• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

[Other/Mechanics] Unit Movement/Placement

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
I'm not following any suggested format, as I don't think they cover all areas of my idea...

/!\ Please read the appendixes, they contain important information not present in the main article, as well as some adjustments to the original idea /!\

Background
Since the game is starting afresh, every detail can be analysed and redesigned. One of the unique features of Dungeon Keeper was it's approach to unit movement/placement. You could pick up and plop down any unit anywhere on your land. This was something different and it worked quite well, except, I found most of the time every single creature was dropped at any conflict, something which I hated, this was exacerbated in DKII when the number of creatures you could carry on-hand was practically infinite.

In traditional RTS games, unit movement is more of a instructional go-here, go-there situation. You never directly interfaced with the movement of your units, you just set it and forget it. Most of the time, this works well, and that's why pretty much ever RTS game today does it. The problem with it, if you set a target and no creatures are nearby to respond it creates the huge waiting time for your so-called first-response brigade to actually get there. When they do, the targets have probably already moved on...

Summary
I thought, well, I like both types... is there some way I could combine the two without having the spammy-approach of Dungeon Keeper, and the boring "the very walls yawn with anticipation" movement of traditional RTS games. Well, yes. Yes I can. The idea is pretty simple, warp-ports.

Details
Warp-ports would be structures something akin to traps. They'd probably be a early game tech, if not in the initial inventory. The function of a warp port is simply to allow units to teleport to any other warp-port. So it allows first-responders to get to situations fast, whilst removing the spammy nature of Dungeon Keeper's drag and drop type interface.

Creatures would pile-in one by one, and exit one by one. There would be a very small cool-down between each warp (we're talking a couple of seconds, if that). Potentially, if you're allowing for upgradable tech, then Lv2 warp-ports would allow squad warping (warping multiple creatures at once).

Appearance
Well, I don't have anything specific in mind, but some ideas in my head were a floating crystal that would zap creatures with a spell. Then the receiving warp-port would zap them into existence again with something that looked like a lightening bolt but at very short range. The alternative was to have something that looked like a podium; creatures walk on to the podium and fade-out/fade-in between the warp-ports.

I'll leave concept art up to actual artists!

Appendix A
And after posting this I realised that I forgot to mention that basic unit movement here would be switched to a traditional RTS type. So select units, point and click and they'll make their way. You could still have the same on-hand type interface (select highest level creatures from each of the three categories working/idle/fighting). So don't worry about not being able to find creatures on the map.

Appendix B
As a response to some feedback, I believe I didn't make it clear that warp-ports can only be used when the player gives direct orders to creatures. So warp-ports will not be used by creatures if they are going about their usual business, picking up wages, heading to their lairs. The only situation it can be used in is the same situation you would use the Hand of Evil to pick up and drop creatures. Yes, it can be used to direct creatures to their pay-check quickly if you select every creature one-by-one and give them the order to go to the treasury. Assuming there is no select all button, this shouldn't be easily abused. In theory.

Appendix C
Creature behaviour is not affected by this system! Creatures retain all their free-will up until the point where they're called into service exactly like the Hand of Evil approach it's just a different means to the same ends.

I think the misconception is born of the fact I used "traditional RTS" in the description. This refers only to the point and click move system of RTS games, and does not interfere with anything outside of forcing creatures to move. It is simply removing the pick up and drop aspect and replacing with creatures make their way to a location on-foot. A creature still retains the ability to flee, disobey, leave the battle, etcetera; as they would with the Hand of Evil approach.

Please give me feedback on what you think about this idea. Also if you want, give me feedback on the presentation of my idea so I can refine it/change things around if it's unclear.
 
Likes: Safewood

Hugo

Concept Artist
Brightrock Games
Nov 14, 2011
290
88
265
35
Spain
#2
I agree with lots of things. Picking system is capital for micromanaging (or just managing) the creatures, but I never really liked huge creature drops for battle. Also the call to arms spell seemed a bit limited to me. The problem I see with your scheme is that probably teleporters end up being used for managing units in dungeon (allowing creatures that hate others to easily avoid their lairs, placing some teleporters at the treasure room to shorten payday travels, same at hatchery, etc...) Dungeon can end up filled with those.
What do you think about chains of "waypoints" and "rally points" (With a chain I mean like when in starcraft you shift+click), so you can gather creatures in one spot, then the group heads to next waypoint. They can be used as spells, as not to be abused.
 

MeinCookie

Dwarven Worker
Nov 15, 2011
194
50
25
24
#3
This is a successor for Dungeon Keeper, it wouldn't be right to change it. I always loved the interface and its one of the things that sets it apart. Units are no longer merely hollow extensions of you, but creature which have a high degree of free-will. This makes command a challenge and it is one of the keystones of this type of game.

If you want to play a traditional RTS, you can go and play any single other RTS out there.
 

Hugo

Concept Artist
Brightrock Games
Nov 14, 2011
290
88
265
35
Spain
#4
Sure, I also hope the hand/picking system still be used, was awesome, just not suited for battle. No other RTS allows you to carve dungeons, so I'll stick with my all time favorite game, even if I can see some flaws in it ;). Maybe allowing of "call to arms" chains to guide your army while at the same time allowing small groups to be picked? I don't know I haven't really thought of this a lot, but something can be worked out that keeps all the coolness we all love.
 
#5
This is a successor for Dungeon Keeper, it wouldn't be right to change it. I always loved the interface and its one of the things that sets it apart. Units are no longer merely hollow extensions of you, but creature which have a high degree of free-will. This makes command a challenge and it is one of the keystones of this type of game.

If you want to play a traditional RTS, you can go and play any single other RTS out there.
It's only a spiritual successor. The IP is actually nothing to do with Dungeon Keeper beyond having a similar over-arching theme. Changing individual mechanics is a part of the evolution of a game, if you want a copy and paste Dungeon Keeper game, then this isn't the place for you.

Change isn't something to be scared of, Dungeon Keeper was not a perfect game, and WFTO is a great chance to take the soul of Dungeon Keeper and mix it up into a completely unique game -- even something as fundamental as the Hand of Evil. In the first post, I listed one of the flaws of the Hand of Evil approach, and I did say it was a defining feature of Dungeon Keeper. But this is not Dungeon Keeper, and we have the flexibility to start anew and think of our own ideas!

Also, your point about them having free-will is completely irrelevant (the plucking hand is actually a removal of that free will in the same way giving a command is, only one is direct manipulation and the other is implied) -- in real life (I hate using these types of examples, but it's necessary), we issue orders to troops (who have free will) and the troops will make their way to objectives. No magic hand to pick 'em up and plonk 'em down.

Sorry to come across aggressive, but it's annoying when somebody comes along and attacks an idea based on some pre-conception they have about how they think the game should be, rather than providing constructive criticism and tangible feedback.

I agree with lots of things. Picking system is capital for micromanaging (or just managing) the creatures, but I never really liked huge creature drops for battle. Also the call to arms spell seemed a bit limited to me. The problem I see with your scheme is that probably teleporters end up being used for managing units in dungeon (allowing creatures that hate others to easily avoid their lairs, placing some teleporters at the treasure room to shorten payday travels, same at hatchery, etc...) Dungeon can end up filled with those.
What do you think about chains of "waypoints" and "rally points" (With a chain I mean like when in starcraft you shift+click), so you can gather creatures in one spot, then the group heads to next waypoint. They can be used as spells, as not to be abused.
That's a good point, but I think I didn't make it clear that warp-ports could only be used when creatures are given direct orders to move, so in normal dungeon traversal, creatures would have to walk the full journey. So, yes, whilst it could be used to shorten pay-day travels, it would still require you to select all creatures one by one and then direct them to the treasury. Assuming there is no select all button, this couldn't really be easily abused I don't think...

I'll add this information into an appendix in the first post. Great start to the feedback by the way, please keep it coming.
 
Nov 18, 2011
36
6
5
28
#6
Why pay for a trap when you can pick up creatures from anywere This game thou an RTS is also a simulation game and a god game (your spells put you on par with Demigods Like the Avatar in the first game). The stun I think is a callenge for combat and try spreding out your creatures instead of droping them all in one place. One tactic I found is put most of your creatures in the frount and some in the back to cut off their escape normally works best in your territory being unmolested by enemy imps. Dungeon Keeper is about maniging your dungeon and the care of your creatures not some other RTS were you just tell every one to just stand there and wait. Your forgeting Creature managment (hunger, pay, food, etc) and I like the idea of beings who act on their own but still follow you (monsters may be evil but they do know loalty). Don't get me wrong I love playing RTS games I do so most of the time but I like the unique controls for this game and I won't like to see it change for adding an unorginal controll sceam that I use most of the time. The only thing that should change is the creatures, rooms, and traps not the controls.
 
Likes: Bukke Bruse

MeinCookie

Dwarven Worker
Nov 15, 2011
194
50
25
24
#7
It's only a spiritual successor. The IP is actually nothing to do with Dungeon Keeper beyond having a similar over-arching theme. Changing individual mechanics is a part of the evolution of a game, if you want a copy and paste Dungeon Keeper game, then this isn't the place for you.

Change isn't something to be scared of, Dungeon Keeper was not a perfect game, and WFTO is a great chance to take the soul of Dungeon Keeper and mix it up into a completely unique game -- even something as fundamental as the Hand of Evil. In the first post, I listed one of the flaws of the Hand of Evil approach, and I did say it was a defining feature of Dungeon Keeper. But this is not Dungeon Keeper, and we have the flexibility to start anew and think of our own ideas!

Also, your point about them having free-will is completely irrelevant (the plucking hand is actually a removal of that free will in the same way giving a command is, only one is direct manipulation and the other is implied) -- in real life (I hate using these types of examples, but it's necessary), we issue orders to troops (who have free will) and the troops will make their way to objectives. No magic hand to pick 'em up and plonk 'em down.

Sorry to come across aggressive, but it's annoying when somebody comes along and attacks an idea based on some pre-conception they have about how they think the game should be, rather than providing constructive criticism and tangible feedback.

I would guess my 'preconceptions' are mite more accurate than yours because I have been following this project closely for over two years, across many forms, and let me tell you that it is EXACTLY a successor for Dungeon Keeper.

It started off as Natural Born Keeper, a project to create a 3D version of Dungeon Keeper 1. I wasn't really around for that, but I had heard of it, followed it indirectly. It then changed and became War far the Overworld, a fan-made sequel to both Dungeon Keepers with a few new features and extra units. In case you didn't know the official DK 3 was going to be called that before it was cancelled and they abandoned that name (Saying the IP is unconnected is ludicrous). About a month ago, in the interest of avoiding lawsuits and possibly being able distribute it through games platforms such as steam, they stripped out all DK creatures. That is merely a superficial difference, their position has not dramatically changed and the goal is the same. After 11 years since DK 2, 13 since DK 1, people want a true successor to the franchise. They don't want another Dungeons, another game that pisses over DK's legacy. The aim is to revive its basic game-play and add to it - not go back and mess with its core mechanics.

How many standard generic RTS games have we had in the last decade? I doubt any among the people who have supported and contributed to this project for any length of time, who have seen it finally blossom into the project it is today want to see it turn into "Dungeoncraft", "Rise of Keepers" or "Age of Dungeons".

I can assure you that while this is only a 'spiritual successor' to Dungeon Keeper, its a spiritual successor that takes that responsibility seriously rather than using it as a cheap tag-line.

Change isn't something to be scared of, Dungeon Keeper was not a perfect game, and WFTO is a great chance to take the soul of Dungeon Keeper and mix it up into a completely unique game -- even something as fundamental as the Hand of Evil. In the first post, I listed one of the flaws of the Hand of Evil approach, and I did say it was a defining feature of Dungeon Keeper. But this is not Dungeon Keeper, and we have the flexibility to start anew and think of our own ideas!
Again, people don't want more Dungeons. Throwing a spanner in the works just to see what happens, without any vision or real need... well quite frankly why? You are more than likely just to end up with a hybrid cobbled-together PoS that doesn't work.

Also, your point about them having free-will is completely irrelevant (the plucking hand is actually a removal of that free will in the same way giving a command is, only one is direct manipulation and the other is implied) -- in real life (I hate using these types of examples, but it's necessary), we issue orders to troops (who have free will) and the troops will make their way to objectives. No magic hand to pick 'em up and plonk 'em down.
In a generic RTS units just stand there, waiting to be moved. Where is the free will in that? Where is the realism in that? Only if you're commanding robots. Psssh.

The difference between using the hand and moving units by selection... is that the standard RTS means is directly overuling free will. 'Order by Hand' is different because it isn't exerting direct control over their behaviour, overruling it. By physically picking up a rabbit, and moving it to another enclosure, its free will is not actually effected, it just doesn't have a say in the matter. The Hand of Evil being the only way to move units is an in-universe realism factor.

I say there is nothing wrong with making the game more challenging. Direct control makes things far too easy for the player, it coddles them. Real generals never have direct control over anything.

Sorry to come across aggressive, but it's annoying when somebody comes along and attacks an idea based on some pre-conception they have about how they think the game should be, rather than providing constructive criticism and tangible feedback.
I think it should be pretty clear why I'm being a bit aggressive too ;), I do apologise. You can't make constructive criticism if you hold a polar opposite ideology. My statement stands, you want to play a standard RTS then be my guest and go play one. The unique and different control schemes that exist in established game series like Dungeon Keeper and Close Combat are refreshing and helped provide diversity and breadth within the genre. In past years this vital position hasn't been filled because big developers are too often stuck in their mindset and unwilling to shell out money on anything different and the game industry has stagnated.

I'm sorry if I was negative, sorry if I'm more negative now, but this is really a pet hate of mine. I don't like to be negative, obviously you've put more work into this setting out this suggestion than the standard fair, but this is a Dungeon Keeper game by another name, so by being a staple of DK it remains a staple of this.

This game thou an RTS is also a simulation game and a god game (your spells put you on par with Demigods Like the Avatar in the first game).
The thing you aren't taking into account. That is soul of Dungeon Keeper. You can't rip out the soul and place it in a quasi-strategy control scheme without leaving behind its unique and charming qualities.

Furthermore with two clashing control schemes at work, you're going to overcomplicate it. Moving units around, re-tasking them and dropping them in to battle should be so easy and commonsensical that it comes naturally and you don't have to think about it.
 

Hugo

Concept Artist
Brightrock Games
Nov 14, 2011
290
88
265
35
Spain
#8
Standing out of this "aggressive" thing, wich I don't support, I still think Dungeon Keeper has flaws, especially when driving creatures to battle. I also liked my creatures free will and think that has to be preserved, that was not irrelevant at all, but look at call to arms. Wasn't this a point order? And critters were still free, as its not point exact but creatures find their way naturally and once there they keep lurking around the spot searching for enemys. So the hand of evil was not the only way to move creatures. You also had that barracks thing that never got to work as intended.This warp-port system is not really a great idea, but pointed out things that not everyone were comfortable with.
In my opinion, flaws should be reworked. And I dont' think it's fair for someone to say that his opinion is worth more than mine because he's being posting in a forum for some amount of time. I have just started posting here, but I also knew nbk and followed wfto. I played DK I and II since the year they came out, and as I've stated it's my favourite game. I've even tried myself to put together a dk-like game (wich never finished).
As I've suggested, maybe battle-commanding spells should be given a bit of a twist.
 
#9
THIS POST IS UNFINISHED, DO NOT REPLY TO IT DIRECTLY. I HAD TO LEAVE BEFORE I COULD FINISH IT AND I WILL FINISH IT WHEN I RETURN.

I would guess my 'preconceptions' are mite more accurate than yours because I have been following this project closely for over two years, across many forms, and let me tell you that it is EXACTLY a successor for Dungeon Keeper.

It started off as Natural Born Keeper, a project to create a 3D version of Dungeon Keeper 1. I wasn't really around for that, but I had heard of it, followed it indirectly. It then changed and became War far the Overworld, a fan-made sequel to both Dungeon Keepers with a few new features and extra units. In case you didn't know the official DK 3 was going to be called that before it was cancelled and they abandoned that name (Saying the IP is unconnected is ludicrous). About a month ago, in the interest of avoiding lawsuits and possibly being able distribute it through games platforms such as steam, they stripped out all DK creatures. That is merely a superficial difference, their position has not dramatically changed and the goal is the same. After 11 years since DK 2, 13 since DK 1, people want a true successor to the franchise. They don't want another Dungeons, another game that pisses over DK's legacy. The aim is to revive its basic game-play and add to it - not go back and mess with its core mechanics.

[...]

I can assure you that while this is only a 'spiritual successor' to Dungeon Keeper, its a spiritual successor that takes that responsibility seriously rather than using it as a cheap tag-line.
Wow. You're calling into question my authority on the subject? You might have been following it for longer than me, but I have also been following it for years too, and I have equal ground to discuss any change I want. Changing core mechanics does not mean that the game is no longer a Dungeon Keeper game, I'm simply addressing flaws I see in the mechanics. I don't want to make an argument of this, but you clearly do because you think you have some authority.

Again, people don't want more Dungeons. Throwing a spanner in the works just to see what happens, without any vision or real need... well quite frankly why? You are more than likely just to end up with a hybrid cobbled-together PoS that doesn't work.
I'm not "throwing a spanner into the works to see what happens" I analysed the mechanic, I picked out what was good about it and what was bad about it, and I developed a solution that I think took the best of both worlds. Warp-ports allow you to move creatures across the map quickly, but doesn't allow for that spammy drop-all which often happened in Dungeon Keeper.

In a generic RTS units just stand there, waiting to be moved. Where is the free will in that? Where is the realism in that? Only if you're commanding robots. Psssh.

The difference between using the hand and moving units by selection... is that the standard RTS means is directly overuling free will. 'Order by Hand' is different because it isn't exerting direct control over their behaviour, overruling it. By physically picking up a rabbit, and moving it to another enclosure, its free will is not actually effected, it just doesn't have a say in the matter. The Hand of Evil being the only way to move units is an in-universe realism factor.

I say there is nothing wrong with making the game more challenging. Direct control makes things far too easy for the player, it coddles them. Real generals never have direct control over anything.
In the rabbit example you gave, it directly affected the free will of the rabbit, if the rabbit didn't want to go in the enclosure, he had no choice in the matter -- ergo no free will.

I think it should be pretty clear why I'm being a bit aggressive too ;), I do apologise. You can't make constructive criticism if you hold a polar opposite ideology. My statement stands, you want to play a standard RTS then be my guest and go play one. The unique and different control schemes that exist in established game series like Dungeon Keeper and Close Combat are refreshing and helped provide diversity and breadth within the genre. In past years this vital position hasn't been filled because big developers are too often stuck in their mindset and unwilling to shell out money on anything different and the game industry has stagnated.

I'm sorry if I was negative, sorry if I'm more negative now, but this is really a pet hate of mine. I don't like to be negative, obviously you've put more work into this setting out this suggestion than the standard fair, but this is a Dungeon Keeper game by another name, so by being a staple of DK it remains a staple of this.



The thing you aren't taking into account. That is soul of Dungeon Keeper. You can't rip out the soul and place it in a quasi-strategy control scheme without leaving behind its unique and charming qualities.

Furthermore with two clashing control schemes at work, you're going to overcomplicate it. Moving units around, re-tasking them and dropping them in to battle should be so easy and commonsensical that it comes naturally and you don't have to think about it.
 

Simburgur

Managing Director
Brightrock Games
Nov 10, 2011
2,864
1,979
725
26
Brighton, UK
www.twitter.com
#10
Simply put: We aren't going for a traditional RTS control system.

We are, however, going to improve on your interaction with creatures using some new combat-focused spells which affect creature AI and can be used anywhere on the map. Also, the hand of infinite holding is a thing of the past.

I just got up, so no long explanations from me right now! ;) If you have any questions about this specifically, post them and I'll come check this thread later when I'm not half asleep.

PS: Keep it civil!
 

MeinCookie

Dwarven Worker
Nov 15, 2011
194
50
25
24
#11
Wow. You're calling into question my authority on the subject?
Sorry to come across aggressive, but it's annoying when somebody comes along and attacks an idea based on some pre-conception they have about how they think the game should be, rather than providing constructive criticism and tangible feedback.
Sorry, I believe I was overly defensive and jumping at shadows. I guess I got the wrong inflections and read into bits of that comment too deeply. Extra: sleep deprivation and paranoia on teh interwebz :eek:!

I'm being a bit grumpy as this is a new forum, and new people haven't really found their feat as to the direction and background of this game. It looks all white and empty, like everything has just kicked off. In three days it'll have been 2 years since I started making suggestions for WftO, and it didn't have much hope back then. There has been at least 23 pages of suggestions, not including the older KK forum. WftO is a locomotive that has been building up steam for long-time, its just that now its suddenly burst out of the tunnel, that isn't visible to most who weren't loitering inside and spraying graffiti on the walls. Also the white hurts my eyes :confused:.

...

!

...

Anywho... nonetheless I have been closely involved in the suggestion section for a long time. I have seen the project grow and I have seen things shift. As you may or may not be aware, depending on whether you've played it, DK 1 had an limit of 8 objects in hand. At the time that discussion popped up, I recall that it was indicated a similar feature would be likely though the limit unspecified. General rule: the game takes more inspiration from DK 1 than 2. As such spamminess isn't as much of an issue. I probably could have started off with that. Okay, it will never attain the level of refined unit battle tactics and troop deployments enjoyed by other strategies, but then arguably that never was the point of this particular blend of strategy, god and sim.

I guess I don't need to say the things I was going to say about addressing problems with the simplest of possible solutions which remain truest to the game's spirit... no, no - I think you would stab me. You don't need me to. So I won't linger at all there other than to compliment Egg on his last statement...
 

Neros

Disciple
Dec 10, 2011
35
7
150
35
Denmark
#12
Thats allot of posts to go through. But here is my 5-cents about the topic:
I loved the way the pickup-and-drop system worked. It made Dungeon Keeper really stand out among the other RTS's. I never really had a problem with how it worked, but I do agree that having a handful of creatures could seem rather.. Something :p
But I also fear that if you become able to simply click the creatures around, they will seem much less free will which helped allot to give them "personality".. Hope we don't to much into that :p

How about allowing the keeper to issue commands to the creatures, but their will/instincts will usually always be the factor that will most likely take effect.

Keeper to Goblin (I seem to recal that goblins werent in the game or is that just me?)
Keeper: Attack the knight in shining armor..
Goblin: Uuhm, alone??
Keeper: YES!! Now GO!
Goblin: *looks at the knight towering over him*.... F**** this *runs*

Also, if there is a limit for the amount in the hand, couldn't there be resarches for that or do you want every keeper to be equal on that part of the game? Maybe add special "creatures", which swarm the hand, helping it picking stuff up? :D
 
#13
Please, for the love of all that is unholy, stop bringing free-will into this debate. It is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Creature behaviour is not affected by this system! Creatures retain all their free-will up until the point where they're called into service exactly like the Hand of Evil approach it's just a different means to the same ends.

If you give a creature a move command, they reach their destination and are stricken with fear, they will run away just as they would any other time. If a creature doesn't want to do a job for whatever reason, orders can be ignored! (Obviously, with the exception of Must Obey-esque conditions).
 
Nov 18, 2011
36
6
5
28
#16
Zuriki what do you mean that Free Will is irrelevent The creatures in the first game had free will and in the seconed game had free will. I would still like to see them doing things on their on accord not standing like a moron. The creatures have free will because it makes the dungeon look better that way and I like it. If your going to continue to argue that its "irrelevent" then stop right there before you try to suggest somthing that would screw the game over.
 
Nov 14, 2011
138
23
5
21
Delaware
#17
Lets all just stop.
A developer has already told us that we aren't changing the control system for a more typical one. Instead adding more combat oriented features to assist the Keeper. There is no need to continue arguing over something that has already been decided. Especially if you're going to do so with hostility. I understand and appreciate both sides of the argument, and I can see why this is a topic on which opinions differ extremely.
So if you wish to further argue, keep it civil.
 

MeinCookie

Dwarven Worker
Nov 15, 2011
194
50
25
24
#18
I don't believe it is an identical means to the same end. As I said, inuniverse realism factor. It makes perfect sense for a powerful, nigh omnipotent being to be able to magically move his hordes of darkness. Having no choice in a matter doesn't mean you have no free will. If a policemen locks you in cell, do you have free will? Yes, I believe that you do. The fact is that creatures do respond to being in the hand too long - they get angry. It was intended to be that way in DK 2, but it has lots of glitchs, bug and unfinished features. That is free will for you. Standard strategy controls don't hold the same appeal. They don't have a response except to go directly to that point; when you say, where you say and promptly because their free will has been overriden.

While they are both means to an end, they are very different means. That is my opinion, but I believe it is shared by many, and I believe it is relevant to the introduction of a second control system.
 

v0id

Programmer
Brightrock Games
Nov 18, 2011
2,428
1,008
580
Germany
#19
If you give a creature a move command, they reach their destination and are stricken with fear, they will run away just as they would any other time. If a creature doesn't want to do a job for whatever reason, orders can be ignored! (Obviously, with the exception of Must Obey-esque conditions).
This would be very frustrating for some players, then it's better to not have movement commands and think of creatures with a "free mind".

The "free-will" of the minions is actually one of the most important gameplay characteristc of a dungeon keeper.
In fact in wfto the creatures have to decide much more things "self-responsible" as in standard RTS games
and this is one big challenge for the developers to make them satisfy their own needs in an authentic and individual manner.
So in my opinion any command oriented movement would have an great negative impact on this feel of creatures as individuals.
And in my opinion the warp-ports don't fit good in the dungeon esthetic with all above mentioned problems.

I found most of the time every single creature was dropped at any conflict...
But this is a good point, so we may better work on a solution of this problem without destroying the "feel" of this game.
Just one rush thought proposal:
Why not making the hand of evil more and more "heavy" with each creature in it?
A "heavy hand" can only move slow. Means the weight would effect the scroll and mouse movement velocity on the screen in a linear way.
So you can not drop a mass of creatures to a far away location that fast but it would preserve the habitual and loved gameplay.
This idea could also be combined with such upgrates like mentioned more above.
What do you think?
 

MeinCookie

Dwarven Worker
Nov 15, 2011
194
50
25
24
#20
I like it.

Only creatures should have weight, objects should have significantly less. It was annoying in DK 1 how you could only carry 8 bits of gold at once. Nonetheless I like that suggestion, better than an arbitary limit. You'll probably still have to have one - but it can be much higher.

It also kind of captures the conciousness and mental focus of the Keeper in proforming actions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom