Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Idea: Modify Gates

Expand Messages
  • Trevor Tickner
    How about changing the nature of gates themselves to help solve improve some issues: 1. Make gates rarer, and more likely to be contested for control. 2. Maybe
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 2, 2003
      How about changing the nature of gates themselves to help solve improve some
      issues:

      1. Make gates rarer, and more likely to be contested for control.
      2. Maybe have different types of gates - where only some (the minority)
      allow the departure (gating) of creatures - the rest have some degree of
      restriction in terms of (some or all of) creatures/items/weight etc.
      3. Make gates operate in pairs, with all gates having just one destination
      gate. This should encourage competition for 'that gate pair that gets us
      from continent A to continent B'. This would also encourage factions and
      alliances to try defend (or at least monitor) both sides of a gate which
      intersects with your territory in order to prevent unexpected enemy arrivals
      through the gate.

      The problems/improvements I see touched on with the above include:
      1. Providing strategic areas to encourage player conflict :) (a scarce
      resource)
      2. Reduce the multitude of 'holes' a faction trying to defend a territory
      has. Currently an enemy can easily gate to somewhere behind your lines (this
      sort of thing should mainly be occur through subtle, sneaky use of teleport
      spells or portals).
      3. Reduce the applicability of the balrog bomb type attacks.
      4. Tie territories together: Overland/sea travel would be relatively more
      important, and with gate pairs you and an ally might each defend and end of
      the gate and trade skill/equipment using the gate.

      Trevor



      **********************************************************************
      This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
      intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
      are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
      the system manager.

      This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
      MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

      www.mimesweeper.com
      **********************************************************************
    • tmartel_99
      ... improve some ... 4. Make units have to enter the gate in order to use it. That will cause all stealthed units that enter the gate to be revealed. At the
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 2, 2003
        --- In atlantisdev@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Tickner <trevort@s...>
        wrote:
        >
        > How about changing the nature of gates themselves to help solve
        improve some
        > issues:
        >
        > 1. Make gates rarer, and more likely to be contested for control.
        > 2. Maybe have different types of gates
        > 3. Make gates operate in pairs,


        4. Make units have to enter the gate in order to use it.

        That will cause all stealthed units that enter the gate to be
        revealed. At the least, it will allow a guarding unit to prevent a
        stealthed unit from entering/leaving the gate, even if that guarding
        unit cannot see the stealthed unit when its outside the gate.
      • raebyrn
        Yo, ... Random gating would become quite monotonous. ;-) If this is done, the detect gate radius should be increased. Marten
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 3, 2003
          Yo,

          > 3. Make gates operate in pairs, ...

          Random gating would become quite monotonous. ;-)
          If this is done, the detect gate radius should
          be increased.

          Marten
        • Rick C
          ... Or perhaps make then operate primarily in clusters, with a low level of cross-cluster linkage.
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 3, 2003
            > From: raebyrn [mailto:peace_trooper@...]

            > > 3. Make gates operate in pairs, ...

            > Random gating would become quite monotonous. ;-)
            > If this is done, the detect gate radius should
            > be increased.

            Or perhaps make then operate primarily in clusters, with a low level of
            cross-cluster linkage.
          • Pete Christie
            Hi Gates could stay as they are but have a decay% or a residual mana level, if the mana level drops too low the gate decays and is lost, mages creating gates
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 3, 2003
              Hi

              Gates could stay as they are but have a decay% or a residual mana
              level, if the mana level drops too low the gate decays and is lost,
              mages creating gates can fill them with mana at creation allowing
              them to know roughly how long they will last. Only a spell can tell
              how long any other gate may last, and gata mana may be drainable to
              destroy it quicker, or topped up to make it last longer.

              Pete

              --- In atlantisdev@yahoogroups.com, "Rick C" <pixelcat@m...> wrote:
              > > From: raebyrn [mailto:peace_trooper@y...]
              >
              > > > 3. Make gates operate in pairs, ...
              >
              > > Random gating would become quite monotonous. ;-)
              > > If this is done, the detect gate radius should
              > > be increased.
              >
              > Or perhaps make then operate primarily in clusters, with a low
              level of
              > cross-cluster linkage.
            • Nick Hoggard
              ... To extend this a little what if gates each had from 1 to 6 exits similar to a normal hex. This would make them slightly more useful than pairs only as it
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 3, 2003
                >> From: raebyrn [mailto:peace_trooper@...]
                >
                >> > 3. Make gates operate in pairs, ...
                >
                >> Random gating would become quite monotonous. ;-)
                >> If this is done, the detect gate radius should
                >> be increased.
                >
                >Or perhaps make then operate primarily in clusters, with a low level of
                >cross-cluster linkage.

                To extend this a little what if gates each had from 1 to 6 exits similar
                to a normal hex. This would make them slightly more useful than pairs
                only as it is still possible to get to multiple locations from a single
                gate, however it eliminates the possibility of an alliance being able to
                gate large forces to any location from a single staging point. Also
                this method would increase slightly the planning required in mapping and
                using a network of gates.
              • Jan Rietema
                ... There is a new option I coded in v5 (I could patch it into v4 if someone lobbied me to do it :) that works in a simpler and yet similar way (with a few
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 4, 2003
                  > > > 3. Make gates operate in pairs, ...
                  >
                  > > Random gating would become quite monotonous. ;-)
                  > > If this is done, the detect gate radius should
                  > > be increased.
                  >
                  > Or perhaps make then operate primarily in clusters, with a low level of
                  > cross-cluster linkage.

                  There is a new option I coded in v5 (I could patch it into v4 if someone
                  lobbied me to do it :) that works in a simpler and yet similar way (with a
                  few side-effects). It's called the "non-perennial gates" option.

                  The basic premise is that gates stay open only for x number of months a
                  year. For instance gate #14 might open in February and close again in May
                  (for the rest of the year) - if this gamedef was set to three months. A gate
                  jump can now only work under the following conditions:

                  1. the starting point gate must be open.
                  2. the destination gate must be open for a targetted (non-random) jump.

                  Hmm... actually thinking about it now I think it would be better to allow
                  random jumps only to open gates as well. I originally thought it might be
                  wise to let random jumps go anywhere - especially for spreading out factions
                  that gate out of the nexus - but now I feel it would be cool not to do so.
                  Having random gating and targetted gating behave similarly to closed gates
                  seems more intuitive anyway. I guess I'll change that!

                  As a result of this, any gate will only "connect" to gates that have an
                  overlapping period of opening, introducing the cluster idea. It also makes
                  gating a bit less wide-spread.

                  Jan

                  (*still haven't found the time to post anything substantial - i.e. mana or
                  gameset ideas*)
                • Azthar Spleenmonger
                  ... My thought here, is that this should NOT normally apply to GATE RANDOM. That would solve the monotony problem. Either way, as with all gate behavior, it
                  Message 8 of 9 , Apr 4, 2003
                    On 3 Apr 2003, at 15:05, raebyrn wrote:

                    > Yo,
                    >
                    > > 3. Make gates operate in pairs, ...
                    >
                    > Random gating would become quite monotonous. ;-)
                    > If this is done, the detect gate radius should
                    > be increased.

                    My thought here, is that this should NOT normally apply to GATE RANDOM.

                    That would solve the monotony problem.

                    Either way, as with all gate behavior, it should be just another config option.

                    With expanded range options for spells it should be easy to extend the range
                    for GATE DETECT, if a GM so wishes.

                    -Az
                  • Azthar Spleenmonger
                    ... Yeah. That is one potential topology of limited access gates. It will be up to a GM to decide how they want gates handled in their game. We ll test variety
                    Message 9 of 9 , Apr 4, 2003
                      On 3 Apr 2003, at 13:17, Rick C wrote:

                      > > From: raebyrn [mailto:peace_trooper@...]
                      >
                      > > > 3. Make gates operate in pairs, ...
                      >
                      > > Random gating would become quite monotonous. ;-)
                      > > If this is done, the detect gate radius should
                      > > be increased.
                      >
                      > Or perhaps make then operate primarily in clusters, with a low level of
                      > cross-cluster linkage.

                      Yeah. That is one potential topology of limited access gates.

                      It will be up to a GM to decide how they want gates handled in their game.
                      We'll test variety of options, at least for functionality.

                      -Az
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.