Post by: Poltifar on November 01, 2008, 10:16:08 am
Multiplayer DF already has been tried in the form of the DF MU*, but it sadly seems that it has gone either inactive or is in veeeerrrryyy slow development. So what if the community tried to make a browser based game themed around DF? That way, we take another shot at multiplayer DF, while at the same time not making the work people put into the MUX go to waste, since both games could co-exist at the same time, because of the different ways of playing them etc.
I myself have little knowledge of any web-related programming/developping/publishing/whatever, and probably can't even make the most basic site even if I tried (atleast, not yet), so this thread is more of a community discussion thread for this idea. What software should be used? What programming languages? PHP, ASP, or something else? What database program? I downloaded the express editions of micrososft's visual studio, and I think its a good place to start. (Please don't start flamming me for using Windows/Microsoft Software/etc, I know alot of people think they stink and whatnot, but I'm no hardcore pc geek, all I want is some basic functionality and ease of use)
Feel free to discuss. Also, non-programmers and basically anybody who doesn't have even the most basic clue of what the hell I am talking about software and programming and stuff, you are all still more than welcome to discuss the ideas and give suggestions :D
Post by: Servant Corps on November 01, 2008, 10:27:14 am
Just a simple turn-based strategy game, similar to that of Earth 2010 (or if you are not familar with that, Utopia). It uses the Frost and Flame engine, based on the ever-popular Promisance engine. You play as a warband and fight against other warbands for land and glory.
The bad news is that I was planning on making such an MMORPG for the simple goal of making money, and I had a pre-made idea for it. The only thing that prevents me from actually making such an MMORPG is web hosting. If you can get me that, I could make two MMORPGs, one for "Drawf Fortress", and another one for my own Pet Project where players travel through time and fight in World War 2, World War 3, and World War 4.
The terrible news, of course, is that I doubt any of you have commerical web hosting. :P
****
Other engines that I am familar with are:
--Dragon Knight: Play as an adventuerer and fight NPCs for glory. (There is also a 'land mod' that allows you to own your own kingdom, but it may take some time to work, and it's best to assume I don't know how to use it)
--Multiplayer Educational Game Engine: Play as an Empire, and try to make the most money possible. To do so, you must either invade other Empires for money or try to run your government effectively by answering "Issues".
Post by: Poltifar on November 01, 2008, 10:49:58 am
Post by: Fenrir on November 01, 2008, 10:52:04 am
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 01, 2008, 12:53:44 pm
And with the Eclipse engine it wouldn't be hard at all to make a DF MMORPG.
http://www.freemmorpgmaker.com/index.php (http://www.freemmorpgmaker.com/index.php)
I could help with an MMO, as I have some experience in that.
Post by: zac4213 on November 01, 2008, 01:01:49 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on November 01, 2008, 01:08:41 pm
Quote
Although game engines are easy to work with, I doubt that there are any out there that can really capture the DF 'spirit', atleast not withought alot of modification.
Well, then the MEGG thingy might be best for you...even though I don't know exactly how to download it. The reason is that the "Issues" part of the DF can be modified, meaning that you can create strange Issues that reflect the DF theme. Maybe.
Quote
Would you give a link to the engine you are using?
http://www.frostnflame.org/
Though I like money too. :)
zac: The Frost and Flame website has a sample game that you can log in and play, in order to see how it works. I also have the Pet Project set up on my personal computer, but I'd need a webhost in order to transfer it.
Post by: Poltifar on November 01, 2008, 02:55:27 pm
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 01, 2008, 03:47:51 pm
Most of the work is done in-game anyway, and multiple people can work on it at the same time once the server is up.
But the choice is up to you, and I can help you with the project if you want.
Post by: Istrian on November 01, 2008, 04:21:39 pm
Anyway, once the design phase is over I would be more than happy to help with making the game. But right now, I have absolutely no idea what kind of game everyone here wants. So, right now we don't need programmers, we need designers.
So far, I understand people want an internet-based game, but what kind ? RPG ? dungeon crawl ? adventure game ?
Post by: Poltifar on November 01, 2008, 04:36:03 pm
Post by: Mulch Diggums on November 01, 2008, 04:44:33 pm
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 01, 2008, 05:00:23 pm
Personally, I am terrible at making sprites and GUI, but hopefully someone will help out with that.
And in the dungeons/caves/ruins, will there be traps? Because those are my special love.
And magic weapons are a must, such as flaming swords, ice arrows, ect ect.
Post by: Servant Corps on November 01, 2008, 05:05:16 pm
I am familar with creating empire-based games, so I do propose a DF game based on DF Fortresses, but meh. One thing I do wonder however is the idea that both games somehow...'interrelate'. People will great empires within the DF Empire Mode gets to have buildings and towns named after them within the DF Adventure Mode. Great adventurers within DF Adventure Mode can be 'deified' into Gods that people in the DF Empire Mode may worship for bonuses.
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 01, 2008, 05:16:43 pm
Ignore all you want, I am just throwing them out there.
Warning: wall of text with Spelling/Grammar mistakes ahead
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
but can be healed by appealing to the gods(moderators).Edit: also, if you show interst, I could go to google and learn about advanced HTML stuff(I think I know 5 things now, ant it would need, at LEAST tables) and make some HTML examples in a .ZIP
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 01, 2008, 05:25:28 pm
I don't care about graphics, but the one thing I can't stand is badly made ones that don't match.
Animated sprites and tiles would be nice, but tricky to pull off.
I'm thinking somthing around the lines of Dragon Warrior(The first one) or Final Fantasy 1-3.
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 01, 2008, 05:31:01 pm
Goblins appearing on levels close to the surface, worse near HFS, megabeasts mostly appear on/above the surface...
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 01, 2008, 05:33:51 pm
So, one big world with transitions, or what?
And why not realtime fighting?
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 01, 2008, 05:43:38 pm
If each 5*5 area was turned into a "tile" that could contain one small building(a mining area would take 3*3 tiles or so(15*15 DF tiles)) while a workshop takes only one tile. To simplify some stuff, multiple rooms could fit on one tile, and baracks housing could hold 5 times as many players temporarily and stuff...
Post by: Servant Corps on November 01, 2008, 05:47:27 pm
The philosphy might work, might not. Who knows?
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 01, 2008, 06:21:05 pm
It is only a horribly incomplete HTML example, but try it anyway.
Post by: Istrian on November 01, 2008, 06:30:29 pm
A very basic idea :
At first all players start in a new location and each player controls a dwarf. Each dwarf has needs (food, drink, other) that need to be satisfied in order to keep the dwarf productive, and it's up to the player to find what the dwarf needs.
Players can do the same jobs as dwarves can in Fortress Mode. Each player can collect materials and build/dig rooms, build workshops and produce items. Players would need to decide among themselves on what needs to be done and who has to do it.
In a way it would be a fortress building/survival game. From time to time enemies would spawn on the map, etc.
After a while (when things become boring, or when everyone is dead) the fort is stopped and saved for everyone to see and a server reset occurs and a new fort begins.
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 01, 2008, 06:44:57 pm
The first question should be, 2D or 3D?
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 01, 2008, 07:01:57 pm
Is this supposed to be browser based like hobowars and ogame, or flash-in-browser based 2d game, or go so far as a java applet and go with 3d?
In my opinion, if it needs flash or java it is not a true browser based game, and can be run without the browser window, also opening up the possibility of hacked clients and cellphones don't work.
Post by: Istrian on November 01, 2008, 07:34:42 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 01, 2008, 09:00:20 pm
So, what of the following sounds EASIEST:
-PHP
-flash
-java
Also, what one would be better for everyone who might eventually work on it, if it is not a solo project?
Post by: webadict on November 01, 2008, 09:39:38 pm
I would like the game to be a collaborative Fortress Mode.
A very basic idea :
At first all players start in a new location and each player controls a dwarf. Each dwarf has needs (food, drink, other) that need to be satisfied in order to keep the dwarf productive, and it's up to the player to find what the dwarf needs.
Players can do the same jobs as dwarves can in Fortress Mode. Each player can collect materials and build/dig rooms, build workshops and produce items. Players would need to decide among themselves on what needs to be done and who has to do it.
In a way it would be a fortress building/survival game. From time to time enemies would spawn on the map, etc.
After a while (when things become boring, or when everyone is dead) the fort is stopped and saved for everyone to see and a server reset occurs and a new fort begins.
We could elect a Mayor after a certain population too who would give players jobs, after we got enough players (the first player would be the Expedition Leader, obviously). Maybe a few more nobles too.
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 01, 2008, 09:41:45 pm
I'll help wherever I can.
Fortress Mode sounds veeery interesting.
The coding might be tough for all the jobs though, but it would be pretty sweet.
Maybe we could have more than one fort that people could join, and eventually there could be wars/trading between them.
Post by: webadict on November 01, 2008, 09:44:34 pm
I know flash a tiny bit, and I could learn java in a short while.
I'll help wherever I can.
Fortress Mode sounds veeery interesting.
The coding might be tough for all the jobs though, but it would be pretty sweet.
Maybe we could have more than one fort that people could join, and eventually there could be wars/trading between them.
Works perfectly with my idea as well. I was kinda hoping that would be the case, except what would happen when one fortress got too big. Please say Tantrum Spiral, because that would be awesome.
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 01, 2008, 09:47:36 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on November 01, 2008, 10:06:38 pm
Of course, the only way to Mine and to Fish is to engage in "encounters" and "fighting"...meaning that a Gold Mine may succed in killing you but...
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 01, 2008, 10:19:40 pm
I donno, it will need fine-tuning anyway.
Post by: webadict on November 01, 2008, 10:23:26 pm
Kinda hard to hawk my own skills when the ideas for this DF MMORPG is drifting away from my expertise, but this idea of running Drawf Fortresses could be 'manually' done via Dragon Knights (meaning you need a mod to carefully control the balance of the game). There can be a village, and for the village to prosper...you can go around and do stuff, such as Mining and Fishing. Eventually, you gain levels and can expand and find other villages and try to claim them for your own Drawven Clan. Maybe one day, war between Drawven Clans can be implemented.
Of course, the only way to Mine and to Fish is to engage in "encounters" and "fighting"...meaning that a Gold Mine may succed in killing you but...
You strike the gold mine in the rock with the pick.
It flies off in a bloody arc!
The gold mine strikes you in the arm with the rock.
It is blocked!
You counterattack!
You strike the gold mine in the rock with the pick.
It is blocked!
The gold mine strikes you in the head with the rock.
It flies off in a bloody arc!
Post by: Servant Corps on November 02, 2008, 01:13:12 am
Quote
Sounds cool, and funny, but it might not be good for this project.
I donno, it will need fine-tuning anyway.
I think I finally got a better idea. Mining and Fishing and all that menial tasks can be 'quests'. The first part of the quest is actually finding where the Mine is located. Once you find it, you press the button stating "Mine", and volia, you did it, helping the Drawven community. The problem is that if you do it as a quest, you would not be able to repeat it again...which is why I at first did not consider it. (Prehaps these Mines can move...after a certain amount of drawves find and 'Mined' the area, it may be out of materials and be seen as abanonded.)
Attacking mines however seem far more stupid though.
Anyway, I always saw the main draw of MMORPGs is the mass genocide and destruction that the player avatar usually does within the game...not simply hitting rocks.
Post by: Poltifar on November 02, 2008, 02:39:25 am
Well, lets start making a list of suggestions:
-Empire building kind of game using FAF (frost and flame) as the base engine, or made from scratch
-Adventure game using Dragon Knights as base engine, or made from scratch
-Using Eclipse engine to make more of a dungeon crawl game (not really browser based since it needs a client, but still good enough)
-Cooperative fortress building, with traditional 2D top view with tiles
-Qwertyuiopas' deviant of the fortress building, with a more general grouping of tiles and buildings
-And the ULTIMATE goal (in my opinion), the combination of all the aspects of DF as Servant Corps proposed, as in the choice to be adventurer or fortress leader, and have these different playstyles interract in a consistent way in a consistent world. This should probably be classified into a very long term goal, we should start with one play style and then expand into the other gradually.
As for how to actually make the game, it definitely depends on wether we want it to be a real time game with graphics (even if minimal), or a text based and tick-based more traditional browser game. If we go with the real-time, I think Eclpise is the best choice. If more traditional browser based, either use one of the afformentioned engines, or PHP or ASP to make ours from scratch.
(I'll put all this in a poll now, tell me if I forgot any other suggestion)
EDIT: I forgot to mention, I'm in favor of using the Eclipse engine, and for the game to turn out like Hawkfrost said, like FF1-3 and similar games. I really like these games :D
Post by: Istrian on November 02, 2008, 04:56:48 am
I know flash a tiny bit, and I could learn java in a short while.
I'll help wherever I can.
Fortress Mode sounds veeery interesting.
The coding might be tough for all the jobs though, but it would be pretty sweet.
Maybe we could have more than one fort that people could join, and eventually there could be wars/trading between them.
Works perfectly with my idea as well. I was kinda hoping that would be the case, except what would happen when one fortress got too big. Please say Tantrum Spiral, because that would be awesome.
When a fortress gets too big it gets bigger sieges (and sieging armies would be controlled by us, instead of an AI). It will also get other random events, until it dies, or until the players get bored.
I am not sure about having to "fight" to gather resources. Perhaps having the right tool for the job should be enough. Also, IMHO death of a dwarf should be permanent to encourage digging coffins. Of course the player can then make another dwarf who will come as a migrant.
As for my proposal, we can work progressively towards an empire-building game with the following milestones :
1) One fortress, unlimited living dwarves, no world map, sieges from nowhere, caravans from nowhere.
2) Multiple fortresses, limited number of living dwarves in each, simple abstract world map, sieges from nowhere, caravans from nowhere.
3) Fortresses can siege each other, can send caravans to each other, can create new fortresses, dwarves can migrate between fortresses.
4) Sites other than fortresses (like goblin towers, ruins, caves) that can be sieged/adventured into.
5) Umm... the previous objectives should take a lot of time as they are.
Post by: Akroma on November 02, 2008, 05:06:05 am
that would lead to too much chaos
I'd say a cooperative world, where everyone builds his own fortress
this implies army arc gets finished before we can make this game
to solve the problem of varying computer speeds, I'd say it should be turn-based
one season is one turn
overland battles can take place in an additional turn
Post by: Poltifar on November 02, 2008, 05:39:03 am
On the other hand, if each player is a single dwarf and not a whole fortress, the exact food you eat, the item you make, the square you mine... all of this can be interesting, especially when other players help/hinder your work. Heck, the whole point of multiplayer DF would be the chaos!
I'm not sure that what I'm saying is understandable, I just can't describe my exact ideas, maybe later when I have a more concrete idea... Basically, I really want single-dwarf-control, with NPC dwarfs if there aren't enough players, and instead of turn-based, how about 'energy' based? You have X amount of energy per real-life day, each action costs Y energy, etc. that way even if people have less time/less fast computers, the game can still be balanced. Also, an advantage of single-dwarf-control would be that it is very easy to add adventure mode into the game.
Post by: Istrian on November 02, 2008, 05:48:14 am
that would lead to too much chaosKind of the whole point : players who can't organize in their fort get wiped out by wild creatures or the first siege. Players who manage somehow to work as a team get better, bigger fortresses. This will lead to some interesting twists : some fortresses will try to encourage people to work as a team by using rewards, others will choose to exclude those who want to play "hermit", while some will kill anyone who doesn't fit in.
Too much chaos = tantrum spiral, the Bane of all Forts
Quote
I'd say a cooperative world, where everyone builds his own fortressThe game does not require DF to be played. I don't see what Army Arc has to do with it.
this implies army arc gets finished before we can make this game
Quote
to solve the problem of varying computer speeds, I'd say it should be turn-basedReal-time could work as well since the game won't require a fast computer as it is likely to be a browser-based game. Of course real-time would imply a fast internet connection.
Quote
NPC dwarfs if there aren't enough players, and instead of turn-based, how about 'energy' based? You have X amount of energy per real-life day, each action costs Y energy, etc. that way even if people have less time/less fast computers, the game can still be balanced.And energy would be replenished by sleeping/eating/drinking. Sleep occurs whenever a player disconnects, and the energy bar slowly fills until the player reconnects. Eating and drinking would instantaneously fill a bit of the energy bar but would require resources (food, drink). The only problem I can see with that is when a siege occurs when everyone is sleeping, but that can be solved by generating sieges only when a certain number of dwarves are active.
As for NPCs I'm not too sure. They would require a rather heavy AI to be really useful.
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 02, 2008, 07:39:09 am
Developers:
-One developer
-Team of developers
-Anone who wants to help
Type:
-Browser based MMO
-Browser based non-MMO
Language:
*PHP
+Fast to set up
+Would work on most web servers
+Can run on any internet enabled device
-No real time interactivity
-A certain level of abstraction is required
-Need web server to test
*JAVA
+Real time
+Allows 3D
+Fast
+Better graphics than PHP
-Requires custom client-server code
-Client can be hacked
-Hard to learn
-Requires download or is large
*FLASH
+Fast
+Real time
+Good graphics
+Easier than JAVA
-Client can be hacked
-Requires download
-Must write own client-server code
So, what will it be?
Post by: webadict on November 02, 2008, 08:35:48 am
It'd be MMO Fortress where each dwarf is individually controlled to acquire (or hopelessly squander) resources.
Post by: Istrian on November 02, 2008, 08:40:11 am
An MMO sounds like a better idea since a non-MMO would not even need to be browser-based : it could be a stand-alone game.
As for the technologies to use I would think Java or Flash are better suited to the task, even though the game would not need 3D graphics (ASCII is good). Though I would still prefer to have a design document ready before choosing our tools as by then we would have a better idea of what we want and what we need to get it done. It is never easy nor fast to convert code to another language should we decide to change during development.
Post by: Poltifar on November 02, 2008, 10:56:00 am
For the programming launguage, I don't like the idea of Java or flash, mostly because of them being harder to learn than PHP, and also because of the fact that the client could be hacked (like qwertyuiopas said), and good graphics are not very important, so I think a 100% server-sided game using PHP would be preferable.
We *could* use ASP instead of PHP, since Microsoft's Visual Studio Web Developper is easy to use and saves alot of time on the more complicated and/or tedious things to do, but sadly, it's harder to find people that are accomplished ASP programmers, and web servers that support it are also hard to find...
Istrian, what exactly should the design document contain for us to be able to begin? Just basic concepts and ideas, or more detailed stuff like formulas for skill calculation/etc...
Post by: Nilocy on November 02, 2008, 11:19:46 am
I'd also be happy to test this game and report stuff in great detail. I'm nothing at coding :D
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 02, 2008, 11:55:05 am
I say we don't go with Java or Flash, because hacking=unfairness, and we are DF players, we don't care about graphics.
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 02, 2008, 12:02:48 pm
Edit:
About hacking:
The hacking could be countered by increasing the data sent to the server and back, but "bots" would still be a problem.
Post by: Servant Corps on November 02, 2008, 12:13:13 pm
It seems that there are 4 votes, for Empire building for the FAF engine(I voted for that), A "dungone crawler" with the Eclipse engine, and a "Cooperative fortress building browser-based game", possibly with a third brand new engine. Hm. (Runoff?)
I still lay out my proposal for a dual MMORPG with Empire Building and Adventure Mode, with the two systems interrelating.
qwerty: Don't worry too much about hacking. Anyone who cheats within a MMORPG deserves enough ridicule.
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 02, 2008, 12:30:15 pm
It just takes more scripting.
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 02, 2008, 12:35:27 pm
Code: [Select]
..._-
../..
./... <- benefit
/....
|....
2468+ <-hours inactiveThat way people would be encouraged not to let a bot play overnight, and limiting it to a more linear curve during the day would not discourage overly active players. "day" would be 22 hours since the start of the last long inactivity(the one with the better curve)
Also, there should be limits to what can be gained by inactivity, so that a week would be the longest and it would only give twice the(10 hour) overnight bonus.
It would result in players trying to play about twice a day but not heavily punishing them for once every day or two, or 5 times a day.
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 02, 2008, 12:38:13 pm
Post by: Poltifar on November 02, 2008, 12:41:36 pm
And I still don't like alot the idea of client-sided java/flash based. The graphics certainly don't matter much, and we probably won't need C++'s speed, unless we plan on making a highly-complicated game rivaling the actual DF, which I doubt we will be doing for our first try at multiplayer DF.
So if we go with the co-op fortress browser-based idea, we are probably going to use PHP combined with MySQL or some other database program. Here are some suggestions on the basics of actual gameplay:
How about having the basic view for the game be 9x9 tiles visible at any one time, with the 'view' centered on the player's dwarf. Each time the player clicks on a visible tile, the page refreshes and the player is now in the new tile, centered in the screen, with the other tiles having been moved to the new view based on the new location of the player... also, the actions could be on the side of the screen, with a drop-down list to choose an action, and a validation button. More complex actions could take you to another screen to decide the more intricate things about it etc. And there could be other pages for stats and inventory. I'm still not sure how combat would work though.
As for more program-wise stuff, how about having one row in the database tables represent one tile, with properties such as inside/outside, wall/floor/empty, natural/construction, creatures/items at location, fluids, etc.. And have other tables for the the players/creatures/items themselves, all based on certain predetermined classes. Each would require a unique ID too.
Sorry if what I say seems like gibberish.
Oh and does anyone support me in the idea that we could use ASP and Microsoft SQL instead of PHP and another SQL software? It's MUCH easier to make the databases, page layouts, security logins, and many other things using the Visual Studio Web Developper, than having to code manually all of it in HTML and PHP. Unless someone knows of a good developper software for PHP and HTML...
Additions because of the posts posted while I was writting this:
Hawkfrost, yes it should be possible to use the Eclipse engine in that way, but I still don't like much that it could be easily hacked, and also most people here are more in favor of server-based PHP or other code.
Qwerty, that's one of the advantages of the energy system. While you could gain more energy by eating or drinking, it would be much more efficient time and resource wise to simply 'sleep' by logging off, thus encouraging players to not play too much and making life hard for bots, and thus ensuring more balanced gameplay for players that can't stay on for very long periods of time.
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 02, 2008, 12:50:06 pm
I'm fine with that.
Post by: deadlycairn on November 02, 2008, 12:53:52 pm
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 02, 2008, 12:56:11 pm
We are planning a online game based off of the mechanics of DF.
Post by: Poltifar on November 02, 2008, 01:07:15 pm
Will there be magic?
Skills not seen/used yet in original DF?
Mods and other user-created content? (only if we give the source code out publicly, thus enabling players to make their own private servers for playing with their friends)
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 02, 2008, 01:27:45 pm
How about only in magic weapons and armor.
Skills other than the ones currently in DF would be ok, as long as it keeps the DF spirit.
Oh, and Animal Caretaking/Training skills=pets!
Post by: Poltifar on November 02, 2008, 01:45:06 pm
But we still need to decide the most basic things for sure before we get to the fun part of implementing these skills and other stuff. Should I change the poll? It seems most people posting here have agreed that a co-op fortress game would be nice, so we should now decide on the engine (if any) and/or the programming language(s)
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 02, 2008, 01:53:39 pm
I'm open to anything really, the choice is up to you guys.
Post by: Poltifar on November 02, 2008, 02:50:54 pm
I'll be back in ~20 hours.
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 02, 2008, 03:37:26 pm
As soon as we know what route we take, people can start implementing the most basic features or planning the layout while the specific language(s) is/are chosen.
Post by: Servant Corps on November 02, 2008, 04:26:28 pm
http://worldofphaos.zekewalker.com/
World of Phaos seems to be like Dragon Knights, except it is tile-based and have some graphics, and looks a little cooler. But it will take more time to modify, of course.
Dragon Knights, FAF, and World of Phaos all use PHP, by the way.
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 02, 2008, 04:37:25 pm
Post by: Poltifar on November 03, 2008, 09:15:19 am
So basically, I think its now decided that we'll be making a co-op fortress game, now we must decide between:
-Browser-based, server-based code, modified pre-existing engine
-Browser-based, server-based code, from scratch
-Client based, scripted Eclipse engine
IMO, if we go Browser-based, we should go with our own engine, since any other engine would need such heavy modification to really resemble co-op fortress building that it would be better to just make one from scratch (if we were making the game only based on Adventure mode, as in no fortress building and less crafting skills and such, we would probably be better of using a pre-existing engine, but this is no the case.)
As for the Ecplise engine, the problems with hacking aside, I checked some of its scripting and such, and while it does seem easy to make the simpler stuff, such as the DF themed combat and the basic crafting, I think making it possible to do the much more advanced craftings (artifacts, engravings, encrusting with materials, different qualities etc.) and the construction of buildings and mining would be much too tiresome, because in DF each object is practically unique, and in the Eclipse engine each object seems to have to conform to a certain 'blueprint' at 100%... Hawkfrost, or anyone else that knows about Eclipse, correct me if I'm wrong, as I've only skimmed through some stuff...
And now, another point: Who would like to participate in this project?
I doubt the project would advance at any respectable pace, since anyone participating in making it would only be doing it in there spare time, but we can still try to do some stuff, at least to serve as a basis for future attempts at multiplayer DF.
So, if you want to participate in this project in some way, please post so and tell us what exactly you'de like to do (PHP, Eclipse, graphics maybe, other...)
I myself have some little knowledge of progamming including some Basic languages. I'd help in anything that I might possibly be able to do. I have almost 0 knowledge of PHP, but I can make the working backbone of sites (including a login system) using the Visual Studio Web Developper, combining ASP (similar to PHP), HTML, Visual Basic, and Microsoft SQL. Beleive me, anyone that is still even a complete newb (like me) in web development, VS web developper makes it easy to start on these sort of projects, and helps in making such things as graphical layout of the page, login system, database connection, etc... I could learn PHP and an other SQL system, but don't expect that to happen easily or quickly. And if we decide on using the Eclipse engine, I also have no problem in learning its scripting language, its seems very easy.
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 03, 2008, 04:42:18 pm
I could also learn PHP if given time.
Post by: webadict on November 03, 2008, 05:05:51 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 03, 2008, 05:18:10 pm
And quite a bit of C, so it transferes well.
Also, I have a bit of a web server and PHP on my computer, although I only used it once or twice, and only ever to mess with PHP on my own computer.
It will NEVER go online if I can help it, but I can at least test what I make(or don't, as far as it has gone now).
So, yes, I am interested, however it turn out.
Items could be stored as (char or int)type,(char or int)material,(pointer or list)special effects.
Post by: webadict on November 03, 2008, 10:12:41 pm
Post by: Vactor on November 03, 2008, 10:15:16 pm
Each fort site has its own map, which would be what we know of as our DF fortmode, trees to be chopped down, stone to be mined, purring maggots to be captured. The founder of the fort can site wanted buildings which will give ghost indications of where particular buildings are wanted to be built and where stockpiles have been designated. However players will be free to build things that they have the ability to build wherever they want and leave their stuff where they see fit.
Becoming a -=Skulking Filth=- makes you an enemy of the fort, attackable until you escape to the world map, and unable to return to that fort for X amount of time. Only one thing will be carryable, so a -=Skulking Filth=- can't clean a fort out of everything in one fell swoop. The fact that you need to get in and escape will encourage players to design their fortresses to withstand thievery, with perhaps a fortress that is blocked off by floodgates only open able from the inside or any number of other creative DF traps.
Each player can do work around the fort that will level the associated skill, and they can also journey across the world map to visit other forts, aid in their defense, be part of a raiding party, or just visit and look around as a Liason, or trade as part of a caravan. Goblin Armies will invade fortressess, but can be seen coming on the world map, which gives their ETA, allowing a defense to be mustered.
Caves and visitable features could be added too.
I think this would be a good base that captures both parts of DF.
Post by: webadict on November 03, 2008, 11:40:58 pm
See above post.
Well, I agree that that is a great idea. I just don't think it'd be practical.
I think that multiple forts should exist, each one starting with 7 controllable dwarves (1 being the leader, who then divides certain powers among other dwarves). As the fortress grows, you will get more dwarves through births and immigrants. That's fine, but for dwarves that are not controlled, they should have a set job by the leader (or some sort of Job Manager) where they will do such-and-such with their turns.
There should be raiding parties from Goblins and from other fortresses if they so choose, as well as caravans from each fortress, the Elves, or Humans (The leader or a Trader would do the trading, and some sort of General or Captain or the leader would do the raiding).
Tasks should take a certain number of turns or time to complete (Seeing as how I'm not sure which one should be used). So, if you want to make a table, it will take 10 turns or it will take 20 minutes. To smooth a room, it will take 2 minutes/tile, or 1 turn/tile. These could be based on skill and intensity of each task.
Goods should be produced and there should NOT be differences in item quality (excluding masterpieces or artifacts, which would be worth more). What should happen is the number completed in a certain amount of time (or with a certain amount of material) should increase with skill level. This will make item management easier and more efficient. I KNOW that this will be way off from the game, but it's honestly not to big of a deal.
Rooms will be based on the furniture in the room, the base value of the material the room is mined out of, and the smoothing and engraving of the rooms.
Artifacts should be handled the same way as in DF.
Dwarves should become unplayable if they:
1. Die
2. Become Miserable
3. Go Insane
4. Own More Than 25 Kittens (See 3)
5. Become Too Wounded (Missing Limbs)
6. ...
7. Profit!
If a dwarf is unplayable but alive, they should do certain actions, such as kill another dwarf if crazy or need taking care of if wounded.
Keep the number of z-levels small. My number: 5 (2 above, 3 below) to keep things simple.
This is just my input. I have no real say, but I'm just giving ideas on what should be done in the easiest possible way.
Post by: Poltifar on November 04, 2008, 09:02:37 am
One main problem we'll have to face early on is this: We probably can't have any advanced AI of any kind, for programming and speed issues. So while animals, basic traders and sieges would be possible, I think NPC dwarves that do jobs and such would be too hard to implement. All fortress dwarves would have to be player controlled.
You might think that that would meen we are limited to very small fortresses, but that doesn't have to be the case. If we use the energy system that we were discussing earlier, players could control more than one dwarf. Each dwarf would be able to do a certain amount of stuff per real day, so players wanting to play more when that one dwarf has no more energy could just start a new dwarf. New dwarves become available when immigrants arrive or children are born. All dwarves that are currently available but not claimed by a player just stand around and act as low-AI NPCs.
For were we start, I like the 'node' idea proposed by Vactor. That would facilitate stuff such as hermit fortresses, fortresses founded by less than or more than 7 dwarves, and also would facilitate incorporating more adventure skills, if we program the nodes to act the same way with adventurers and fortress builders, so mining and woodcutting and such would be availbale to adventurers. Basically, there wouldn't even be a difference anymore between adventure and fortress mode, they would be the same mode, but fortresses would just be much better because many, many dwarves work on it at the same time, while adventurers would be limited to a small cottage because they normally don't stay in the same place for a lot of time, etc...
For the Z levels, I think we'll be starting with a single Z level, then add more ounce we have the basic mechanics working.
Also, for the item quality vs item quantity when we have increased skill, I think it depends on wether we use Eclipse or another pre-made engine or if we make our own. If its premade, most likely we'll go with quantity since items tend to be defined and unchangeable, but if we make our own engine, we could store info individually for each item, using classes and inheritance, allowing us to have almost every item unique, but at the cost of: 1) more programming, 2) more space used, 3) less speed. But if we manage to do it, it would be a big plus.
EDIT: So... PHP then? You all sure you wouldn't reconsider ASP using Visual Studio? It would facilitate stuff and all... PS: for those that dont want Visual Studio on the basis that they don't want to spend money to buy the software, there is a free Express edition availabe for dowaload, and although it doesn't have the VERY advanced stuff for web designing 'cause its free, it has enough to be able to make a login system and a database withought any prior knowledge of programming.
EDITEDIT: How should we divide the work, and how do you want us to share the scripts and pages we each make? We have to have some basic idea of how all of the programs have to fit in together, or else we can't make anything. Probably, one of us should start with the basis of the site, and share the code with the others, and then each one can add stuff to it?
Post by: AltF8 on November 04, 2008, 09:20:22 am
Post by: Poltifar on November 04, 2008, 09:37:01 am
Post by: AltF8 on November 04, 2008, 10:13:07 am
Things I learned:
- You cannot rush something like this. Version 1 of my game took mere weeks to produce a working thing, but it was nearly unplayable. Planning is the most crucial thing. In the third version, we wrote the game code as we planned it - what a mess that was. Constantly having to adjust code (which in turn breaks other things) to adapt to changing game designs is a nightmare. The new version in the works has been in the planning/design phase for 2 years. Only recently have we even touched the code/database schema.
- However big you think your game is, multiply that by about 4. It's always more complex than you think it is. ;)
- Documentation - I highly recommend a private wiki or something similar that the designers can use to coordinate the design. Or at least some sort of moderation if you're going to keep it in the forums. We started using Trac (http://trac.edgewall.org/ (http://trac.edgewall.org/)) for our project management, and it's been a life saver.
- No idea is stupid or frivolous. We've discarded so many ideas that have come back into the mix, I can't even count them. We've also nearly ditched ideas that the players latched on to.
- You asked about language. While the language is not 0.001% as important as the design (I learned this too), I used classic ASP attached to a MySql database for all three versions. The in-progress version will be written in VB.NET 3.5 on top of MySql. The interface...well, let's just say the interface can be written in any language, including HTML, Flash, Java - doesn't really matter. The design plan calls for a full API set so players can technically write their own interfaces.
- Security - You absolutely must always keep in mind that you are operating inside a client that you have nearly no control over. We learned this lesson the hard way. Every version had its cheats and exploits. Tracking them down and fixing them took ages. We learned to worship what I call the ASB - the Almighty Stop Button. No matter what you do - the player can always hit the stop button in their browser. Or mess with their cookies. Or hit the back button. Or click a link 500 times super fast. Or write script-kiddie proxies that alter your game's interface. The list goes on and on.
- Write code that is flexible. I had a major issue with this when I started out. My code was difficult to alter for ongoing changes with the game design, and it was horrible to edit. Any game will change constantly due to bugs, player input (mostly) and other factors such as exploits and cheats. I also suggest a version control system, such as SVN (which integrates nicely with Trac).
- Before writing any code, play the game on paper. Use index cards, note pads - whatever you can get your hands on. Use dice for random number generators (or a similar computer application). We did this a few weeks ago with what we thought was our completed design, and we found dozens of holes (and a new feature!). Face-to-face is best, but in this disconnected Internet world, I suggest Skype or a private chat room.
There's about all I can think of at the moment. I hope that my insight at least gives you another angle on this. If there's one thing I'd like to impress on people entering this kind of project, it's this:
No matter how painfully tempting it is - try, try, try to get the game designed before touching the code. This is the #1 thing that I've learned in all these years of messing with BB games. And I'm the worst one at listening to it.
Okay, that's enough rambling. For those who are interested, I'll give you the link to the game. Please note that the currently running version is barely out of beta, and I personally don't like it. At the time, I thought it was pretty slick - but now (knowing what I know) - I think it's kinda rough. Play at your leisure, have fun if you wish. Just don't complain - as development is completely, utterly closed on that app.
Link: Domain Knights v3 - http://periodicgames.com/Xe/Default.aspx (http://periodicgames.com/Xe/Default.aspx)
Post by: Poltifar on November 04, 2008, 10:30:47 am
This game will probably take as long or longer than your game to work, but hopefully something playable will come out of it :) Thanks again!
edit: I checked your game, and I'm definitely going to be playing it. I always liked the idea of hacking games, but never found one that suited me at 100%.
edit2: (i know, I'm doing too many edits) I'd like to say, the amount of info on the first page of the game alone blew my mind away. It seems the kind of game with a steep learning curve, but ALOT of depth. My type of game exactly :) i can say with no regret that compared to this game, all other hacking games are... lacking... to not say something more offensive
Post by: AltF8 on November 04, 2008, 11:11:39 am
There is also a lot of good information on the forums, both about the current version and the next.
On the code ideas thing: prototyping is always good, especially as a diversion. ;)
Post by: Poltifar on November 04, 2008, 01:24:47 pm
Each map, or node if we go with Vactor's proposal, is stored as seperate database tables. That way, people can develop their own maps and upload them, and we can try out stuff like map generators and other such stuff withough directly affecting the whole game, thus ensuring that if we make a mistake, it is much more contained.
Each map would probably have more than one table, one for the tiles, one for the creatures, and one for the items (basically each set of tables would be a sort of self-contained world). The tiles table would have ALL the tiles listed (yes, they would be BIG tables :P), with each tile having not 1 ID, but 2, representing its location in XY, thus ensuring that we do not waste space and code to define both a tile ID and location. (ounce Z levels are in, we can either have 3 ID X Y and Z, or we can have each Z level act as a seperate 'layer', depending on what we do up to then). For the creatures and items tables, it will be a bit harder, since we need to have a unique ID for each creature and object across all maps, for when they move from map to map. Maybe we have that the ID is composed of 2 parts, something like 1953.003, with the second part being defined by the specific map the object or creature is created/first appears in (this would meen that each map would be given a specific ID too.)
This leads to a question I'm sure will seem VERY stupid: how do we define new IDs to creatures and objects that are newly created, while being sure this ID is truly unique and has never been used before? Do we keep a counter to count to which ID we reached, or do we check which IDs are not used every time a new object or creature appears and assign an unused ID to it?
Post by: AltF8 on November 04, 2008, 02:01:43 pm
This leads to a question I'm sure will seem VERY stupid: how do we define new IDs to creatures and objects that are newly created, while being sure this ID is truly unique and has never been used before? Do we keep a counter to count to which ID we reached, or do we check which IDs are not used every time a new object or creature appears and assign an unused ID to it?
MS-SQL identity field or MySql auto-increment field. ;)
Post by: webadict on November 04, 2008, 02:03:59 pm
Now, it seems we're all over the map on this idea. Obviously, we have a BBMORPG. It deals with making a fortress.
Questions:
1. How do you make a fortress?
1a. What do you need?
1b. How do you leave a fortress?
1bi. What happens when a fortress is abandoned or everyone inside dies?
1bii. Can you find abandoned fortresses and settle in them?
2. How do you join a fortress?
2a. Can you stop people from joining your fortress?
2b. Can people sneak in and steal?
3. Do you travel on a map to other fortresses?
3a. What map is that?
3b. If you do not travel on a map, would you go there through a drop down list?
4. How do animals work?
5. How do sieges work?
6. How does trading work?
6a. Can you trade with other players?
7. How do items work?
8. Can you make alliances?
Anything else?
Post by: Poltifar on November 04, 2008, 02:41:07 pm
Some of the answers I propose to some of the questions:
2a. Well people can't enter your fortress 'legally' if the dwarves inside the fortress are hostile to him/don't wish to let him enter, but he could linger outside or enter forcibly, which can lead to:
2b. Sneaking wil probably be implemented. Stealing is a more delicate matter, to account for game balance and such. Probably like Vactor proposed, it should be possible to only steal one item, or a certain amount/weight depending on certain skills... but we would have to give 'ownership' tags to items to determine which are the fortress's property. As for hostility to the thief, I think the game would allow you to be hostile wether a certain dwarf steals or not (imagine a 'no tresspasser' fortress kind of thing), so stealing wouldn't affect your ability to be attcked, other than labeling you as a thief.
Most other things are still hazy to me, except:
6a. I'm not sure how trading will work, but we can definitely trade with other players. Be warned, though, that 'trading' would rely on trust and intimidation, since you could scam or take items by force or steal or not pay the player for the item... basically, this game will be almost 100% free pvp (any objections? if yes, we can find a way to make it less hostile)
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 04, 2008, 03:22:19 pm
And ASP sounds fine, I just wasn't sure what it was.
I know a bit of Basic, and I already downloaded most of the Expresses.
That node adea sounds perfect, along with the thief/stealing.
And members in a fortress together should not be able to fight unless they both set each other to "Grudge" in my oppinion.
Post by: Istrian on November 04, 2008, 04:48:34 pm
Most of what I say next is only my suggestions for the first version of the game.
New players spawn on the central tile of the map (later, when implemented, they would be able to choose to spawn on a 'gate' area, or a 'meeting' area). They are considered citizens of the fortress as soon as they spawn.
Players can leave the map either by dying (making death permanent would ensure avoiding overpopulation and overskilled dwarves, as well as homicidal ones) or by walking off the area, which has the same consequences as death : the character is destroyed.
When a player is disconnected his dwarf sleeps, hence the need to find/make a safe place to rest before going to sleep. Of course other players can pick up the sleeping dwarf and carry him to a safe place.
As for AI, I would suggest going for a very low AI and then only for wild animals (no pets yet). Siegers would be controlled by the devs.
No legal system in place at first, except a common vote to ban a player from the fortress (forbidding him to take anything tagged as belonging to the fortress). Of course the game would keep track of the value of items produced by a player and the value of items taken by him, and those would be available publicly on a signpost somewhere on the map.
--
As for my skills : PHP/HTML, Java, C, C++
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 04, 2008, 09:46:10 pm
HTML/PHP: Building on top of a player that has been inactively leaving the window open for half of an hour will be a problem when the player next moves.
FLASH/JAVA: MUCH more network activity/bandwidth and much more complicated to get the first version up(requires network code and a full interpretation system)
But if it is abstracted to "areas" that say "here lies these buildings, these items, and these dwarves", you would lose some of the greater possibilities and features that could be imported from DF.
So, yeah, problems in every direction, but on the other hand, every way is possible.
Post by: Istrian on November 05, 2008, 04:05:16 am
Now, heres the problems, if it is tile-based like DF:Then we'll have to give the players the ability to (non-damagingly) push a dwarf off a square.
HTML/PHP: Building on top of a player that has been inactively leaving the window open for half of an hour will be a problem when the player next moves.
Post by: Poltifar on November 05, 2008, 12:55:08 pm
I think there should be permadeath, not only to keep the fort's population low, but to also keep the 'feeling' of DF and other roguelikes as a whole. And I agree that leaving the map should delete the dwarf, but with a confirmation screen to the player incase he moves out accidentally (unless the dwarf was taken out unwillingly)
For the AI, the first version of the game shouldn't even have sieges or traders/liasons, just animals that randomly step in a certain direction every X seconds, except if a dwarf is in a certain range of them, in wich case they charge at him. Also, please, no advanced pathfinding. That's probably the most annoying thing to program in AIs, and also the most speed-killing.
And yeah, dwarves should be able to carry/push other dwarves, or atleast, in the first version, if the dwarf somehow gets stuck somewhere, the admins should have some way of teleporting him out (to be used only in valid cases of being stuck)
Ok, now for some more questions, that webadict didnt have in his list:
1-How does combat work? (A seperate screen opens or something, or just like in real DF?)
2-Do we go with the energy system, that gives energy while the dwarf 'sleeps' (is logged off) to perform actions, or do we use a time system, like 2 mins to mine one square? Maybe a combination of both, so that not to allow people to be logged off for 10 days and then log in a use all their energy to suddenyl mine a whole fortress in a few seconds?
2.1-If we use the energy system, does food/drink replenish energy, or is it a necessity to keep the dwarf alive that is seperate from the energy? (I would go with the second, to keep people from hoarding food and eating them all at one time and getting tons of energy, and also to oblige people to have to take a bit more care of there dwarves, they're not just work slaves ya know :P)
I suggest trying the first game out in a browser based version (whatever language we end up using). If we feel that this is innapropriate, we move to flash/java, since we would have a better idea of what the game should be like by then.
Post by: webadict on November 05, 2008, 01:13:38 pm
The amount of energy to do things would be determined by your skill, Strength, and whatever equipment you are using.
To do simple combat, why don't we just use Strength to determine damage, Toughness to determine health, and Agility to determine dodging, plus whatever equipment you are wearing to determine defense and attack and skills to determine accuracy and critical (with some defense and attack).
For equipment, you should get one head slot, one body slot, two weapon slots (or one weapon and one shield), and a legging slot. If we wanted, there could be a neck slot, an arms slot, a hands slot, and a feet slot. This could be changed later on to take on a "weight" style of equipping, where you can wear more than one of any slot, if you can carry it.
Food and drink can replenish energy, but there could be a satiation/thirst bar, where you can only eat or drink until that point (see KoL again for this). To limit abuse of eating, the Leader can set limits on who can eat what/day.
I also think dwarves should be sorted by profession, so as to let the leader choose certain settings based on profession (or customize professions).
Post by: Poltifar on November 05, 2008, 01:41:36 pm
Post by: webadict on November 05, 2008, 02:21:04 pm
Post by: Istrian on November 05, 2008, 02:26:14 pm
1) Production mandates : the leader has access to an inventory of the goods of the fortress and can decide to set a production mandate (he can choose to let other dwarves look at the stocks screen). Every dwarf in the fortress receives the mandate. Whenever a dwarf produces a mandated item he can drop it in a special "mandated items" bin which is created alongside the mandate and placed somewhere on the map (most likely placed by the fortress leader). Then the mandate counter decreases by one.
2) Global messaging : while any dwarf can send a message to any other dwarf (I'd say by writing a letter and then bringing it to the receiving dwarf, or the dwarf's mailbox), only the leader can send a message to every single dwarf in the fortress in one click and without the hassle of looking for the concerned dwarves.
As for professions, there is no such thing as "setting" them, each player chooses what he wants to do and the leader gets a summary of the best skill of each dwarf.
Post by: Poltifar on November 05, 2008, 02:47:06 pm
The idea of skills affecting how much energy is required to do skill-related things is perfect, and would be much better in the long run that having a single skills increase energy in general, because each dwarf would preferably limit himslef to doing what he has high skills in to increase productivity of the fortress as a whole.
The slot equipment system is basically what I had in mind, since a more DF-like system would be too much of a hassle in programming and balancing in my opinion...
For food and drink, other than the leader mandating rationing of food, we could simply put that if a dwarf eats when his food bar is already full doesn't get any more benefits.
For combat, yes, these skills are what will be used. But my question was more like: Since it would be energy-based game and not real-time, how can we implement DF's combat system? IE if a player attacks another one, would he attack every time he clicked the button, or would there be time interval between each attack? If there are no time intervals, players with fast connections could spam-attack a player and he might not even have time to react (since the page would have to be refreshed for the attack to be shown...)
Production mandates also seems a nice touch, as well as global messaging, but I think communication between non-leader dwarfs should not only be limited to letter sending. If both dwarves are next to each other and not sleeping (both players online), they could just use an in-built chat system.
Post by: webadict on November 05, 2008, 04:32:47 pm
Using a turn-based fighting style, you can:
1) Attack NPCs
2) Attack other players that are offline
3) Attack other players online
And then log the results.
For all of the above, you would use the same system where each battle would be randomized (including a possible retreat). No actually clicking would take place during the battle, only to start the battle.
2 and 3 should be rare and only applicable during a siege. And since sieges won't be in the first version, it should work.
When you are attacked, a link should come up that says so, with the events logged inside. As for how retreats would work, I'm not sure.
Post by: Istrian on November 05, 2008, 05:09:41 pm
There should also be an "attempt retreat after..." option with the following settings :
- body part injured at : bruise/injury/heavy injury/torn off
- x turns have passed
Of course each turn of combat will use some of the dwarf's energy, so if his bar is too low he could faint during combat. Maximum number of turns during combat should be limited as well to avoid having two players who cannot hurt each other fight endlessly (if a player wants to attack again, he can just click on the attack button again).
BTW, we should probably start designing a basic interface. Nothing fancy, just something to have an idea of the layout of the screen.
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 05, 2008, 05:18:33 pm
(http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/5064/graphbn2.png)
Post by: webadict on November 05, 2008, 06:02:38 pm
As for the logarithmic energy gain, I think that energy gain should be a linear style until a certain point.
Post by: Istrian on November 05, 2008, 06:33:19 pm
As for energy regeneration vs. energy consumption, humans need about 8 hours of sleep for 16 hours of "light" activity. We could use the same for dwarves : if an average dwarf (one with average constitution) sleeps 8 hours, then he can walk around 16 hours while carrying light weight (his clothes).
Of course doing anything other than walking consumes more energy, so eventually the maximum active time of a dwarf every day (without food or alcohol) would get somewhat closer to 4-6 hours. Which means that a player would need to play only that amount of time to empty his energy bar.
Obviously, as the dwarf becomes more resilient his maximum energy bar get higher so the 8:16 ratio gradually becomes an 8:30 ratio when maximal endurance is reached.
Post by: webadict on November 05, 2008, 06:48:05 pm
Yes, using an offensive move in combat should drain more energy than a defensive one. Perhaps players should set 2 combat strategies : one that is used when they are connected and one used when they are not (whenever PvP gets implemented of course).But that would assume real-time implementation of activities. We would want turn-based. Unless you want to spend 4-6 hours a day playing.
As for energy regeneration vs. energy consumption, humans need about 8 hours of sleep for 16 hours of "light" activity. We could use the same for dwarves : if an average dwarf (one with average constitution) sleeps 8 hours, then he can walk around 16 hours while carrying light weight (his clothes).
Of course doing anything other than walking consumes more energy, so eventually the maximum active time of a dwarf every day (without food or alcohol) would get somewhat closer to 4-6 hours. Which means that a player would need to play only that amount of time to empty his energy bar.
Obviously, as the dwarf becomes more resilient his maximum energy bar get higher so the 8:16 ratio gradually becomes an 8:30 ratio when maximal endurance is reached.
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 05, 2008, 08:27:44 pm
On the other hand, action timers would give a good enough system that fast users would have little advantage.
Also, if combat was split into 30 second turns, with multiple actions per 30 seconds.
1: dwarf hacks at the human! The human dodges
2: the human counters the dwarf, but it doesn't harm him.
3: the dwarf slices at the human but is blocked
4: the dwarf chops the human's lower left arm off.
5: the human, enraged at his limb loss, charges the dwarf in a bloody rage and removes his lower right leg
6: the dwarf slices the human't gut
--end of combat--
Then they could either retreat or continue to attack after the 30 seconds are over.
Post by: webadict on November 05, 2008, 08:48:44 pm
With an online game of over 5 players, turn based is really not an option.I mean that each "attack round" would happen in between movement. All battles would not happen during the game. You would be notified during or after movement how the battle went. For an attack, you would be able to defend, and for every time you attack, your opponent would defend.
On the other hand, action timers would give a good enough system that fast users would have little advantage.
Also, if combat was split into 30 second turns, with multiple actions per 30 seconds.
1: dwarf hacks at the human! The human dodges
2: the human counters the dwarf, but it doesn't harm him.
3: the dwarf slices at the human but is blocked
4: the dwarf chops the human's lower left arm off.
5: the human, enraged at his limb loss, charges the dwarf in a bloody rage and removes his lower right leg
6: the dwarf slices the human't gut
--end of combat--
Then they could either retreat or continue to attack after the 30 seconds are over.
It's actually very akin to DF where you control no real aspect of attack except that you can run into an enemy and attack them.
And your idea is turn-based. The attack system you speak of is exactly like the Battledome in Neopets (Only thing I could think of). I never liked it.
Post by: Poltifar on November 06, 2008, 08:53:15 am
---|===3====|
_1_|---4----|
|#### |
2 |#5## 6 |
|#### |
| |
1. Log in button if currently not logged in, or account name or something like "Welcome, [account name here]!" if already logged in, as well as server name/status/etc...
2. Non-game links, like Home, Index, Help, About, Credits, Wiki, Forums, etc...
3. Game title+maybe graphical art, just decorative, shouldnt take up much space.
4. Game-related tabs, such as links to Inventory screen, Status screen, Equipment screen, etc...
5. The tiles, were the player is in the center tile and 9x9 tiles around him are visible (maybe not 9x9, we'll just have to see what works best)
6. In-game statuses, such as energy, health, food bar, weight carried, etc... (only the most important stats, the rest such as specific skills are listed in the Status screen). Also, in 6 too, we would have options such as 'dig' and 'sleep' and other very used commands, so that the player doesnt have to keep switching screens when he needs to use these commands.
Post by: webadict on November 06, 2008, 11:28:42 am
1) We'd need to determine the way combat is determined in an equation form
2) We'd need a way to determine energy gain in an equation form, as well as other energy-based jobs and skills.
3) We'd need a fortress layout.
4) Experience? How would that be determined?
I think we start with the most important and work from there. Basically, we start with 2, since most things would require energy.
Ideas?
Mine is that we gain a certain amount of energy each day, with a max energy of... say, three days. All actions (besides defending) would take energy.
I will now use a miner as an example.
Say, each day we get 100 energy, with a max of 300 energy. He hasn't logged in for 2 days, and so has 200 energy.
The miner has 7 levels in mining (Out of 20 [0 being Dabbling] like DF), so he only uses 2.3 energy (Say he loses .1 for each level [3 - .1(7) = 2.3]) each tile he mines (This is rounded up. So, selecting 10 tiles would cost 23, whereas selecting 1 would cost 3, and 2 would cost 5, etc.) Would that be possible to integrate?
Now, say he mines 20 tiles for 46 energy. He gains 10 xp / tile for a total of 200 xp. Assuming he was at 6700 xp in Mining. He now has 6900 xp, leveling him up to level 8 Mining (Technically, Expert Miner). Now, the next time he mines, he will use 2.2 energy.
So, eventually, he mines as much as he can, then he has nothing left to do. He goes to the food and drink stockpile. There is a barrel of Dwarven Ale and some Dwarven Syrup Roast. The miner can drink 5 point of drink, and since each Dwarven Ale is 2 point, he can drink 2. Each Ale gives 5 energy, and so the Dwarf gains 10 energy from drinking the 2. Now, for eating, he has 5 as well, but the Dwarven Roast costs 5 point and gives 15 energy.
So, he has gained a total of 25 energy from food and drink, and he mines 11 more squares for 25 energy (2.2 * 11 = 24.2 which is 25 rounded up).
He has now done all he can today with that dwarf.
Post by: Poltifar on November 06, 2008, 11:58:06 am
As for the mining pen-and-paper example, I think its all implementable. Also, why round up? We could just store the amount of energy in a decimal variable. Also, I don't think we'll have to designate many tiles to be mined, I think it'll be more like: the player clicks on the tile next to a wall he wants to mine, which moves him there, then he selects 'dig' with direction 'north', clicks 'Go' button, and the wall is mined, then moves again into the newly mined square, selects 'dig' and the direction, clicks Go, etc...
Post by: webadict on November 06, 2008, 12:10:25 pm
But when you say 100 energy 'per day', do you mean he gets it all at a single predetermined time (eg. midnight GMT), or gradually, depending on how much hours/minutes have passed? I think we should list advantages/disadvantages of both systems, to see which one would be more balanced and appropriate. (I can't seem to think of any...)I just wasn't a fan of decimals, is all. But that would work.
As for the mining pen-and-paper example, I think its all implementable. Also, why round up? We could just store the amount of energy in a decimal variable. Also, I don't think we'll have to designate many tiles to be mined, I think it'll be more like: the player clicks on the tile next to a wall he wants to mine, which moves him there, then he selects 'dig' with direction 'north', clicks 'Go' button, and the wall is mined, then moves again into the newly mined square, selects 'dig' and the direction, clicks Go, etc...
So, the two types of gain: One point/Continuous
Spoiler: One Point (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Continuous (click to show/hide)
I think Continuous would be a better system actually. It's like having One Point if you log on at the same time every day. Not bad.
I don't like your mining idea, though. It'd take a long time to mine. If there was a way to mine out large areas fast, that'd be ideal.
It's much easier to make a bunch of things than to mine a bunch of things, that's the problem. Hmm... any ideas?
Post by: Poltifar on November 06, 2008, 12:23:07 pm
EDIT: How about a 'dig while moving' option, that digs the tiles the player passes through when turned on. That way, the player just needs to move through the area to be digged.
Post by: webadict on November 06, 2008, 12:26:49 pm
Post by: Istrian on November 06, 2008, 12:44:00 pm
I say we go with a simplified body part system for health en damage. Body parts would be : left/right arm/hand/leg/foot, head, torso. Each body part has a certain amount of HP (shown to the player or not) and a certain amount of defense (depending of the type of armor protecting the body part).
When a body part is hit the HP is decreased. When the HP is reduced to 0, the part is destroyed. HP regenerates slowly during sleep but can be accelerated if a dwarf applies a 'medical' skill to the wounded dwarf, and perhaps certain herbs.
2) Energy gain should be progressive. Each hour (hour seems fine, as doing it too often leads to lag) a dwarf spends sleeping (player disconnected or dwarf set to 'sleep') a certain percentage of the energy bar is regained. How quickly it gets refilled depends on how long we want the player to play each day. I'd say 4-6 hours per day is reasonable.
I think every action should take a certain amount of energy. Even walking around, especially with heavy weight. Of course every action brings a certain amount of xp in a given skill (I could see "walker" and "runner" skills implemented).
3) For the first fortress I say we pop stone in the middle of the map, forest in the north and desert in the south. I assume we'll do only one z-level on the first fort, though I don't think it would be too difficult to have multiple z-levels.
4) DF-style : the more you do the bigger your skill gets, though I'm sure you mean "how much skill points gained for every single action". I'd say between 0.1 and 200 xp per action would be fine, depending of the difficulty of the action (required resources and energy, the more it needs, the more xp awarded).
---
On mining : mining, like any other job, should be done square by square. If you want more squares mined, have more dwarves. Dig while moving is fine, but it should require a pick equipped to avoid the problem of players mining accidentally (and collapsing the whole mountain).
Making a bunch of things isn't easier : you need to collect the resources and have a workshop, so you need to move a lot if you don't have haulers (and who would want to play a hauler anyway ?) while mining does not require you to move too far.
Post by: Poltifar on November 06, 2008, 01:14:08 pm
Yes, walking around should use energy, but I'm not sure about 'walker' or 'runner' skills, since it would seem more appropriate to have that included in Agility (and Strength when it come to weight).
For the first fort, there would be (ofcourse) no random generation of tiles, and I guess the plan Istrian gave would be best, since it incorporates as many mediums as possible. And I would prefer not to have Z levels, atleast not at the very beginning.
So the first step in programming would be the most basic and simple thing: movement. We should just have a map with 'passable' tiles and 'impassable' tiles, to try the movement and all that. Then we would add a dig option to dig impassable tiles, and build up more stuff from then on. And since we are going to start with the movement system, here are two possible ways of moving i've been considering. Both use the tile view:
1) Click on any of the visible tiles and you move directly to that tile. Advantages of this is speed for the player. Disadvantage is in cases such as:
...W..
...W..
...W..
.D.W.X
...W..
...W..
'.' is ground, 'D' is the dwarf, 'W' is a wall, 'X' is were the player clicked. If we used this way of movement, we would need to make a pathfinding check every time the player clicked on a tile that is not directly adjacent to his current location, to be sure the player is not 'teleporting' to that location, and pathfinding is annoying both to code and to run, as it eats speed...
2) We keep the 9x9 tile view, but the player can only move to tiles adjacent to his current location. That would elimintate any problem of pathfinding, since only a single check would be made to see if that one tile is passable or not, but it would be much slower for the player to move from place to place, especially with slow internet connections...
EDIT: Istrian, I don't think it would be possible to have a player be able to play for 4-6 hours per day with the same dwarf without making the game... bland. Also, I think most players who would play this game would only play 1-2 hours on average per day. If we want to let players play 4-6 hours, just let them have more than a single dwarf, each dwarf taking 1-2 hours. That way, players who only want to play for a while each day can concentrate on a single dwarf, while players with more time can switch between multiple dwarves.
Post by: Istrian on November 06, 2008, 01:40:30 pm
If the player sees to little of the surrounding terrain he can easily get lost (even a fortress map wouldn't be much help) or run into hostile creatures (even though the first version won't include lots of those).
The drawback is that if there are too many tiles the loading time increases considerably, especially since the other tiles have to show the location of other players and miscellaneous mobile objects.
Of course the player can only move one tile at a time, to avoid pathfinding issues raised by obstacles and hostiles.
Slow internet connections are an important issue, hence the need to plan well the interface of the game to avoid overloading the main game screen with useless information.
Post by: Poltifar on November 06, 2008, 01:59:09 pm
Post by: Hawkfrost on November 06, 2008, 02:02:27 pm
Perhaps have an option to set the number of tiles the player sees? That way, slower internet users can adjust to their own internet speeds. But that would be a bit complicated to implement, so for the first version, let's go with a set 15 tiles each side or somesuch.
Sounds good.
And, if eating and drinking will be crucial to life, please don't use a bar/percentage/other visual display.
Have it pop up a status effect of "Thirty", or "Hungry", like in Rougelikes.
It makes it annoying/paranoid otherwise.
Post by: webadict on November 06, 2008, 02:03:13 pm
I was thinking, and the system Poltifar brought up would actually be pretty good, though very time consuming. There should be a standard 8-directional keypad, with the ability to go in certain directions a certain number of times:
Example
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
[Checkbox] Go until stopped
[Number box] Go this many steps in direction
Post by: Istrian on November 06, 2008, 02:27:51 pm
I think it shoud also be feasible to enter sleep mode without logging out, in which case the player can see the energy bar refilling gradually.
The directional keypad for long-distance movement is nice IMHO.
Health and most bars (and the energy bar too) should not be visible on the main screen, as suggested by Hawkfrost. We should only have status like Hungry, Thirsty, Tired, Wounded. Some of the bars should be in a status menu, and others (like health) should be completely inaccessible to the player.
Post by: Poltifar on November 06, 2008, 02:36:49 pm
Post by: webadict on November 06, 2008, 03:24:51 pm
My suggestion
There are three modes of fighting, with another mode of retreat:
Attack, defense and aggressive defense (and retreat)
Attack is made when the dwarf goes onto a space occupied by a hostile or wild entity. The dwarf then uses energy to fight the creature.
Defense is when a hostile or wild entity attacks you when you pass by a hostile or wild entity. The dwarf does not use energy in this mode.
Aggressive defense is the same as above, except it is an option that can be chosen. When this is active, you use energy while fighting and gain the same benefits from attack mode.
Retreat mode is another option that can be chosen, but instead of fighting, you do not attack and instead try to retreat as fast as possible.
In attack and aggressive defense mode, you gain benefits, since you are using energy, such as increased accuracy and damage, and possibly a Limit Break (http://www.dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Martial_trance)
In defense mode, you gain no benefits.
In retreat mode, you do not attack, but you retreat from battle faster.
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 06, 2008, 09:27:34 pm
Other people could work on art or log-in/data storage systems.
Post by: webadict on November 06, 2008, 11:57:30 pm
Post by: Istrian on November 07, 2008, 03:46:53 am
Post by: webadict on November 07, 2008, 08:51:52 am
A body-part health system isn't that hard to implement, especially considering the reduced amount of body parts.2 Hands - 2 Arms - 1 Upper Body - 1 Lower Body - 1 Neck - 1 Head - 2 Legs - 2 Feet?
I'm probably missing one, but that sounds about what we need. I suppose 12 values wouldn't be too hard. There's just a bunch of extra [Too Injured] stuff to program after that. Especially walking with no legs. That'd be the annoying part.
Post by: Istrian on November 07, 2008, 09:13:12 am
Upper Body + Lower Body = Body
So only 10 values. As for walking with no legs/one missing leg, it would just mean that walking (crawling/hopping) takes more energy than simple walking. Energy used to walk one step can be stored in a separate variable which only gets updated when the dwarf loses a leg.
I think a dwarf who has lost both arms should be considered dead, as he would be unable to wield a tool for production or a weapon for combat. Since he can do nothing but walk (and perhaps bite or headbutt) it would be boring for the player to continue playing that dwarf.
On the topic of tools, I thin we need tools for all jobs, even if it is something as general as "smithing tools", "butchering tools"... . That would also require a toolmaker job (or perhaps an extension of the craftsdwarf job) who can make tools with anything (wood/stone/metal...) and needs no tools. Using tools of better quality would reduce energy consumption for the task and tools would degrade over time.
Post by: webadict on November 07, 2008, 10:48:32 am
The tools would be almost exactly like the skill level thing. I think that there should be some kinds of items that decrease energy consumption on certain tasks, but they shouldn't be required unless they're required in DF, like a pickaxe for mining (So, say a bronze pickaxe is 100% energy consumption, but an adamantium pickaxe is 50%). So, say if you had some sort of chisel, it would decrease energy consumption to cut it, but you would NEED one.
Also, having your own room/cabinet/chest to store your items in. That'd be cool.
Post by: Istrian on November 07, 2008, 11:18:26 am
Also, should we add rewall in the first version ? In my opinion it is not that different from a 'dig' action, so it shouldn't be a hassle to code.
Post by: Poltifar on November 07, 2008, 11:21:53 am
Post by: webadict on November 07, 2008, 11:28:20 am
1) Person
2) Room
3) Workshop
4) Fortress
There's too many problems that could arise vs. the possible benefits of such a system. Sure, you can get a certain number of rooms, but you'd also have some jerk locking off everything to himself. Two ways to stop that would be no doors or a limited amount of doors.
Also, possible problems with digging...
"Weeeeee!!! I just craved out a bigger dining room by MINING OUT THE WHOLE MOUNTAIN!!!"
I think that the leader should designate possible places to mine, in order to keep this to a minimum.
I think that having a Cabinet and a Chest that only you can open is fine, since in DF, any dwarf can walk into your room. Lockable door would just be a big hassle. Either that, or having one room to yourself.
Post by: Poltifar on November 07, 2008, 11:43:54 am
As for a more ingame answer to such problems, just have that making doors with private locks uses much more energy than normal doors, or requires special parts (mechanical parts, lock, key...) to be made, thus making locking doors a hard business. Sure, players won't be able to lock them when they just started a new fortress because they can't produce the parts yet, but when the fortress is still young, there are very few players, and they probably already greatly trust each other, since they decided to start the fortress together.
As for the mountain-digging, that would require so much energy it would take so much time to accomplish, the leader would surely notice what was happening and ban the player.
My idea of the jerk-problem in this game is, try to fix it indirectly. After all, this would be a very high pvp game. Dont give concrete limits to what can and cant be done, let the player decide between the benefits and costs of each decision. If the player feels like stealing from another player, let him. He'll just have to then escape before the other players decide to kill him, and can't return to this fortress, and probably won't be able to cary his own stuff away in his escape...
Post by: Kashyyk on November 07, 2008, 11:45:11 am
I have no skill in programing but I would like to learn.
I was thinking, regarding doors, that the leader (or someone given the powers to do so) can give keys to dwarves, that unlock particular doors.
Post by: webadict on November 07, 2008, 11:54:25 am
Hmm... Any ideas on combat?
Post by: Poltifar on November 07, 2008, 11:58:46 am
For the keys, I think the players should be given a bit more of independance from the leader, and be able to make their own locked doors. The leader might mandate that a master key be made for him that can open any of the doors, though.
As for starting on the interface, how should we host it? I can't host it on my own computer for now for diverse reasons, and its probably better not to host it on anyone's own computer for security/bandwith/practicallity reasons. Anyone know of a good free host that supports server-side codes and databases?
Post by: webadict on November 07, 2008, 12:16:36 pm
Kashyyk, don't worry, I know little web programming myself, what I know of ASP and HTML are barely a few days worth of self-teaching. We'll just have to learn as we move on.Someone posted earlier that they could help with the hosting. I forget who though...
For the keys, I think the players should be given a bit more of independance from the leader, and be able to make their own locked doors. The leader might mandate that a master key be made for him that can open any of the doors, though.
As for starting on the interface, how should we host it? I can't host it on my own computer for now for diverse reasons, and its probably better not to host it on anyone's own computer for security/bandwith/practicallity reasons. Anyone know of a good free host that supports server-side codes and databases?
Post by: Poltifar on November 07, 2008, 12:20:25 pm
If anyone actually goes through with this, and shows the game in action (by hosting it on their own computer or something to that effect) I may be able to provide hosting.
Well seems Zac proposed to host it, but only if its already a working game...
Post by: webadict on November 07, 2008, 12:23:21 pm
Post by: Istrian on November 07, 2008, 01:15:52 pm
Let the citizens of a fortress decide who gets banned and who doesn't. Have a vote system in place which requires a majority of players to vote to kick someone out.
On locks&doors :
Making keys should be a special job that does not require the leader's intervention (else he would always be harrassed by every player to give them a key).
On interface :
It is not necessary to host the interface on a server to make it. Just check it locally on your computer to see if it works. By the time you have a complete interface we will have found a server to host it. Of course, people won't be able to see how the interface looks until then, but at least it gets the project started.
Post by: Kashyyk on November 07, 2008, 02:27:54 pm
Post by: Fenrir on November 07, 2008, 04:12:53 pm
Post by: Kashyyk on November 08, 2008, 12:50:03 pm
Post by: Poltifar on November 08, 2008, 01:38:37 pm
-Do we use a font to represent the tiles, or curse-like graphics? The difference would be that the graphics would take time to make, we need to be downloaded thus slowing the game for slow-internet users, but would be consistent for all users, while a font would be faster to implement and use (if we are using a pre-existing font such as Arial), have more variety of color/size, but not all players might have the exact font available.
-Do we use a table with each cell representing a tile, or just send an output in the form of a 'paragraph' of the symbols used for the tiles? The table system would be more square-shaped and thus nicer to look at if we use a rectangular font, but the tiles would have some distancing between them, and it would be a pain to designate each cell alone when coding the thing...
-How do we represent multiple objects on top of each other in the same tile? I don't know how to do something that switches between the pictures for all objects on the tile every second or so, so that it looks like the original DF...
Post by: Kashyyk on November 08, 2008, 04:17:31 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 08, 2008, 09:10:04 pm
I know I keep coming back to it, but do we have a language choice yet?
Post by: Poltifar on November 09, 2008, 11:02:44 am
Post by: winner on November 09, 2008, 07:08:28 pm
The happiness of the dwarf is a great way to get players to act how you wish them to; make everything take a little more energy when the dwarf is unhappy and you'll have players stumbling over themselves to cheer it up.
Post by: Muz on November 09, 2008, 07:17:16 pm
Noble assholes are another thing, though it should be accepted as part of the game ;)
Post by: winner on November 11, 2008, 02:00:39 am
Handling assholes is easy: SEND THEM TO THE HAMMERER! :DHow does everybody feel about perma death? I am in favor of it.
Noble assholes are another thing, though it should be accepted as part of the game ;)
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 11, 2008, 08:11:32 am
Post by: webadict on November 11, 2008, 09:40:08 am
I think that death should always(well, in most cases) have a chance of just being a disabling(for at least a week) injury and give new players 1 week of time where that probablility is greatly increased.There's always a chance that an injury is disabling. There's just usually a VERY HIGH chance of death. From everything. No questions. And a very low chance that the injury will heal.
Perma death is fine.
Post by: Poltifar on November 11, 2008, 09:47:16 am
Players shouldn't get too attached to their dwarves anyways, since they would have MANY dwarves each (I think I might have mentioned this idea earlier, too lazy to check), when they log in, they first get to a screen 'choose a dwarf or create a new one' and each dwarf would have its own energy pool, so that the player could finish one dwarf's energy for the day then play with another one.
Also, the motto of DF sticks, Losing is Fun!
Post by: webadict on November 11, 2008, 09:52:39 am
My idea for death was: simply make it (almost) AS BRUTAL AS THE ORIGINAL DF! MWAHAHAHAA...How many is too many, though? It'd get pretty annoying to take care of them all...
Players shouldn't get too attached to their dwarves anyways, since they would have MANY dwarves each (I think I might have mentioned this idea earlier, too lazy to check), when they log in, they first get to a screen 'choose a dwarf or create a new one' and each dwarf would have its own energy pool, so that the player could finish one dwarf's energy for the day then play with another one.
Also, the motto of DF sticks, Losing is Fun!
And they'd have a limited amount, they'd just have to pick from whoever's there. Also, how would children work?
Post by: Poltifar on November 11, 2008, 10:14:57 am
How many is too many, though? It'd get pretty annoying to take care of them all...
And they'd have a limited amount, they'd just have to pick from whoever's there. Also, how would children work?
Well we'll need to find a limit to how much dwarves there can be, mainly limited by how many dwarves immigrants are available. Also, I think children would just be considered NPCs wandering in the fortress until they mature after a certain amount of time, then they would be available for taking by any player.
Post by: winner on November 11, 2008, 11:47:31 am
Post by: webadict on November 11, 2008, 12:04:50 pm
There is one problem with legendaries as they currently are, one player with a legendary dwarf could kill every single dwarf in your fortress with out dieing. I think this balances it a little too much in the direction of player killers, but at the same time it is completely awesome to have a legendary dwarf under your control.Honestly, if you have a legendary dwarf and no one else does, you're either:
1) Breaking in and killing everyone
2) Really good
3) Want the fortress to live
or
4) a Redneck
Post by: Poltifar on November 11, 2008, 12:23:15 pm
But I guess balancing stuff will have to be put, to keep such rogue dwarves from doing too much damage...
Post by: Kashyyk on November 11, 2008, 12:26:52 pm
Post by: Poltifar on November 11, 2008, 12:37:44 pm
but do you honestly think an asshole would manage to get to that sort of lvl?Yeah, good point. Any asshole would be easily recognized by the community way before he gets Legendary +5 in combat stats. Atleast, as long as the DF community remains at its current standards. Hopefully, it will.
Post by: webadict on November 11, 2008, 01:43:29 pm
Honestly, I would love some sort of Adamantine-clad, legendary +5, psycho dwarf going fortress to fortress killing everyone inside. It'd be that kind of wackiness that'd be cool. 2 reasons why this isn't a problem: It would take forever to get to this level, and this is the kind of stuff that happens in DF.but do you honestly think an asshole would manage to get to that sort of lvl?Yeah, good point. Any asshole would be easily recognized by the community way before he gets Legendary +5 in combat stats. Atleast, as long as the DF community remains at its current standards. Hopefully, it will.
Post by: winner on November 11, 2008, 03:00:34 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 11, 2008, 05:30:16 pm
What about letting each user have one "main" character who can optionally escape death by going into a one week(month?) long coma, protecting them from further harm, excluding insta-death such as by lava.
They would also take a penalty to their stats, doubled for each legendary they have, and people can take their stuff to prevent the legendart dwarf in artifact armor from simply attacking again with their armor's bonuses to do the damage.
Of course, such a feature can be disabled in a fortress set to hardcore mode.
Post by: webadict on November 11, 2008, 06:00:12 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 11, 2008, 06:09:40 pm
That is why we need some mechanic that punishes greifers while allowing long term players to keep their dwarves.
Post by: winner on November 11, 2008, 06:35:51 pm
Post by: webadict on November 11, 2008, 07:48:01 pm
Who's to assume that everything in DF will be in this game? Stop! Let's work on things that we KNOW will be in this game, such as combat, movement, and digging. We're still in design phase. We don't even have a working model and drawbridges are not likely to even be in it.
Plus, since it's turn-based, I doubt you'll be crushed by a drawbridge...
P.S. No drawbridges. And kill all the dwarves.
P.P.S
Post by: winner on November 11, 2008, 08:07:05 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 11, 2008, 08:23:41 pm
Sure, they could be done, but it would make the game only even playable to about 10 or so hardcore DF fans, and that will make it highly improbable to get more than 2 users on at a time.
Users could tolerate turn based OR tile based in an internet browser, but few could tolerate both.
Add to that the complexity of DF, or even a fraction of it, and you have a game that will die from inactivity.
Maybe I am wrong, but the average user will only tolerate so much...
A java based roguelike inspired tile MMO with a turn once each second would work, but HTML is too static.
Just curious, but how many browser based games have you ever played?
In my small(a few games currently being played) experience, users "like" a sense of security(a 99% chance of nothing too bad happening while they are gone, at least initially, and no requirement to rebuild from NOTHING afterwards) and often they also would like times where they can do nothing, allowing for other online activities, as well as times where they can do a lot quickly(such as just after logging on), but whatever happens, people like options, and the ability to only HAVE to play 5 minutes a day(or even take a break for a week) or play a whole 6 hours in a day if they want, with few consequences of their schedules either way.
Bottom line:
-non DF obsessed users need:
--secuirity
--wide range of time lengths to play
--a second chance when they "die" so they don't los everything
-An internet browser is bad for roguelike turn based stuff
-(but okay for resource(energy,food,other) based systems
But most importantly, you can continue with this any way and still get somewhere, but with fewer satisfied users.
Post by: webadict on November 11, 2008, 08:36:06 pm
Now, seriously, there are plenty of both tile-based and turn-based browser-based games. A lot of turn-based games are MMOs too, though you don't see too many tile-based ones.
And online DF would not nearly be as complex, as most of the complexity of DF is due to the number of players controlling the number of dwarves being uneven, plus the interface makes it tough. Adventure mode is very easy, which is tile based AND turn-based, though not multiplayer.
By the way, you forget that losing is fun.
Post by: Poltifar on November 12, 2008, 10:02:24 am
For drawbridges, lava, and other fluids and stuff, I doubt we'll be able to get to such a complexity, although it could be nice if we do...
Oh and why would we make it turn-based? I thought we had agreed on energy based, and turn-based is waay to annoying in a browser
Post by: Fenrir on November 12, 2008, 10:15:13 am
Are you saying that there are other people not obsessed with DF on the internet!?!I wouldn't worry about making this game attractive to those people. Shouldn't this be for the Dwarf Fortress community alone?
Post by: winner on November 12, 2008, 10:19:26 am
What do you think of the idea of a coordinate grid system so that you could be told easily where somebody is.
Post by: webadict on November 12, 2008, 12:40:44 pm
Its true that many players like a 'safe-mode' feature of some sort, but I think that would only be an optional thing ounce we actually get the basic game working well enough.I was under the assumption that combat was turn-based (slightly), thereby combining the two.
For drawbridges, lava, and other fluids and stuff, I doubt we'll be able to get to such a complexity, although it could be nice if we do...
Oh and why would we make it turn-based? I thought we had agreed on energy based, and turn-based is waay to annoying in a browser
Of course everything is energy-based outside of that, with certain aspects of combat being energy-based too.
Yes about the energy system, though walking probably shouldn't take any energy unless you are wounded. Otherwise it cuts down on exploring and removes some of the fun.Walking should take no energy regardless of wounds.
What do you think of the idea of a coordinate grid system so that you could be told easily where somebody is.
And yes, a coordinate system would be nice.
For now. Maybe it will also attract people to DF.Are you saying that there are other people not obsessed with DF on the internet!?!I wouldn't worry about making this game attractive to those people. Shouldn't this be for the Dwarf Fortress community alone?
Post by: Poltifar on November 12, 2008, 12:43:19 pm
And yes, the combat is semi-turn based, but by 'turn' I don't mean 'each player gets to choose an action every turn', but more DF style random actions, that are very quickly calculated by the server according to the player's combat settings, so it wouldn't actually be played turn-by-turn and wouldnt take much time or require both players to be active or even online...
Post by: webadict on November 12, 2008, 01:46:32 pm
I'm still confused about what the basic UI would be. I did like the one posted a bit ago.
Haha, it was by you.
Ok, I liked the combat idea. As for the interface, here's a rough idea of how the movement interface page could look like (other pages would have very similar layouts, only 5 and 6 would be different):I think 6 should also contain the movement arrows, with some sort of diagram, such as the one I mentioned earlier:
---|===3====|
_1_|---4----|
|#### |
2 |#5## 6 |
|#### |
| |
1. Log in button if currently not logged in, or account name or something like "Welcome, [account name here]!" if already logged in, as well as server name/status/etc...
2. Non-game links, like Home, Index, Help, About, Credits, Wiki, Forums, etc...
3. Game title+maybe graphical art, just decorative, shouldnt take up much space.
4. Game-related tabs, such as links to Inventory screen, Status screen, Equipment screen, etc...
5. The tiles, were the player is in the center tile and 9x9 tiles around him are visible (maybe not 9x9, we'll just have to see what works best)
6. In-game statuses, such as energy, health, food bar, weight carried, etc... (only the most important stats, the rest such as specific skills are listed in the Status screen). Also, in 6 too, we would have options such as 'dig' and 'sleep' and other very used commands, so that the player doesnt have to keep switching screens when he needs to use these commands.
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
[Checkbox] Go until stopped
[Number box] Go this many steps in direction
Something so the user wouldn't have to scroll to see each time.
Also, below 4, certain game events should be displayed, such as attacks or other notices.
When a dwarf sleeps in a fortress, they should go back to their room instantly, if they have one.
Anything else?
Post by: Poltifar on November 12, 2008, 02:22:02 pm
Anyone know a widely available font that both has atleast most of the DF symbols and at the same time is square-shaped?
Post by: Kashyyk on November 12, 2008, 02:41:34 pm
Post by: webadict on November 12, 2008, 02:49:00 pm
to be a
Square font.
I think it is...
Post by: Kashyyk on November 12, 2008, 02:51:01 pm
Post by: Poltifar on November 12, 2008, 03:13:05 pm
EDIT: Also, Kashyyk, using the font DF currently uses would be unpractical, because we would need to transform in to the standard font file definitons or whatever, and all the players would have to download and install it to play. On the other hand, if we use an already existing font, players can just connect and play instantly from any computer.
Post by: webadict on November 12, 2008, 03:55:13 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 12, 2008, 06:33:28 pm
And(it's large)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Vaiolis on November 12, 2008, 06:37:50 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 12, 2008, 07:24:41 pm
Anyway, I am currently involved with 2 other browser based MASSIVE multiplayer games(ogame and something made by the hobowars people) so I have "moderate" experience.
The thing is, all of them have resources to limit what can be done, and the non-hobowars ones have actions that take time(ogame starts a scripted clock in the window showing around how much time is left, the other one is based of of "ticks" every 15 minutes, and stuff is measured in ticks, but you can have hundreds going at once if you want.
Edit:
So I propose having ogame-style timed construction for items and buildings, and you can have a list of items to make at the current workshop, until you run out of resources.
Each would also take some energy, set aside once scheduled(non-refundable, to encourage good planning?).
Post by: webadict on November 12, 2008, 11:26:18 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 13, 2008, 08:18:59 am
-make bone bolts 1:00
-make kitten leather kitten sacks 2:43
and while those actions are processed you can be doing something else, like using google, or playing DF.
Post by: webadict on November 13, 2008, 09:02:19 am
Well,you would have a listThat's a real turn-off on a game. You don't want to mix energy-based and time-based, UNLESS you have max unlimited energy and the ability to set actions up before doing them, like having multiple actions lined up. Otherwise, people sit there for an hour trying to make things that would be a couple of clicks if it were energy-based or able to be lined-up. The appropriate game to think of for this reason is: Astro Empires (http://astroempires.com/) (There are a bunch like this but I can't think of them.) It uses money for it's energy, but they can gain unlimited amounts. They can also line up multiple actions. Nobody wants to wait for their action to be done... Not online anyway.
-make bone bolts 1:00
-make kitten leather kitten sacks 2:43
and while those actions are processed you can be doing something else, like using google, or playing DF.
Post by: Poltifar on November 13, 2008, 01:24:37 pm
Post by: webadict on November 13, 2008, 06:06:55 pm
Post by: Vactor on November 13, 2008, 07:22:32 pm
Post by: webadict on November 13, 2008, 07:37:11 pm
I'm thinking it might be wise to have combat resolution exist outside of the normal turn based actions. If it were to work similarly to combat in DF you would get some trickiness when two players are attacking eachotherIf two players attack one another, one would be defending and the other would be attacking. It still works with the system. What other possibilities are there?
Post by: Vactor on November 13, 2008, 07:53:27 pm
I'm thinking it might be wise to have combat resolution exist outside of the normal turn based actions. If it were to work similarly to combat in DF you would get some trickiness when two players are attacking eachotherIf two players attack one another, one would be defending and the other would be attacking. It still works with the system. What other possibilities are there?
the player who is defending goes ahead and attacks the player who is attacking, which depending on how the combat system works, with some sort of automated defense, complicates the issue by doubling the combat actions of the fight, and how fast each player is taking their turn may determine the outcome of the fight. It also makes fighting a player that is offline completely different from fighting a player who is online. I think it makes more sense to have initating combat take energy/turns, but the combat is resolved outside of the turn system
Post by: Poltifar on November 14, 2008, 01:22:31 pm
So... what if we made a table and centered the font of each character in each box? We could use Arial or Times New Roman, since they have all the characters, and the characters could have some spaces.
That's exactly what I tried, and although it works, it just doesn't look alot like DF since there is spacing between the characters, and also, programming every single cell of the table one by one seems less practical than simply outputting the characters connected to each other...
Post by: webadict on November 14, 2008, 01:29:25 pm
Post by: Poltifar on November 14, 2008, 01:54:42 pm
Post by: webadict on November 14, 2008, 02:01:53 pm
Post by: Kashyyk on November 14, 2008, 02:35:41 pm
Post by: Poltifar on November 14, 2008, 02:48:46 pm
Post by: webadict on November 14, 2008, 04:06:06 pm
Post by: Kashyyk on November 15, 2008, 10:56:20 am
Post by: winner on November 16, 2008, 10:16:51 am
Post by: winner on November 17, 2008, 08:45:41 pm
Code: [Select]
>^>>
v>^^
>>>^
This means that you have water actually "wear" away channels by having it change the direction of arrows it flows over often.(the Os are where the water can flow from a tile pointing that way)
Code: [Select]
ooo
^ I also realized that you can prevent any closed loops by dissallowing any tiles pointing the oposite direction within the 8 tiles around itCode: [Select]
ooo
o^o
oooPost by: qwertyuiopas on November 17, 2008, 08:57:25 pm
Post by: Poltifar on November 18, 2008, 02:04:36 am
Post by: omagaalpha on November 18, 2008, 08:17:43 am
Post by: webadict on November 18, 2008, 08:37:51 am
Post by: winner on November 19, 2008, 08:43:24 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 19, 2008, 08:48:29 pm
It would be easy for a menu with no dynamic info, to appear on each page, since EVERYTHING IN PHP THAT IS NOT CODE IS SENT DIRECTLY OUT, so a simple web page is a very uneventful PHP script, so I could put it directly in...
But first:
Menu position: Top or Left?
Menu details: I need as many as possible.
Time: I need a lot.
Post by: webadict on November 19, 2008, 09:44:28 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 20, 2008, 12:06:53 am
Spoiler: "This is pretty large" (click to show/hide)
Post by: Poltifar on November 20, 2008, 09:30:07 am
Post by: webadict on November 20, 2008, 06:02:24 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 20, 2008, 07:23:27 pm
The test user login file
Code: [Select]
<?php setcookie("ID",1);setcookie("username","test user"); ?>The horrible lack of security called the game file
Code: [Select]
<?php if(!isset($_COOKIE["ID"])||$_COOKIE["ID"]<1){?>
<h1>Sorry, but you are not logged in, you are not able to access this page unlss you log in.</h1>
<?php exit;}else{ ?>
<body bgcolor=999999>
<div style="float:left;position:absolute;top:5px;left:160px;right:100%;bottom:100%;background-color=888888">
test
</div>
<div style="float:left;position:absolute;top:5px;left:5px;width:150px;height=95%;background-color=c0c0c0">
<img src="images/logo.png">
</div>
<div style="float:left;position:absolute;top:160px;left:10px;width:140px;background-color=c0c0c0">
Dwarf Fortress Browser Based Game<br><br>Logged in as <?php echo(htmlspecialchars($_COOKIE["username"]));?>
</div>
</body>
<?php }?>Of course, if it were real website there would be some kind of authentication there, as well as a real user list, and all kinds of fun features.
But it would still have a cookie ^_^.
Edit:
Woah, funky auto-coloring. I only copied it in from notepad.
Post by: Poltifar on November 21, 2008, 10:08:11 am
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 23, 2008, 09:15:37 am
If we end up using a diffrent system, I will switch to that one, but for now, I am sticking with PHP and mySQL to get experience.
Post by: Poltifar on November 23, 2008, 12:41:33 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 23, 2008, 02:06:12 pm
The mySQL user table is currently:
user ID
64 char username
sha1 of password(I think that it was a longer MD5 or something)
list of dwarf IDs
length of time banned(in minutes, maximum aroung 1000 years)
So... that is the table end of it, I am currenty working on the PHP to go with it.
Edit: first user, and a successful login followed.
Next registration.
The password was also
Quote
Test
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Edit again: successful registration!
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 23, 2008, 04:46:58 pm
I have a mostly successful login/registration system in place in plain PHP, but I know others are oing other stuff.
The question is:
What method will we use?
We need to give everyone a few days to think, work, and post examples first, but a concrete choice will be required before we progress further.
Edit:
Another picture.
Do you think that this(and only this) should be the login and register screen appearance?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Poltifar on November 24, 2008, 09:00:22 am
So yes, home-made is better in all ways than the pre-made. We can go with that. Although I really wanted to work in ASP and visual basic. I'll try to upload pictures of the site layout I made (which, thankfully, I did manage to do).
PS: Please, please, PLEASE tell me you are going to add some kind of system that allows people to be banned and when they try to log-in, it displays 'You have been banned for now, your account will be reactivated in X time'. I want that just for me to be able to ban someone for 1000 years :P
Post by: Poltifar on November 24, 2008, 09:35:14 am
This one is the home page layout BEFORE logging in
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This one is what is shown when the home page is loaded when you are logged in
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This one is the movement page (can only be accessed when logged in)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Note: The movement grid and stuff is NOT functional, I just put the characters to give an idea of how it would look. The login, however, IS functional.
EDIT: I'd like to precise that I'll continue using Visual-studio, even if it has so many defects. Since all of these are just prototypes anyways (I hope no one is hoping to be able to get the game up and running at 100% any time soon, they will be sorely dissapointed), I don't think it matters wether they are even compatible with each other or not. As long as we make proof-of-concept works that actually work, we know we'll be able to combine them all into one eventually.
Post by: webadict on November 24, 2008, 10:56:11 am
Post by: Poltifar on November 24, 2008, 11:07:40 am
Post by: webadict on November 24, 2008, 11:44:30 am
Post by: Poltifar on November 24, 2008, 11:51:21 am
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 24, 2008, 08:22:13 pm
So, if anyone gives me a HTML copy, I can get it straight into the game.
My dwarves list is actually(or will be) a 255 char string where each 5 chars is parsed into a dwarf ID(corresponds to the dwarf table)
I will have to add an admin rights option to the table now.
Then bannage, and deletion.
I REALLY need someone to make a good index page though.
Since I will be busy with the back end and database.
Oh, and heres the codes:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Poltifar on November 25, 2008, 08:58:22 am
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 25, 2008, 05:56:45 pm
It's sloppy, but it generally works.
Note that the ban timer(set on a diffrent age) does not tick down yet.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MagicJuggler on November 26, 2008, 06:40:46 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 26, 2008, 07:07:08 pm
HTML or game design especially.
Oh, and the dwarf save format is also important.
Post by: MagicJuggler on November 26, 2008, 07:37:22 pm
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 26, 2008, 08:03:05 pm
A way to convert a series of 5 bytes into a large int of some sort
then the deatils for each dwarf, mostly, since I am saving to a table, so I need to figure out that a first...
Post by: MagicJuggler on November 26, 2008, 08:26:29 pm
Well, what I basically need is:
A way to convert a series of 5 bytes into a large int of some sort
then the deatils for each dwarf, mostly, since I am saving to a table, so I need to figure out that a first...
5 bytes you say? Hmm...can't you convert that into 5 separate ints? To convert a byte to an int, you'd do the following:
import java.lang.Math;
public int byteToInt(int byteInt)
{
String byteString=Integer.toString(byteInt);
int bite;
For (n=0; n<8; n++)
bite+=Math.pow(byteString.charAt(i), (8-i));
return bite;
}
Post by: qwertyuiopas on November 26, 2008, 09:02:25 pm
Post by: Poltifar on November 27, 2008, 08:37:54 am
EDIT: Qwerty, wouldn't it be better to make a seperate table for the dwarves? It would make stuff much easier and faster since there would be less converting from int to bytes to get each of there stats
EDIT2: Hmm... I might have been lying when I said I don't have much time, since I found enough time to start making another improved layout. Here's what it currently looks like (needs MUCH work):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Here is the code: WARNING! THERE ARE SOME STUFF THAT HAVE TO BE REMOVED, SINCE I AM USING ASP. SOME OF THESE MIGHT INCLUDE THE 'runat server' tags. Also, change the urls. I'll try remove them later if no one manages to.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: winner on December 13, 2008, 11:45:55 am
Post by: qwertyuiopas on December 31, 2008, 08:12:30 pm
And I remembered about this, so I am going through the long annoying process of recreating the database.
I changed my mind about the dwarves, 3 bytes each for up to 85 dwarves per player, or maybe...
No, I don't need to inclde pointers to dwarves: I have SELECT.
Yeah, that would work.
And ban time can be solved by storing the date of unbannage so a simple < fixes the problem.
Post by: KGodwin on January 13, 2009, 09:54:13 pm
Ya...I registered just to make this post! ;(
Post by: KGodwin on January 21, 2009, 04:50:39 am
Post by: Servant Corps on January 21, 2009, 12:23:29 pm
Post by: KGodwin on January 21, 2009, 03:48:01 pm
I'm working on my own PBBG which is in a similar vein (although not try to emulate dwarf fortress) so was curious.
Post by: xam on June 27, 2010, 01:35:25 am
yonks ago i started work on a php/sql browser based df style game, much like what has been discussed in this thread (just read through it)
what I had down was: some basic world generation algorithms (using temp, rainfall etc like df). this created maps which were then stored in the db
i also had a simple page where you could move around the map (and chat to everybody in that current 'world'). started working on mining you could mine down and around (yes, implemented a z layer)
it used ajax, so you could see other dwarfs moving around you/tiles changing/chat updating instantly/etc
having no webspace, and lot's of people having a go at me, i lay it to rest
now I have a dedicated server (for my other games) and reading through this thread (despite its age) im thinking there are people who want this!
if you guys are still interested, let me know, and ill get a mini forum/discussion page up on my server for us to talk ideas/etc, along with a basic wiki, and we can start getting some people together to help (although i can do quite a bit by myself for the time being)
i've already done enough so the interested people can come play the game as its being developed
if your interested, send me a pm, or reply in this thread. if enough people give me a shout, let's get started!
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 27, 2010, 05:09:00 pm
Post by: halberdear on June 27, 2010, 08:03:26 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 27, 2010, 09:04:24 pm
Post by: halberdear on June 27, 2010, 11:24:23 pm
i propose the game is made in ascii characters, but upon close inspe(k)tion you could see awesome pictures of the creatures or items. i volunteer as artist and artdictatordirector!
I also would be interested in doing some Artwork.
Post by: NRN_R_Sumo1 on June 27, 2010, 11:35:15 pm
Post by: halberdear on June 27, 2010, 11:38:18 pm
i propose the game is made in ascii characters, but upon close inspe(k)tion you could see awesome pictures of the creatures or items. i volunteer as artist and artdictatordirector!
I also would be interested in doing some Artwork.
On the other hand, the majority of the voters went with the option of using traditional DF sprites. Maybe we don't need to make any artwork.
Post by: halberdear on June 27, 2010, 11:58:47 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The group project menu is where you would organize who can work on your project.
Post by: NRN_R_Sumo1 on June 28, 2010, 01:11:55 am
although I took the liberty of switching the inventory and labours menu's because inventory is not as important as getting jobs done which need to be done.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: xam on June 28, 2010, 02:56:51 am
also, i could code it so we could have different tilesets. start off using ascii, then anybody could develop a tileset and use it.
stuff should be up later on today :]
also learnt some cool stuff about ajax push engines, will make the game alot faster
peace
Post by: Endek on June 28, 2010, 06:20:30 am
I was writing a javascript homage to DF back in March, in anticipation of the release. The release happened, and the homage was never finished.
http://ed.onlinewar.org/bspd/www/
(numpad to scroll, but the viewport starts at the topleft)
I don't mind terribly if my javascript DF-tile renderer engine gets used on this project, FWIW.
[Edit - I should mention that it's only confirmed as working in Firefox. It doesn't work at all on IE, and works strangely on webkit, at least on my phone.)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 28, 2010, 07:53:21 am
Ii could draw pngs wiith transparency of , say, battle axes, hanging rings, menacing spikes, several engravings, etc., all in separate pictures, then when someone skilled enough created an awesome axe the game would throw a bunch of decorations at it.
i think the game could be loosely based on dwarf fortress economy. people would each have one dwarf, there would be an expedition leader apointed from time to time who had the power to create some tasks, like designating the digging of the new dinning hall, then miner dwarves could go and dig it out and received a number of credits for each square dug, then the expedition leader would mandate the production of 500 easy meals, and each cook would receive a number of credits based on the quality of the meal they created. eventually, rich players could mandate stuff themselves if they had enough credit to pay the guys performing the service
Post by: Muz on June 28, 2010, 12:04:00 pm
Post by: halberdear on June 28, 2010, 05:37:02 pm
as i said, i think the game should be in ascii, or atleast use ascii characters in homage to the original game, several pictures could be used whenever you looked at something.
Ii could draw pngs wiith transparency of , say, battle axes, hanging rings, menacing spikes, several engravings, etc., all in separate pictures, then when someone skilled enough created an awesome axe the game would throw a bunch of decorations at it.
i think the game could be loosely based on dwarf fortress economy. people would each have one dwarf, there would be an expedition leader apointed from time to time who had the power to create some tasks, like designating the digging of the new dinning hall, then miner dwarves could go and dig it out and received a number of credits for each square dug, then the expedition leader would mandate the production of 500 easy meals, and each cook would receive a number of credits based on the quality of the meal they created. eventually, rich players could mandate stuff themselves if they had enough credit to pay the guys performing the service
That sounds awesome. Hard to make, but awesome none the less.
Post by: xam on June 28, 2010, 08:32:41 pm
should be a good communication basis for the game
im gonna start posting some of the bits i've done so far, world gen algorithms, stuff like that
i won't start putting together any game bits until we've decided how we want to manage it. ie, login, create a dwarf, pick one of your dwarfs, choose a world or generate a new one, etc once we decide i'll get on it asap!
you can head over to www.dfmp.co.nr to check it out
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on June 28, 2010, 10:37:45 pm
Post by: NRN_R_Sumo1 on June 29, 2010, 05:27:07 am
Heh, looking back at this... I think Lumin already created a DF Browser game (http://www.faerytaleonline.com). Nothing stopping you guys from building another, though :P
looks interesting, except for the fact about the pregnant mothers controlling when you can play...
3 pregnant mothers and 148 people to go through them right now.. ugh design flaw. What if mothers stopped playing?
Post by: Muz on June 29, 2010, 06:26:37 am
Heh, looking back at this... I think Lumin already created a DF Browser game (http://www.faerytaleonline.com). Nothing stopping you guys from building another, though :P
looks interesting, except for the fact about the pregnant mothers controlling when you can play...
3 pregnant mothers and 148 people to go through them right now.. ugh design flaw. What if mothers stopped playing?
It's not as bad as it sounds. There's a few new pregnant mothers every day, and many have more than one baby. It's a flaw, but results are good in that your character gets real parents, not made up ones. Also, note that you may not be born a dwarf for those who have their hopes up for having dwarves. I've seen some horrible half-elf half-dwarf hybrids in there :P
Post by: NRN_R_Sumo1 on June 29, 2010, 06:45:21 am
Heh, looking back at this... I think Lumin already created a DF Browser game (http://www.faerytaleonline.com). Nothing stopping you guys from building another, though :P
looks interesting, except for the fact about the pregnant mothers controlling when you can play...
3 pregnant mothers and 148 people to go through them right now.. ugh design flaw. What if mothers stopped playing?
It's not as bad as it sounds. There's a few new pregnant mothers every day, and many have more than one baby. It's a flaw, but results are good in that your character gets real parents, not made up ones. Also, note that you may not be born a dwarf for those who have their hopes up for having dwarves. I've seen some horrible half-elf half-dwarf hybrids in there :P
well I guess as long as spores are used it should be good, otherwise the community is full of perves who want dwarf on elf action.
Post by: xam on July 04, 2010, 04:11:51 pm
have a javascript tile engine that loads procedural maps from the server, so you can move around for ever!
Post by: Pillow_Killer on July 04, 2010, 04:14:34 pm
Post by: xam on July 04, 2010, 04:17:55 pm
So you're using one IP to leech off it and try to mimic it?
I don't quite understand your question