FreeGameDev

What does everyone think about the way we claim tiles and walls? In DK2 you claimed tiles that were adjacent to one of your claimed tiles. This is what we currently have in place. Also, you could claim next to a bridge you own, so you could claim on an island for example. Walls is another issue, do we follow DK in the ability to reinforce a wall that is next to a claimed tile. Does the wall then appear as a claimed tile so you could claim a tile that was the other side of the wall that is not next to an actual claimed tile?

My thoughts is that you can claim a tile only that is next to another claimed tile or bridge. A wall must be next to a claimed tile or bridge to reinforce.

Bodsda

Bodsda {l Wrote}:My thoughts is that you can claim a tile only that is next to another claimed tile or bridge. A wall must be next to a claimed tile or bridge to reinforce.
Bodsda

I think it should be this way, which as far as I know is exactly the same in both DK and DK2.

Regarding reinforced walls then I think we should make them unbreakable by the enemy by digging, as in DK, but have the "Destroy Wall" spell from DK, which is explained here

I think the ability to claim a tile on the other side of a reinforced wall would add a more interesting dynamic to the game. In the original DK series if you had a long "u-shaped" hallway you would have to claim your way all the way along the thing, making a cheap (and kind of cheating) way of creating a buffer between your claimed tiles and the enemy keeper's claimed tiles. By allowing you to claim opposite a reinforced wall this eliminates (or at least reduces) the possibility of doing this.

One question this would introduce which needs to be answered though is, "What is the requirement to reinforce a wall?"

If walls can be reinforced when you have only claimed the tiles along one side of them (which I think is how it was on DK and how it probably should be on here), then the issue above makes a difference. If, however, you have to claim the tiles on both sides of a wall *before* it can be reinforced, then the issue is sort of a moot point. The only time it would end up mattering in this case is when you claim the tiles on both sides, then reinforce the wall, then the enemy keeper reclaims the tiles on one side of the wall. The rules as I have stated them above will allow you to immediately reclaim these contested tiles, thus making the game more lively.

To summarize, I think the rules regarding tile claiming should be as follows.

1) In order to claim an empty tile it must border an already claimed (by your color) tile or a reinforced wall (again by your color).
2) In order to reinforce a wall it must border at least one tile claimed by your color.
3) If a tile is claimed by an enemy color it can be first converted to an unclaimed tile and then to a tile of your color if, and only if, it borders a tile or wall of your color.
4) Reinforced walls will revert to non-reinforced walls if the empty tiles on all sides of a given wall square revert to unclaimed, or claimed by a different color, than the reinforced wall.
5) Reinforced walls can be dug through, but they are more difficult to dig through. After a certain period of digging they revert to an unreinforced square with the fullness the tile had before the wall was reinforced.
6) Only "dirt" tiles can be reinforced, i.e. you cannot reinforce gold, rock, etc tiles.

-Buck

andrewbuck {l Wrote}:To summarize, I think the rules regarding tile claiming should be as follows.

1) In order to claim an empty tile it must border an already claimed (by your color) tile or a reinforced wall (again by your color).
2) In order to reinforce a wall it must border at least one tile claimed by your color.
3) If a tile is claimed by an enemy color it can be first converted to an unclaimed tile and then to a tile of your color if, and only if, it borders a tile or wall of your color.
4) Reinforced walls will revert to non-reinforced walls if the empty tiles on all sides of a given wall square revert to unclaimed, or claimed by a different color, than the reinforced wall.
5) Reinforced walls can be dug through, but they are more difficult to dig through. After a certain period of digging they revert to an unreinforced square with the fullness the tile had before the wall was reinforced.
6) Only "dirt" tiles can be reinforced, i.e. you cannot reinforce gold, rock, etc tiles.
-Buck

I think the rules should be:
1) In order to claim an empty tile it must border an already claimed (by your color) tile (that is walls in contact with the tile is not enough).
2) In order to reinforce a wall it must border at least one tile claimed by your color (same as above).
3) If a tile is claimed by an enemy color it can be first converted to an unclaimed tile and then to a tile of your color if, and only if, it borders a tile (but not a wall).
4) Reinforced walls will revert to non-reinforced walls if the empty tiles on all sides of a given wall square revert to unclaimed, or claimed by a different color, than the reinforced wall. (same as above)
5) Reinforced walls CANNOT be dug through. But CAN be converted to non-reinforced walls only by use of the "Destroy Wall" spell.
6) Only "dirt" tiles can be reinforced, i.e. you cannot reinforce gold, rock, etc tiles. (same as above)

I think that if the enemy could destroy you reinforced walls then there is not much point in having traps, as you can just dig around them.

svenskmand {l Wrote}:3) If a tile is claimed by an enemy color it can be first converted to an unclaimed tile and then to a tile of your color if, and only if, it borders a tile (but not a wall).
5) Reinforced walls CANNOT be dug through. But CAN be converted to non-reinforced walls only by use of the "Destroy Wall" spell.

I think that if the enemy could destroy you reinforced walls then there is not much point in having traps, as you can just dig around them.

3) This would allow you to walk into an enemies base and unclaim his tiles. I think you should only be able to take an enemies tile to unclaimed if it borders a claimed tile of your own.
5) I never found a problem with being able to dig around traps in DK2, remeber, you cant see where an enemies traps are and for HUman vs AI missions, it would be good to break through a fortified wall and then into some unclaimed tunnels. I dislike the idea of a spell to break fortified walls.

Bodsda

I never really liked the whole tile claiming aspect of it.

This might be an opportunity to do something original rather than just copy. Something like the borders in Civ/freeciv which limit where you can build to and pick up your creatures.

charlie {l Wrote}:I never really liked the whole tile claiming aspect of it.

This might be an opportunity to do something original rather than just copy. Something like the borders in Civ/freeciv which limit where you can build to and pick up your creatures.

Your argument for not copying one gameplay aspect is to copy a gameplay aspect? Lol I did quite like the claiming tiles but maybe we should start thinking of other things to change.

Bodsda

I didn't mean copy the Civ/freeciv borders exactly, but some kind of automatic dungeon border system - the most obvious example of a bordering system in a game is Civ/freeciv.

Just an idea.

Bodsda {l Wrote}:

svenskmand {l Wrote}:3) If a tile is claimed by an enemy color it can be first converted to an unclaimed tile and then to a tile of your color if, and only if, it borders a tile (but not a wall).
5) Reinforced walls CANNOT be dug through. But CAN be converted to non-reinforced walls only by use of the "Destroy Wall" spell.

I think that if the enemy could destroy you reinforced walls then there is not much point in having traps, as you can just dig around them.

3) This would allow you to walk into an enemies base and unclaim his tiles. I think you should only be able to take an enemies tile to unclaimed if it borders a claimed tile of your own.
...
Bodsda

Ok you have to explain this, how does my suggestion differ from yours? To claim a enemy tile you have to first be able to reach it with an adjacent tile of you own, and then unclaim it, and finally claim it. Which exactly what I was stating in 3).

svenskmand {l Wrote}:

Bodsda {l Wrote}:

svenskmand {l Wrote}:3) If a tile is claimed by an enemy color it can be first converted to an unclaimed tile and then to a tile of your color if, and only if, it borders a tile (but not a wall).
5) Reinforced walls CANNOT be dug through. But CAN be converted to non-reinforced walls only by use of the "Destroy Wall" spell.

I think that if the enemy could destroy you reinforced walls then there is not much point in having traps, as you can just dig around them.

3) This would allow you to walk into an enemies base and unclaim his tiles. I think you should only be able to take an enemies tile to unclaimed if it borders a claimed tile of your own.
...
Bodsda

Ok you have to explain this, how does my suggestion differ from yours? To claim a enemy tile you have to first be able to reach it with an adjacent tile of you own, and then unclaim it, and finally claim it. Which exactly what I was stating in 3).

Your post sounded like this

1) You can unclaim enemy land
2) You can claim land when you have an adjacent claimed tile

I didnt realise you meant you could unclaim land only if you had a claimed tile adjacent to it. My bad

Bodsda

While we were chatting about the lighting on IRC, I had the idea to make the lights a part of the gameplay. The dungeon could be completely dark at the start of a game, and you would have to produce lamps or torches before you can explore and expand. I mean stationary lights that have to be installed by the workers or maybe portable lights that have a limited amount of fuel, and the creatures, with some exceptions, shouldn't be able to walk in the dark and have to return to the next light source if one goes out. Light would become a resource. However, that could make the game too complicated.

What you have described here really sounds a lot like claiming tiles. If we just made it so that the map was mostly dark and claimed areas gave off some light we would basically have what you described. The issue with not allowing creatures to walk into the dark would cause some problems, though, when you tried to attack an enemy base. In general there will be a lot of unexplored land between your base and theirs and if your creatures were unable to cross this it would cause problems.

-Buck

Yep I thought it could be a replacement for tile claiming. An alternative effect of light could be that creatures become stronger in lighted areas or move faster.

I think the alternative would be better. You could have some creatures get a bonus if they are fighting in well lit areas and some creatures do less well (vampires, etc.).

-Buck

andrewbuck {l Wrote}:I think the alternative would be better. You could have some creatures get a bonus if they are fighting in well lit areas and some creatures do less well (vampires, etc.).

-Buck

Yeah this sounds better

Another altenative is to use the lights as some kind of fog of war. Ambushes and surprise attacks would become more effective. Your lights shouldn't be visible to your opponents, only if enemy creatures come close to them, and the enemies should be able to destroy your lights. This alternative can co-exist with tile claiming, since it would only affect the players not the creatures.

Actually I'm only interested in more atmospheric lighting atm, so that the levels don't look so dull. We could wait with the decision about the gameplay till the game is more complete.
It would be cool, if the creatures that can "see" in the dark, like bats or vampires, had a green or blue light attached to them when they enter the darkness, to represent their sonar.

Skorpio {l Wrote}:Another altenative is to use the lights as some kind of fog of war. Ambushes and surprise attacks would become more effective. Your lights shouldn't be visible to your opponents, only if enemy creatures come close to them, and the enemies should be able to destroy your lights. This alternative can co-exist with tile claiming, since it would only affect the players not the creatures.

Actually I'm only interested in more atmospheric lighting atm, so that the levels don't look so dull. We could wait with the decision about the gameplay till the game is more complete.
It would be cool, if the creatures that can "see" in the dark, like bats or vampires, had a green or blue light attached to them when they enter the darkness, to represent their sonar.

Surprise attacks in DK2 were achieved by the fog of war showing diggable tiles, then when a creature got close the walls would then be shown as what they really are (dirt). I think this worked really well. The only problem with penalty for lighting is that some factions would be at a distinct disadvantage, for example, Humans fighting undead in a cave would be extremely unfair especially in multiplayer games.

Managing terrain was a big aspect of succesfully fighting an enemy, for example standing in water makes you slower and you get hurt in lava, which is great but if you couldnt walk 2 feet from a lamp without getting a penalty I think this would ruin the game. The creature AI would attack a creature regardless of whether or not it is next to a light, making the creatures aware of lighting would make attacking an enemy scouting party almost impossible.

I know we should be doing things different from DK/2 but I don't think this is one of them.

Bodsda

Bodsda {l Wrote}:Managing terrain was a big aspect of succesfully fighting an enemy, for example standing in water makes you slower and you get hurt in lava, which is great but if you couldnt walk 2 feet from a lamp without getting a penalty I think this would ruin the game. The creature AI would attack a creature regardless of whether or not it is next to a light, making the creatures aware of lighting would make attacking an enemy scouting party almost impossible.

I know we should be doing things different from DK/2 but I don't think this is one of them.

Bodsda

I agree with Bodsda on this one. However you (Skorpio) just said that you wanted something with some more dynamical lighting, and I actually think that DK2 had very dynamic lighting see this

and this

and this

Actually it might have been to much at some points in DK2. But the lighting in DK1 was also quite nice I think that especially this

and some of the snow leves (I have not been able to find a picture) so I would suggest a mixture of the two, the dynamic lighting from DK2 and the nice "darkness" of DK1.

So we do not need to make gameplay modifications to get dynamic lights, we just need to add lights as we do not have any yet, but we do not have much graphics so it is no wonder that it looks dull right now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOfZJ-3PrCQ#t=1m24s for a more dynamic look (at game start) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcay_kRS9zE with more rooms around.

I think DK2 was a little confusing, but rather for the many colors, not the lights. DK1 seems more brown

qubodup {l Wrote}:... I think DK2 was a little confusing, but rather for the many colors, not the lights. DK1 seems more brown

Yeah that is more accurate, DK2 had too many different colors. But I do not think that DK1 is too brown, it had some nice lightning and colors, especially in the later levels

i love the wobbly walls, these screenshots bring back memories... =)

Heh, it seems the author of the lighting wiki page had something similar to my suggestion in mind: http://opendungeons.sourceforge.net/index.php/Lighting

ghoulsblade {l Wrote}:i love the wobbly walls, these screenshots bring back memories... =)

Does anyone know how they made those "wobbly walls"?

my guess would be adding some perlin noise or some distorted sinus wave to a grid used to generate the wall polys. they didn't have fancy shader stuff back then =)

adds a lot to the "evil" feeling i think, not everything clean and orderly and sterile. we're talking about a dungeon after all *grins*

charlie {l Wrote}:I never really liked the whole tile claiming aspect of it.

This might be an opportunity to do something original rather than just copy. Something like the borders in Civ/freeciv which limit where you can build to and pick up your creatures.

I actually think that one of the more interesting parts of DK1 and 2 was when you and the enemy had adjacent claimed types, then you imps would compete and fight to get the most land. And as the land also controlled the amount of mana you had, then land was a valuable asset.

Bodsda {l Wrote}:...
5) I never found a problem with being able to dig around traps in DK2, remeber, you cant see where an enemies traps are and for HUman vs AI missions, it would be good to break through a fortified wall and then into some unclaimed tunnels. I dislike the idea of a spell to break fortified walls.

Bodsda

If people do not like the "Destroy Walls" spell then I have another suggestion, to avoid that traps will be inefficient. We could add a extra room type to restore tiles that have been dug out. The price of the room type should be medium with regards to the other rooms, such that you can repair your dungeon after an enemy attack. But it will be too expensive to restore entire areas of dug out tiles, and the build a room in that place. What you all think?

That way there will be more tactics in the game, as can reinforce you walls to slow down the enemy when they try to breach you dungeon, and at the same time you cannot mess up the enemy's defenses too much as he can just rebuild them again.