FreeGameDev

Hi,

I have been thinking about goals lately. From what I've seen in the code, new goals can come up when a goal is reached or failed. That means a failed goal is not a reason to loose the game. So, does someone know what can be the reason to loose ? Maybe a failed goal when there is no sub goal ?
And for winning ?
That will let me to a question concerning multiplayer. Why will we consider that a team won ? When all players have reached there goals ? When one of them have ?

Hi hwoarangmy,


- Wining:
Many RTS do that so I'd be for doing this the same way: Usually, there are key objectives and secondary ones.
- The game will be won when every key objective is fulfilled.
- The secondary objective state doesn't actually matter for win/lose conditions.
- An objective should also optionally trigger the win state whatever the other objectives are.

If no objective is a key one, when all the objectives are done, the player has won.

In alliance, for simplicity purpose, when either one of the allies has fulfilled his key objectives, then the team won.
(Many RTS do that, in fact.)

- Losing:
Quite the same concept but reversed:
When one of the key objectives has failed, then the team has lost the game.
If no key objectives, then the only way to lose is to lose one's temple.

In alliances, when both team have failed a key objectives or temple when no key objectives, the team has lost the game.

What do you think?

Best regards,

Bertram {l Wrote}:Many RTS do that so I'd be for doing this the same way: Usually, there are key objectives and secondary ones.
- The game will be won when every key objective is fulfilled.
- The secondary objective state doesn't actually matter for win/lose conditions.
- An objective should also optionally trigger the win state whatever the other objectives are.

If no objective is a key one, when all the objectives are done, the player has won.

Ok. I don't remember having seen such concepts so, if everybody agrees, we should open an issue about adding support primary/secondary objectives.

Bertram {l Wrote}:In alliance, for simplicity purpose, when either one of the allies has fulfilled his key objectives, then the team won.

That's simple but, as I've described, it can lead to a dead end :
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5822&p=59482#p59482

Bertram {l Wrote}:In alliances, when both team have failed a key objectives or temple when no key objectives, the team has lost the game.

I think that when winning condition will be clear, loosing condition will be easy to dig out. 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.

Feel free to open an issue if you think the problem with alliance & objectives is solved with my comment in the other topic.

Ah, another thing we should do to simplify the game:
- If a player dies, his tiles should be uncolored. The stay claimed, but the color would be set to 0, weakening all the walls and making the tiles claimable for allies.

What do you think?

Bertram {l Wrote}:- If a player dies, his tiles should be uncolored. The stay claimed, but the color would be set to 0, weakening all the walls and making the tiles claimable for allies.

Ok. I would say that this should happen if the dungeon heart is destroyed, even if an ally is still alive. This can add interesting strategies

Ok. I would say that this should happen if the dungeon heart is destroyed, even if an ally is still alive. This can add interesting strategies

Indeed!

hwoarangmy {l Wrote}:

Bertram {l Wrote}:- If a player dies, his tiles should be uncolored. The stay claimed, but the color would be set to 0, weakening all the walls and making the tiles claimable for allies.

Ok. I would say that this should happen if the dungeon heart is destroyed, even if an ally is still alive. This can add interesting strategies

How do you envision this? I'm not sure I understand in which state a player would be if his dungeon heart is destroyed. If the claimed tiles are set to the neutral color, I guess he can't have the use of his remaining rooms, so eventually his creatures will die from hunger or bad mood? :-) So the dungeon heart-destroyed state would be that the remaining alive creatures can still be used to fight alongside the allies until they die or defect because they are not payed anymore?

So the dungeon heart-destroyed state would be that the remaining alive creatures can still be used to fight alongside the allies until they die or defect because they are not payed anymore?

Yes! :>

I would vote for the lazy way : doing nothing. Creatures would continue to live their life. From what we said, I guess rooms should be destroyed so they will have nothing to do. If they meet an ennemy creature, they will engage.

I would vote for the lazy way : doing nothing.

That's the most funny thing.

If we implement a mood system, the creatures' mood won't improve over time anyway, so what Akien is saying and what you're proposing will happen.
We do nothing more and the creature's mood will decrease over time anyway, since they are not paid anymore after some time.

EDIT: I don't really care of what happen to rooms anyway.

+1 for neutral tiles on dead player dungeon

for creatures, 2 different approaches, creatures defect instantly, losing their master is a -100 mood modificator, they have no reason to figth so they left the dungeon, rooms are destroyed;
Or, creatures become rogue (they become members of team 5, the feral creatures of the dungeon), rooms are destroyed.

Sincerely, I wouldn't even bother for other rooms, because:
- Where is the pleasure to destroy freely the rest of the base when you have crushed someone?
- Later on, if we add the possibility to claim enemy rooms, we'll need them to remain.

Regards,

Bertram {l Wrote}:Sincerely, I wouldn't even bother for other rooms, because:
- Where is the pleasure to destroy freely the rest of the base when you have crushed someone?
- Later on, if we add the possibility to claim enemy rooms, we'll need them to remain.

Seems like I found someone more lazy than me. I never expected it would be possible