Base Design Brainstorming.

[gangsta]

Ok now since RK is working on the Geoscope for his thesis and the code isn't available yet on sourceforge let's talk about the Base design here. This is an initial brain storming session. So far I've made the base grid dynamically allocated so you can have bases of diffrent sizes. I also think that maybe we should have more than one floor to build on.

[ShadowHawk]

Have you created an XML outline for a base module?

 

There're a few parameters that should be in them (ie: what pic/texture to use, size, possibly function, etc.)

[red knight]

Have you created an XML outline for a base module?

 

There're a few parameters that should be in them (ie: what pic/texture to use, size, possibly function, etc.)

Dont think it should be necesary to do a XML file for that...

 

Greetings

Red Knight

[ShadowHawk]

Have you created an XML outline for a base module?

 

There're a few parameters that should be in them (ie: what pic/texture to use, size, possibly function, etc.)

Dont think it should be necesary to do a XML file for that...

 

Greetings

Red Knight

I guess it can be hardcoded fairly easy.

 

Equipment, on the other hand, is a different issue.

[Maverick]

are we talking variable cost for the size/levels of your base determined also by the area you are in? or is it more of base in such area has so many levels/so much area? Either method is fine by me, i just don't want it to be like apoc where there are only so many locations you can choose and it makes a huge difference what game you start playing because of the base design limits. (i can elaborate more on that if need-be) I like the idea.

[Fatal_Error]

ok here are my ideas on base stuff overally (mo like a hurricane than a brainstorm):

 

the base blueprint should vary in size and shape depending on the location. also the cost of the base should vary on time, location (how many people need to be moved away, the nature of the location) etc. player should be able to build bases into cities but with a lil difference. there should be like an option how big base u want to build in that city (smaller cities dont allow big bases eg) which would be good to minimize the casualties in that city in case of a terror mission (as i explained somewhere before the casualties in terror missions should also depend on the time it takes for you to arrive at the scene eg if it takes several hours then most people should be already dead => mo penalties to you => harder game ).

 

oh ok now im ready to recieve some

[Guest stewart]

Some ideas:

 

* Base map includes, outside ground above base. Not a two stage thing like XCOM2. (Maybe this idea sucks though, but I present it nonetheless)

* Access Tunnel, cost 50k, maint 1k, build time 1 day.

* Large Living Quarters, 2x2 holds 250 people, cost 6xLQ, maint 6xLQ, build time 2.5xLQ

* Large General Stores, 2x2 holds 250 space, cost 6xGS, maint 6xGS, build time 2.5xGS

* Large Workshop ditto

* Medical Center, holds 10 Soldiers, soldiers don't heal unless assigned (forces you to use sack more often)

* Training Center, holds 10 Soldiers, at end of months stats equal -Ceiling((Best stat of everyone + your stat)/2). The idea is the soldiers learnn from each other. It also simulates learning a lot early and that learning after that is slower, which is realistic. This provides a means for XCOM to "preserve their stats". Because of this soldiers can start out even s h i t t i e r.

* Security Center/ Choke point, Why wouldn't your bases have cameras all over the place so you can see where the intruders are; it's an old idea. Cameras can be shot by aliens. While we're at it, while the missile defense is an excellent choke point it can be improved on.

* Aliens Containment only holds live aliens of a species once that speices corpse has been researched, captured aliens die until so.

* repairing Aircraft and Tanks require allocation of engineers.

* have to buy aircraft fuel (this idea may suck also)

* have to build/by rounds for missile and fusion defense (this idea may suck also)

 

More if I think of them.

 

As for the program, it would be nice to have a build schedule like Civ has.

Purchasing and Transfering schedules with built-in conditonal logic.

[Maverick]

250 people in a 2x2 room? what exact scale are you using (2km x 2km?). That is a pretty big living quarter.

 

All the aliens in the game are capable of sustaining themselves in the same environment. Also captured live aliens dying will really tick me off. (if that research is difficult to obtain, and the alien is even harder to capture.) Apoc I went for alien gas and had to catch a popper alive....that was so freakin hard. (only thing harder was catching the queen) Basically I think that once you research any dead aliens you can sustain them all. If you really want to do something to get into it, alien containment should be a research topic opened by researching the first dead alien you find.

 

I don't think aliens should waste bullets shooting cameras. If it were designed like that I think that you should have to have someone manning the station to reap the benefits...oh, and the aliens should be gunning for that with blasterbombs if it means they have to take down walls to get there (they shouldn't bother shooting cameras...)

 

I'm working on some ideas to post...watching TV about the shuttle exploding, hard to think.

[Guest stewart]

Well a 1x1 holds 50 a 2x2 should hold at least 200. Remove the walls in between to hold 50 more. From a game point of view it has to be better than 4 singles or else why would you build it?

 

I can go for a research alien invironmental needs thing in the UFOpaedia if it is otherwise is too hard.

 

As for a base security system, well, however we want to probram the AI is how it will go. The security station can be automated and distrubes signals to soldiers Com Headsets.

[Breunor]

When it comes to the size of facilities, I like the idea of having up to 2 stories in the base, and the hangars have to be 2 stories tall. It gives your aircraft room to take off and taxi. You could then have other facilities next to it, maybe with windows on the second story looking down into the hanger. Then your soldiers could snipe intruders entering that way.

 

The access lift would also be 2 stories high, with a stop at the second story on its way to the lower floor. It would also make sense that general stores would be next to the hanger for ease of moving heavy equipment("pardon me while I move this tank through the messhall guys!"), but that may be a bit picky.

 

Having an outside portion to the base during combat would be nice, especially for mods or multiplayer use in the future. Any base defenses could be visible from there, as well as openings for the hangers or hanger doors. Perhaps if you're attacking the base you'd have to blast your way through those doors to gain access.

 

What about a goal other than completely destroying a base? If everybody designs the base layout to isolate the hangers and access lift, and aliens can't get in past that point, I'd be looking at those aircraft and thinking timered detonation! If your interceptors are hit with a blaster launcher it could take some damage, and in multiplayer/mod versions it could be the attackers primary objective-destroy their ability to leave their base, and kill anybody who objects as well.

[GutterMonkey]

Well the first base you get shouldn't be so horribly designed as the one you get in XCOM 1, with the three hangers makeing up that 'triangle', and basicly distroying chokepoints.

 

I like the idea of a security cam system, but i'd be cool to have automated defences too. Perhaps this could be handled by not being represnted as an actual structure with a fixed price, but instead has a price that is varyible. Something along the lines of 5K per square that has been used, and +1K to the matenace costs of all structures. Then when you want to expand your base, each new construction costs that 5K extra, and has 1K more matanence. There could also be different kinds of auto defences, like haveing an atuo cannon type in the begining, and then something based off the heavy laser, and finnaly off the heavy plasma.

 

Research prerequisites could be motion scanners, and then perhaps something more after that.

 

To use the auto defences, maybie there could be a terminal in every liveing quarters that, if you place a trooper there, and then use all his TU's on the terminal, allows you to directly control the auto turruets. Otherwise, perhaps they will only have some kind of 'reaction fire' with thier full load of TU's, but depends on a medicore reaction score provided by the weapon's targeting sensors when not directly controlled.

 

Also one thing I want to be able to build is hallways. Cheap, perhaps as low as 2K, with a build time of 1 or 2 days, and matanince really cheap, around 1K as well. These could make it easer to set up new bases faster, as well as allowing your base defenders a :uzzi: 'free fire zone' :uzzi: where you don't have to worry about anything you blow up, beacuse it's ont going to hurt you bases operation....assumeing that things you blow up in the battle scape have any real effect on your base in the geoscape. Also, once it becomes more convenent to have something other then a hallway in that spot, you wouldn't even have to deal with dismatleing it, and the associated costs, beacuse then you could build right over them. Maybie even with a bouns such as -X days contstuction time. I'd make sence, seeing as the space was already excivated, the tunnel reinforced, and the whole thing wired. Mundane and less then glamorious tasks like that probably chew up a lot of the contruction time, with that shiny new HyperWave Decoder's instilation takeing only the last few days.

 

This as well as the obvious ease for choke point creation, especially when combined with automated defences makes the humble hallway, at least to my thinking, potentally a real good addition to Xenocide, and wouldn't be there just for the sake of being there.

 

Of course to balance off the nearly impenitrible fortress that this would naturally turn all XCOM bases into, perhaps repair bills and reconstruction time could be added to make an attact upon even the most heavily fortifyed base something that no compitent commander will take lightly. Property damage may not be a concern when the stuff gettin' blowed up belongs to civilians or the enemy, but when you own stuff start explodeing it's a bad thing. :whatwhat:

[jfranzen]

Just another idea:

 

Lockable Doors. Forces the invaders to expend TUs and ammo putting a hole in it...

 

Also:

 

I know the ultimate goal is to have a gridless, free-form base, but is that something we want to do for 1.0 or 2.0?

 

And as far as 2 story bases, well, that's already in XCOM 1. Or did you mean having each facility have 2 stories, and two levels of facilities? Just wanted to clear that up...

 

J^2

[red knight]

I know the ultimate goal is to have a gridless, free-form base, but is that something we want to do for 1.0 or 2.0?

We had proposed to do it gridless cause if you stick to grid then its difficult to change that to be gridless so thats a definitly V1.0 feature (and we already know it is not only feasible, but it gives you a lot more freedom in strategy)... About FreeForm bases dont think in the V1.0, thats going too much away from the original idea...

 

Greetings

Red Knight

[jfranzen]

So, we'll just build the assets (facilities) to a set size to make it seem like there's a grid, but in reality, the size of the base will be determined by the assets, right?

[red knight]

So, we'll just build the assets (facilities) to a set size to make it seem like there's a grid, but in reality, the size of the base will be determined by the assets, right?

Yeap... Thats the idea.. provided that right now the size of 1x1 facilities is the same in width and height... the tall of the building is a free variable you can work with it as much as you want...

 

Greetings

Red Knight

[Maverick]

In x-com one a 1x1 structure was 9 squares squared (or approx 9mx9m) and a large facility (being a hanger) was 19x19. I think that since we are leaving the tile system we ought to design everything graphically so that it looks good, and worry about the measurements a bit later. (the unit scale we design in doesn't necessarily have to coincide with the unit scale in the game...we just have to make sure we include something in an SDK release that has our 1x1x1 cube so that mods can make their models the right size).

[gangsta]

I know the ultimate goal is to have a gridless, free-form base, but is that something we want to do for 1.0 or 2.0?

We had proposed to do it gridless cause if you stick to grid then its difficult to change that to be gridless so thats a definitly V1.0 feature (and we already know it is not only feasible, but it gives you a lot more freedom in strategy)... About FreeForm bases dont think in the V1.0, thats going too much away from the original idea...

 

Greetings

Red Knight

I'm for doing both. Just have both GridBase and FreeFormBase inherit from Base. I also like long hallways and all. Still the FreeForm base editor could be a pain to code and make user friendly.

[gangsta]

might also be a good place to use polymorphic code

[red knight]

A lot of facitilities will be tied to that, lets use polymorphic code, but i dont think the integration would be easy... let alone modification...

 

Greetings

Red Knight

[Guest stewart]

Free form is a interesting idea, but let's put it in v>1.0. Using a grid makes it, A LOT easier. This is similar to the UFOpaedia = pretend internet (nifty idea but let's make it v>1.0).

 

Of course we can revisit these decisions if we reach a critical mass of project members.

[gangsta]

I agree with stewy mainly because the freeform base editor will be alot of work. Otherwise, it probably wouldn't make much of a diffrence since in the grid design rooms would still be somewhat freeform style just set to default dimentions. The grid base editor will be easy to design (suggested 3 dimentional grid instead of 2 dimentional grid). Once we have someone who has the time to design the free form editor both are as easy to implement codewise. The Base Data probably would be the same format or at least should be.

 

As for the X-Net thing I think it has just been badly explained but is something I've been suggesting to do before but I just said merge interfaces. things like the store interface would just have a link maybe named view that would bring up the same interface that the ufopedia would use to display an object.

[Maverick]

since we're discussing difficulty -- how difficult will it be to make the proposed transitions? If we design them one way it might take us another 2 years to remake them the other way.

[gangsta]

Not difficult at all. The facilities will still be like a room in quake or whatever 3D game either way. The thing that makes the freeform base harder to do is implementing an editor that lets you design such a base. that editor could take forever to write.

[jfranzen]

Well, we could always make the layout of the base asset dependant. ie. for each facility, there is a connecting corridor for each of the 4 cardinal directions, N, E, S, W. As long as all the base facilities are designed so they can link via these corridors, than the layout could be fairly free-form (meaning not grid based). So, as long as the assets are designed to insure they will fit together, then we shouldn't need a grid, right? I'd attach an image to show you what I mean, but attachments don't seem to be working...

 

J^2

[Markyj]

Just my 2 cents worth...

 

Why not make the base SEEM like it's free form by reducing the size of the blocks? In other words, in XCOM 1 all objects are either 1x1 or 2x2. IE; a Hanger is 2x2. What I'm proposing is allowing the base to LOOK like it's free-form by allowing certain building types to reduce down to smaller than 1x1 in size. If you look at the detailed size of the 1x1 LAB space, for instance - you see that it's really about 20 meters by 20 meters (roughly - it's tough to get a decent scale from XCOM 1). SO - what if you increased the resolution of the map to 2 meters by 2 meters and allowed certain types of base add-ons to be in increments of this new size? This means you 'zone' sections of the map to be certain things and it figures out how many scientists or techs can actually fit in that space. Since 50 scientists can fit into 1 20x20 lab, it would take 100 2x2 lab based 'tiles' to make the same space as a normal lab. The beauty is, however, these lab tiles could pretty much be scattered anywhere in the base you have room.

 

Certain items, such as the turbo-lift (which I always thought was too large) and the Interceptor bays could be a fixed size to get around the obvious problem of fitting an interceptor into an 'L' shaped area. BUT - with this new system, the 'fixed' sized items would not necessarily always have to be a square shape.

 

This gets around the problems with pathing, etc that exist with free-form systems and allows you to keep the 'simpler' tiled based system for graphics.

 

An example of this smaller tile based system can be seen in the DUNGEON KEEPER game.

[gangsta]

Well this is basically a no choice thing now but it basically will have to be free form.

[demich]

I think that original UFO base concept was good. If we want a free form base building this only requires an ability to build corridors and rotete base segments. The base grid should also be more dense than this in original UFO. Base can also be multi-leveled.

[Guest stewart]

A freeform base means ALL battlescape maps are free form; that's gonna mean more headaches.

 

A good compromise might be this:

Ultimately the base is on a grid but that grid corresponds to the grid that soldiers can be located on. In regular XCOM the "grid" is every 10 squares. We can make it every square. Still a grid but perhaps "close enough" to free form.

[red knight]

A finer grid has its disadvantages in gameplay if the facilities size is static... if we stick to finer degree in the grid, free form facilities is the way to go... But i agree it will only headaches for a slight game mechanics change... I should stick to a standard degree with multilevel facilities, but it is not only my call...

 

Greetings

Red Knight

[Guest stewart]

Not unless you have facilies + variable "fill".

 

I think absoulte free form for v1.0 is a bad idea. Why don't we discuss if the finer grid idea would be a workable alternative and compromise.

[red knight]

Not unless you have facilies + variable "fill".

 

I think absoulte free form for v1.0 is a bad idea.  Why don't we discuss if the finer grid idea would be a workable alternative and compromise.

Why i said it is a problem to have a finer grid with static facility size is that you can messed it up cause:

 

Suppose you have a 100x100 grid with facilities 10x10 (im just supposing to show the point)... then for example you put one facility between two 10x10 squares... then you lose two 5x10 squares because you put it in that way... easy as that...

 

Greetings

Red Knight

[gangsta]

Well as I PMed you stewy there is another reason why to do freeform.

[Guest stewart]

Not unless you have facilies + variable "fill".

 

I think absoulte free form for v1.0 is a bad idea.  Why don't we discuss if the finer grid idea would be a workable alternative and compromise.

Why i said it is a problem to have a finer grid with static facility size is that you can messed it up cause:

 

Suppose you have a 100x100 grid with facilities 10x10 (im just supposing to show the point)... then for example you put one facility between two 10x10 squares... then you lose two 5x10 squares because you put it in that way... easy as that...

 

Greetings

Red Knight

The 5x10 space is "filled in" say with 50 1x1 dirts.

 

For facilities sure we'd have, say, the 10x10 and 20x20 facilites.

 

We would also need access tunnel "facilities". Assuming we use the same ground floor maps. Then we'd need a 3x1 access tunnel section (without rotatable facilites then we need a 1x3 as well) and 4 1x1s representing diagonal access tunnel walls (or with rotation just one).

[Guest stewart]

Well as I PMed you stewy there is another reason why to do freeform.

Replied you and CCed RK with it.

[red knight]

The 5x10 space is "filled in" say with 50 1x1 dirts.

 

For facilities sure we'd have, say, the 10x10 and 20x20 facilites.

 

We would also need access tunnel "facilities". Assuming we use the same ground floor maps. Then we'd need a 3x1 access tunnel section (without rotatable facilites then we need a 1x3 as well) and 4 1x1s representing diagonal access tunnel walls (or with rotation just one).

Yeap, and that was what i was trying to avoid.

 

Greetings

Red Knight

[obijuan]

what about maintainance personell???

 

and what if the aliens reached alien containment???( couls be a priority on attack mission ) maybe free thei pals??? or capture equipment from your stores ( or demolish them so you loos e your equipment....just some ideas

[gangsta]

I'm sure the aliens won't be playable in V1.0 too hard of a balancing act.

[gangsta]

As far as the base design goes it sounds like it might be harder to do gridwise if you have 50 diffrent size of facilities than it would do in a somewhat more freeform style. For an initial freeform base editor we could use some basic shapes and lay them on a plane that represents the bottom level. To add a new facility you just choose a side of one of the previous shapes to connect a new shape to. This kind of base editor isn't exactly a CAD program and shouldn't be too hard to implement. What do you think RK? Anyway the base is shown in an isometric view where you can scroll back and forth on the plane using the cursor keys and you can highlight the side you want to add a facility to with the mouse.

[gangsta]

BTW what about letting somebody design their initial base instead of designing it for them? Give them more money to build the base and perhaps for first time players open up a dialog stating how much is recomended that they spend on the intial base money wise.

[red knight]

If we first restrict them to be square, like a finer degree grid with the idea of future improvement is ok for me... it is just i dont want to jump to the void, with that desition (we could get in trouble implementing it)... about the initial layout, it is a good idea, suppose you have your a standard base (like in the old one) but they give you the components, you just arrange them. Thats a good compromise to do not change too much game mechanics...

 

Greetings

Red Knight

[gangsta]

When I first thought about this kind of freeform editor I thought about using box shapes only to represent the rooms to start out with. Squares are pretty close to that idea. It would be nice to be able to have long hallways because that first base in the original wouldn't have been too bad if there were hallways from the hangers to the central part of the base. tunnels like that would be a good Idea I think with the possibility of being to build a facility over it eventually. Something like

#

MMM

MMM####

MMM

#

#

#

#

HHH

HHH

HHH

 

being improved to with # being a hallway

 

#

MMM

MMM####

MMM

#

SSSS

SSSS

#

HHH

HHH

HHH

 

The idea about being able to start out with default rooms is also good. Especially if we allow people to build hallways between rooms

[red knight]

You have to add some contraint on tubes, like max 3 squares long to avoid and easy defense base like:

 

SSS

SSS###############################ZZZZZZZZ

SSS

 

S = Main Entrance

Z = Rest of the base

 

EDIT: If i add more Zs the graphics look awful...

[demich]

Hmm posiblle explanation: making long and thin corridors increases the chance of collapse (base is underground). The X-com engieneeres realized that maximum of how long corridor can be is X(put the amount;)

[LordT]

Hmm posiblle explanation: making long  and thin corridors increases the chance of collapse (base is underground).  The X-com engieneeres realized that maximum of how long corridor can be is X(put the amount;)

I dont see that thats an issue here... the risk for collapse with the technology used nowadays is close to zero, if the builder doesnt cheat . Just think of how big old coal mines are.

[Guest stewart]

Shall we just make a list of ALL the things that are being considered for V1.0. As group they CAN NOT ALL be realized in two years.

 

Personally for v1.0, we should just go with the Coarse Grid as the real game is. But, I suggested a finer grid as a doable compromise. Other than base facilites, with rotation you need only 3 "facilities" not 50. Without rotation you need 7 "facilites" not 50.

 

We can't have ALL the discussed things for v1.0 in two years. We have to pick what keep and what to defer to the future.

[gangsta]

You have to add some contraint on tubes, like max 3 squares long to avoid and easy defense base like:

 

SSS

SSS###############################ZZZZZZZZ

SSS

 

S = Main Entrance

Z = Rest of the base

 

EDIT: If i add more Zs the graphics look awful...

Sure I thought about that too. There other possible solutions like each tunnel would have an electronic blast proof door at each end of it. And/Or if a tunnel is too long you could have the aliens choose to go into the ventilation system and then they come out at various locations of the base.

[gangsta]

Shall we just make a list of ALL the things that are being considered for V1.0.  As group they CAN NOT ALL be realized in two years.

 

Personally for v1.0, we should just go with the Coarse Grid as the real game is. But, I suggested a finer grid as a doable compromise.  Other than base facilites, with rotation you need only 3 "facilities" not 50.  Without rotation you need 7 "facilites" not 50.

 

We can't have ALL the discussed things for v1.0 in two years.  We have to pick what keep and what to defer to the future.

2 Years is just a guess and at the speed the coding at this time is going I would up that to 3 years because nobody is coding right now and honestly nobody is doing much designing either. As for the finer grid that sounds harder to do than this simple free form method being described. Also another thing to consider is the finer the grid is the less userfriendly it is. quite frankly I don't think it would be fun having a 50x50 grid on the screen to build in. That just will seem too complex to me as the user and I'm sure you not talking doing a 3 x 3 grid or 7 x 7 grid because the original grid was 6 x 6. The freeform method described would actually be alot more userfriendly than the complex grid would be. you start out with a service lift like

LLL

LLL

LLL

you then click on the build button get a window with facilities to choose from at a cost. you click one and then you click a side of the Lift facility you want to add to. and say you were adding a missile facility you get

LLLMMM

LLLMMM

LLLMMM

[Guest stewart]

Translating a free form base into battlescape will be a nightmare problem. Using a fine grid is no harder than SIM CITY, or Dungeon Keeper or Warcraft. But if we just /can't/ have a fine grid then I vote for course grid for v1.0. Or are you planning to write the free form battlescape and network layer and whatever else yourself in two years?

[Afflicted]

Umm.... I only have to say one thing, why do the bases only have 1 floor?

[gangsta]

Translating a free form base into battlescape will be a nightmare problem.  Using a fine grid is no harder than SIM CITY, or Dungeon Keeper or Warcraft.  But if we just /can't/ have a fine grid then I vote for course grid for v1.0.  Or are you planning to write the free form battlescape and network layer and whatever else yourself in two years?

I really don't see why translating a free form base into a battlescape would be a nightmare because the free form base could be an exact representation of the rooms in the battlescape. Afterall the battlescape itself will be freeform so having a freeform representation of the base battlescape could be the actual representation of the base. It's 3D data afterall. Anyway, why are you asking me if I want to make a free form base by myself and making it seem like that my responsibility is solely with the network layer. I'm just expressing my opinion and the network layer is not the only thing I want to work on at on this project. The network layer once worked on won't take that much time to make. As for what someone works on in this project I think it is more a voluntary thing than a vote based you have to do it thing. Both FreeFormBase and GridBase can be implemented for this project since they both would be classes inheriting from Base. That was the original suggestion and I was for making the GridBase first before I thought it would be safer to do the FreeFormBase first since that isn't exactly the same interface as the original had. I thought up of an easy way to implement a freeform base editor which would only have boxshapes to start with to define the base. I really don't think doing that is such a hard thing and IMO easier to do than a grid editor that has a very fine grid. Anyway, what exactly makes you think translating a free form base into a free form battlescape is such a nightmare? Maybe if you gave the technical reason I might see your point of view but so far I don't see what would exactly make it a nightmare.