Timeline for Help resolve territory acquisition design difference of opinion in MMO RTS
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28, 2019 at 1:09 | vote | accept | Arj | ||
| Oct 23, 2019 at 22:34 | comment | added | Arj | @IlmariKaronen You're right - almost anything is possible given enough time and money :) The API definitely allows for any type of geometry and the ability to move it around. However, besides the technical effort of doing so, going back to redesign how the game would work without a grid just doesn't seem like the best investment of my time right now. After all, like others have suggested, good or bad we could ultimately go with one of the two options if we had to and just "see what happens", rather than design a whole new system from scratch. | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 18:21 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | @Arj: While I can't say anything specific without knowing the details, my impression of your comments is that you may have a bit prematurely committed to a specific architecture. There's no fundamental reason why you couldn't do e.g. irregular tiles or claiming all territory within a radius — after all, plenty of games do. It sounds like you've made some architectural choices early on that are now restricting your options, and you feel it'd be too hard to go back and rethink those choices now. My own gut feeling is that, hard or not, it might be necessary. And maybe not as hard as you think. | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 0:54 | comment | added | Arj | "Claim in radius". Arj: I have explored this, but with the way our architecture works as well as the API, this isn't really feasible. Besides, with my design, higher-level units do claim larger territory: they have the right to claim larger squares. | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 0:52 | comment | added | Arj | "Teaming up to claim larger squares". Arj: This is also a good idea, and one I hadn't thought of. We do have alliances in the game, but claiming territory is a discrete activity (i.e. you can't "share" territory). This is something to think about for future versions, but I don't think it addresses our core design issue. | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 0:52 | comment | added | Arj | "Hierarchical relationships". Arj: This is a very good idea, and exactly the thing I implemented in a previous commercial game I was the lead designer on. I have been thinking about it for this game as well, but I don't think we can get there until we solve this fundamental game design issue first. | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 0:51 | comment | added | rydwolf | This is definitely better than the current highest voted answer, shows many different perspectives on solving (or not solving) the issue. +1 | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 0:49 | comment | added | Arj | I thought I'd also address some of the gameplay suggestions you made above: "Irregular tiles". Arj: Actually this was my first approach. Technically, it's almost impossible to align different shapes to the google map below it consistently across the globe. Also, having "shapes" rather than rectangles significantly complicates the architecture for many technical reasons I won't go into. Having a "grid" system is the only reliable way. "Moving/changing tiles": Arj: This would make it a very different game with far too many game rules needing to change :( | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 23:52 | history | edited | Ilmari Karonen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fix some poor phrasing and punctuation, clarify suggestion
|
| Oct 22, 2019 at 23:46 | comment | added | Arj | Thank you very much for this detailed and well-thought-out answer. This gives me a lot to think about when approaching "part 2" of my question: how to handle the relationship. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 17:28 | history | answered | Ilmari Karonen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |