posted                   

quote:

---

11.) In the tokens table is a new field 'flags' and one of those flags is 'mission only' which means a monster will only drop it if it knows it is needed by one of your open missions.

---

quote:

---

(yeah yeah, 'J' Ok, call it a JOB and then it sounds like I planned it)

---

quote:

---

Must mean the game is just about complete

---

[ 01-13-2006, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: samsyn ]

--------------------
Come ride with me through the veins of history,
I'll show you how god falls asleep on the job.

posted                       

code:

---

; I want to use my DevTable11.txt in my world folder
SET num.DevTableId, 11
;
; So I will be reading from table 11 until further notice.
; I want to read some data from the row with id "buttercup" 
; (row IDs can be text or numbers, but each row needs a unique id within a given table.)
SET str.DevTableRowId, "buttercup"
;
; Note, that is always "Str." even if you set it to a number.  
; Quest automatically converts stuff like that
; Within the row are a bunch of columns numbered 1 to 30 
;  (though you can have as few as you like)
;
;To read column 14 of the current row, I say
#<str.DevTableCol14>
;
so, that's "str.DevTableColNN" where NN is between 1 and 30.

---

posted                       

• Balancing leveling and monster fights.
• Creating scripts that are smart enough to decide a fair monster for a specific class of a specific level to fight. (Hmm, player A would kill this thing in two hits; or Hmm, player A would die in two hits)
• Allowing a real-damage attribute to actor fights.
• Solving one of the world developer's longest unsolved probem: how much damage will be done.

posted                      

quote:

---

Any chance that the map editor one day let us protect the links with something else than tokens and use all (most of?) the IF commands? Yes, this is something we can already do in a tricky way: if we want to restrict a link to the players of the class 1, level 50+, we can give them a token in their camps and protect the link with this token. But having such an option would save lots of tokens in large worlds (and make the scripts smaller!).

---

posted                       

quote:

---

I like that Dan tried to add a guild war ladder a few patches ago, but it really doesn't prove anything, since someone could just go whack a bunch of revenges or super jellies and be at the top of a war ladder without actually fighting a war.

What the new ladder would include:

• Individual ladder scores for any two guilds that are registered as a War Guild that aren't directly based on rating or monster whacking. These would require one guild to have the other on enemies on their guild page.
• Kill/Death/Rating scores comparing the two guilds as a whole.
• Kill/Death/Rating scores for each soul in a guild, for example:
  

  code:

  ---

  Guild      Soul ID    Kills    Deaths   Rating
  ~DS~       2625       5        4        21
  SoV        1569       2        10       -192
  SoV        1790       2        1        -2

  ---

This would provide REAL stats as to who is doing what in a war, and would not have an artificial 24 hour limit on it.

It has the advantage over the pk ladder of only comparing two guilds you want to look at, and stats for two different wars like SoV vs. Genocide and SoV vs. Epiphany would be seperate. This also has an advantage over the current war ladder in that it is continuous and is based on pking.

Two things could help such a ladder. An allLadder server rule would let the war take place on any map. Melee mode (replacing the haunt button!) could also be worked into the wars, since you could compete between two guilds.

---

posted                       

quote:

---

Goal: something for the PKer mindset to do that they enjoy, but that doesn't ruin the game for everyone else.

I claim the PKer mindset enjoys chaotic melee battles, with guild team-mates, that generate war points, that advance their guilds on the war ladder.

And that if they could be playing some resource-control game at the same time (capture the flag, area control, destroy the enemy base) they would be in heaven.

And that the nonPKer would be happy because this would all be taking place on a different map (and/or a different server).

-----

The Idea - Melee Battle Maps

* a new map flag to designate a map for this purpose. (probably multiple flags since some functionality transcends Melee Battle Maps)

* on that map, a new metaphor for joining battle (new way of dropping into scene, maintaining scenes, shared scenes)

* additional 'rules/properties' on the map to control balancing of battles (1v1, even amounts vs even amounts, chaos, etc.)

* 'map state' (tougher than it sounds, actually) that can drive the state of a map link. (is it captured by the red team, is there a game in progress, what guild is the red team, the score so far, etc.)

* map score overlay (points and such in the current instance of the meta game)

---

So, it mostly hinges on the join battle metaphor. There is no PK Attack on this sort of map at all. Instead, you stand close to the player you wish to attack (and they are free to run away, but then they are abandoning their meta game responsibilities and you have a chance to score points). You must stay close long enough to meet the local rules for engagement, which are things like this:

* there must be exactly N members of each team present before the battle will start (and then you all drop into the scene together).

* newcomers can join the scene only if they maintain the balance. So a new red team member cannot drop in until a blue team member is also standing there, then they both join the battle in progress together.

* variable imbalance control. 'one team can out number the other by N players' (controls dropin AND auto fight scene termination)

* level controls. You must be no more than N levels above the lowest player in this scene, nor more than N levels below the highest. This can change over the course of a long-lived battle scene.

* random scene hosting. There is no guarantee as to who will host the scene (no attack advantage)

* scene host hand-off (host can change in mid-scene.. scene can continue even if host leaves). Scene can live as long as at least one player remains in it. (sounds so EASY...)(MAYBE a new generic scene property - enabled by scene script)

* map links are common scenes (two people dropping in separately see each other)(new generic scene property)

Some of this would be available to normal maps as well.

All of this is vaporware at the present

---------

Example:

* world developer has added a map to their world and given it some properties. (2 player minimum battle, balanced teams to within delta 2, area capture rules, team specific wells with NPC protectors, battles limited to 10 level range between lowest and highest player in battle, play ends at 100 points, points awarded to war ladder, loser gets 50% of their points to ladder, 10 points per minute per captured link, link captured by presence of single team for longer than 30 seconds, max of 3 teams, teams follow guild uniform, requires war declaration...)

* map/server state knows there is not currently a game in play on that map. (some magic here)

* players can enter map only if they meet loose team requirements, map gets 'bound' to the teams of the first players to visit it (others must wait for battle to end, or a team to leave). metagame starts as soon as first battle engaged

* once game starts (score starts) it becomes possible to capture links by visiting them and staying alive for the specified amount of time. At that point the link on the map changes color and you can leave, but will continue to earn points for your team as long as it belongs to you. Similar fun for picking up a flag from one link and carrying it to another without dying along the way. I think dead guy spawns a scene with his dead self stuck in it, until a team mate enters and gets the flag. Killing the scene (so as to go off to a well) makes flag snap back to home.

* the whole point of the battles is to defend the links, attack other links, win back what is lost, etc, earning points along the way. So running away from a fight means you abandon the link. not sure if any additional penalty is required for 'running.' 'Teaming' is prevented by battle entry balance rules.

* first team to achieve point goal wins. Points awarded to open wars on ladder.

I want the game to be lively at the map level, with people 'guarding' links by standing around them. Your purpose in killing another player is just to remove them from the game while they walk to a well (on the map somewhere) and recharge (probably takes some time)

Much of the game logic takes place in the scene scripts and is not hard-wired to any particular plan, so this is a description of a particulare use of tools to be provided.

Evergreen itself will try to promote this style of PK battle and seriously reduce classic PKer maps (PK Arena will remain, of course, and probably Inferno or other high level 'already-perceived-as-dangerous' areas. But not the main map.)

I also need to support 'uniform chat' for guild chat.

At game over, after some cool down period, all scenes stop and players are booted from the map, making it available for the next game.

I want to make the map game as lively as possible, with lots of meaningful running around to attack, block, escape. And keep the scenes as brief as possible (shouldn't you leave that scene to check out if you need to recapture some links?)

Current Game Score/Status should be on screen at all times for everyone on that map.

Battle Scene Entry Status should be on screen near the cluster of players in/waiting-for the scene.

Anyway, it's a map-based mini-game spanning multiple scenes and links.

That can generate war points and require balanced teams.

This is well-intentioned plan # 423 to fix PKing, without just removing it completely. [Smile]

Other worlds would continue to work as before, unless they added this feature. And a single world could have multiple such maps with different configuration settings.

given the 20-30ish max reasonable players per server, melee maps should be designed to be playable by 2-30 players. and 2-4 teams. If teams are not guild-based, then you would be randomly assigned red/blue/green/yellow on map entry.

---

Let the flaming begin. This will ruin wos... in 100 words or less.

---

quote:

---

so.. I am visualizing like this..

1.) there is an important link, I have dropped into it early in the game and captured it for my team.

2.) I then exit the link, and 3 of my team-mates are standing 'near' the link (like basketball players guarding the basket)

3.) you get three of your guys to attack the link, and as you run towards it, my guards move around in a way to block you. If you get too close to my guards, some number of us (maybe not all of us) drop into battle.

4.) maybe one of your guys didn't drop in, and now can run to the link without hassle

5.) battle ensues with my guards who wipe out two of your guys, who leave the scene to go to a well. The battle scene terminates for lack of balance and the remaining people are back on the map.

6.) meanwhile that one guy of yours that made it through my line has dropped into the scene, but 2 of my other guards (guarding other links) have abandoned their posts and chased him into the link (which allows unbalanced links)

7.) so I have 2 on one, then my original guards drop in as well, so my five on one easily kills you, keeping the link for my team.

8.) mean while, you had one other team mate, who had been hiding in your base/well scene, but you have been chatting on your guild freq (available only to guild memebers in uniform) and he has sneakily been capturing the six other links.

9.) of course, we have been seeing messages as each link is captured... and the score overlay shows how many areas are controlled by each team, so we have cause to be worried.

10.) the map itself is balanced overall probably, as well, with 10 players total on each team. Mandated by people being unable to ddrop through the map link if it would take it out of balance.

Now, what to do if people leave the map and it becomes unbalanced from that? Hmm. Game over in 2 minutes, in favor of current high points?

And yes, losing players in mid game would be bad for your team. Hopefully both teams have an equal chance of losing players. And you learn not to play on servers with a crazed admin who boots your team mates in mid game.

---

quote:

---

I've been trying to figure out how to do this kind of thing for years [Embarrassed]

Would you believe I started a "Hide and Go Seek" world three years ago (and never finished it)?

---

If you added a series of maps through the PK arena (and maybe connecting the more "dangerous" evergreen maps like the inferno or ruins) of evergreen, it could make a very nice effect.

As for the features themselves, I don't have time to read through and respond on them right now! But I will later, so lock this topic quickly!!

[And truthfully, there is nothing wrong with pking short of newbies who shouldn't enter a pk camp, ever, without fear of getting murdered. Whatever is done, pking should definitly be left in the open to be done on most maps by anyone who is level 99 or 100. One of the great parts of WoS is the no-waiting period, you drop in and without any setup you can get thrown into a pk fight(in a normal camp, most people don't use pk camps unless they HAVE to, due to the severe weakness of not being able to lag trick in their own camp).]

---

quote:

---

After giving this some thought, I do have some ideas for it.

We have an incarnate and haunt button in order to end up in a world. Although I don't know where to place it, perhaps under the haunt button or instead of it (though I can think of some cool things to do with the haunt command that aren't being done), you could place a button for "melee."

This would effectivly seperate people in the new battle system and people either pking or leveling.

In the new melee system wouldn't have be completely based off pking or level, but could be based more off the kind of equip, items, or trophies recieved during the incarnate mode.

The incarnated players and the melee players would also be unable to affect one another, therefor be able to be done on the same maps and server, which would save players a lot of effort of having to go through the equvilant of a "setup" by changing servers.

The links and scenes from the normal world could be default "off limits" to melee players(besides a config.ini melee_start_map=), while allowing a new flag to set them as on. Monster attacks could be left on or turned off, depending on what the developer wants. (You better wear the Jester Boots if you won't want to spend five minutes killing a Black Wrath!).

New item flags could be added to give special abilities towards the melee mode, like extra stealth power or a 2x bonus for score. (Warpath-esk map teleport or wormholes could be cool!) Make it so players actually have to collect equip that doesn't give the most attack/defense (which makes me want to have it so players can't change equip mid-game). For example the Evergreen boots, Rubber, Frog, Fire, and Elven are worthless once you get the Soul Boots.

---

The gossip channel is already used as a way of a guild chat, though a special one could be useful, too, so we don't have to coordinate 10 people onto the same channel.

---

posted                       

quote:

---

* MENU COMMAND SUPPORTS CHECKED ITEMS

a normal menu entry looks like "menuText=@label" but if menuText starts with a forward slash "/menuText" then I will add a checkMark (and not include the / in the text I show).

Hopefully no one was using /s already in their menu text...

---

How does this work? How do I determine whether it ought to be checked or not. To me, the most logical way to do it would be to have a cookie name after the equal instead of a label, and when that cookie is zero, it is unchecked, and when it is one, it is checked. A click would toggle the values.

So, how does it actually work?

[
I dunno. I just provide the option, you come up with the string used in the MENU command :-)

Wouldn't it be great if this worked (i.e. I haven't tried it, but this is was I assumed you would do):

SET checkMark1, "/" ; starting value

...

MENU "#<checkMark1>MenuChoice1=MenuLabel1"

...

@MenuLabel1
; DoSomethingAppropriateForMenuChoice
...
; Now, flip the checkmark, if you like
; (make a GOSUB to do this, if you want it in several places)
COMPARE #<checkMark1>, "/"
IF= @clearIt
SET checkMark1, "/"
END
@clearIt
SET checkMark1, ""

Note I am too lazy to actually check the syntax on any of the above.

[ 04-13-2007, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: samsyn ]

--------------------
Constantinople! We shall never forget your zany barge poles!