Yes. But it's good to have everybody's opinion. Especially when changing something.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.
We agree. BTW, that's how RTS games handle that...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.
Yes, for me, seat id should be unique whatever we do and allow to identify a player. Same color means allies.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, ...
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
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.Bertram {l Wrote}:Are you speaking about adding alliances support or sharing colors, or both?
I think soBertram {l Wrote}:Whatever the answer is, I think it's cool!
Good to have your validationoln {l Wrote}:Sounds good to me.
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
- 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
- Creatures do not use allied rooms (cannot go to sleep in allied dormitory for example)
- Allied players do not share claimed tiles (I mean for goals) - should be changed ?
- 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
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}: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
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}:--> ?? I think the end of the sentence died unexpectedly.
that joins the thread I've open about win/loose condition :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.
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...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.
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.
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 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...
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}:I think you solved that one. How we declare that in the level file is another story, though.
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...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 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 ?
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...
Ok. but it breaks a little bit the logic of goals being handled by seats. Anyway, this can be done later...Bertram {l Wrote}:Better than that, I think that goals should be defined per "team" aka set of allies in the level file.
I think it must be fixed per mapBertram {l Wrote}:But that would mean allies are fixed per maps. Would this be ok for you?
True. But we could say the same for being able to build/dig on allied tilesBertram {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.
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 preferBertram {l Wrote}:What do you think about all that?
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...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.
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
Ok. but it breaks a little bit the logic of goals being handled by seats. Anyway, this can be done later...
I think it must be fixed per map
True. But we could say the same for being able to build/dig on allied tiles
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...
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.
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?
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's not what I meant. I was talking about my first solution of being able to build/dig allied stuff.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 a good question. I've never tried multiplayer with DK/DK2. I've searched a bit but I couldn't find an answer.Akien {l Wrote}:Do you know how this is handled in DK (if there is alliance support)?
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.
Yes. I also believe your solution might be a bit better. But not enough to justify the amount of work recquiredBertram {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.
Ok, so let me explain why I stated :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?
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 build on each other claimed tiles
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.Allied players can dig through each other claimed walls
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 timeA player can claim a wall next to an allied tile
- 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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests