In this post I will present my plans for the "arenas". I'm a bit stressed on time, so please keep an open mind when reading the post. I've been pondering for a while and I came with the following:
While armagetron(and other similar games) is a 2d based games with a 3d display, nothing forces it to stay that way. In the following, I will present a new structure that would permit 3d shaped structures and possibly much more.
Some terms.
Here I define some term I've used to structured my ideas. You may not like the names I've assigned to them. These refer to terms inside the code. I do not desire for these terms to replace their equivalent in "during game chat". They are just to make easy distinction between programming and map design elements.
I've inspired myself of the romain colliseum for the names of the components, but I may have stretched their definitions. Remember that the arena was not only filled with sand for gladiator fighting, but sometime, it would be filled with water for naval fights, or some different patches of forest would be layed in the arena to depict different hunts at the same time (with differents wild beasts in each parts).
Field: The basic construction element. A field is a 2d surface that is bounded (is has an edge, ie: it is not infinite in any direction). A simple implementation might limit them to triangles. They could be more complex, but always limited to a completly closed set of edges (the last point goes to the first). A field is always located "inside" of the edges that define it (you cant just define a hole in an infinite plane). A field has 2 surfaces where the vehicules moves. A field can be connected to other fields on its edges. The connecting segments may be all or part of an edge, but the whole part shared is considered connecting. A field may have parts of its edges that are not connected to any other fields (for the moment, a non-connected edge is a "wall" ie: you die if you pass it. Future idea may include falling off the surface, but I havent any good concept yet). A field may be oriented in any way in space.
Arena: An arena is a collection of interconnected fields. (ie: from one field, it is possible to travel and to reach all the other fields, even if you have to visit many. but no floating fields)
Now lets give some examples.
-The classical shape could be build of 2 triangles fields. No difference in play from the current implementation. They just lie on the same plane in space.
- Assembling 6 square shaped fields, a cube could be assemble, allowing the players to move on every faces in a 3d arena.
- A moebius ring could be made by a series of rectangles (actually by many triangle, but its easier to imagine with rectangles) turning a bit from each other. For those who dont know what a moebius ring is, take a strip of paper. As you go to glue both end toghether, turn one by half so that the "opposing" face are glued. Now take a pen, and start drawing along the middle of the strip for the whole lenght. You will come back after a while to your starting point, but you looking at the ring the line will be on both "sides". A moebius ring only has one side. Try it, its really fun.
- And many more...
There are not holes in fields. To make a donut shape, just assemble 2 cresent shaped fields. This has the advantage of simplifying the sturctures. Otherwise a "hole" need to be defined, then someone whant an "island" in the hole, then someone whants a "lake" in the island in the hole... and so on.
Why shouln't it be weirder than now? In the current implementation, there are a bunch of eFaces (triangles if I understand properly). Every vertical wall are on the edge of a eFace. but the players still perceive the whole as a flat surface.
This separation allows for many very fun (and complexe) arenas. To the argument of "it will be too hard to play", well a natural selection will occur, and only maps of the right complexity will be played. But by allowing a freedom of shape, I beleive many interesting ideas will spur.
Now for the really weird stuff, if you didnt think that was weird enough:
Colliseum: A colliseum hold 1 or many arenas. Arenas are visible from one to another if properly positionned.
Another example to illustrate this:
- A big square has a hole (one arena) with another square with a hole inside (another arenat) with a third square within (third arena)
- A cube (one arena) floats in space near a piramyd (another arena). Ok, yes, much stranger. It implied some way of moving between arenas, but why not.
The "rim" is at the colliseum level. You cant "see" beyond the colliseum. There is a wall, or its all dark, but that is the limit of vision. In the classic game, once you leave the rim, your out of the colliseum. In the first example, the biggest arena may hold the "rim" wall in the classical sence, but if might just be a very big bubble around everything.
Empire (like a roman empire): An empire hold one or more colliseum.
Ok, I agree, it gets really wacky at this point. But why not. It allows for a "what is behind the wall". It might be that to switch from one empire to the next, you get shipped to another server. Or another game on the same server, or its just a very complex map, but it permits a lot.
I beleive with this structure, or at least the field-arena, very nice maps can be created. No need for specialised structures like over and under pass. It allows for future ideas such as "this field energizes you" (what ever it may mean) or "this field teleports you" or "this field accelerate you", as its only an effect to add to a field, rather than a new graphical object to create.
I really see it as a progression. First the field-arena. Later we implement the colliseum, then later we do the empire.
-------
Yes, there is a second part. Now the funs really begins. I make the separation to help you cope with it.
-------
Directions.
At the moment, the games only permits 4 direction. North, east, south, west. Some ppl have though, what if we could go in diagonal? Adding north-east, south-east, north-west, south-west. All of this is good, but could we generalise?
I say we can.
Direction: a vector describing a possible movement by a vehicule. This vector has to lies in the plane of the field that hold it (ie: you have to move on the surface of the field, you cant go away or in it). A vector only allows deplacement along its positive side (more on that). At the moment, I will add the restriction that directions have to be equally distributed in the plane (they need the same angle between them).
for the confused mind, and I would be one, some example:
- 4 directions, so 90 degrees between them. This is what we are used to. North, east, south, west. Just to reassure you that nothing is lost.
- 8 directions, so 45 degrees between them. The example with north-east and all is using 8 directions.
But now I ear the curious mind telling me, Philippe, why not just devide by 2? Well, imagine now with....
- 3 direction, so 120 degrees between them. North, something like east-south-east and something like west-south-west. You can move up, to the right and down a bit or to the left and down a bit. But not directly down. Nor on the "opposite" direction. That could make things interesting. Of course, if you want to allow the opposite direction, you just have to use....
- 6 directions, so 60 degrees between them. Or 120 degrees, but both direction allowed.
For the curious about the effect on driving of the cycle, it's going to be the same as the moment. Clicking once on "right" will make you move on the next "right" direction (clock-wise). So the same as when your moving west on a 4 directions (normal setting), and you turn right, you are now moving north, moving west on a 8 direction and turning right would make you go north-west.
By dealing with positive direction instead of axes (the mathematical axe, a line that goes both direction), it permits some interesting effect such as odd number of direction, without restricting on the slightly more regular effect of allowing to move on both direction of the axe just by doubling the number of directions. [pfff, who did get that one?]
If that was too much for you, stop now, because....
Directions are defined for each fields.
Which means you could be driving casually (as casually as you can in armagetron) on a 4 direction field [lets say the face of a cube] and as you change to another face of the cube, bam! its now 5 directions on this field!
I've already worked some math to figure out how to deal with that, finding the "best direction" from where you come to minimise the amount of jerking between fields. Because there will be some when you pass from one field to the next, even with 4 directions.
Of course, the number of directions has to be greater than 2, but I dont see a need for an upper bound. Leave it to a drunken group to have fun with one gazillion (or just an inconveniently slightly high number such as 11 or anything that takes too much time to turn efficiently) directions, but maps containing them wont spread to many server ass they will be boring to more sober players.
As before, I want to allow new original gameplay through unusual possibilities, but without restricting on the more "regular" gameplay. Some fun maps may have 5 directions all over them. Some other may just have a small zone with 3 and be 4 direction otherwise. Some will have a very architectural structure, with pillars and vaults where cycles will zoom, while some will have a flat design, but wont leave anyone with any flat impression. But all my ideas leave maps designer free to decide, and make us enjoy their creative work.
Once again, I appologize for the quality of my details. I'm a bit limited on time, and cant revise it. So just ask, and I'll try to explain in better details my unholy vision.
-ph
)
