Printable View
sounds like a plan. I'll come down to meet you. What time do you want to finish at? I'll see if I can squeeze you in (ooh matron!).
those icons: I was playing about with Illustrator, practicing my vector drawing skills. I know theyre simplistic, but thats the whole point isnt it. I like the black and yellow one.
They are quite impressive those little things.
Spiffing.
Good to hear that your free. I wasn't planning on paying much for you anyway.
Have you perused the meeting agenda? Anything to add?
I prefer the idea of a dynamic agenda - we'll confront things as we get to them, using yours as a template
Behemoth you peasant!
You've got your phone off - when are you coming to Gould St?
sorry, I forgot. I'll get down to meet you about 5:00. Is that ok?
No problem,
Try and get here as early as you can so we can miss the rush hour traffic please.
Ta
Hello my hairy friend!
Implemented the calculation for speed last night and the units all now have speed limitations. Doesn't take into account chip benefits yet as we have no chips!
Movement doesn't take into account the energy used per moving a square yet, but then again - we haven't worked anything out for that yet.
That's going to some combination of weight, energy efficiency (chips), chassis(?) - anything else?
Code:
Function CalcUnitEUPM (tp as byte, uid as integer) as single
dim x as byte, temp as single, cumchipben as integer
temp = player(tp).unit(uid).weight / 10
for x=1 to 3
if components.chip(player(tp).unit(uid).chip(x)).type=2 then 'May not be two - check when get home
cumchipben=cumchipben + components.chip(player(tp).unit(uid).chip(x)).ben1 'May not be ben1 - check this as well
endif
next x
temp = temp - ((temp/100)*cumchipben)
temp=temp / components.chassis(player(tp).unit(uid).chassis).chassismod
CalcUnitEUPM =temp
end function
Behemoth,
In case you're reading this the above calculates the EnergyUsedPerMove as follows
EUPM = ((Units Weight / 10) - (Cumulative % of all energy management chip benefits)) / Chassis modifier
The chassis modifier is the same one we used to calculate the units top speed.
Apologies:
sorry
Introductions:
Behemoth, this is Arbiter. Hi Arbiter, I'm Behemoth.
Brief mission statement:
Build a funky game.
Progress update from all parties:
Behemoth- Slowly approaching completion of research tech icons. Planning colour schemes etc.
Debating points:
Factions:
Warlike
Miners
etc (throw me a bone here?)
Different names/types:
Benefits:
Associated Graphics:
TBC (based on first draft I submitted earlier in the week)
Fitting them into the game flow:
Components:
List of names of components- within spreadsheet
Required technologies:
Arrangement for producing graphics:
LATER!
Attributes Technologies:
Short descriptions
Long Descriptions
[we can work on these as time goes on, I've got a really good science dictionary at home. I'll make a start later]
Points required
Formulae:
Speed
Energy used per move
Max energy drain
Standing charge
Processing cost of unit
Factions might
I think these last few are either a) already covered, or b) can wait.
Omega lead?
Omega lead please respond...
Support, Omega lead is down - repeat - Omega lead is down.
-------------------------
Debating points:
Factions:
Conquest
Defensive
Miners
Curators / Archives?
R&D
Administrators
A. N. Other
Components:
Weapons (as per attached spreadsheet)
Armour
Sheilds
Torsos
Chassis
Ammo
Chips
Arrangement for producing graphics:
Please be a little more specific – assign yourself some deadlines
Formulae:
Speed (done)
Energy used per move (done)
Max energy drain (The value of the reactor + 25%) + (cumulative energy benefits of chips)
Standing charge (=the total value of all the energy requirements of all the components on the mech (bar ammo - which is used when fired))
Processing cost of unit (the sum of all the processing requirements of all the components on the mech) – (the cumulative benefits of all the chips)
Accuracy (no idea)
Damage (done)
Factions might (no idea)
These formulae cannot wait – they’re an integral part of the industry.
Omega lead, please respond....
1) did you get my mail?
2)
Faction: Cartographic?
Graphics arrangements: very small piecemeal. If I overload myself, I'll crash & need to be rebooted. (thanks for last night BTW.)
Accuracy (bear with me, I'll think this out loud)
- 5% for every square over half max range of weapon
- 10% for weapon fired at max range
- 1% for every kph target moves during turn
-(any special effects weapons - epoxy etc)
+(any chip benefits)
Final %age is %age damage from shot?
if under 50% and single shot weapon, then miss.
Faction might: we'll play with this later. for the time being, you've got the basic version I sent you last month.
Anyway, I'm back in Access this afternoon, so I should be able to read anything you post, but I shall maintain radio silence.
Good luck Omega lead. *Copy*
Right,
That's the faction ideals sorted.
I have read your mail - I have not composed anything salient yet.
Like the minus % for every square over half range.
Err.... how are we calculating how far away something is?
My first idea is that we calculate the number of pixels the centre of the target square is from the centre of the originating square using Pythies' drunken ramblings involving triangles.
We then assign each ammo a range based on the number of pixels it can fire. To provide a firing range of one square means an ammo range of 57 (including shooting diagonally - do the math).
I've realised that we could have used this to provide the viewing range as well, and maybe, just maybe I'll convert it.
We'll see.
I've also asked Phil, my boss at work, to have a look at and comment back. We'd do well to heed any comments he gives as he knows what he's on about...
Wow,
This is three pages long now - lots of rambling in here...
hows this for wierd?(Fox, have you replied here at all?)
[IMG]C:\Documents and Settings\isaunders\Desktop\shapes\email.jpg[/IMG]
Ian,
I've no idea what that last post was but it had a duff image in it.
How are you getting along with the web site? Should I begin to send you content for it yet (or should I wait for you to put up what I've already sent you?)
As req. from now on I'll send the manual bits with MANUAL in the subject.
PS - can't wait to get back to that Heroes III game...
hehe :)
I'll try to amend that post. I'ts kind of surreal.
is this better?
That's tremendous.
How's the site doing? Are you going to get chance to work on it some today?
we'll see.
I still don't love you.
You do love me.
I couldn't have walked you to your bus stop because I'd have been late to the quiz. Sorry.
The option, as you know, is always there to come to the quiz with us but I've now idea as to how you'd get home.
Are you going to have a free evening this week to look through all the stuff I do on the game and continue our Heroes game?
And if we stay off the fizzy pop - I could drive you home (or if we do, I promise I'll walk you to your bus)
I knew Behemoth would come around to my way of thinking :D ;) :D and he brought the old Avatar back too!
Are you referring to the Orwellian quote?
Ya think? :D (points out that his user name is orwell)
I had one myself the last 2 days ("mankind is only as good as its technology allows it to be")
i cant find the disk drive, so...
...
I could kiss you!!!!
still needs work, but the wagons rolling now.
You've probably already left, but the plan is that light alloys reduce the weight to 3 quarters of the original weight and strong alloys provide a unique benefit to each component type (we'll work out what when we can see the variables). S/L will do both.
Edited to remove code
Hairy bloke,
As pointed out in the thread in G&GP most of the links point to the same place.
Is this because we have no manual bits for those sections and you need some or were you just being sloppy?
On an aside, I managed to implement the CanPlayerAffordIt routine but have realised that the framework will need changing (yet again) to cope with the different types of metals.
You see, when a component is produced, it merely marks it 'component x' and the original values are referenced every time. Damn.
I can't think of any way around this without rewriting huge chunks of the framework or doing as you said before and just increasing the armour value of the mech?
Suggestions?
Behemoth, i just noticed that your quote is incorrect :(
It is supposed to be:
"he who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past"
Your guys program site looks really neat. I read about your map generator. What kind of game is it?
Lord Orwell,
The game is a turn based strategy game.
If you haven't already, check out the thread in Games and Graphics Programming (you'll be able to download the game from there and also follow the comments of those who've tested it.)
Have a play, and let us know what you think. The more comments the better.
Thanks!
Oh, and also, Lord Orwell.
Behemoth's quote in his sig is correct. ;)
Looks like you've got another random name for the generator. Its quite a unique method of displaying "credits".
Any suggestions?Quote:
On an aside, I managed to implement the CanPlayerAffordIt routine but have realised that the framework will need changing (yet again) to cope with the different types of metals.
You see, when a component is produced, it merely marks it 'component x' and the original values are referenced every time. Damn.
I can't think of any way around this without rewriting huge chunks of the framework or doing as you said before and just increasing the armour value of the mech?
If Orwell provides us with constructive comments then sure his name will go into the list.
Quite a neat idea, no?
I prefer the Units overall armour value increases idea.
i'll look at it and tell you what i think first chance i get.
In the mean time, visit these threads. I realize they arent "authorities" but they also list my version, which i actually READ in Orwell's novel 1984. It is one of the Party Slogans.
http://www.cp-tel.net/miller/BilLee/quotes/Orwell.html
http://www.chesco.com/~artman/orwell.html
And finally, this thread IS an authority:
http://www.wiu.edu/users/mihist/
well i like my version!:p
Ok i've downloaded it and tomorrow after i get home (probably) i will check it out.
I do have one suggestion though.
Ive played smac and civ and civ2 and civ2 ctp
and civ had one feature that the others didn't have (except maybe cmac-i haven't beaten it yet):
When you won or lost the game, it played a turn by turn view of the land area controlled by each country. It was immensly satisfying to watch your controlled area get bigger and bigger and soon overtake everyone.
Perhaps you could implement some kind of record on the h/d? Then at some future time you could worry about decoding it.
very nice idea. I think we should give this some thought. The file would be enourmous though.
that would depend on the # of turns and the size of the map...
Civ did it somehow and still fit it in a 1 meg save file with the map.
Currently Sentience doesn't actually have zones of control. The closest thing to it would the view range of the buildings. Due to the incredible level of complexity of the game, the save games are already quite large (Sentience is much more complex than Civ - there are 14 resources that have to be managed and mechs which are infinitely customisable). Once the game is approaching completion and you can actually 'finish' the game we can do a poll and see the general concensus of opinion regarding this feature.
Nice idea, keep em coming.
x
rename to .xls
Buttons for the GUI
Hey guys. The game crashed on me with a subscript out of range. Here is what i was doing.
Playing default map setting, 4 players.
player 1 had the top 2 things set to "slurp"
the other players i just skipped their turns.
and the last thing i did was move the mech in the center up one square diagonal right. Then whatever it was doing next it crashed.
Other people have reported SOORs as well, but I can't seem to duplicate them.
I'm beginning to get upset now....
Behemoth,
What do you think to using the components weight as an armour benefit when Strong Alloys are used?
Ergo, the heavier the component, the higher the armour benefit?
no, because players are going to be aiming for lighter mechs, thats the whole point of the light and SL alloys. You can't penalise a player for having dont something right (eg reduced the overall weight of their mech), by whatever means.
Armour benefit without weight increase.
If you're going for a lighter mech, either use weapons made with light alloy (reduced weight), light weapons made with strong alloy (same weight + armour benefit) or weapons made with SL alloy (reduced weight & armour benefit (benefit based on original component weight))
Therefore, (assuming strong alloys are used) mechs with light components weigh less but have less of an armour benefit, mech with the heaviest components (big guns, heavy torso's etc) get the most armour benefits.
Sounds like you've already made your decision :p. I suppose it makes sense. I just don't want to envisage trouble at the playtesting stage. If you think its more balanced that way, then I trust you.
I haven't already made my decision or I wouldn't have posted it as a question.
If you can see problems with it then let me know, and I can either try and explain it clearer or I'll see the light and we'll try and rejig it.
I'll go for the "please explain further" option...
I shall explain shortly.
I'm currently bollocksed as to how I can get it to recognise which metal has been used to create the component.
Currently the game stores the id of the component that is used in the mech and then references that every time it needs some info. This does not allow me to change the components properties on individual mechs.
I think the only way we can do this is create 4 types of every component depending on what metal is used. Tedious, but it means we can change every value depending on which metal is used.
More flexible, more customisable, but irritating slightly.
I think we're going to have to go with that. ****.
Cool as - it auto censored my post. That John's a good un aint he?