A bunch of mapping related requests.

A few of these have been suggested before in one form or another, but I have a few specific combinations I think could accommodate all needs, and a few other ones which haven't been suggested to my knowledge.

• 'Hack' entity. This has been suggested before, basically an entity which can be sabotaged by a scout to produce an I/O trigger. I'd like to put my own spin on this by requesting that it also include an option for engineer tools to be used in addition to the sabotage, or instead of. With a time option for both so you can make it take less time to sabotage than to engy tool, or vice versa. I'd also like different outputs for each, so an OnSabotage and an OnRepair output. Also I would like for the possibility of both team ownership and a sabotage/repair counteraction system.
  
  Basically you can have it so that one team sabs or repairs it, and then that opens it up for the other team to do it, but only one team can 'own' it at any one time. So if one team repairs it, it becomes 'theirs' and the enemy team can then repair it to reclaim it, but if the other team is killed in the attempt, the original team can repair it back to restore ownership. Basically making it work sort of like a flag except you can only 'cap' it with an engy or scout.
  
  The other thing I'd like would be for it to be repairable, then sabotaged in a similar method to the team mechanic, except this time it's one team repairs it and the other has to sabotage it. This should also interface with the team mechanic so if one team repairs it, then the other team sabotages it, it remains in the hands of the first team but triggers the sabotage effect. While if the other team repairs it, it changes to their team and produces the repair effect.
  
  All the effects should be triggerable by inputs, so there should be a 'sabotage' input which makes the entity trigger the OnSabotage output and act like it's been sabotaged by the enemy, as well as a 'repair' input which triggers the effect it would have if the owning team repaired it, and a 'claim' input which triggers the effect it would have if the enemy team repaired it.
  
  The entity should also have room for text to be displayed when a person looks at it, so if an enemy engineer looks at it, they should see text displayed (entered by the mapper) which describes what effect their action will have on it. It would be different from the effect a friendly engineer would see, and that which an enemy scout would see.
  
  You could use this to make a door, for example, which one team can 'capture' by repairing the panel which locks it shut, because that team benefits from the door being closed. The enemy team can then sabotage the panel to force it open, but the original team can repair it quite easily, or override it from a control room somewhere else. If the enemy team captures it by using their repair tools on it though, it takes longer, but can't be overridden by the control room and is harder for the enemy to reclaim.
  
  Basically this can be used, with all these options, to create all sorts of map interaction beyond the ordinary 'blow this up' mechanic. I ask for such complexity because of the versatility it offers, the one entity can be used to create any effect. I know the engineer part of this can be partially replicated by using the existing constructable model entity, but that's a bit hacky and it doesn't have the intuitiveness of this entity, you'd have to know what the thing did before you used it, and it also doesn't interact with other mechanics like this entity.
  
  
  
• Make more than one model be part of the same emp_eng_map_model.
  
  I can't remember what the classname for the map constructable entities is, but it's something like that, what I'd like is for me to be able to specify a group of models under one entity, and have them all be constructed at once and share health. This is simply because I might want to have a barricade made of multiple props in a map which you can construct, but I can't do that now without using a brush (which would be expensive on the brush limit) or having them all constructed individually, which is annoying to work with for both me and the players.
  
  
  
• Some map-constructable weapons. I've also suggested these before but I've developed them more since then. Basically I'd like a single point entity which I can specify a pivot point, a field of rotation, a model, a fire cone (in degrees, supporting floats) a rate of fire, damage to infantry, damage to vehicles, damage to aircraft (when implemented) and the type of projectile (either a hitscan bullet, a rocket or a crossbow bolt-like projectile which can move faster than a rocket without going funky (like the rockets from the func_tankrocket do above a certain speed) for each of the physical projectiles I would like travel speed and dropoff amount specifiable, and for the crossbow bolt projectile I'd like an effect which looks more or less like a large bullet, so you can differentiate it from a machinegun but it doesn't look like a cannon, the rockets should also be able to lock on or guide, or be dumbfire) I'd also like a brush based version which I can use to make the gun out of brushes instead of models, and would therefore be without the model keyvalue, all other things remain. The entities should be constructable by an engineer and useable like a func_tank or like a vehicle if the former is infeasible.
  
  Using this you should be able to make any sort of stationary weapon you could want, from sniper rifles to AT rifles to machineguns to AT cannons and AA guns of all calibres and firepowers. I expect that this would make maps like escort much more interesting, and would open the door for more structured classic matches with strongpoints dotted around the map which infantry can use to fight from, as the infantry game is sadly lacking in the later stages. I ask for map placeable entities as they are easier to balance than ones you can use anywhere, and allow for more variety as a result.
  
  
  
• Building placement locations. Basically I would like to make the refinery snap to position thing available to all buildings, and I would also like to be able to specify rotation and building type, as well as telling it whether or not it can ignore normal placement rules. The entity should also have outputs so that when the specified building is placed there by either side, it triggers an output so you can do something in the map if you want.
  
  This allows for more interesting bases in some areas, like a city where there are existing housings for structurs, and you can basically integrate your base into them, making the base look more interesting and play differently, and also meaning that anywhere you want a base to be placeable you don't have to put large expanses of totally flat ground, you can just place some of these around, so you can make more interesting environments too. It also allows you to do things like make map goals be to build a specific building in a location, like a radar to capture a base or something and open up the next part of the map, basically like an integration of classic and escort-esque objectives.

All of these together should make an excellent 'gamemode toolkit' if you will, a base from which mappers can make any variety of map they want. It encourages third party development for the mod and basically helps it grow without effort from the developers (aside from the inital investment in the entities).

It's like releasing the SDK with the source engine, this is a gamemode SDK for empires, but it's mapper friendly so you don't need coders or sub-mods. Increasing playability as a result.

Oh and if anyone replies to say something idiotic like 'wall of text' or 'I haven't read it, but...' then I will cause you the most exquisite agony within my power.

 

These are all great ideas, but it's currently considered to be one of the last things to do at this time. I know, it sucks, but the coders want to fix all the bugs and implement a few things first. The good thing about all that is, you can sum it all up in one post.

 

Oh I don't expect them to be a priority, I'd much rather have a working game than a varied game, they're more of a 'this might be a good way to develop the game into new areas' than a 'this needs to be done to stop the game sucking' sort of suggestion.

 

Don't forget about an entity that would be helpful for a tutorial map. It should have actions like making a part of the hud highlight, or flash, or something else that draws attention. Also a filter entity for player class.

 

So we'll end up with a scoutsonly map?
D:

 

That qualifies as replying with something stupid, however I am feeling charitable so I will explain it in simple terms.

I said the entity should work for both engineers and scouts, and I also did not say that it would be the only route available, riflemen and grenadiers are also better combatants than engineers and scouts, so you would need all four classes.

 

The best entity we could use is an entity that we can build from scratch in text. It'll revolutionize modding. And i swear, if i see a mod using only a customisable entity, i will kill whoever made that mod. (That excludes me, by the way)

 

Just enable lua scripting

 

That will have to be looked into, just enabling it can cause security issues with certain areas of the mod.

 

That would be nice certainly, but would that not be tantamount to coding all the possible entities you could want anyway?

I suppose it would help with organisation, so you don't have one massively complex entity to do everything, you could just make entities as and when they are needed, but otherwise I can't see the major benefit.

Unless as just suggested, it was something like the lua extensions in GMod, but that's coding, and is just making minimods.

 

I was talking about the class filter.
I can seriously see a scout only map getting released and played [trenches is still in circulation isn't it!?]

These are great ideas, hope they're implemented.

EDIT: You can't just enable lua. Garry had to pretty much set up source to use it.

 

I was thinking that the class filter could be used in a tutorial setting. If some n00b uses it to make a scout only map, then just don't play that map.

 

I wish it were that simple.
Notice that 90% of the time, people won't rtv out of urbanchaos or trenches.
And we don't have enough servers to just leave!

 

shame on you for rtv out of urban D: D: D:

 

Urban ends so fast it don't matter anyway.

 

Fast or 3 hours

i prefer 3 hours :D

 

urban.. Trenches...



K, ontopic:

Nice idéa Chris, pretty sure it will take some time until it's made into the game to say.

 

You've played an urbanchaos that lasted 3 hours?
How mayn people were there? 1?

 

There were urbanchaos games back in testing that lasted a REALLY long time... both teams had at least 16 players. Occasionally these long games still occur. Therefore, the above post is 100% invalid :p

 

Those were the best matches ever.

UC is either super shitty or super epic. There is no middle ground there. XD