New Lore

[Markus Martin]

First of all, nice to see Jeremy (lord.don) working on the wiki
recently. However, you all might have noticed how I actually removed
all lore related material from the revised (and WIP) design document.
While perhaps the setting and so forth could be kept and adapted, I
think at this point I favor a rather simple lore compared to what
Brandon had planned.

Specifically, I think four factions is too many. Two to three should
suffice. Also, to keep game balancing simple, I would make all
factions have the same units, excepting perhaps a few advanced,
special units. IMHO, we already have enough work cut out for us to
have 30 different units spread across each group..

What does everyone else think?

Cheers,
-Markus

[RB[0]]

Personally, I like the idea of four distinct groups.
And each group should be quite different. Part of the appeal of this kind of game (IMHO) is the diversity of units, and strategies.
This wouldn't happen over night, of course, but I think as a goal it is good.
But, perhaps 3 for the main release is ok. I personally would vote for the wastemen to go, and replace the templar with the Druidic guys I suggested in my comment.
But that is just how I like things, id people disagree that is ok :)

Balancing may be hard, but it really isn't that big a deal. I keep thinking about Wesnoth, and those first (many) releases weren't well-balanced at all.
But the community started piping in and helping out and it really didn't become that big a deal.

I think for units for each group, you need:
2 or 3 standard fighters (ie, melee, archer, mounted, for one group, or specialized ones of each)
6-10 commander units (these are the main point of the game I think, they would probably be like 3-4x more expensive than weaker units, and be highly specialized, mainly working to make the standard fighters stronger. Examples would be the Shaman and Druid units from my Druidic race idea)
3 or 4 "warlord" units (basically the heroes, you only get one, and they are incredibly strong fighters, as well as, possibly, being able to buff other units and such.)


Just my thoughts this morning :)

[Robert Ramsay]

I agree.  For the current development, we need a simple function lore.  Just enough to have the standard battle.  Once the game itself is complete adding races and story is entirely up to the community, and I would encourage it. 

For the current time I think we could actually live with just one faction, but for a release I would say minimum two with a maximum of three.  The units should be moderately the same for each, with a physical melee, a ranged, healer, and a offensive magic type.  And "commander" should just be an attribute.

[Markus Martin]

2009/4/4 RB[0] <roe...@gmail.com>:

> Personally, I like the idea of four distinct groups.
> And each group should be quite different. Part of the appeal of this kind of
> game (IMHO) is the diversity of units, and strategies.

In most plot advancing battles in FFT, the enemy had the exact same
types of units as you. Trust me, when I say there was plenty of
strategies and you needed to choose good ones to get through some
particularly difficult battles. An important part of strategy is
knowing what your enemy is capable of.

> Balancing may be hard, but it really isn't that big a deal. I keep thinking
> about Wesnoth, and those first (many) releases weren't well-balanced at all.

Wesnoth may have done that, but that does not mean we should. Game
balance *is* a big deal, I think. People are going to be more
interested in our game from the outset if it is not totally unfair or
too easy.

> But the community started piping in and helping out and it really didn't
> become that big a deal.

We don't have a community, remember? ;)

> I think for units for each group, you need:
> 2 or 3 standard fighters (ie, melee, archer, mounted, for one group, or
> specialized ones of each)
> 6-10 commander units (these are the main point of the game I think, they
> would probably be like 3-4x more expensive than weaker units, and be highly
> specialized, mainly working to make the standard fighters stronger. Examples
> would be the Shaman and Druid units from my Druidic race idea)
> 3 or 4 "warlord" units (basically the heroes, you only get one, and they are
> incredibly strong fighters, as well as, possibly, being able to buff other
> units and such.)

Ok, so from what I am reading, the best case is 24 units ((2 + 6) * 4)
and the worst case is 52 units ((3 + 10) * 4). Either way, that is a
rather huge burden on the artists that we don't have, not to mention
trying to balance all that..

-Markus

[Markus Martin]

2009/4/4 Robert Ramsay <dura...@gmail.com>:

> I agree.  For the current development, we need a simple function lore.  Just
> enough to have the standard battle.  Once the game itself is complete adding
> races and story is entirely up to the community, and I would encourage it.

I strongly agree with this. The intent is to make settings in the game
easily modifiable. So, we could create a simple setting and either
make a more complicated one later, or let others do it. If the game is
fun and easy to change, then people *will* want to make their own
settings and stories.

> For the current time I think we could actually live with just one faction,
> but for a release I would say minimum two with a maximum of three.  The
> units should be moderately the same for each, with a physical melee, a
> ranged, healer, and a offensive magic type.  And "commander" should just be
> an attribute.

By having 2 - 3 'factions' I meant to create various political
entities which would interact with eachother in interesting ways in a
campaign/story (i.e.: war). They all have mostly the same units
though. Probably just a superficial visual difference like a color
key.

The idea behind commanders, as I understood it, was an excuse to have
a more powerful 'leader' type of unit with some special abilities. I
am not really sure how well thought through the idea was.

-Markus

[RB[0]]

Actually, the worst case would be 64 units...
The game is not meant to be a clone or anything of FFT - and if most games in this genre are, like you said, I think, having most teams having mostly the same units, then this would be a good way to do something unique, no?

I didn't say balancing is totally unimportant, but from what I have seen, people care more about the game and the potential at first than the balancing - besides, if one team is clearly overpowered people will just use that team for everything, it isn't that big a deal at all...

I think the idea of 3 or 4 unique groups is more appealing, simply because people love more content and such. And considering that the game *is* easily modifiable, that isn't going to be any harder on the core programmers than not.
Simple balancing, like *doh, that guy is too hard* would be pretty easy to avoid, just as easy with four unique groups as 1 only and adjusting the units.

Being an issue for artists is a good point, but we don't have to add them all from the get-go either, I never meant that.
But I think a "beta or later" version of the game should have them. By that point we'll probably have enough people to put them in pretty effortlessly, though, if we don't that probably will mean something completely unrelated is messed up and we shouldn't be at beta ;)

I am thinking something more along the lines of Warcraft than like Age of Empires.

[Markus Martin]

2009/4/4 RB[0] <roe...@gmail.com>:

> Actually, the worst case would be 64 units...

Awful! =P

> The game is not meant to be a clone or anything of FFT - and if most games
> in this genre are, like you said, I think, having most teams having mostly
> the same units, then this would be a good way to do something unique, no?

Honestly, I would be okay with making a clone of FFT, however there
are more than enough open source clones out there and there are always
legal implications. However, I think that doing something simply for
the sake of uniqueness is never a good idea. But it seems you are okay
with having mostly the same units across teams?

> I didn't say balancing is totally unimportant, but from what I have seen,
> people care more about the game and the potential at first than the
> balancing - besides, if one team is clearly overpowered people will just use
> that team for everything, it isn't that big a deal at all...

Balance has a lot to do with fun. Most people like fun games.
Generally only people with the capability to contribute are really
going to be interested in the game's potential, I think.

You are also somewhat contradicting yourself: "I didn't say balancing
is totally unimportant" ... "it isn't that big a deal at all". =)

> I think the idea of 3 or 4 unique groups is more appealing, simply because
> people love more content and such. And considering that the game *is* easily
> modifiable, that isn't going to be any harder on the core programmers than
> not.
> Simple balancing, like *doh, that guy is too hard* would be pretty easy to
> avoid, just as easy with four unique groups as 1 only and adjusting the
> units.

If people really love more content, then let them make it! They are
going to bring in lots of ideas anyway.

If you have multitudes of units that do multitudes of things then
there is no such thing as "simple balancing". A change in one unit has
implications for all the rest and the more you have, the bigger the
overall effect becomes. You can probably think of it a bit like
cooking. The fewer ingredients you have, the easier it is to reach a
tasty balance, but the more you have, the more careful you have to be
about adding and removing things. Disclaimer: I am not a cook. ;)

> Being an issue for artists is a good point, but we don't have to add them
> all from the get-go either, I never meant that.
> But I think a "beta or later" version of the game should have them. By that
> point we'll probably have enough people to put them in pretty effortlessly,
> though, if we don't that probably will mean something completely unrelated
> is messed up and we shouldn't be at beta ;)

I would prefer to have things mostly laid out from the beginning. Yes,
we can always add and remove things as we go along, but it helps to
have an overall sense of where you are going.

Also, IMHO, this is an example of feature-creep which we can easily
avoid. We want to give ourselves achievable tasks for the future,
right? So, where is the harm in making a flexible and extensible game
with a simpler starting setting? It would certainly save us time.

> I am thinking something more along the lines of Warcraft than like Age of
> Empires.

I am not sure what you mean by this, but neither of these games are
good examples for what we are trying to make.

Cheers,
-Markus

[RB[0]]

In the Warcraft vs. AOE I was referring to the units, in Warcraft each race has unique units, whereas in AOE all have the same (or pretty close)

It is not a contradiction to say it is not totaly unimportant, but still not a big deal, just means it is in-between.
IE, making it so each faction can (reasonably) survive a few turns vs. each other without being killed by a single attack or something.
The first few releases should probably only have one or two at most factions, yes, but I think the overall goal should be more, but that is just me.

About your cooking example - that is true, but you also aren't gonna throw off the whole thing with so many minor changes either, so in that way it can still be good without being perfect, ie.
The fewer you have, the more perfectly each must be balanced, themore you have, the more fudging you can do.

Let me give an example. In the plague (zombie shooter) pygame game, the first few versions there was one kind of zombie you could almost never kill on your own, yet your allies never followed you. THe game was still successful (and got a lot of attention and people helping out) because the rest was playable - just avoid the big guys til you have enough grenades and you were fine.

Balance does have a lot to do with fun, that is true, but something doesn't have to be completely balanced to be fun either - I think just wiping people out is fun too sometimes, and people will understand if the game isn't completely balanced at first.


Personally, no, I am not ok with having most of the same units for each faction. I think it would be much more interesting (and cool, and fun) if each had a completely unique way of working with them. I don't propose this for just the sake of uniqueness, that is a plus, yes, but the reasoning is that I think it will be more fun in general, and more interesting.

Why would this be a case of feature creep? The goal isn't just to bludgeon new features, personally I would think this would simply add more to the game, in terms of innovation, fun, coolness, whatever. If that is feature creep, then what is the point of even having factions if everyone is the same?

[Jeremy Putnam]

I agree with the idea that we want to start simple. I would even go
so far as to say that sticking with one faction for an alpha build
would be ideal. We can make sure everything works before committing
too much effort in the way of man-hours on assets, story, and plot.
We can make sure that new units and factions can be added easily, then
worry about additional choices thrown into the mix. It would also be
a lot less initial work for me. =D

I'm ok starting small and working up. That said I noticed some
comments from RB on the wiki that I had questions about. Do we want
to go job-style, like FFT, where you start with a vanilla unit and
branch out down job trees from there, or WarIII style, with grunt and
hero types purchased from the start, or something completely
different?

> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Markus Martin <archw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2009/4/4 RB[0] <roeb...@gmail.com>:

[RB[0]]

I was thinking more like War III - units are always the same type, when they upgrade they are just stronger versions.
I guess you could make them morph at a certain level - ie, if a knight reaches level 5 it can be moved next to your warlord unit who can make it into a Paladin.
So, upgrading naturally makes you stronger, but once you reach a point (can be different for each unit) you can move it to the warlord (thus giving incentive not to put it on the front lines and losing...) and upgrade or bestow a new title or what ever...

I dunno - perhaps you could take as your commander a master archer, who can upgrade units once they reach like level 3 or something...

[Jeremy Putnam]

What does everyone else think? A sort of linear progression, if any,
like Wesnoth or something akin to Disgaea or FFT where you can job hop
more? Something in-between, something different?

On Apr 5, 12:50 pm, "RB[0]" <roeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking more like War III - units are always the same type, when they
> upgrade they are just stronger versions.
> I guess you could make them morph at a certain level - ie, if a knight
> reaches level 5 it can be moved next to your warlord unit who can make it
> into a Paladin.
> So, upgrading naturally makes you stronger, but once you reach a point (can
> be different for each unit) you can move it to the warlord (thus giving
> incentive not to put it on the front lines and losing...) and upgrade or
> bestow a new title or what ever...
>
> I dunno - perhaps you could take as your commander a master archer, who can
> upgrade units once they reach like level 3 or something...
>

[Markus Martin]

2009/4/6 Jeremy Putnam <lord...@gmail.com>:

>
> What does everyone else think?  A sort of linear progression, if any,
> like Wesnoth or something akin to Disgaea or FFT where you can job hop
> more?  Something in-between, something different?

I liked FFT's job system. In some ways I think it helps with balance
because units have diversified skills, but also FFT had some horribly
imbalanced jobs. Calculator was devastatingly overpowered, and others
were quite weak such as the time mage, summoner (maybe? It has been
too long to remember for sure). Plus the calculator had most of the
abilities of the mage jobs. Just a way too overpowered job in general,
but damn fun to use! =)

However, since I have been pushing for simplicity (and I still am, RB
and I are simply at an impasse on some points), I would say that
linear advancement is best. I would not mind seeing more complicated
systems in alternative settings to the game.

Greetings,
-Markus

[RB[0]]

Well, to be honest I don't see why we can't have several systems - might be a bit confusing, but something like:

regular units (not commanders/warlords) can upgrade to new kinds of units in their specific job path - like in Wesnoth
commander/warlord units simply upgrade their stats as they progress
some kinds of commander/warlord units could force upgrade regular units, ie, change their job path/specialty - like say a vampire could turn an archer into a vampire minion, etc.
You could also, I guess, for commander/warlord units do more of an rpg system where you specifically learn new skills or something, which would be interesting for campaign mode, or for very long skirmishes.

None of these systems would be overly difficult to program I think.

[Jeremy Putnam]

My feelings are that we don't want to be too much like Wesnoth, while
at the same time keeping things simple like Wesnoth. Linear
progression is very Wesnoth. One of the reasons I enjoyed FFT and
Disgaea so much were the job systems, the chance to stick with a
character and follow them through multiple changes. It's something
that would set Galaxy Mage apart. I don't think we should have
separate systems for grunts and warlords, I think we should have one
system across the board for all units.

On Apr 7, 7:56 am, "RB[0]" <roeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, to be honest I don't see why we can't have several systems - might be
> a bit confusing, but something like:
>
> regular units (not commanders/warlords) can upgrade to new kinds of units in
> their specific job path - like in Wesnoth
> commander/warlord units simply upgrade their stats as they progress
> some kinds of commander/warlord units could force upgrade regular units, ie,
> change their job path/specialty - like say a vampire could turn an archer
> into a vampire minion, etc.
> You could also, I guess, for commander/warlord units do more of an rpg
> system where you specifically learn new skills or something, which would be
> interesting for campaign mode, or for very long skirmishes.
>
> None of these systems would be overly difficult to program I think.
>

> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Markus Martin <archw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2009/4/6 Jeremy Putnam <lord....@gmail.com>:

[RB[0]]

But there is a problem with doing them the same.
Let's say we have jobs, and different things you can do for your units, like when they upgrade it is more like an rpg, you can learn new skills, upgrade stats, w/e.
That would be awesome for campaigns, because people love doing that kind of thing.
Problem is, for normal units, having that kind of system for them would just slow the game down horrendously, while they really wouldn't be able to get anything too much better.
I like the idea (personally) of having the warlords be able to promote grunts - perhaps that is the only thing we should have? All units when they upgrade get X increase of attack/defense and hp. Commanders and Warlords, though, also get skill points, with which they can further boost their stats, or save and buy new skills.
The commanders, then, can bestow skills onto regular units that are of the same or lower levels, ie, say a Druidic shaman tattoos someone for increased speed or something, or a vampire creates a minion.

[Jeremy Putnam]

I'm talking about not having a differentiation at all. There are no
superiors or subordinates. You could create them eventually just by
using and leveling a particular unit more than others, essentially
"creating" a general because they're so advanced compared to the rest
of your units.

One of the issues with doing something like this for multiplayer has
been having to have some way to store an army you've worked on for use
in multiplayer, otherwise you have to start with basic armies every
time. I think we should go with a point buy system wherein you can
agree on a point amount and use those points to buy into jobs to make
multiplayer interesting.

On Apr 7, 10:58 am, "RB[0]" <roeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But there is a problem with doing them the same.
> Let's say we have jobs, and different things you can do for your units, like
> when they upgrade it is more like an rpg, you can learn new skills, upgrade
> stats, w/e.
> That would be awesome for campaigns, because people love doing that kind of
> thing.
> Problem is, for normal units, having that kind of system for them would just
> slow the game down horrendously, while they really wouldn't be able to get
> anything too much better.
> I like the idea (personally) of having the warlords be able to promote
> grunts - perhaps that is the only thing we should have? All units when they
> upgrade get X increase of attack/defense and hp. Commanders and Warlords,
> though, also get skill points, with which they can further boost their
> stats, or save and buy new skills.
> The commanders, then, can bestow skills onto regular units that are of the
> same or lower levels, ie, say a Druidic shaman tattoos someone for increased
> speed or something, or a vampire creates a minion.
>

[RB[0]]

I agree on the point buy system - that's what I've had in mind since the beginning.
But I do think there should be some differentiation.

I guess I just have no clue what you mean by job system, as I have never player fft or disgaeia - a point which seems to be hurting a great deal more than I anticipated.

My plan was to have 3 different kinds of units - your warlord (leader, w/e) would need to survive or you lost, or perhaps he is the only one that can pick up certain power items on the map, or whatever.
Commanders are meant to augment other units, not much (if any) stronger than normal units, they make their allies stronger.
Regular troops are pretty regular, they don't have many (if any) special abilities, they just fight with their weapon (s) of choice.

Really there wouldn't be a ton (if any) differentiation in code, except for designation, which would basically determine whether a unit can perform some task (like only a warlord or commander can reach X tile for the win, or w/e)

Technically there would be no limitation on regular troops - you *could* make them have every single skill possible and maxed stats, they still wouldn't be able to do commander/leader activities, but he would certainly be fun to play with.

My thoughts about this were that it was going to be fairly like GalaxyMage - battles are mostly glorified skirmishes.
If we add campaing stuff (which I definitely do agree on) then it will simply be a series of skirmishes.
Perhaps in campaign mode you get a certain number of commanders and (as always) one leader - they are the only units you carry with you from battle to battle, but if they die you could lose or at least be at a big disadvantage.

So can you explain a little about exaclty what you mean by jobs, and how the game-play would work?
Oops, ok, I just remembered, I did play FFT a bit on an emulator a while back. I don't think that kind of job system would well suited to GMR. For campaign mode perhaps, but definitely not multiplayer, and I don't think (personally) campaigns either.
In FFT each battle is more like a brawl between 5 or 6 units per side than a skirmish - the feel is (IMO) completely different.

But that is just my opinion, I could be (probably am) remembering incorrectly about FFT, so I'll let you guys explain your ideas more now.

Cheers

[Jeremy Putnam]

I just feel that Wesnoth has the large scale battles handled well. We
go with smaller armies that have more in-depth troops rather than
larger armies with more generic units. What you describe sounds
something like Fire Emblem, which is also quite a bit like Wesnoth.

If you tabletop wargame at all I feel like Galaxy Mage should be
Necromunda or Mordheim to what Wesnoth is to Warhammer Fantasy Battle
or 40k. Your "gang" carries over from battle to battle and you can
invest points in better skills and weapon upgrades.

[RB[0]]

That is a very good point.
So this would be more into building up your, like 8 guys, rather than having an army that is comprised mostly of low level troops and then a few leaders?
One thing I have to say, I don't think multiplayer campaigns are doable, nor would they add much (if anything) to the game.
Simply being, most people play multiplayer to play against others (or in the case of teams, team vs. team) - but having a campaign you probably wouldn't have player vs. player, because the "badguy" player would always be losing and swapping teams.

So for multiplayer perhaps you could have more control over the game, maybe some weaker pawn units (if chosen) or something, simply because you can't do a campaign.

[Markus Martin]

2009/4/12 RB[0] <roe...@gmail.com>:

> That is a very good point.
> So this would be more into building up your, like 8 guys, rather than having
> an army that is comprised mostly of low level troops and then a few leaders?

I think the idea is that you actually have some attachment to your
troops because you have built them up over several battles. This is
not really the case in Wesnoth where you can always build more troops
during a 'battle'. FFT (not sure about Disgaea) also had a countdown
timer for fatally wounded units (HP <= 0). If you didn't take action
before 3 rounds or something, they would die permanently.

> One thing I have to say, I don't think multiplayer campaigns are doable, nor
> would they add much (if anything) to the game.
> Simply being, most people play multiplayer to play against others (or in the
> case of teams, team vs. team) - but having a campaign you probably wouldn't
> have player vs. player, because the "badguy" player would always be losing
> and swapping teams.

I tend to agree. Perhaps cooperative multiplayer in a campaign might
be interesting though. We may come up with some other multiplayer
campaign ideas later.

> So for multiplayer perhaps you could have more control over the game, maybe
> some weaker pawn units (if chosen) or something, simply because you can't do
> a campaign.

I think is this exactly what Brandon intended when he created the
points system. Having a bunch of points to distribute among units
however you see fit simulates having taken a party through a long
campaign. Thus I think it will work quite well for multiplayer.

-Markus

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Hi guys,

I'd think it would be possible to combine the depth of character
creation/management of FFT with a more streamlined multiplayer
experience.

Basically, when you're creating a squad in multiplayer, you could
simply pick from pre-configured units with a point-buy system. For
example, you could get a level 5 mage for 5 points, and it would have
appropriate equipment and abilities pre-selected.

This would work especially well if all the leveling up and item
swapping only took place between skirmishes in single-player campaign
mode. (Unlike Wesnoth, where leveling up happened mid-battle.)

One general suggestion I'd make is that you be very careful how you
manage the power curve. A level 1 character should still be able to
hit and do some damage to a level 10 character, so that it makes sense
to spend points on low-level units as well as powerhouse ones.

Anyway, in terms of factions, I'd say the best option might be to let
everyone access the same classes/jobs/units, but give different stat
adjustments to different factions. So one faction might get +20%
strength (making them better at melee), another +20% health, and
another +20% magic, or something. That would lend to different tactics
per faction without needing you to recode a million extra units.

On Apr 12, 11:51 am, Markus Martin <archw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/4/12 RB[0] <roeb...@gmail.com>:

[George Hunt]

Hi all, I joined this project literally Ages ago before it died and then switch hands. I was going to be one of the spriters (term for 2D game artist) on board. If you're still in need of someone to do sprite work, and it seems you are (although I think I remember someone talking about doing 3D characters, which is unfortunately something I'm not real good at.) I'm willing to offer my hand. I've completed a good 20 or so different tactical rpgs, its my favorite genre, so I know a ton about them and things that should and shouldn't be included. What people love about them and features that people despise.

Anyway, the point of my throwing my two cents in was I have an idea that i've been cooking up for a good period of time now. A skill/job system that is unlike any that have been presented so far. The ability to pretty much micro manage everything all your characters are good at, in a not so complicated fashion. each character just has a long list of proficiencies that improve as you perform the respective action. For instance: the more you fire a bow the higher your Ranged and Bow proficiency goes up, and your DEX stat can also go up as well. Then to learn skills and use new equipment, it requires a certain amount of respective proficiency points in different things. Essentially, the better you get at using a sword the better sword skills you will learn and the better swords you can use. The more you focus on using Healing magic the more it will heal. The more adept you are in using magic the wider variety of spells you will be able to learn.

Of course this will mean that someone who is skill in magic will be able to learn how to use a sword well too. but hell, its alot more realistic than otherwise. I've always been a firm believer that a mage should be able to teach themself how to use weaponry if they feel like it or that a knight should be able to learn the ways of healing magic (other wise how do these diverse classes like paladin or spell sword come to be?) I feel this adds a very interesting natural progression to the game, plus it allows a very personal touch to each individual character and how they develop their skills.

Sorry for the rant, consider the offer and the idea if you want. Later for now.

[Markus Martin]

Hi George, welcome (back) to the project. Sorry for the silence. Some
of the developers are busy with PyWeek this week, or some are like me:
just busy (finals week, yay =/ ).

2009/4/30 George Hunt <thegra...@gmail.com>:

> Hi all, I joined this project literally Ages ago before it died and then
> switch hands. I was going to be one of the spriters (term for 2D game
> artist) on board. If you're still in need of someone to do sprite work, and
> it seems you are (although I think I remember someone talking about doing 3D
> characters, which is unfortunately something I'm not real good at.) I'm
> willing to offer my hand. I've completed a good 20 or so different tactical
> rpgs, its my favorite genre, so I know a ton about them and things that
> should and shouldn't be included. What people love about them and features
> that people despise.

I am sure we will still need sprites for some things, but the intent
right now is still to do characters in 3D. We could use some decent
looking placeholder sprites for three classes

Regarding your levelling ideas.. I totally agree that this is a far
more realistic system that makes a lot of sense. This is basically
what Bethesda's TES games do, and it is also what we are doing in my
other project (DungeonHack). It is also nice because it eliminates the
need for a traditional experience point based system.

However, I don't think it is a type of system that is appropriate for
this project. Partly because we are trying to build on a loose
paradigm set by several games, and partly because in a strategy game
one should have some expectation of the capabilities of a given unit
based on a class name or appearance. Also, we are definitely not going
for realism in making this game. If we were, quite a few things would
have to be different.

However, when I write software I like to make it as flexible as
possible, so perhaps we can make it so that the method of levelling
and such can be easily modifiable (i.e.: by a mod).

Greetings,
-Markus

[RB[0]]

Hey all, sorry I have been so long in responding :S

I really like that form of job system, but like Markus said, it may
not be best for this kind of game. As ZombieRoboNinja pointed out, we
would need a careful power curve, so if each unit is mostly unique for
it's abilities, then a level one trapper, say, would still be able to
net another unit and "freeze" them for a couple turns, it would just
be a lot shorter a period than lower level units, or perhaps harder to
hit, etc.

I think gaining proficiency is cool, and it might be an interesting
addition, something like, upgrading your units allows you get new/
upgrade skills, or boost stats (maybe?), but you also have proficiency
with types of weapons, and then specific weapons.
It would need to be balanced, but something like, a unique sword you
pick up, well, you do have some sword proficiency from using your
fathers' broad sword in the past few games/levels/whatever, so, say, a
20% sword proficiency. But your specific proficiency with your
fathers' sword is 50% since you have been using that one itself.
This boosts your fathers' sword chance to hit by 50%, and your damage/
speed a bit.

Something like this, to be more specific.
You have a few different things that your characters upgrade with and
grow stronger with:
general proficiency - this covers the "kinds of weapons" - sword,
spear, staff, bow, etc.
Warriors would start with some proficiency in all melee kinds of
weapons, whereas mages wouldn't start with any, maybe some in staff...
Specific proficiency - this covers specific weapons themselves, your
character begins to figure out the quirks and minor differences that
make each and every weapon different
Skills - each class has certain skills they can choose. Technically
there are no "limits" - a warrior "could" learn mage spells, but that
would sacrifice his warrior ones as well.
Skill proficiency - you simply upgrade a previously learned skill
instead learning a new one.

So, when you upgrade, you get one (or more, perhaps) upgrade points.
You could make it so you can't upgrade mid-battle, so in campaigns you
apply points in between levels, or in multiplayer you can keep things
more simple, perhaps...
Upgrade points can be spent on any of the areas of upgrade, general/
specific weapon proficiency (like, 2% gain for general, 5% for
specific?) or on a new skill, or one increased level for a skill...

Might be a bit too involved with proficiencies able to go up through
use and what not, I dunno

Either way, I am glad more people are chiming in, keep up the good
discussion :)
Also, I wanted to add that I will try and get back to working on GMR
as soon as possible, but some things have come up in real life that
have me kinda drained and not really able to commit much time to
programming, so it may be a little while :S
So if you don't see me, I'm here, just not very active LOL :)

Cheers all :)

On May 2, 7:02 pm, Markus Martin <archw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi George, welcome (back) to the project. Sorry for the silence. Some
> of the developers are busy with PyWeek this week, or some are like me:
> just busy (finals week, yay =/ ).
>

> 2009/4/30 George Hunt <thegranden...@gmail.com>: