My game project

[vilhazarog]

I posted this on Rasteroid's board but I'm going to post it over here as well...

This doesn't concern exactly Warlocks so I thought I'd put it here.

..... The only reason I found Warlocks is because I've been hanging onto a copy of Richard Bartle's Spellbinder rules for many many years in an ancient email and always wanted to implement it. So anyway, one day I got a hold of Eclipse (a super cool free java ide) and coded up the whole thing, including Raise Dead, but Invis and Blindness don't work correctly (you still see the gestures, the other side effects are there, turned out a pain to implement in my design). But anyway, I wondered about some oddness in the rules and how to handle it, then it occurred to me that perhaps there were people out there actually playing this game today... a quick Google turned up Firetop and Warlocks.

Anyway, my version runs as a MUD or could be IRC bot, so the interface is a bit of a pain (Better than Firetop, worse than Warlocks.) Turns out I couldn't find any friends willing to play it but one, the learning curve is too steep for them.

So Sun just released Java Studio Creator 2 for free, and now I'm thinking maybe I'll see if I can get some JSF experience and put a web interface on top of it. First just get logins and duels working, then blindness and invis correct.

After that I'd like to put in custom spellbooks, because I went to a lot of trouble to make it easy to add new spells, so maybe at first you could just select the spells you want in the battle, then later I'd make it so you could change the gestures for the spells, etc.

Ultimately I thought it would be cool if there was some outer game around the duels. So instead of just a ladder, perhaps there was a map and you could try to control wizard towers, gain special abilities or titles, things like that.

So my question is.... would any of you be interested in something like that?

[vilhazarog]

So anyway I'm writing unit tests for each of the spells and now I'm looking at Summon*. Before I get into that though, let me just say this. I think the ability to target 'Nobody' is cheap and lame. So thats out in my version. In my version if a spell has no target it will target the caster. This makes mirror a bit more powerful, and makes the enchantments even more interesting in my opinion. That paralyze has to go somewhere dammit, you can't cop out and just target no one. (However, there is the possiblity that this destroys game balance? Opinions on this?)

Back to Summon*. Late targeting/ordering (ie targeting and ordering around monsters that don't exist yet) is a pain in the ass. Basically you've got to give users the ability to target them (using terminology that is weird and complicated 'the monster X might be summoning with his Y hand') which is an object that hasn't even been created yet, so you save that somewhere and resolve it later. Also, I went to all this trouble to create a nice object inheritence tree with monsters and wizards both actors and their actions were resolved at the same time automatically without regard to whether they are monsters or wizards but now monsters have to do their actions late because that has come after a Summon has been determined to have been cast. If that didn't make any sense, let's just say I had an elegant design that is busted by this feature of the game. So I didn't implement it. Monsters don't attack when summoned and you can't target them until the next turn. Problem solved.

However, after playing Warlocks for a while, now I'm thinking the game needs this. It's already a slow game, and this just makes it slower. But removing this feature also makes the game easier and less complicated, which may be bad and may be good? Newbs could get into the game easier.

Anyway, objective opinions on this are welcome. Try to avoid "change bad, me hate change" type thinking and really think on it.

[Slartucker]

In general, this sounds like reinventing the wheel. There are some things about it that could turn out to be very cool, such as custom spellbooks. The problem is that you'd have to go far and beyond what is available at RBW to really be a draw. RBW has no serious problems. Those that exist, such as the default target system, are relatively minor. But RBW has a relatively large community, plus ELO and ladder rankings, which require a large community to be successful. So you'd need to code the game at least as well as RBW, have an interface that's at least as nice -- and on top of that you'd need something to convince people to put some of their Warlocks time into a different site.

Ultimately I thought it would be cool if there was some outer game around the duels. So instead of just a ladder, perhaps there was a map and you could try to control wizard towers, gain special abilities or titles, things like that.

This sounds almost exactly like the proposal for what was called -- IIRC -- "Warlocks RP League." Somebody tried to get something like that going back in the era of the covens, but it was too ambitious and there was never enough interest. I suspect you'd run into those same two problems today.

I think the ability to target 'Nobody' is cheap and lame. So thats out in my version. In my version if a spell has no target it will target the caster. This makes mirror a bit more powerful, and makes the enchantments even more interesting in my opinion. That paralyze has to go somewhere dammit, you can't cop out and just target no one. (However, there is the possiblity that this destroys game balance? Opinions on this?)

Why is it cheap and lame? Can't a spell just miss? If not, what happens if all warlocks are invisible and you cast a lightning bolt?

While this weakens paralysis a little, it does nothing against the "cheap" uses of paralysis that people complain about -- para with giants or FOD. It does neuter Haste-ParaFOD, but I think I was the only one who used that, anyway.

Basically, I don't see how it makes the game one iota more interesting, but it seems like it would make navigating spellflow slightly more frustrating.

However, after playing Warlocks for a while, now I'm thinking the game needs this. It's already a slow game, and this just makes it slower. But removing this feature also makes the game easier and less complicated, which may be bad and may be good? Newbs could get into the game easier.

I don't think Warlocks needs or wants to be watered down. However, the fact that monsters are targetable the same turn they are summoned is NOT the most complicated or daunting thing about the game, it's not even close.

[vilhazarog]

Your points are all well taken. I am in no way trying to replace Warlocks, btw. Think of it as more of an addition where people can try out different rules to the game. If you wanted to find out who are the best players, Warlocks would still be the place to go.

As far as the lightning question, then you'd be hit by lightning! So don't do that! (This would not be a surprise, BTW. Your only targetting option would be yourself, which would clue you in to not complete the spell and gesture something else.) And if your opponent manages to force you to lightning yourself, well that sounds like a cool strategy to me. Basically making yourself untargetable is another way to disrupt your opponents spellflow with this system. I think that is interesting.


I realize that the ordering/targetting of monsters that don't exist yet is not THE most complicated thing about the game, but it is a complication. The question is whether its an interesting one or annoying one. I know I've screwed up my ordering of monsters lots of times, unintentionally. That said, now that I've played the game a few months, I think that this kind of change would weaken Summon* way too much. But I thought it would be interesting to discuss whether there is a way to simplify targetting and still keep the game balance intact and the game fun.

[yaron]

The thing I find most appealing about your project, in that we don't have it in Warlocks, is the possibility for fudging with the spellbook. There have some interesting variants proposed which would be nice to try out (see Zugzwang's info, as well as my own, for some of them).

Of course, the more interesting changes aren't limited to mere spell selection (which is easy to implement within Warlocks by just agreeing not to use some spells), or fudging with gestures. Rather, they invovle whole new spell concepts, like real Charming (see my info), or Clairvoyance (gives prior knowledge of opponent's gestures for X turns).

These kind of variants will require separate coding and debugging each, which I don't know if you're willing to do. I'd be glad to try them out if you are. :-)

As for some other points you make:

I don't have a problem with the Warlock known as 'nobody' (which is why I don't target him that much), but I don't think the game would suffer greatly if he's eliminated as an option. If you really want to kill those irksome para-chains, though, go the Firetop way: Paralysis doesn't cancel other mindspells (including Charm Monster).

I don't think having monsters delayed by one turn would break the game in any significant way. It would slightly weaken summoning, but not to the point of eliminating the option (not even close). The main problem is that you're creating an extra hurdle for experienced players who are used to the old system (your main audience, I think). But then, this is all about trying new variants (for me, anyway).

Yaron

[Slartucker]

I think I was a bit negative before. I agree with Yaron; spellbook customization would be great. Just don't overextend yourself -- it's enough of a task just to reproduce the core engine RBW uses.

Clairvoyance sounds like a really neat idea -- however, I must argue the name. Clairvoyance means seeing something not normally visible to the eyes, usually something far away; it doesn't really refer to seeing the future. Presentience would be more precise.

Were you picturing Clairvoyance as revealing simply gestures, or also spells and targets? That changes its strength drastically, I think. (Hmm... either way, some nasty spell interactions come up with Haste and Time Stop.) And would it be blocked by Invis/Blindness?

[vilhazarog]

Cool...

I think I mentioned before, the game engine is actually nearly done, and I've played games with it. The main thing being that invis and blindness don't actually hide your opponents moves... all the other spells work (I think). The problem with it is the user interface isn't web based. It was coded all command line based. So for instance, I have one mode where I can bring it up on port 7117 and you could telnet in, type 'join Yaron' and then type "gesture left P" "gesture right D" and a short cut of "do P/D"... "target left Yaron" "status" (to see how you're gestures, hps, targets, etc) then when you were ready, "ready", and if everyone was ready, bam, there goes the spells and the results. And you can type 'say blah blah blah' and chat in real time. I even got Dubber to connect once. But he hated the interface.... and of course it is clunky compared to a web based one. Although I do like the realtime chat... I wish Warlocks had that.... where people could chat real time and comment on people's moves and interesting battles, etc.

Oh, speaking of Haste, I ended up implementing that differently also... I'm not sure why Warlocks is implemented the way that it is, except maybe it's a simpler interface that way, but in my version of haste there is no 'haste round'... the hasted wizard just gets an extra set of gestures in the round he's in. This is the way I think Haste was originally intended in the original rules. So in a single round a wizard could potentially cast five spells (two on the left, two on the right, and a delayed spell). So the disadvantage of my version is that you don't see the other wizards' gestures before you choose your extra gestures, but the advantage is that you can do for example a magic mirror in a single round.

[Slartucker]

I don't think a telnet version necessary has to be clunkier than a web version. Some thoughts:

If the only things you can do are enter commands (presumably always two gestures at a time), enter targets, and talk to people, why do you need all those needlessly long commands? I picture: "/PD" to enter P/D as commands. Anything not beginning with a slash is sent as chat text (just as in irc). After sending commands, prompts for spell choice and target choice appear only if they are needed. You could establish a set of easy to remember, constant abbreviations to answer those with: "S" for self, "O" for opponent, "G" for goblin iff there is only one goblin in play, and so on; multiple monsters of the same type could simply receive unique numbers when they are listed (goblin #1 is "G1" in targeting). For spells, you can just type the spell gestures ("P" for shield, "SPFP" for antispell) and maybe to save even more time something else like "/" would choose the longest spell possible -- so you don't have to type out PWPFSSSD to specify you don't want a magic missile.

To further simplify targeting, you could have another character, say "-", indicate that you want to use the defaults on everything. So "/PD-" would enter P/D. On the first move it would target shield at yourself; after SPF it would target antispell at your opponent.

Note, however, that unlike the lamentable system used at RBW, it should not allow the default target to magically change to the appropriate target after para or charm takes effect.

All that would make the interface a lot less clunky, IMHO, although there is still the matter of displaying the text to deal with. I don't know anything about how telnet handles text, and if it's possible to reserve ten or twelve lines at the top of the screen for the spellflow etc., which would not scroll. But that would certainly be doable in other incarnations (i.e., java) and you could keep a streamlined text interface -- definitely a plus if real time chat is involved.

Haste: Hmm, interesting. Your version makes haste rather more powerful, overall. Not getting to see those extra gestures makes the extra gestures A LOT more powerful. And I for one am perfectly happy to see Haste get a little better

[yaron]

Presentience/Precognition:

I agree about the name. A similiar spell in an RPG I once played was called Clairvoyance, so I went with that.

I haven't thought the details through, really. I was thinking complete foreknowledge of the entire turn, but gestures only would work, too. Of course, lasts for several turns (3?), but you only get the info one turn at a time - the opponent doesn't have to submit several turns ahead.

I haven't cosidered invis/blindness. It seems to me that they should not affect this spell, thematically.

How long do you guys think such a spell should be? I know it also depends on combos coming in an out, but what's the ballpark?

Haste:

Yes, that's the way Haste should work! Note that while the change strengthens Haste overall, there are disadvantages for the Hasted party - they have to enter both pairs of gestures without knowledge of the opp's gestures for that turn (for example, you can't use the trick of mindspelling yourself after getting hit with a mindspell).

Yaron

[Slartucker]

Presentience frankly sounds pretty powerful. Any length would work, I suppose, but you'd need to balance it with the gestures.

Even 1 turn of that effect pretty much guarantees you the initiative. So I would expect gestures along the lines of Charm Person or Antispell, simply for a 1 turn version.

I'm not sure 2 turns is that much better, but 3 turns definitely is... honestly, I think that's nearly as game-breaking as an undefended haste is currently.

[vilhazarog]

Tell you what, I've put up the telnet version right now. You can get there via 'telnet tcp.com 7117'. Or you can use your favorite mud client, should work fine, I'm using tinyfugue. Feel free to log in and mess around. Some of the spells might be broken, I've done a major refactoring and haven't had a chance to retest everything, so chances are if you mess around long enough it will crash.

The major differences from Warlocks currently are:
No maladroit
No new Blindness
No new Timestop
Haste is different as described above
Stab is 'X' not '>', Nothing is 'N' not '-' (easy to change if this bothers people)
Monsters don't attack on the turn they are summoned
Monsters can't be targeted/damaged the turn they are summoned
Permanency and Delay don't have an interface for specifying what spell is is perm/delayed.... so currently it is the first perm/delayable spell you cast, and if you cast spells on both hands in one turn, it's the one on the left. (I know this is lame, I just haven't gotten around to how to say what to do here)
Can't target Nobody.
Default targeting isn't done yet, so all spells default to yourself.
Invis/blindess don't hide the players gestures (major defect, I know, hard to fix so I left it for last)
RaiseDead (DWWFWC): Cast on a corpse, raises the wizard/monster from the dead, with full hps. Cast on a wizard/monster, gives wizard/monster 5 hps healed. Special effect: If the 5hps heal is not enough to keep the wizard alive (due to massive damage, disease, poison or FoD) the wizard is raised from the dead to full hps.

.... and possibly other stuff. Have fun!

[vilhazarog]

So the only one that connected was Slartucker, and not for long. So I think that demonstrates the lack of interest in a command line warlocks.

For anyone interested, I've started working on an XML over HTTP interface. I figured this would be a good choice because:

1) AJAX is all the rage these days.
2) XML over HTTP is firewall friendly.
3) Allows for all sorts of flavors of clients.

So I'll try and do a reference impl of a javascript client and put that webpage up. Then anyone with some javascript and html knowledge could make their own clients and put them up by copying my page and tweaking it. Also, there would be no reason why there couldn't be a java Swing client, and a .NET client...

[Slartucker]

Well, nobody's really going to be interested until you have a polished product. When it's still in development and is clunkier than RBW and doesn't yet do anything new and cool (like the alt spellbooks) of course you won't get traffic. That said, I'm sure http will get more traffic than telnet will.