking about this a bit, I think this doesn't matter that much, after all. because I realized I would be ok to let one ally build on my tiles
IF I permitted at first.

Hence, if we make it an option to let allies build/dig on one's tile at will. The solution would be ok to me.

What would you think about it?
Ok, so let me explain why I stated :
Allied players can build on each other claimed tiles
Because if for some reason, we are allied and my kobolds come to your dungeon (for example after a hard fight where you lost many tiles to the ennemy), you will not be able to build as you please. Moreover, if we allow kobolds to claim allied claimed tiles neigboors (to avoid the bridge problem), that means that if I drop my kobolds on your base at the begining of the game (when there is usually a lot of dirt tiles near your dungeon heart), you will not be able to build if I do not allow you (even if I agree it would not be very frinedly of mine to do that but... isn't it an evilish game ? ;) )

Allied players can dig through each other claimed walls
That's to avoid an ally to make a wall over you. That's probably the most avoidable choice. If you don't like it, we can forget easily.

A player can claim a wall next to an allied tile
That's for the same reason as for claiming tiles. But I also think this one might be forgot if you don't like. Even if it could be funny, during a multiplayer game, if you see an ennemy coming to your dungeon (like heroes), to help your ally to finish his wall if he is short on time :)
Last edited by hwoarangmy on 16 Sep 2014, 15:27, edited 1 time in total.
hwoarangmy
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 16 Apr 2014, 19:13

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Danimal » 16 Sep 2014, 15:27

i dont think DK never had a cooperative mode, i only remember player versus all, except for allied AIs on some maps, and then, they were separated to some extent by enemies creatures or water/lava so they didnt step on each other doors too fast crippling the ally.

Im with Bertram, i wouldnt like anyone tearing apart my dungeon or building over it, no matter how allied he is.


A somewhat hacky solution would be with one Cooperative mode only spell; lets call it "Outpost" for reference:

it creates a temporary one tile building on allied territory of your chosing, its doesnt requires ally permission.
Ideally you cast on the edge between allied claimed land and unclaimed territory, and it will allow you to claim the unclaimed tiles around it in your colour.

Its must cost a lot of mana so it cant be cast early in the game thus avoiding jerk allies invading your dungeon at an early stage, it should have a short lifespan, just enougth to drop a few imps to claim land ( 8 seconds?) and a relatively long cooldown

AI is banned from using it.

Affected ally player can dispell it instantly with one slap in case the other "ally" tries to snatch some strategic position from under his nose (a gem block or mana well), the cooldown prevents another hasty trial at snatching.

There is some kind of notice each time an ally uses it on your land (auto-focus on it if pressed), the outpost will be inactive some seconds before activation, enougth for you to slap it;

Cant be cast near Dungeon hearts (a small radius) nor allied or enemy.

its undestructible the time its unactive except for ally slap (only the land owner ally over which it was casted can slap destroy it)

It could be destructible as well so enemy creatures can attack and destroy it when it activates, while inactive its not a target for enemies.


I think this could cover most cases, it haves a soft permission system which avoids jerky allies but allows for trusty allies to move around.
Anyways, we should try to avoid extremely convoluted maps, ideally allies should decide on taking different fronts instead of going headfront stomping on each other grounds. A bottleneck is not a good idea of a map, the middle river is fine, remember we have bridges ready for integration, it would become an interesting war with lots of fronts.
User avatar
Danimal
OD Moderator
 
Posts: 1407
Joined: 23 Nov 2010, 13:50

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby Bertram » 16 Sep 2014, 15:42

That's a working idea, too. :)

I'm also sure most maps should permit to avoid even knowing about that spell, or the solution taken.

What do you think guys?
User avatar
Bertram
VT Moderator
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 12:26

Re: Seat color is supposed to be used for teams

Postby hwoarangmy » 16 Sep 2014, 16:03

I think it is a good idea that could handle most cases. If we were to do that, IMHO, the AI should be able to use it (even if we allow, it would be quite complex to make it use this spell wisely). Otherwise, it could end up in the situation we were talking about.

But like your proposition, it will not be operational before a while since most of its requirements are not implemented at all yet. That's why I think we should go on a simpler solution and go for something like that when spells and everything will be ready if we see it is usefull.
IMHO, we should just decide if :
- Can a kobold claim a tile if a neighboor is claimed by an allied
- Can we build on allied tiles
- Can we dig through allied claimed walls


I think we all have a clear vision of pros and cons. If we wait for a solution like you or Danimal proposed, we will not have team support before a while.

Like both of you, I'm not very fond of an ally being able to build in my base. But after all, if we take again an example on existing games (which is, IMHO, the easier way to find the best solution other people could find after thinking about the same stuff as we are), if we are ally, in most of RTS, I will be able to attack your buildings/units and build in your base (annoying you). And in a 2v2 game, if your ally is doing jerk stuff, you are sure to loose anyway. So I don't think we should go on something too complicated...

Anyway, in most of the cases, your ally will do what he thinks is the most apropriate. That means that if he can do all 3 quoted things, he will probably do that when it is the best thing to do.
hwoarangmy
 
Posts: 567
Joined: 16 Apr 2014, 19:13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron