Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yossarian on 2005-08-29 at 15:30:08
I'm making a UMS map that's supposed to resemble Counter-Strike but right now is more like Unreal Tournament. In it, I have allowed respawning, since a one-time force would mean a very short, boring game. You move a civilian to a beacon that has a neutral unit at it to buy one of that unit. To keep your opponent from respawning, you can kill the neutral units at your opponent's beacon. I've played beta versions of this map against a bunch of people. Some have said that it's perfect, while others say that killing those neutral units to keep your opponent from respawning is a stupid rule. What do you think and why? Is it simply a matter of strategy, as in the player's choice of unit disposition, or is it really a bad idea?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Musteval on 2005-08-29 at 16:39:38
I don't think you should be able to kill the units, because it doesn't really make sense. The civilian thing is basically just a way to determine something - it doesn't matter how it's done, and it shouldn't be really relevant to the game. What you're trying to replicate is the buy system of Counter-Strike, and the "ideal" form of that would be a simple menu not affecting the game at all. Why stray from the ideal?
Now, you COULD still have a way to prevent them from getting those weapons. Maybe an Uzi (or whatever) factory which, when captured, prevents them from getting an Uzi. Or whatever. You get the idea.
Now, you COULD still have a way to prevent them from getting those weapons. Maybe an Uzi (or whatever) factory which, when captured, prevents them from getting an Uzi. Or whatever. You get the idea.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TERRAINFIGHTER on 2005-08-29 at 16:50:33
You could make it so you go into his base to get a flag then once you make it back you bring the flag to a unit chosing beacon in your base and it makes it so your opponent is unable to chose that unit in his base
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yossarian on 2005-08-30 at 00:30:42
Hmm . . . when I thought about making a map that resembled CS, I was thinking more about hostage rescue, demolition, etc. I never really considered modeling the "buy" system. I mean, the buy system is just part of starting the game. Don't you think that what you do in the game is much more important. Actually, I'm not quite sure what you mean, especially with not being able to kill the units. Would you mind restating it?
As for the other idea (flags), I think it would be too complicated and too much trouble. But it would allow your opponent to get his spawning power back. That's definitely a plus. As it is in my map, once that neutral unit is destroyed, there's no way to get yourself back in the game. Usually, one of two things happens:
1) One player comes out decisively more powerful and decimates his opponent's base by killing the neutral units at his beacons while his opponent's forces are there but too weak to put up a good fight.
2) Both players destroy each others' beacon units simultaneously, leaving them to duke it out with the forces they have at that point and pretty much deciding the game in favor of the person with the larger force.
So, the way I see it, there are two problems. One is that there's no way to get back in the game once your base has been raided, like I said before. Two is that once both players' bases have been raided, the game diminishes to a brute force conflict, which might as well be a melee game. The whole point of UMS maps is to add a unique touch that allows for more strategy.
Wow . . . you guys really got me thinking. Thanks a lot.
As for the other idea (flags), I think it would be too complicated and too much trouble. But it would allow your opponent to get his spawning power back. That's definitely a plus. As it is in my map, once that neutral unit is destroyed, there's no way to get yourself back in the game. Usually, one of two things happens:
1) One player comes out decisively more powerful and decimates his opponent's base by killing the neutral units at his beacons while his opponent's forces are there but too weak to put up a good fight.
2) Both players destroy each others' beacon units simultaneously, leaving them to duke it out with the forces they have at that point and pretty much deciding the game in favor of the person with the larger force.
So, the way I see it, there are two problems. One is that there's no way to get back in the game once your base has been raided, like I said before. Two is that once both players' bases have been raided, the game diminishes to a brute force conflict, which might as well be a melee game. The whole point of UMS maps is to add a unique touch that allows for more strategy.
Wow . . . you guys really got me thinking. Thanks a lot.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Musteval on 2005-08-30 at 07:22:20
Hum, I think I misinterpreted what you were doing with the buy system. I was thinking each player got only one unit and buying things changed it, not you can but a whole new unit. I would say that it's possible to have a base-decimation aspect to it, but:
1) The neutral units should fight back when directly attacked. This would lend some amount of realism.
2) When you buy a unit, you just gain control over one such unit at your base (the guy is already there, you're just hiring him, and if he's dead, you can't), thereby putting a cap on the number of units you can recruit and, at the same time, making it harder to push an opponent out of the game with a decisive base strike (as you'll have lots of men to kill off, not just one) and making such base strikes not completely pointless (as, even if you just injure a unit, it will carry over to when it is recruited).
As for my other idea: Say the map is set up with a base on the bottom, a base up top, and a building with a beacon in the center (and armed guards) off to the left. If you reach the beacon, then you have captured the flamethrower ammo building, or the headquarters of the Sons of Firebat, or whatever. This causes your opponent's firebats to no longer wish to fight or be able to fight, and so he can't hire firebats anymore (and all his current ones go neutral/die/switch sides).
1) The neutral units should fight back when directly attacked. This would lend some amount of realism.
2) When you buy a unit, you just gain control over one such unit at your base (the guy is already there, you're just hiring him, and if he's dead, you can't), thereby putting a cap on the number of units you can recruit and, at the same time, making it harder to push an opponent out of the game with a decisive base strike (as you'll have lots of men to kill off, not just one) and making such base strikes not completely pointless (as, even if you just injure a unit, it will carry over to when it is recruited).
As for my other idea: Say the map is set up with a base on the bottom, a base up top, and a building with a beacon in the center (and armed guards) off to the left. If you reach the beacon, then you have captured the flamethrower ammo building, or the headquarters of the Sons of Firebat, or whatever. This causes your opponent's firebats to no longer wish to fight or be able to fight, and so he can't hire firebats anymore (and all his current ones go neutral/die/switch sides).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Yossarian on 2005-08-31 at 02:11:21
You see, the neutral units aren't actually supposed to be part of the game; they're simply representations of what you're buying when you move your civilian to that beacon. However, I do think that having buildings or something would be more realistic . . . I'm trying to figure out what the best way to do this would be.
Hmm . . . thanks for all the ideas, guys, but I think I need to take this in my own direction now. The deadline is only a week off, and I've got a lot of remodeling to do.
Hmm . . . thanks for all the ideas, guys, but I think I need to take this in my own direction now. The deadline is only a week off, and I've got a lot of remodeling to do.