Project Blue Goat Its an RTS...
#1
Posted 30 July 2007 - 12:45 PM
#3
Posted 01 August 2007 - 10:23 AM
#4
Posted 03 August 2007 - 09:01 PM
Lizardman/naga
Aesheritham (it's slightly misspelled russian with an m on the ending)
Odleman (swedish without the letter ö)
lucertola (on Italian)
just some suggestions on one of the races

This post has been edited by Grim: 03 August 2007 - 09:03 PM
#5
Posted 06 August 2007 - 06:34 AM
anyways like promised i guess i'll throw some more ideas out there...this one pertains to the whole alliance thingy...i have always felt that alliances in rts's should do more than just be allies and give you things like trade routes...but one thing that really irks me is that it gives you nothing more...so...i propose that when you are allied with any given race you get a race specific building which produces a race specific unit...this way it gives you some more help even if your ally sucks...then theres the population bonus...i havent worked the details out just yet but basically it will add population to your alliance units based on the population of the ally that you have the unit for...so say that you are whatever but your ally is the Aesheritham (i love that word) and he has a population of say...400...so i would say that the ammount given for your alliance unit...would be about 100...or one fourth of the allied population...of course im also not sure about the population costs for individual units so bear with me...and thats about it...
Heres the basic line-up for the race ally thingy:
(Keep in mind that all names are subject to change)
Race-Name of Building-Unit
Dwarves-Dwarven Academy-Dwarven Engineers
Elves-Elvin Treehouse-Snipers/Sharpshooters
Humans-Masonic Temple-Squires>Templar (Based on the human spawn system)
Orcs-Tavern-Rogues>Bandits (Based on the Orc spawn system)
Undead-Pyramid-Mummies (May reqire a sacrifice from the host race)
Aesheritham-Dojo-Aesheritham Warrior (comes in assorted flavors-swordsmaster, spearmaster, bowmaster, and martial arts master)
Oh yeah i also wanted to make the Lizard folks or Aesheritham in simlitude to the Japanese culture...you know bushido and all that...just wanna give some tribute...also perhaps the other races could be modeled after some culture as well...
#6
Posted 27 August 2007 - 01:58 PM
But With the alliance thing, I propose we take it one step further. Allies will be neutral to everyone until you start to "influence" them. However, unlike taking over a culture (as in AoE when you take over the indians or w/e) you mix cultures. However, for the sake of space, limit the number of allies; even 2 allies would make the amount of possibilities insane, unless you only limited allies to work with you and not with other allies... Anyway, the idea is that by creating allies and collaborating with them you would further advance both civilizations, whereas by conquering them, you would not get as full a cooperation with them because of any resentment (which reminds me, coups should be implemented, too). Some races should also have an affinity for other races, as well as a repulsion for other races. But alliances should be crucial to winning, or at least taking the lead.
Names of races: I'll put some thought into this and post them later. (that Aesheritham is hawt)
GFX/programming: Don't worry about the gfx or programming just yet. We need to finalize the theory of the game before we can take it to a programmer. Game design > programming > gfx. The gfx will be the icing on the cake. While the programming is the cake itself, the game design is the mold of the cake. Let's just take this in steps.
Anyway, it's good to hear from you Quado, it's also nice to see Blue Goat (Cheese) isn't completely dead (just hanging in there like chivalry). I'll try to put more thought into this. Maybe when between classes when I'm off for an hour at a time T-T
This post has been edited by Enoesiw: 02 September 2007 - 02:35 PM
#8
Posted 27 August 2007 - 10:40 PM

As for the names... I'm still throwing ideas around, but let's try to link a race with a culture. Make it similar, but totally different, and then like grim said mix a word from that culture with english. Example: Elves could be related to the gypsies or something. Then you pull a word from their language that means something that the elves represent, and change it so that it could be discernable, but most people wouldn't know it. It would bring a different kind of twist and personalism to the game. For the class-race tie, I was thinking orcs could be Greek(spartan, not those pansy ass archadians), dwarves could be Irish, lizardmen could be vikings, the undead could be french, the humans could be... idk fk the humans. And of course, the aesheritham are russian named, japanese inspired. Doesn't fit with the whole idea but w/e. If we use these comparisons as a starting point, everything will develop much quicker. Although looking through different languages for a single word that fits and entire race might be difficult. I'll look into this some more.
If anyone would like to add to this, I'm open for feedback and input. I'm also open to suggestions about the race-class tie. Don't throw out a race-class tie because you want to see it in there, but actually have some logic to it. If you want, I can present it on demand. But given the lore behind the classes and some basic history lessons, you should be able to kind of grasp my train of thought... I'm not that far out of it.
FYI: blue goat is just the project name. It will change if by some miracle this gets past the planning stage.
<shonen> read the rules </shonen>
This post has been edited by Shonen: 29 August 2007 - 11:23 PM
#9
Posted 29 August 2007 - 04:21 PM
i'll start programming it now so it gets past that stage too. there are a lot of game engines to look at on the interwebs as well, so we can always do that.
also if you want to do the race-class tie, all you have to do is start writing stories, items, etc.
ALSO I'm still not quite sure what the aim of this project is, but ill see what i can do. Its easy to make game code, but story, gameplay, game style, intutive interfaces, all that need to be made up. if you can imagine it, odds are i can program it, but you better have a DAMN GOOD idea of what your doing, what you want, if it will work out, and IF ITS WORTH IT. Make sure you have an awesome game that people will WANT to play.
The game needs to have an incredibly awesome idea behind it for it to be considered worth of being made. like my project plumeria, i made it because there aren't too many intuitive image sorters out there. its got to be one of those "Why hasn't anyone made this yet?" kind of idea. like "Why hasn't anyone made a decent video editor yet?". Either that or have something really good COMPLETELY change an old genre of games. Think old school tekken compared to SSBM, and how they are different but the same genre of "fighting".
sorry if i'm being rant-ish, i don't mean to. >_< just trying to put into perspective that there are hundreds of thousands of unplayed games out there (no, really. there are tons of games that are somewhat cool but no one plays them), and we have to be better then all of them.
#10
Posted 31 August 2007 - 01:49 PM
Up until now most RTS games have been seek and destroy. You build your army, seek out your opponent, beat the living fecal matter out of him. That's fun and all, but it gets repetitive. By incorporating this element of cooperation and diplomacy, you can make the game play so much richer. I kind of want to break away from the stereotypical classifications, too.
For starters, each civilization will have a specialization. Like the aesheritham will probably be blade masters, not necessarily weapon masters like Quado has them as. The lizardmen will probably be really physical units. I kind of want orcs to take more of a stereotypical elvish role, and be more nature-y. I'm thinking Elves, normally ranged units like Quado has 'em, could be stealth units or some sort of builder class. The undead would be... I guess your stereotypical swarm class (think starcraft zerg). The dwarves being engineers could be a good idea, i suppose. Although that sounds like it was ripped right out of WC. Dwarves may have to bite the bullet and be smithies again. I can't really think of a role that would fit them and not be stereotypical. Humans, ah the humans. I was thinking of making humans nearly worthless. They would be a conglomerate of all the other races but just be terrible. However, their diplomacy skills would be the best, so they would have an easier time making allies and ninja'ing their technology/specialization. That may be too OP, but this is still the planning stage.
So. Feedback?
#11
Posted 01 September 2007 - 09:12 PM
i need...how to make the skeleton. classes and algorithms are add on, but i need the big idea. how each and every aspect of the game is played. general guidelines. i can't explain it, but thats what i need. what the user controls, and how that affects the game.
#12
Posted 05 September 2007 - 02:26 PM
#13
Posted 18 September 2007 - 10:46 AM

#14
Posted 27 September 2007 - 05:10 PM
Um first off...may i propose that we first do the race planning before we actually go and make all the little things...
However...we still need to have some sort of tying awsomeness that makes our game stand out from the rest of them...for example warcraft was the original and everything has built off of it...thats its thing...however games since then have had to have little thing to set them apart...WC3 did the hero thing way better than anyone else...by far...AoE3 added in Home Cities and Allies that you had to interact with to get extra bonuses...also we have to keep in mind that SC2 will be haveing the fawsome starcraft theme as well as the uberness from WC3...granted it will be a while for blizzard to actually finish it...since they have focused on other things *cough* WoW *cough* and yeah...so to stay out in front of the pack in as many ways as possible...
we need to determine what the heck will be the new innovations that we will attempt to pull off...?
I believe that allowing for an interaction between players and computer players is the key...at least econimically speaking...so the whole conquring thing is an option...there is a game that has a system similar to this...Stronghold...Two...if you guys wanna try it out give me a call...namely Enoesiw...that is if you re still on this island...are you? anyways call my house...id put the number here but that would be just stupid...we get enough tellemarketers as it is...btw it is in the phone book...if you look at that game i think that you ll get a good idea of what i mean...anyways...o yeah...just torrent an iso for it...duh...anyways...
the market system
allies
some sort of new cool thing
those are wat wee need...and i got a job a t KTA

#15
Posted 28 September 2007 - 10:46 AM
#16
Posted 28 September 2007 - 11:37 AM
i thinks that answers the level and weapon question...as for the stuff from other games...there will be certain things that may be similar...but i feel that we should not go out and just take from other games...we gots to make it our own...say for instance the whole hero thing...everyone has their own take on it...just as we will...so there will be things from other games but they will be not theirs but an improvment (i hope) on a good idea...
i think that about sums it up...basically...we want to make a game that incorperates all that was good in rts's up to this point along with a few additions that we believe to be nessicary...
#17
Posted 28 September 2007 - 07:51 PM
Or you can take it a step further, and have increasing levels of support building for the distance away from the units (either linear or logarithmic). Also, the other thing to consider is how big the time intervals for gaining support levels will be (large steps slowly, or small steps quickly).
#18
Posted 29 September 2007 - 01:21 AM
thats just my two cents on that matter...
also...i dont recall if i said this or not earlier (too lazy to read my own posts) but i propose that we design each race after a different civilization...but not make it too obvious...like we could throw in some little...um...inuendos (?) in there to throw the players off our trail...but just as a guideline for the creation of the races...i call dibs on the Japanese for the Aesheritham Aka the Naga... just you know...so thats out there...
also...yesh i know that this is kinda winded but...in response to Enoesiw about the Aesheritham being kinda uber because of their Dojo alliance thing...i think that we can come up with multiple units for your allies to allow you to produce...also...srry...last thing really...that the ammount of your allies that are of the same race would determine which units would be avalible...so basically it would be a grid system for balance and whatnot... but to get the strongest unit...idk...you would have to have say...at least four of something...four just seems like a good number...
and one more thing...if we could create a sort of NPC race or civ for the players to interact with...as well as the computer players...this would be similar to AoE3 in that there would be not indians that you could ally with but there could also be Neutral people that you could trade ally with and so on...there could also be a system in which you could somehow sway the feelings of this race/persons that they would aid you in fighting...like send their own directed guys in addition to the ones that you would get for being their allies...
thats it for now...
#19
Posted 17 October 2007 - 11:18 PM
Like any historical civilization, you could have them specialize in different things. One race could be a woodworking society, so they're good at making buildings and ships, etc. and another one can be a hunter-gatherer, specializing in speed and ability to scrounge food...or something.
Also, I forgot to mention (if you've forgotten), FE's support system isn't indefinite, it maxes out after 5 supports, such a way that you can only get a maximum support with one other unit. If we were to implement this here, a civilization will only be able to fully support one other civilization (and others will take a backseat).
#20
Posted 21 October 2007 - 12:22 AM
perhaps if we were to make the bonus a definite advantage but not so much so that it turns into something where the one race would totally domminate intheir given field...
yeah...
#21
Posted 03 December 2007 - 08:54 PM
Also, who is this guy? Cmon, I gotta meet him if hes UNYO-level hacker.
#22
Posted 13 February 2008 - 07:38 PM
#23
Posted 29 February 2008 - 02:53 PM

#24
Posted 25 March 2008 - 07:30 PM
Attached File(s)
-
Project_Blue_Goat__2.13.08_.txt (36.81K)
Number of downloads: 5
#25
Posted 26 March 2008 - 02:26 AM
#26
Posted 31 March 2008 - 05:56 PM
#27
Posted 28 October 2008 - 02:15 AM

One of the things I was thinking about as I went over the posts in the thread I had not read yet (yes there were posts I had not read, I'm a baddie) was the support system. In a multiplayer game this would pose no real threat because you can communicate to the other person. However if you're playing solo, how would we dictate the AI of the second civilization? If you have a supporting civ that is collaborating with you, how should we program to respond.
Let's say that there's 3 civs collaborating. Taking the support method from FE you can have one civ that's 3/3 with you and one civ that's 2/3, or you can have 1 civ that's 3/3 and two civs that are 1/3, or you can have two civs that are 2/3 and one that's 1/3. Things we need to look into are how they respond to your choices depending on the type of support you have. Maybe a certain society would respond this way to your action if you're 0 or 1/3 but another way if you're 2 or 3/3. Maybe support with one civ will prevent you from supporting another civ because they are mortal enemies.
Basically, we need to flesh out the support idea a little more. How far do we want the support to encompass gameplay. I'm thinking the game should be based upon support because as referred to before, this would really break the mold. Some other games use support as a minor feature to enhance gameplay. I say we take it to the extreme and base gameplay off of it. Ultimately, that would change the fundamentals of the RTS itself.
Knowledge/tech trees. Everyone knows em and loves to hate em. What I was thinking with support and knowledge/tech trees was that the knowledge/tech trees would advance based on support. What I wanted to do was based on your support level, open up a new path. Let's say you're a master metal working civ and your support civ specializes in vehicles. Well after a level 1 support you would be able to make armored vehicles at a slight discount, maybe 5%. Level 2 would entail some kind of advance, maybe faster armored vehicles, and a 10% price reduction. Level 3 would be something really elite, like an armored moving fortress and a 20% discount. Of course since there isn't a weapons specialist in that collaboration it would just be super hard to kill, but not be able to do any damage. Then if you add in the weapons specialist as a level 2 support, maybe your armored fortress can shoot small cannons or something. Now I know this is a lame example, but I hope you grasp the underlying ideas. Whereas most RTS games you need the tech trees only within that certain civ, this would require the collaboration between civs, whether you're sending missives to your co-civ or whether the AI just naturally tries to max your potential together. What I want to do there is have like a response option; have the co-civ "contact" the player via messenger about their potential courses of action and allow the player to input and semi-influence the co-civ which is computer controlled. Of course cohesion to your suggestions would depend upon your support level as well as game status. The only problem I can really foresee with this is the sheer amount of possibilities it introduces. All trees must be independent as well as co-dependent.
I'll try to expand this idea and see if it makes sense. We have one civ. He starts out with 3 choices, whether to master a, b, or c. He goes out and gets minor support from another civ. With the new civ supporting him, he now has options d/e, f/g, h/i, depending on what he chose for a/b/c. He goes out and gets another civ to support him at level 1 and gains options j/k, l/m, n/o for a/b/c, and p/q/r/s for d/e, t/u/v/w for f/g, and x/y/z/a' for h/i. You can see how this would expand. Depending on what civs you get to support you, you have a nearly infinite set of possibilities. One way to counteract this would be to add in a like/hate meter. The more one civ likes/hates another, the more they're willing to collaborate for the common good. Let's say there are two civs that are mortal enemies. If you gain the support of one, the other one automatically becomes your enemy and you cannot get them for support, and if you break ties with the guys your supporting, they will still loathe your for collaborating with their enemies, making it harder to pick up their support. Also if two civs are neutral to each other but highly secretive or something like that, maybe they will only collaborate with you and not other civs, until somehow you could break down the barrier preventing the distrust. So the more you gain their support, the more they're willing to share. Maybe at level 1, they only collaborate with you, but at level 2 they collaborate with another level 2 or 3 and at 3 they will collaborate with the two other level 1s or the other level 2.
As for the individual unit exp, I would say toss this idea out the window. It's nice if you have like "hero" units with exp, but if you're micromanaging EVERY unit in a civilization separately, you're very well likely to go insane. And yes, this does limit the amount of units you can have on the field at one time. Or everyone is just gonna have to have a top of the line super-computer with octa-core processors and 8 terabytes of ram. Okay, maybe that's overdoing it, but you get the idea...
(sorry lost track of where i was because i was leaving work. Now i'm tired. will append later today.)
Also, I could turn all the info into an html doc if i wasn't so darned lazy. I guess taking CS200 and 201 was worth it, lol. Too bad I don't ever use the knowledge.
(And if you're wondering why this post makes no linear sense, it's because there is no linear sense in it. Wrote some parts and went back and enhanced/added others)
#28
Posted 30 October 2008 - 02:01 AM
OK so I've been thinking about Blue Goat and the support idea and figured out that before we move any further, if it is agreeable that the game be an RTS based on support, then we would have to flesh out the different races more. If the game is built around the idea that you need to create alliances/treaties or whatnot then we need races that could cooperate or work well together.
Each race must have a different specialization and attribute that makes it separate and makes people want to play them, but doesn't make it too overpowered. For example, in ancient times people were often distinguished by their job. Similarly, certain groups or civilizations were known for their adept skills at something. An example would be a gold-workers society or a master-smith's guild. Even a rogue's guild or assassin's guild. If we base each race off a current or historic civilization then we must decide which of the civilization's traits were dominant and which of them would be easy to pair up with another, or multiple civs.
I really would like to pull away from the stereotypical races, though, or at least change their names so that they feel different. An example of this would be Urgals from Eragon. If you compare them to orcs, they share a lot of similarities: Tribe-based, human-like, obsessed with war and honor, big with brute strength, although they do have some magic. The similarities are there, but rather than just calling them orcs, they were given a new name, thereby creating a new image.
Incidentally, with the Aesheritham this is what we did. Now let's do it to all of them

Let's start with the orcs, since we have a little of their back story already. Orcs are in general war-loving creatures about the height of a human, but generally much broader. Most typicially, orcs are inherently evil and want the destruction of other races. However, in some cases orcs are rather neutral, although they contain inherently evil individuals. While I would not like orcs portrayed as inherently evil in this game, I do believe they need to revel in war and destruction. As a result this would naturally bring up possibilities for alliances and enemies. But I digress, wikipedia has a nice article on orcs, their origins, and usage of orcs in videogames. It's a rather invaluable article. Now who to tie the orcs to... They have to be war-loving, muscular, and [email protected] Sounds like the Spartans are a really good fit. There ARE some discrepancies, like how they were also intellectuals, but in general I think they fit really well.
Next step would be to filter through the greek language and find some words that represent the orcs and spartans in general. Well I went to some dictionary sites and found that πόλεμοσ (polemos) translates as War or λαό του πολέμου(lao tou polemou) translates to People of War. So Polemite, might also be people of war, if you romanize it. But Polemites doesn't have a cool ring to it. πολεμιστήσ (polemistns) is warrior. βάρβαροσ (barbaros) is obviously barbarian. θάνατος or θάνατοσ (thanatos) means death. δυνατόσ (dunatos), γερόσ (geros), ισχυρόσ (ischuros) meaning strength. ισχυρόσ (ischuros) also means powerful. I'm kind of partial to Ischuros. Anyway feedback would be much appreciated. If you have any other suggestions for names feel free to post them!
[below edit: 11/1/08]
Next we have the Dwarves. Dwarves are characterized as earthly people who are exceptional at working with minerals, ores, and stones in general. They are often portrayed as master craftsman who's work is second to none and admired by all. Dwarves are usually short and stocky with powerful limbs. Since it would be hard to find a real life civilization that was comprised entirely of dwarves, I think that we can disregard this aspect of dwarves and concentrate on what they are known for, their mastery of stone. Thus while looking into it I thought that the Egyptians would be a good fit for the dwarves. The Egyptians erected massive pyramids using massive stones with a fraction of the technology we have today. They were also quite skilled with metalworking and jewelcrafting for their age and time, quite possibly even for today. Egyptians also had beautiful pottery and statues. As for their ties to the earth, Egyptians were able to take advantage of the unique conditions of the Nile river, and even though it never rained in Egypt, they were able to produce an overabundance of crops due to the annual flooding and irrigation systems. Again, there are some discrepancies between Dwarves and Egyptians, but alas, we probably won't find a perfect or near perfect match.
So, a new name and therefore identity for the dwarves. Since the Ancient Egyptian Language was lost long ago, we must make-do with Arabic, since that is the current language of the Egyptians, although they use an egyptian slang version of Arabic. Here are some names I came up with: Tarib Nass or Tarib Sa"b, which means earthy people; Jandal Nass/Sa"b, which means "stone people", Hajar Karim which is "precious stone". Al in arabic is of, so we could also do something like Sa"b al jandal, or people of stone. This has a certain depth to it that I personally like. Of course to shorten it we would do something like Sabal'jandian or something of the like. But the basis of the name would be Sa"b al Jandal. (Note: this is just the romanization of the arabic so that, you know, we actually understand it) This is all I could come up with atm because the translator I'm using is limited (it's very hard to find an arabic dictionary that's free or a translator that does english -> arabic with english pronunciation). And again, if anyone else has ideas on the name or the civilization, feel free to post them. The names don't have to be originated from the language of the civilization, but it does add a nice touch to it. Oh, dwarf in Egyptian Arabic is Qu'zah, and in Arabic is Qazam, both are nice representations.
So we come to the humans. Ah the humans. Your stereotypical jack-of-all-trades. I was thinking about basing humans off Romans. Romans were a very versatile group due to their conquering many nations around them. They were able to gather all the technology and great minds that the various peoples had and use them for themselves. I think that this is a good fit for humans in general because the Romans were a rather diversified group. (more to come later)
#29
Posted 04 December 2008 - 03:18 PM

#30
Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:08 PM

I agree with Enoesiw's directive. We should go about discussing the races before we go any further. I would like to free up the Undead, Elves, and Aesheritham for further input. I didn't mean to be definitive about the nationalities that i affixed to them. And, looking back, I'm not so sure that I like the ones that they got put with. Granted, there is the connection between the Russian and the Japanese. That could work, since they are also next to the ocean and the attributes that the Japanese possess seem to fit. But maybe the Chinese would work? Or perhaps Mongolia. Heck, they even use the Russian alphabet there. But all those things aside. But the Elves and Undead, scratch the race pairs for them for now. Ill add more as I put more thought into it.