andrewbuck {l Wrote}:Although when I load the Dwarf2 into the game the texture is pure white. -Buck
andrewbuck {l Wrote}:I'm going to try the other models to see if I can figure out what the problem is. Also the dwarf seems to be stuck on the "axe throwing" animation. Is that the Idle animation or did a name get crisscrossed somewhere?
-Buck
andrewbuck {l Wrote}:This is an interesting idea. It reminds me of the vespene geysers in StarCraft.
andrewbuck {l Wrote}:Also if you have levels with "undeveloped" you could build additional dungeon hearts on them, making it more difficult for your enemies to destroy you since destruction of a single dungeon heart would not be your downfall. You could also make it so that controlling a greater number of dungeon hearts would allow you to have more stored up mana or something like that to further increase their strategic advantage.
andrewbuck {l Wrote}:It would be good though to try to think of some disadvantage to claiming more than one dungeon temple to balance the game out a bit. Maybe something like if a dungeon temple is destroyed, all the creatures who came through it are killed instantly. This would mean you would not want to take a temple until you knew you could defend it. Also, you could do something like if you lose a temple you lose all (or at least most) of your mana until it regenerates again, leaving you temporarily weakened by the loss.
svenskmand {l Wrote}:andrewbuck {l Wrote}:Also if you have levels with "undeveloped" you could build additional dungeon hearts on them, making it more difficult for your enemies to destroy you since destruction of a single dungeon heart would not be your downfall. You could also make it so that controlling a greater number of dungeon hearts would allow you to have more stored up mana or something like that to further increase their strategic advantage.
I am not sure that this is a good idea, we must try it out to see how it changes the gameplay. But for that to work story wise then we would need these dungeon temples to be connected as there is only *one* container where the hearth is inside. Maybe the hearth-container could be automatically moved around between dungeon temples (through underground tunnels) if the dungeon temple is attacked, that would be interesting.
svenskmand {l Wrote}:andrewbuck {l Wrote}:It would be good though to try to think of some disadvantage to claiming more than one dungeon temple to balance the game out a bit. Maybe something like if a dungeon temple is destroyed, all the creatures who came through it are killed instantly. This would mean you would not want to take a temple until you knew you could defend it. Also, you could do something like if you lose a temple you lose all (or at least most) of your mana until it regenerates again, leaving you temporarily weakened by the loss.
I think that this is easy to solve. Because a dungeon temple is built on a portal, then that portal should not be able to attract any creatures, and the creatures that it has already attacked would die, that way you would have to balance the benefits of security from more dungeon temples, and the benefit of a large army when having many portals.
Keldaryth {l Wrote}:I wasn't thinking we should allow additional dungeon temples, largely because that would mean 3 more kobolds and such. Making the portal sites rare would also increase their value. I would like players to be able to construct shrines or something though, which would allow for creature entrance (and egress) and maybe extra mana storage. I guess the idea would be that there are two types of portals - large and small. The large ones can have dungeon hearts on them and lead to the 'next level' where the smaller ones just allow for some extra creatures and/or mana. Maybe they act as 'boosters' for your main temple. This would neatly explain why you'd be trying to fight rival players too - in some cases you're going to want to claim their temple to invade whatever land is on the other side.
Keldaryth {l Wrote}:The problem there would be forcing creatures to come in at a specific portal and keeping track of which creature came in where. If we don't allow for extra dungeon temples, but allow for booster shrines, the smaller 'portals' (although they'll be called something else) would become strategic objectives which allow you to swell your army and store mana, but don't necessarily improve your game longevity. It would be interesting to have a game option that allowed a player to survive if they had a shrine and not a temple, with the caveat that owning just a shrine would mean that a player would have no kobolds and no portal for getting new creatures. It would certainly add some variety to single player campaigns, and could allow for a very interesting multiplayer situation where a player would be forced to fight back from the loss of a dungeon temple.
Keldaryth {l Wrote}:The first thing I would look at is a question regarding the room building mechanics. In the DK series a keeper built rooms and they were automatically constructed, leaving the imps the task of digging out rock/gems, claiming tiles, delivering traps and doors and fighting other imps - well and prison/graveyard duty.
The reason Starcraft worked so well is that buildings had to be built by your workers (protoss being the exception), which meant that their investment into it is lost.
I would propose that we break with DK tradition and have rooms/buildings built by your workers, or at least some of them should be - the Temple and Shrines would be examples of these. So to claim a shrine you would have to:
1) Claim the surrounding tiles
2) Order a shrine build blueprint
3) have your workers construct the shrine
In a sense it's an expansion of the Trap/Door system where a keeper had to place down the blueprint and get it manufactured and delivered.
Keldaryth {l Wrote}:This also means that a shrine would need to be destroyed before it could be used by another power, and that losing it will cost both the loss of potential creatures (if we go with a creature number cap), the loss of any stored mana in the shrine (I'd suggest going with a proportional system so there's always *some* loss) and the loss of resources and time used to build it in the first place.
Alternatively, yes, the spell is a great idea, especially because it was definitely possible to run out of gold in the original DK games.
Another really crazy idea would be allowing shrines to act as mini-portals - moving creatures from shrine to temple and such, much like the eldar webway gates in Warhammer 40K. However, if such an idea is implemented... it would mean scrapping the ability to pick up and manually move creatures, which I'm not sure people are willing to do.
Keldaryth {l Wrote}:Having never played evil genius, I can't comment, but my point was getting workers to actively build rooms would make for a reason to 1) attack rooms 2) defend them vigorously
The problem with room attack and losing penalties for destroying rooms is that currently DK (and OD) work on the basis of limited indirect control coupled with minimal direct control - the indirect control is that it runs of an AI, if left to itself. The direct is the ability to drop things onto creatures (i.e. food, gold) and pick them up - upon dropping them they use their AI to determine what they should do in that context (e.g. warriors would leave a library, wizards would research). There's no current way to say 'attack the shrine' which would be needed. Both Majesty and Startopia got around this through the use of attack flags and muster points respectively, and the latter system would be an interesting one to use in directing your creatures in battle - the ability to place 'targets' on enemy creatures since all of yours are getting paid anyway.
andrewbuck {l Wrote}:I also like the idea of "addons" to rooms that you can buy. You build the room (for example the library) the same way you did it in DK, but then afterwards you can buy bigger/better bookshelves, cauldrons, potion racks, etc. This would allow you to get a dungeon up and running quickly, which keeps the opening game moving, and then allows you to customize later on making the late-game more fun.
-Buck
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests