developer ramblings

[Lizard]

I'm mainly creating this thread because I feel we've been negelecting the public forums it may seem a bit quiet in here but it's been quite busy behind the scenes on the developer and testing forums, we've had a lot of useful feedback since our first release to the testers and I'm quite encouraged by a lot of the stuff we are hearing. 


we still have a long way to go but I feel we've had a good start and are generally heading in the right direction, it's certainly inspired some wild suggestions from some folks which to me is a good thing it shows it's sparking people's imagination, it also shows that people are willing to overlook our current shortcomings and look ahead to what might be, which is another encouraging thing to see.


so yeah, feel free to throw your wild ideas around in here, I'll probably ignore a lot of them but inspiration can come from the most unlikely sources sometimes and that's what it's all about  .

[Avatar]

You might regret this thread...  I have strong feelings about what makes a game a success...

All of this is IMHO, of course...

First off, you have to cut to the absolute basics and decide what the game is.  Nowadays there are tons of letters to describe games, like CTF, FPS, MMORPG, etc., but it usually can break down into some sort of simple description.  In the case of MAD it sounds like it's at heart an FPS, or 'shooter', that takes place in vehicles.

There are LOTS of FPS's out there...  many many more have come and gone...

Vehicle games seem tougher, and most FPS's don't seem to have decent vehicles, especially a great number of them.  I've never understood that, what the difference is between a human character (basically a Walker) and a Tank.  You'd think if you could do one well you could do both...

SO, what's going to set MAD apart from the crowd?  Something to keep it on the shelves, either physical or virtual?  What's going to be unique about MAD?

-Av-

[BS-er]

I think MAD will be somewhat unique by being a vehicle shooter in a strat world.  The player will be able to do a few things that let him/her influence and affect the strategy somewhat.  the player may lead a small team, and affect what that team does, but not necessarily micromanage units and construction.  The design aspects of this are still evolving, so we can't say much about the details at this stage.

In that regard I think fans of hybrid strat/FPS games like Battlezone 1 & 2 might like this game, but also action-oriented players might like the slight extention into a strategy world without having to completely jump into it.

[Slaor]

Hi lads, hats off to BSer and our scaly friend for a bloody awesome looking effort so far

re: Strat, as an alternative to base building (which, tho very cool, DID always seem a little arbitrary and unrealistic) - I always liked the way Ground Control did it, with player in control of a small squad which can only be reinforced via dropship in certain locations so you gotta look after them. There are allied bases with turrets etc, but they are not under player control, rather they form mission objectives and scenery mainly.

The strat was in using the units you had available to maximum effect as a tight group, rather than continually flogging out new, expendable forces.

(BIG HIYA to all my old mates BTW, good to be back online after so long)

[Lizard]

it's good to see you back online again after so long dude .

[Black Manatee]

Hey, Dr. Roals, long time no see!      It's an interesting question, whether to go with more of a squad-based multiplayer type of effect, like in GC...

Incidentally, hasn't Ground Control recently come out with a sequel?  Thought I read a review of it somewhere...

For my part, I always felt like the base-building component was always one of the high points of bz & bz2--and something I've never really been able to find anyplace else, a thing that distinguished it from pure action and pure strategy, which seem to be arbitrary distinctions in and of themselves.  Certainly the technology exists for there to be kick-a$$ games that combine the best of both worlds--but of course, the big-league publishers tend to be all about replicating a successful formula rather than trying something new.

[OvermindDL1]

I love base building personally.  Heck, I'd love a combo of BZ2 and TA/Spring/WZ2100, that would be so nice.

[BS-er]

Hey Slaor!  Good to see you back!  I had my worries about you.  I would've thought that it would some amount of tragedy to keep you away for so long.  Welcome back.

I'm planning a limited base-building aspect.  Not really building a base with lots of bulky buildings, but rather build a few defenses, and a repair building maybe.

Resources will be dropped in via parachute.  Enemies and mayby friendlies can be dropped in as well.  It might come in handy that you can shoot out a parachute and watch an enemy plunge to its death.

One thing to keep in mind though is that the scope has its limitations.  I'm the lone programmer on this project.  That does have its benefits though, because the programming team will always be in complete unison .  Its a struggle getting programmers to agree on much, and progress can suffer as a result.  So my lone wolf approach for the programming is the only way to go unfortunately.

Anyway it's good to see you're still alive and kicking!

[JonathanS]

One thing to keep in mind though is that the scope has its limitations.  I'm the lone programmer on this project.  That does have its benefits though, because the programming team will always be in complete unison .  Its a struggle getting programmers to agree on much, and progress can suffer as a result.  So my lone wolf approach for the programming is the only way to go unfortunately.

Maybe after you're done with the development, you can get more programmers to help with "improving" existing code....though that doesn't help the situation right now does it.....I'll shut up now. 

[Slaor]

Cheers fellas, nice to be thought of

Dunno if you guys saw on TV about a year back there was massive storms and floods in Eastern Oz with tankers getting shipwrecked etc - well that was mainly my hometown. Unfortunately, since high end PCs and excess muddy water don't mix well...u get the idea. Yay for global warming I guess It's been hard enough to get a bloody house to live in let alone set up for game design again.

The good news is that hopefully as of next week I'll be the proud owner of a semi-new laptop so will at least be able to start getting my tools back together. I've already offered to join MAD in the graphics department to take some of the load off Lizard, so if all goes to plan I should be able to start pumping out models and misc. graphics by mid June/July.

Re: Epic - Although there was a fairly large upload made available to dev members a while back, unfortunately I lost just about everything else...including 6 GB of dev assets, hi-res photoshop textures etc etc - considering it was a TC/Mod for a 10 year old engine I just dunno if I can justify it to myself to go back to it now, especially since MAD is the other option.

At some stage if I can get hold of the assets that were uploaded I may polish what was done already and leave it at that (it was mostly playable after all) otherwise regretfully it will probably never reach completion (apart from that - in the latest Beta build I used, the bloody thing wouldn't even launch and AV'd all over the place which is definitely a little outside my dept...)

On the plus side though, there may be a bunch of stuff (I'm thinking mostly original particles and terrain textures) that can be salvaged, and the uploaded stuff was complete enuff to be taken on by someone else so maybe all is not lost. However to be honest I'm looking forward to be able to sink some quality time into a new project and learn some new stuff...not to mention how enjoyable it will be working with you all again.

Oh and BTW - I totally agree with Lizard about the Indie thing - it's the fun factor! Working 12 hour days for years on a generic XBox title that would not inspire you to want to play it for more than a week anyways would be my idea of hell - regardless of how much cash was involved or how many insipid units were sold, I'm in this for the enjoyment. Gameplay decisions should not be made by marketers and accountants!

That said, I understand how much work goes into games at every step - scope creep is obviously a big concern. I'll get back shortly with initial impressions and comments on the PDFs I've received - so far so good, though maybe having another designer to share the load with Lizard will affect some of the initial design decisions.

[Slaor]

For my part, I always felt like the base-building component was always one of the high points of bz & bz2--and something I've never really been able to find anyplace else, a thing that distinguished it from pure action and pure strategy, which seem to be arbitrary distinctions in and of themselves.  Certainly the technology exists for there to be kick-a$$ games that combine the best of both worlds--but of course, the big-league publishers tend to be all about replicating a successful formula rather than trying something new.

Definitely agreed Bill, the resource mgmt/strat aspect of BZ and the ability to customise units and squads for specific tasks was what set it firmly apart from eg: Mechwarrior. (TBH I probably prefer BZ1 with its small mobile base setup - which was innovative even for a strat title). Initially I wasn't sure whether base building would be an option in MAD - since it is, that will obviously be the main focus ( tho the dropship/fixed squad method could obviously still be used eg: in missions where restriction of force numbers or tighter balancing is desirable).

I guess my interest here is twofold - mainly innovation and variety of options without blowing the scope of the project, but also improved player accessibility which apparently was an issue for BZ2 despite the gentle learning curve of the missions. A much smaller and simpler build tree for field structures (eg: factories, power, defenses only) rather than a full interdependent base structure can only help matters here I guess.

Ballistic artillery and expanded role for infantry are topics I would like to discuss more at some point also

[Lizard]

it's starting to feel like old times again .


Infantry is something we need to discuss , it's a topic we've kinda left on the shelf for a while, I think BS-er had some concerns over the amount of work it would take to get infantry units working ingame, I also had some concerns about the amount of work each character would need in terms of animations etc. Having said all this though nearly everyone I've told about the game has asked whether you'll be able to be a soldier that's able to jump out of one vehicle and into another, I think having human characters in a game like this is almost expected by many players and it could be enough to put some folks off trying the game if we don't include them.

[BS-er]

I'm interested in creating infantry, but quite simplistic as far as animations and movement.  Walking, running and crouching, with the torso pivot of most FPSes.  Sniping is an option.  Single fire jetpacks could be considered, but I'm thinking that parachute would the means of slow descent.

Animation is something new to this project, so I see that as a challenge.

The parachutes will add some gameplay aspects as well.  They can be shot out, and so some missions will involve shooting parachutes to send the enemy plummeting to their deaths to the extent possible.  Crates, vehicles and infantry (if and when we add them) can be dropped in via parachute.

[Commando]

Prone position might be useful too, especially if sniping is an aspect of the game.  Not sure how hard that would be to program in.

[Lizard]

the problem with making the soldier class too sophisticated with positions such as prone etc. is all the extra animations involved, you'll need a set of animations for each position that contain the following animation types ( minimum) move forward/backward, turn, strafe, and we'll probably need a firing animation for when the soldier is shooting, then for when the player is in the upright position there will also need to be animations for jumping and running plus transitionary animations for when the player is getting into the various positions ( crouched , prone and standing)  - that's a lot of animations especially if we have more than one soldier type ( and we'll need at least 4 for the 4 different factions) ....... and that's not counting different animations that may be required when carrying different weapon types.


I don't feel particularly comfortable creating complex animations it's the area of modelling where I have the least experience , infact it may even be worth hiring a dedicated animator to animate our soldier characters for us.