User talk:Jbeta/FPSRTS spec draft - Revision history

EAi at 15:58, 22 June 2007

2007-06-22T15:58:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 22 June 2007
Line 25:		Line 25:
	:I'm talking about designing a different tech tree per team. The upgrade categories would be the same, but not the actual upgrades. That way it is impossible for two different commanders to research the same set of skills, adding variety. That's how many games do it anyway: skills, units and buildings vary between teams. --[[User:Jbeta\|jbeta]] 05:10, 21 June 2007 (CDT)		:I'm talking about designing a different tech tree per team. The upgrade categories would be the same, but not the actual upgrades. That way it is impossible for two different commanders to research the same set of skills, adding variety. That's how many games do it anyway: skills, units and buildings vary between teams. --[[User:Jbeta\|jbeta]] 05:10, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

	I agree with jbeta. Also, to clarify what I said above, when I said "the more tech trees we have, the better", I mean to say "tech tree branches". [[User:JonChappell\|JonChappell]] 12:49, 21 June 2007 (CDT)		::I agree with jbeta. Also, to clarify what I said above, when I said "the more tech trees we have, the better", I mean to say "tech tree branches". [[User:JonChappell\|JonChappell]] 12:49, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

			:::The issue is that we then have to balance each team... I'd say having mutually exclusive branches would solve this problem too - if you research Hunters, you can't get Tanks for example... [[User:EAi\|eAi]] 10:58, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

JonChappell at 17:49, 21 June 2007

2007-06-21T17:49:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 21 June 2007
Line 24:		Line 24:

	:I'm talking about designing a different tech tree per team. The upgrade categories would be the same, but not the actual upgrades. That way it is impossible for two different commanders to research the same set of skills, adding variety. That's how many games do it anyway: skills, units and buildings vary between teams. --[[User:Jbeta\|jbeta]] 05:10, 21 June 2007 (CDT)		:I'm talking about designing a different tech tree per team. The upgrade categories would be the same, but not the actual upgrades. That way it is impossible for two different commanders to research the same set of skills, adding variety. That's how many games do it anyway: skills, units and buildings vary between teams. --[[User:Jbeta\|jbeta]] 05:10, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

			I agree with jbeta. Also, to clarify what I said above, when I said "the more tech trees we have, the better", I mean to say "tech tree branches". [[User:JonChappell\|JonChappell]] 12:49, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Jbeta at 10:10, 21 June 2007

2007-06-21T10:10:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:10, 21 June 2007
Line 22:		Line 22:

	The whole point of a tech tree is that there is only one. You can make branches mutually exclusive, but I can't see how it even makes sense to have multiple tech trees... [[User:EAi\|eAi]] 19:19, 20 June 2007 (CDT)		The whole point of a tech tree is that there is only one. You can make branches mutually exclusive, but I can't see how it even makes sense to have multiple tech trees... [[User:EAi\|eAi]] 19:19, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

			:I'm talking about designing a different tech tree per team. The upgrade categories would be the same, but not the actual upgrades. That way it is impossible for two different commanders to research the same set of skills, adding variety. That's how many games do it anyway: skills, units and buildings vary between teams. --[[User:Jbeta\|jbeta]] 05:10, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

EAi at 00:19, 21 June 2007

2007-06-21T00:19:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:19, 21 June 2007
Line 21:		Line 21:
	We can be really creative with upgrades. I'd love to see stuff like ion cannon as a researched weapon, as well as stuff like Bombshop style vehicle bombs. Samsites is another possible defensive structure. Assuming we're having two unique teams, we can try and give exclusive upgrades to each team - an area where we can get lots of scripting input as it does not require as much skill as other areas (i.e. stuff like ion cannon or bombshop). These are just a few ideas, i'll jot down some more if i can think of them. --[[User:Talidan2\|Talidan2]] 13:35, 20 June 2007 (CDT)		We can be really creative with upgrades. I'd love to see stuff like ion cannon as a researched weapon, as well as stuff like Bombshop style vehicle bombs. Samsites is another possible defensive structure. Assuming we're having two unique teams, we can try and give exclusive upgrades to each team - an area where we can get lots of scripting input as it does not require as much skill as other areas (i.e. stuff like ion cannon or bombshop). These are just a few ideas, i'll jot down some more if i can think of them. --[[User:Talidan2\|Talidan2]] 13:35, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

	The whole point of a tech tree is that there is only one. You can make branches mutually exclusive, but I can't see how it even makes sense to have multiple tech trees...		The whole point of a tech tree is that there is only one. You can make branches mutually exclusive, but I can't see how it even makes sense to have multiple tech trees... [[User:EAi\|eAi]] 19:19, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

EAi at 00:18, 21 June 2007

2007-06-21T00:18:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:18, 21 June 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:

	We can be really creative with upgrades. I'd love to see stuff like ion cannon as a researched weapon, as well as stuff like Bombshop style vehicle bombs. Samsites is another possible defensive structure. Assuming we're having two unique teams, we can try and give exclusive upgrades to each team - an area where we can get lots of scripting input as it does not require as much skill as other areas (i.e. stuff like ion cannon or bombshop). These are just a few ideas, i'll jot down some more if i can think of them. --[[User:Talidan2\|Talidan2]] 13:35, 20 June 2007 (CDT)		We can be really creative with upgrades. I'd love to see stuff like ion cannon as a researched weapon, as well as stuff like Bombshop style vehicle bombs. Samsites is another possible defensive structure. Assuming we're having two unique teams, we can try and give exclusive upgrades to each team - an area where we can get lots of scripting input as it does not require as much skill as other areas (i.e. stuff like ion cannon or bombshop). These are just a few ideas, i'll jot down some more if i can think of them. --[[User:Talidan2\|Talidan2]] 13:35, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

			The whole point of a tech tree is that there is only one. You can make branches mutually exclusive, but I can't see how it even makes sense to have multiple tech trees...

Talidan at 18:35, 20 June 2007

2007-06-20T18:35:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 20 June 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:

	:'''3:''' As I see it the commander should only be able to build new spawnpoints. Picking the spawnpoint at random when a player spawns seems to defeat the point of strategically placed spawnpoints though...		:'''3:''' As I see it the commander should only be able to build new spawnpoints. Picking the spawnpoint at random when a player spawns seems to defeat the point of strategically placed spawnpoints though...
			:--[[User:Jbeta\|jbeta]] 10:07, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

	:--[[User:~~Jbeta~~\|~~jbeta~~]] 10:07, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
			We can be really creative with upgrades. I'd love to see stuff like ion cannon as a researched weapon, as well as stuff like Bombshop style vehicle bombs. Samsites is another possible defensive structure. Assuming we're having two unique teams, we can try and give exclusive upgrades to each team - an area where we can get lots of scripting input as it does not require as much skill as other areas (i.e. stuff like ion cannon or bombshop). These are just a few ideas, i'll jot down some more if i can think of them. --[[User:Talidan2\|Talidan2]] 13:35, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Jbeta at 15:07, 20 June 2007

2007-06-20T15:07:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:07, 20 June 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:

	[[User:JonChappell\|JonChappell]] 02:21, 20 June 2007 (CDT)		[[User:JonChappell\|JonChappell]] 02:21, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

			:'''1:''' Yes, we thought about making the building rate proportional to the number of builders but I forgot to mention it, wouldn't make sense to have multiple builders if the rate is fixed anyway.

			:'''2:''' That'd go with the trees' design, I agree we should have a player-ability section in them.

			:'''3:''' As I see it the commander should only be able to build new spawnpoints. Picking the spawnpoint at random when a player spawns seems to defeat the point of strategically placed spawnpoints though...

			:--[[User:Jbeta\|jbeta]] 10:07, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

JonChappell at 07:22, 20 June 2007

2007-06-20T07:22:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:22, 20 June 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	My thoughts:		My thoughts:

	''''Creating Buildings''''		'''Creating Buildings''' - I think the rate at which the building is built should be proportional to the number of players standing near it.
	I think the rate at which the building is built should be proportional to the number of players standing near it.

	''''Tech tree research''''		'''Tech tree research''' - I think we should also have one for player abilities - running speed, max health, etc. The more tech trees we have, the better, because the commander can't afford all of them and it which ones he chooses become crucial to success.
	I think we should also have one for player abilities - running speed, max health, etc. The more tech trees we have, the better, because the commander can't afford all of them and it which ones he chooses become crucial to success.

	Also, MAYBE if you research one tech tree to maximum it lowers the maximum level of one of the others. This would make a team very powerful in one area but it would still have weaknesses and would not become too powerful.		Also, MAYBE if you research one tech tree to maximum it lowers the maximum level of one of the others. This would make a team very powerful in one area but it would still have weaknesses and would not become too powerful.

	''''Spawning''''		'''Spawning''' - Should the commander have control of spawning? I can see arguments for and against.

	Should the commander have control of spawning? I can see arguments for and against.

	[[User:JonChappell\|JonChappell]] 02:21, 20 June 2007 (CDT)		[[User:JonChappell\|JonChappell]] 02:21, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

JonChappell at 07:21, 20 June 2007

2007-06-20T07:21:33Z

New page

My thoughts:

''''Creating Buildings''''
I think the rate at which the building is built should be proportional to the number of players standing near it.

''''Tech tree research''''
I think we should also have one for player abilities - running speed, max health, etc. The more tech trees we have, the better, because the commander can't afford all of them and it which ones he chooses become crucial to success.

Also, MAYBE if you research one tech tree to maximum it lowers the maximum level of one of the others. This would make a team very powerful in one area but it would still have weaknesses and would not become too powerful.

''''Spawning''''

Should the commander have control of spawning? I can see arguments for and against.

[[User:JonChappell|JonChappell]] 02:21, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 22 June 2007
Line 25:		Line 25:
	:I'm talking about designing a different tech tree per team. The upgrade categories would be the same, but not the actual upgrades. That way it is impossible for two different commanders to research the same set of skills, adding variety. That's how many games do it anyway: skills, units and buildings vary between teams. --[[User:Jbeta\|jbeta]] 05:10, 21 June 2007 (CDT)		:I'm talking about designing a different tech tree per team. The upgrade categories would be the same, but not the actual upgrades. That way it is impossible for two different commanders to research the same set of skills, adding variety. That's how many games do it anyway: skills, units and buildings vary between teams. --[[User:Jbeta\|jbeta]] 05:10, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

	I agree with jbeta. Also, to clarify what I said above, when I said "the more tech trees we have, the better", I mean to say "tech tree branches". [[User:JonChappell\|JonChappell]] 12:49, 21 June 2007 (CDT)		::I agree with jbeta. Also, to clarify what I said above, when I said "the more tech trees we have, the better", I mean to say "tech tree branches". [[User:JonChappell\|JonChappell]] 12:49, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

			:::The issue is that we then have to balance each team... I'd say having mutually exclusive branches would solve this problem too - if you research Hunters, you can't get Tanks for example... [[User:EAi\|eAi]] 10:58, 22 June 2007 (CDT)