Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-03-29 at 07:44:32
for example...
there are 6 human players in the bound, 20 lives for each of them fot the whole game. it means that 120 lives for ALL human players. if 1 person plays it, he gets all 120 lives, if 2 players play, they get 60 lives each, if 3 then 40 lives each & so on.
IS IT A GOOD IDEA ?
there are 6 human players in the bound, 20 lives for each of them fot the whole game. it means that 120 lives for ALL human players. if 1 person plays it, he gets all 120 lives, if 2 players play, they get 60 lives each, if 3 then 40 lives each & so on.
IS IT A GOOD IDEA ?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by XMercury on 2006-03-29 at 11:23:50
So if 1 Player was in the game, that player would have 120 lives??? Whats the point of having a Lives system if you have that many lives? I think the player would leave the game from pure bordem before they even reach 10 lives!
Why not just make it so each player has 20 lives each, regardless of how many Human players are in the game?
Why not just make it so each player has 20 lives each, regardless of how many Human players are in the game?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by saibaman8 on 2006-03-29 at 16:58:59
QUOTE(XMercury @ Mar 29 2006, 12:23 PM)
So if 1 Player was in the game, that player would have 120 lives??? Whats the point of having a Lives system if you have that many lives? I think the player would leave the game from pure bordem before they even reach 10 lives!
Why not just make it so each player has 20 lives each, regardless of how many Human players are in the game?
[right][snapback]455412[/snapback][/right]
Why not just make it so each player has 20 lives each, regardless of how many Human players are in the game?
[right][snapback]455412[/snapback][/right]
1. Because some bounds are hard and take more than 10 lives to do but people still play them because they find interest in it.
Also, he could be using that just for example. He might not intend to give you 120 lives.
2. That's what normally occurs. He's trying to be different.
This is a reverse idea to what I had. When a player leaves it evenly distributes their lives, so you don't have to poke them to give you lives when they're about to leave.
You could do this and not have a life giving system besides these. It would make it more interesting.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)7-7 on 2006-03-29 at 17:13:35
Ya it is a god idea
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HolySin on 2006-03-29 at 17:15:23
It's a good idea because when I try to beat a bound that has a low amount of lives with difficult obstacles, I'm forced to play in the public games and extract lives from them. It's pretty annoying.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2006-03-30 at 02:31:04
I would have a sort of live bin, so that any player who dies takes a life out of a collective. Basically the same idea, but each player would contribute to the live bin.
1 player = 10 lives
2 player = 20 lives
3 player = 30 lives
and so on, you could make the incriments go slower as more people were playing to make it fair.
1 player = 10 lives
2 player = 20 lives
3 player = 30 lives
and so on, you could make the incriments go slower as more people were playing to make it fair.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-03-31 at 08:35:51
i just want to make this cuz if a pro wants to pass a bound he has all the lives, cuz my bound is 1 teamwork (it's not a competition of teams or FFA)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Red2Blue on 2006-04-05 at 03:30:53
It's been a concept i've never decided to act upon. Simply because it is pointless with the amount of lives people throw in maps. Giving each player 200 lives is just silly.
You can give each player a divided amount of lives by setting a custom score for a computer player to whatever amount you want, and then giving away lives one at a time for each active player. You can detect active players with a preplaced unit on the map... or you can be steatlh and have it so that it sets a switch per active player and then give lives away to the players depending on the switch being active and the computer player owning at least 1 life. Of course, you would always end up using a number that is indivisible by the amount of players, thus you would always have a player with more lives then others. This makes your map look really "noob." They would think you couldn't count or something. You can always make the map "forget" about the remainder and simply set score after giving an even amount or ignoring the remainder.
30 lives is good for easier bounds.
1=30
2=15
3=10
4=7(remainder 2)
5=6
6=5
60 lives would be a perfect overall amount as it divides perfectly.
1=60
2=30
3=20
4=15
5=12
6=10
90 lives would be good for hard bounds.
1=90
2=45
3=30
4=22 (remainder 2)
5=18
6=15
I only gave examples of 6 player bounds. This is because 7 is just an annoying number to use. It doesn't divide well into anything.
You can also apply this system for when players leave the game. Give lives from the player to the computer (the custom score lives are owned now by p12 so give away from p12) and from the computer back to the players (and removing remainder if you want).
I believe there were a few maps that had these two systems. But it never really caught on because of the "give lives to player" concept came into play. Everyone makes full house games now anyway.
You can give each player a divided amount of lives by setting a custom score for a computer player to whatever amount you want, and then giving away lives one at a time for each active player. You can detect active players with a preplaced unit on the map... or you can be steatlh and have it so that it sets a switch per active player and then give lives away to the players depending on the switch being active and the computer player owning at least 1 life. Of course, you would always end up using a number that is indivisible by the amount of players, thus you would always have a player with more lives then others. This makes your map look really "noob." They would think you couldn't count or something. You can always make the map "forget" about the remainder and simply set score after giving an even amount or ignoring the remainder.
30 lives is good for easier bounds.
1=30
2=15
3=10
4=7(remainder 2)
5=6
6=5
60 lives would be a perfect overall amount as it divides perfectly.
1=60
2=30
3=20
4=15
5=12
6=10
90 lives would be good for hard bounds.
1=90
2=45
3=30
4=22 (remainder 2)
5=18
6=15
I only gave examples of 6 player bounds. This is because 7 is just an annoying number to use. It doesn't divide well into anything.
You can also apply this system for when players leave the game. Give lives from the player to the computer (the custom score lives are owned now by p12 so give away from p12) and from the computer back to the players (and removing remainder if you want).
I believe there were a few maps that had these two systems. But it never really caught on because of the "give lives to player" concept came into play. Everyone makes full house games now anyway.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-07 at 13:47:52
QUOTE(Red2Blue @ Apr 5 2006, 10:30 AM)
It's been a concept i've never decided to act upon. Simply because it is pointless with the amount of lives people throw in maps. Giving each player 200 lives is just silly.
You can give each player a divided amount of lives by setting a custom score for a computer player to whatever amount you want, and then giving away lives one at a time for each active player. You can detect active players with a preplaced unit on the map... or you can be steatlh and have it so that it sets a switch per active player and then give lives away to the players depending on the switch being active and the computer player owning at least 1 life. Of course, you would always end up using a number that is indivisible by the amount of players, thus you would always have a player with more lives then others. This makes your map look really "noob." They would think you couldn't count or something. You can always make the map "forget" about the remainder and simply set score after giving an even amount or ignoring the remainder.
30 lives is good for easier bounds.
1=30
2=15
3=10
4=7(remainder 2)
5=6
6=5
60 lives would be a perfect overall amount as it divides perfectly.
1=60
2=30
3=20
4=15
5=12
6=10
90 lives would be good for hard bounds.
1=90
2=45
3=30
4=22 (remainder 2)
5=18
6=15
I only gave examples of 6 player bounds. This is because 7 is just an annoying number to use. It doesn't divide well into anything.
You can also apply this system for when players leave the game. Give lives from the player to the computer (the custom score lives are owned now by p12 so give away from p12) and from the computer back to the players (and removing remainder if you want).
I believe there were a few maps that had these two systems. But it never really caught on because of the "give lives to player" concept came into play. Everyone makes full house games now anyway.
[right][snapback]459671[/snapback][/right]
You can give each player a divided amount of lives by setting a custom score for a computer player to whatever amount you want, and then giving away lives one at a time for each active player. You can detect active players with a preplaced unit on the map... or you can be steatlh and have it so that it sets a switch per active player and then give lives away to the players depending on the switch being active and the computer player owning at least 1 life. Of course, you would always end up using a number that is indivisible by the amount of players, thus you would always have a player with more lives then others. This makes your map look really "noob." They would think you couldn't count or something. You can always make the map "forget" about the remainder and simply set score after giving an even amount or ignoring the remainder.
30 lives is good for easier bounds.
1=30
2=15
3=10
4=7(remainder 2)
5=6
6=5
60 lives would be a perfect overall amount as it divides perfectly.
1=60
2=30
3=20
4=15
5=12
6=10
90 lives would be good for hard bounds.
1=90
2=45
3=30
4=22 (remainder 2)
5=18
6=15
I only gave examples of 6 player bounds. This is because 7 is just an annoying number to use. It doesn't divide well into anything.
You can also apply this system for when players leave the game. Give lives from the player to the computer (the custom score lives are owned now by p12 so give away from p12) and from the computer back to the players (and removing remainder if you want).
I believe there were a few maps that had these two systems. But it never really caught on because of the "give lives to player" concept came into play. Everyone makes full house games now anyway.
[right][snapback]459671[/snapback][/right]
i allready made that, only for 120 lives, but i dont give 1 life per player at a time, i just have 6 triggers per player that look at all possible variants.
PLAYER 1 triggers
trigger 1
switch "P1 set lives" is cleared
current player brings atleast 1 any unit to anywhere
Bounders bring exactly 1 bounred
give 120 lives to P1
set "P1 set lives"
trigger 2
switch "P1 set lives" is cleared
current player brings atleast 1 any unit to anywhere
Bounders bring exaxtly 2 bounder
give 60 lives to P1
set "P1 set lives"
& SO ON.... for all 6 players. a bit dumb, but those triggers were easy to copy
By the way, i finished my bound but when i tryed to protect it with Uberation 3 it bugged my map. the same happened when using Pro edit
i know taht you'r an experienced mapmaker, Red2Blue, so can you give me some advise on what to do about it ? thx
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Oo.Insane.oO on 2006-04-07 at 13:55:57
It could be a good idea but what if you got like 5 lives left and someone leaves? do you just lose or do you stay playing with 5 lives? if u dont lose them than someone could just have 5 friends come and have them leave after for 5 times the amount of lives and if you do lose the lives it could be buggy, unfair and unfun
I really dont know what to think about this
I really dont know what to think about this
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-07 at 14:00:44
QUOTE(Insane @ Apr 7 2006, 08:55 PM)
It could be a good idea but what if you got like 5 lives left and someone leaves? do you just lose or do you stay playing with 5 lives? if u dont lose them than someone could just have 5 friends come and have them leave after for 5 times the amount of lives and if you do lose the lives it could be buggy, unfair and unfun
I really dont know what to think about this
[right][snapback]460708[/snapback][/right]
I really dont know what to think about this
[right][snapback]460708[/snapback][/right]
what do you mean "you have 5 lives left & someone leaves" ? how can YOU (let's say Player1) loose when Player2 leaves?
or maybe i understood you wrong ?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Oo.Insane.oO on 2006-04-07 at 14:35:32
What I mean is since the more people that join = more lives than wouldnt when people leave you would lose lives or you could just cheat and get more lives
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-04-07 at 15:19:58
You could always have one big global stockpile of lives that it takes from whenever somebody dies. Of course, a banner would be necessary to stop abuse.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-08 at 09:50:42
QUOTE(Insane @ Apr 7 2006, 09:35 PM)
What I mean is since the more people that join = more lives
[right][snapback]460729[/snapback][/right]
no, you have 120 lives for the whole team, nomatter how many people are in the team.
ADDITION:
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707 @ Apr 7 2006, 10:19 PM)
You could always have one big global stockpile of lives that it takes from whenever somebody dies. Of course, a banner would be necessary to stop abuse.
[right][snapback]460751[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]460751[/snapback][/right]
i have a lifegiver, so the lifes are allmost shared
i have warn/ban in case
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Oo.Insane.oO on 2006-04-09 at 18:07:13
QUOTE(Jammed @ Apr 8 2006, 08:50 AM)
no, you have 120 lives for the whole team, nomatter how many people are in the team.
[right][snapback]461232[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]461232[/snapback][/right]
Oops I misunderstood the whole concept of it
so the more players = less lives using a pile of lives
This is a pretty good idea
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-10 at 06:15:14
GO TO: USE MAP SETTINGS MAPMAKING -->MAPS IN PRODUCTION--> RATE A NEW BOUND
it's the pre-final version !!! DL it ! it's a great bound (i think)
it's the pre-final version !!! DL it ! it's a great bound (i think)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by www.com.au on 2006-04-10 at 20:27:00
I like moose's idea, but i think it really depends on the difficulty of the bound.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by D-Von on 2006-04-19 at 14:31:37
Its a bad idea if u want people to play your map. Think about the concept, if I play alone, I get more lives, but if I play with friends I have to share lives. People would rather play with less people, than more, lowering the chances your bound will be spread and enjoyed by the masses. (But then again it is a bound, who enjoys those anyway? LOL jp)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PCFredZ on 2006-04-20 at 20:13:51
QUOTE(D-Von @ Apr 19 2006, 02:31 PM)
But then again it is a bound, who enjoys those anyway?
[right][snapback]468549[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]468549[/snapback][/right]
Hear, hear!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-04-21 at 22:05:09
I have a few things to say.
1) Bounds are a bad idea.
2) Stop maknig so many topics that mention how "great" your's is.
1) Bounds are a bad idea.
2) Stop maknig so many topics that mention how "great" your's is.