1. Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
I have an idea for a real time strategy game like Starcraft. It would be an
open source game written in Euphoria with a highly customizable interface
using a scripting language and an API. This will allow players to:
* make their units smarter
* automate repetitive tasks
* write their own AI
I hope it will run on Windows and Linux, and be network playable over
TCP/IP.
Instead of controlling a dozen types of units from several civilizations as
in Starcraft, in this game everything will be very elegant. The plot is
basically that nanotechnology has allowed people to build robots which can
build more robots etc. All the robots start out as a base robot which is
infinitely expandable with a number of object-oriented attachments. As in
Starcraft, each player starts out with a certain number of basic robots
which are similar to SCVs. They have a basic system for driving around on
the ground, a mineral collector, and a nano-fabrication module which allows
them to build more robots and modules. At any time, a robot can disconnect
one or more of its modules, allowing it to travel faster (assuming it still
has a driver module), and it can later re-connect them (as long as they
aren't destroyed or stolen by another robot.)
This modularity makes for some very interesting strategy. Since each module
is programmable, one tactic might be to program a virus into a module and
leave it, hoping that some enemy robot will pick it up. Another example
would be to program observer bots to search for the enemy, and call up
reinforcements once they were found. It also makes the programming much
easier because everything is very abstract. For example, any device that
supplies energy to the robot is viewed by the rest of the robot as simply an
energy supplier. It doesn't matter whether it's a battery or a generator -
it just supplies energy.
If anyone wants to help write this, just e-mail me.
Thanks,
Jeff Fielding
JJProg at cyberbury.net
http://JJProg.tripod.com/
2. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
This game reminds meo f several others, one on linux I could never get to
run, and a programme called Robocom. http://www.cyty.com/robocom
Robocom is similar, but you start off with one robot and their only
functions are to a)Duplicate b)Transfer code. The latter can be into a newly
created 'empty' robot, or into an enemy robot. If a robot has it's banks
overwritten with blank ones, it dies.
However, yours sounds much more interesting and versatile, especially if you
could provide a GUI style scripted interface for beginners, and raw coding
for more advanced players (of course, to start the GUI Scripting Interface
would have to wait). I definitely like the idea of each module having it's
own programming - a processor per piece, and it would create a real
challenge in getting the parts to communicate succesfully. Another
suggestion - the basic robot should have neither resource gathering nor
duplicating facilities, but these should be able to be added - that way you
cans speciallise 'mother' bots who do nothing but duplicate, and resource
bots that get the materials, and lookout bots, etc. etc.
How much user interaction were you considering once the game is underway?
While not much of a GUI or game programmer, I would love to help in any way.
Nick.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey Fielding <JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 5:10 AM
Subject: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
> I have an idea for a real time strategy game like Starcraft. It would be
an
> open source game written in Euphoria with a highly customizable interface
> using a scripting language and an API. This will allow players to:
> * make their units smarter
> * automate repetitive tasks
> * write their own AI
> I hope it will run on Windows and Linux, and be network playable over
> TCP/IP.
>
> Instead of controlling a dozen types of units from several civilizations
as
> in Starcraft, in this game everything will be very elegant. The plot is
> basically that nanotechnology has allowed people to build robots which can
> build more robots etc. All the robots start out as a base robot which is
> infinitely expandable with a number of object-oriented attachments. As in
> Starcraft, each player starts out with a certain number of basic robots
> which are similar to SCVs. They have a basic system for driving around on
> the ground, a mineral collector, and a nano-fabrication module which
allows
> them to build more robots and modules. At any time, a robot can disconnect
> one or more of its modules, allowing it to travel faster (assuming it
still
> has a driver module), and it can later re-connect them (as long as they
> aren't destroyed or stolen by another robot.)
>
> This modularity makes for some very interesting strategy. Since each
module
> is programmable, one tactic might be to program a virus into a module and
> leave it, hoping that some enemy robot will pick it up. Another example
> would be to program observer bots to search for the enemy, and call up
> reinforcements once they were found. It also makes the programming much
> easier because everything is very abstract. For example, any device that
> supplies energy to the robot is viewed by the rest of the robot as simply
an
> energy supplier. It doesn't matter whether it's a battery or a generator -
> it just supplies energy.
>
> If anyone wants to help write this, just e-mail me.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff Fielding
> JJProg at cyberbury.net
> http://JJProg.tripod.com/
>
>
3. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
- Posted by JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET
Feb 27, 2000
>This game reminds meo f several others, one on linux I could never get to
>run, and a programme called Robocom. http://www.cyty.com/robocom
>Robocom is similar, but you start off with one robot and their only
>functions are to a)Duplicate b)Transfer code. The latter can be into a newly
>created 'empty' robot, or into an enemy robot. If a robot has it's banks
>overwritten with blank ones, it dies.
>However, yours sounds much more interesting and versatile, especially if you
>could provide a GUI style scripted interface for beginners, and raw coding
>for more advanced players (of course, to start the GUI Scripting Interface
>would have to wait).
Yeah. Probably most players would not take program the individual
modules or even robots. Instead, most players could probably just
script macros to run when they press a key - to bring up reinforcements,
for example. Hopefully, the game would become popular enough that people
would contribute more advanced scripts and add-ons for the game,
including GUI interfaces for scripting. I think making it run on Linux
would help with this, as Starcraft hasn't been ported to Linux.
>I definitely like the idea of each module having it's
>own programming - a processor per piece, and it would create a real
>challenge in getting the parts to communicate succesfully.
Actually, that's the wonderful part of the design. It should not be that
difficult. For example, suppose a very simple robot includes a battery
and a laser. When the laser is told to fire, it sends a request to the
base robot to get energy. The base robot searches through its modules to
find an energy supplier. It finds the battery and gets the energy and
returns an OK to the laser. If it can't find the necessicary energy, it
returns an error. The battery could easily be replaced by a materials to
energy converter, for example.
>Another suggestion - the basic robot should have neither resource gathering
>nor duplicating facilities, but these should be able to be added - that way
>you cans speciallise 'mother' bots who do nothing but duplicate, and resource
>bots that get the materials, and lookout bots, etc. etc.
Well, I meant that there is a base robot which doesn't include any
modules, but when the game starts, each player gets a few more complete
robots so they can build more.
>How much user interaction were you considering once the game is underway?
There could be a wide range of user interaction from none (for computer
players) to the user controlling everything. The point of the scripting
would be to simplify tasks and add a new level of strategy to the game.
For example:
* explorer bots could search for materials and collect them, or search
for the enemy and call up reinforcements if it finds them
* trojan modules could be programmed to malfunction if attached to an
enemy robot
* in an allied game, each ally could set aside some robots for
reinforcements. when one ally needs reinforcements, they could just
press a shortcut key and have the reinforcements come to help
* robots could just be smarter. For example, in Starcraft there are
two options to stop units: stop and hold position. Hold position has the
disadvantage that a longer-range unit could be attacking them and they
couldn't fight back, but they would continue to hold position. Stop has
the disadvantage that the units will follow any enemy units, even if
they lead them into an obvious trap. By programming a new stop mode, the
units could run away, attack, or hold position depending on which would
be better.
>While not much of a GUI or game programmer, I would love to help in any way.
Thanks. I'll put a page on my website for this project, and post some
initial ideas. Once we have a basic plan, we can start writing code.
>Nick.
Jeff Fielding
JJProg at cyberbury.net
http://JJProg.tripod.com/
4. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
This game idea reminds me of a game on the playstation(!) would you believe,
where you programmed the AI behind robots then watched them fight. You had
to lay commands in the neural path saying things like "if no enemy seen,
turn right, move forward, move forward, re scan" and with the inclusion of
randomness it got quite interesting. However, your idea sounds better,
because once programmed you couldn't control the robots at all... you had to
watch and if you hadn't done a good enough job (like they ran out of ammo
and you forgot to tell them to run away) they were doomed!
-----Original Message-----
From: Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
[mailto:EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU]On Behalf Of JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 7:41 PM
To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
>This game reminds meo f several others, one on linux I could never get to
>run, and a programme called Robocom. http://www.cyty.com/robocom
>Robocom is similar, but you start off with one robot and their only
>functions are to a)Duplicate b)Transfer code. The latter can be into a
newly
>created 'empty' robot, or into an enemy robot. If a robot has it's banks
>overwritten with blank ones, it dies.
>However, yours sounds much more interesting and versatile, especially if
you
>could provide a GUI style scripted interface for beginners, and raw coding
>for more advanced players (of course, to start the GUI Scripting Interface
>would have to wait).
Yeah. Probably most players would not take program the individual
modules or even robots. Instead, most players could probably just
script macros to run when they press a key - to bring up reinforcements,
for example. Hopefully, the game would become popular enough that people
would contribute more advanced scripts and add-ons for the game,
including GUI interfaces for scripting. I think making it run on Linux
would help with this, as Starcraft hasn't been ported to Linux.
>I definitely like the idea of each module having it's
>own programming - a processor per piece, and it would create a real
>challenge in getting the parts to communicate succesfully.
Actually, that's the wonderful part of the design. It should not be that
difficult. For example, suppose a very simple robot includes a battery
and a laser. When the laser is told to fire, it sends a request to the
base robot to get energy. The base robot searches through its modules to
find an energy supplier. It finds the battery and gets the energy and
returns an OK to the laser. If it can't find the necessicary energy, it
returns an error. The battery could easily be replaced by a materials to
energy converter, for example.
>Another suggestion - the basic robot should have neither resource gathering
>nor duplicating facilities, but these should be able to be added - that way
>you cans speciallise 'mother' bots who do nothing but duplicate, and
resource
>bots that get the materials, and lookout bots, etc. etc.
Well, I meant that there is a base robot which doesn't include any
modules, but when the game starts, each player gets a few more complete
robots so they can build more.
>How much user interaction were you considering once the game is underway?
There could be a wide range of user interaction from none (for computer
players) to the user controlling everything. The point of the scripting
would be to simplify tasks and add a new level of strategy to the game.
For example:
* explorer bots could search for materials and collect them, or search
for the enemy and call up reinforcements if it finds them
* trojan modules could be programmed to malfunction if attached to an
enemy robot
* in an allied game, each ally could set aside some robots for
reinforcements. when one ally needs reinforcements, they could just
press a shortcut key and have the reinforcements come to help
* robots could just be smarter. For example, in Starcraft there are
two options to stop units: stop and hold position. Hold position has the
disadvantage that a longer-range unit could be attacking them and they
couldn't fight back, but they would continue to hold position. Stop has
the disadvantage that the units will follow any enemy units, even if
they lead them into an obvious trap. By programming a new stop mode, the
units could run away, attack, or hold position depending on which would
be better.
>While not much of a GUI or game programmer, I would love to help in any
way.
Thanks. I'll put a page on my website for this project, and post some
initial ideas. Once we have a basic plan, we can start writing code.
>Nick.
Jeff Fielding
JJProg at cyberbury.net
http://JJProg.tripod.com/
5. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
--=====================_19188413==_.ALT
It also reminds me of a TCL/Tk program that was designed as a multi-threaded
app. It launched independent interpreters running their own "search and destroy
programs." Although the programs were rather simple in terms of how thaey were
scripted but the scripts for programming the robots themselves were in TCL/Tk.
At 11:11 AM 02/28/2000 +0000, you wrote:
>This game idea reminds me of a game on the playstation(!) would you believe,
>where you programmed the AI behind robots then watched them fight. You had
>to lay commands in the neural path saying things like "if no enemy seen,
>turn right, move forward, move forward, re scan" and with the inclusion of
>randomness it got quite interesting. However, your idea sounds better,
>because once programmed you couldn't control the robots at all... you had to
>watch and if you hadn't done a good enough job (like they ran out of ammo
>and you forgot to tell them to run away) they were doomed!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
>[mailto:EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU]On Behalf Of JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET
>Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 7:41 PM
>To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
>Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
>
>
>>This game reminds meo f several others, one on linux I could never get to
>>run, and a programme called Robocom. http://www.cyty.com/robocom
>>Robocom is similar, but you start off with one robot and their only
>>functions are to a)Duplicate b)Transfer code. The latter can be into a
>newly
>>created 'empty' robot, or into an enemy robot. If a robot has it's banks
>>overwritten with blank ones, it dies.
>>However, yours sounds much more interesting and versatile, especially if
>you
>>could provide a GUI style scripted interface for beginners, and raw coding
>>for more advanced players (of course, to start the GUI Scripting Interface
>>would have to wait).
>
>Yeah. Probably most players would not take program the individual
>modules or even robots. Instead, most players could probably just
>script macros to run when they press a key - to bring up reinforcements,
>for example. Hopefully, the game would become popular enough that people
>would contribute more advanced scripts and add-ons for the game,
>including GUI interfaces for scripting. I think making it run on Linux
>would help with this, as Starcraft hasn't been ported to Linux.
>
>>I definitely like the idea of each module having it's
>>own programming - a processor per piece, and it would create a real
>>challenge in getting the parts to communicate succesfully.
>
>Actually, that's the wonderful part of the design. It should not be that
>difficult. For example, suppose a very simple robot includes a battery
>and a laser. When the laser is told to fire, it sends a request to the
>base robot to get energy. The base robot searches through its modules to
>find an energy supplier. It finds the battery and gets the energy and
>returns an OK to the laser. If it can't find the necessicary energy, it
>returns an error. The battery could easily be replaced by a materials to
>energy converter, for example.
>
>>Another suggestion - the basic robot should have neither resource gathering
>>nor duplicating facilities, but these should be able to be added - that way
>>you cans speciallise 'mother' bots who do nothing but duplicate, and
>resource
>>bots that get the materials, and lookout bots, etc. etc.
>
>Well, I meant that there is a base robot which doesn't include any
>modules, but when the game starts, each player gets a few more complete
>robots so they can build more.
>
>>How much user interaction were you considering once the game is underway?
>
>There could be a wide range of user interaction from none (for computer
>players) to the user controlling everything. The point of the scripting
>would be to simplify tasks and add a new level of strategy to the game.
>For example:
>
>* explorer bots could search for materials and collect them, or search
>for the enemy and call up reinforcements if it finds them
>* trojan modules could be programmed to malfunction if attached to an
>enemy robot
>* in an allied game, each ally could set aside some robots for
>reinforcements. when one ally needs reinforcements, they could just
>press a shortcut key and have the reinforcements come to help
>* robots could just be smarter. For example, in Starcraft there are
>two options to stop units: stop and hold position. Hold position has the
>disadvantage that a longer-range unit could be attacking them and they
>couldn't fight back, but they would continue to hold position. Stop has
>the disadvantage that the units will follow any enemy units, even if
>they lead them into an obvious trap. By programming a new stop mode, the
>units could run away, attack, or hold position depending on which would
>be better.
>
>>While not much of a GUI or game programmer, I would love to help in any
>way.
>
>Thanks. I'll put a page on my website for this project, and post some
>initial ideas. Once we have a basic plan, we can start writing code.
>
>>Nick.
>
>Jeff Fielding
>JJProg at cyberbury.net
>http://JJProg.tripod.com/
Joel H. Crook
Manager, Information Services
Certified Novell Administrator
Microsoft Certified Professional, OS Specialist
Kellogg & Andelson Accountancy Corp.
14724 Ventura Blvd. 2nd Floor
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
(818) 971-5100
--=====================_19188413==_.ALT
<html><div>It also reminds me of a TCL/Tk program that was designed as a
multi-threaded app. It launched independent interpreters running their
own "search and destroy programs." Although the programs were
rather simple in terms of how thaey were scripted but the scripts for
programming the robots themselves were in TCL/Tk. </div>
<br>
<div>At 11:11 AM 02/28/2000 +0000, you wrote:</div>
<div>>This game idea reminds me of a game on the playstation(!) would
you believe,</div>
<div>>where you programmed the AI behind robots then watched them
fight. You had</div>
<div>>to lay commands in the neural path saying things like "if
no enemy seen,</div>
<div>>turn right, move forward, move forward, re scan" and with
the inclusion of</div>
<div>>randomness it got quite interesting. However, your idea sounds
better,</div>
<div>>because once programmed you couldn't control the robots at
all... you had to</div>
<div>>watch and if you hadn't done a good enough job (like they ran
out of ammo</div>
<div>>and you forgot to tell them to run away) they were
doomed!</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>-----Original Message-----</div>
<div>>From: Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS</div>
<div>>[<a href="mailto:EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU%5DOn"
EUDORA=AUTOURL>mailto:EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU]On</a>
Behalf Of JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET</div>
<div>>Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 7:41 PM</div>
<div>>To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU</div>
<div>>Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?</div>
<div>></div>
<div>></div>
<div>>>This game reminds meo f several others, one on linux I could never
get to</div>
<div>>>run, and a programme called Robocom. <a
href="http://www.cyty.com/robocom"
EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.cyty.com/robocom</a></div>
<div>>>Robocom is similar, but you start off with one robot and their
only</div>
<div>>>functions are to a)Duplicate b)Transfer code. The latter can be
into a</div>
<div>>newly</div>
<div>>>created 'empty' robot, or into an enemy robot. If a robot has it's
banks</div>
<div>>>overwritten with blank ones, it dies.</div>
<div>>>However, yours sounds much more interesting and versatile,
especially if</div>
<div>>you</div>
<div>>>could provide a GUI style scripted interface for beginners, and raw
coding</div>
<div>>>for more advanced players (of course, to start the GUI Scripting
Interface</div>
<div>>>would have to wait).</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>Yeah. Probably most players would not take program the individual</div>
<div>>modules or even robots. Instead, most players could probably just</div>
<div>>script macros to run when they press a key - to bring up
reinforcements,</div>
<div>>for example. Hopefully, the game would become popular enough that
people</div>
<div>>would contribute more advanced scripts and add-ons for the game,</div>
<div>>including GUI interfaces for scripting. I think making it run on
Linux</div>
<div>>would help with this, as Starcraft hasn't been ported to Linux.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>>I definitely like the idea of each module having it's</div>
<div>>>own programming - a processor per piece, and it would create a
real</div>
<div>>>challenge in getting the parts to communicate succesfully.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>Actually, that's the wonderful part of the design. It should not be
that</div>
<div>>difficult. For example, suppose a very simple robot includes a
battery</div>
<div>>and a laser. When the laser is told to fire, it sends a request to
the</div>
<div>>base robot to get energy. The base robot searches through its modules
to</div>
<div>>find an energy supplier. It finds the battery and gets the energy
and</div>
<div>>returns an OK to the laser. If it can't find the necessicary energy,
it</div>
<div>>returns an error. The battery could easily be replaced by a materials
to</div>
<div>>energy converter, for example.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>>Another suggestion - the basic robot should have neither resource
gathering</div>
<div>>>nor duplicating facilities, but these should be able to be added -
that way</div>
<div>>>you cans speciallise 'mother' bots who do nothing but duplicate,
and</div>
<div>>resource</div>
<div>>>bots that get the materials, and lookout bots, etc. etc.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>Well, I meant that there is a base robot which doesn't include
any</div>
<div>>modules, but when the game starts, each player gets a few more
complete</div>
<div>>robots so they can build more.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>>How much user interaction were you considering once the game is
underway?</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>There could be a wide range of user interaction from none (for
computer</div>
<div>>players) to the user controlling everything. The point of the
scripting</div>
<div>>would be to simplify tasks and add a new level of strategy to the
game.</div>
<div>>For example:</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>* explorer bots could search for materials and collect them, or
search</div>
<div>>for the enemy and call up reinforcements if it finds them</div>
<div>>* trojan modules could be programmed to malfunction if attached to
an</div>
<div>>enemy robot</div>
<div>>* in an allied game, each ally could set aside some robots for</div>
<div>>reinforcements. when one ally needs reinforcements, they could
just</div>
<div>>press a shortcut key and have the reinforcements come to help</div>
<div>>* robots could just be smarter. For example, in Starcraft there
are</div>
<div>>two options to stop units: stop and hold position. Hold position has
the</div>
<div>>disadvantage that a longer-range unit could be attacking them and
they</div>
<div>>couldn't fight back, but they would continue to hold position. Stop
has</div>
<div>>the disadvantage that the units will follow any enemy units, even
if</div>
<div>>they lead them into an obvious trap. By programming a new stop mode,
the</div>
<div>>units could run away, attack, or hold position depending on which
would</div>
<div>>be better.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>>While not much of a GUI or game programmer, I would love to help in
any</div>
<div>>way.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>Thanks. I'll put a page on my website for this project, and post
some</div>
<div>>initial ideas. Once we have a basic plan, we can start writing
code.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>>Nick.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>Jeff Fielding</div>
<div>>JJProg at cyberbury.net</div>
<div>><a href="http://jjprog.tripod.com/"
EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://JJProg.tripod.com/</a></div>
<br>
Joel H. Crook<br>
<br>
Manager, Information Services<br>
<font size=1>Certified Novell Administrator<br>
Microsoft Certified Professional, OS Specialist<br>
<br>
</font><b>Kellogg & Andelson Accountancy Corp.<br>
</b><font size=1>14724 Ventura Blvd. 2nd Floor<br>
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403<br>
(818) 971-5100<br>
</font></html>
--=====================_19188413==_.ALT--
6. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
One thing good about this I see, that Starcraft lacks, is the
capability of micromanagement. If you're playing Starcraft against
the computer, you can only see one thing at a time, such as one
little battle area or base. The computer, on the other hand, can see
everything all at once and tell 20 units to do 20 different things pretty
much immediately. The game becomes a quick game with less
strategy, then, because you can't control your forces as efficiently or
effectively. It sounds like a great idea. But I should warn you, it
probably won't fly too well if programming is required. But like was
said, the scripting thing would make it nice. You could add
something like not only a computer opponent difficulty level, but a
programming level as well. If you select none, you get tons of
detailed scripts that you choose from. If you select optional, you get
a few basic scripts, but you need to write more if you want to do
better. And if you select required, you start with pretty much nothing
and have to write your own or used ones you've either previously
written or downloaded, etc. Hopefully those sound like good
suggestions. Good luck.
--Andrew Gainey
Gandrew
7. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
- Posted by JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET
Feb 28, 2000
>This game idea reminds me of a game on the playstation(!) would you believe,
>where you programmed the AI behind robots then watched them fight. You had
>to lay commands in the neural path saying things like "if no enemy seen,
>turn right, move forward, move forward, re scan" and with the inclusion of
>randomness it got quite interesting. However, your idea sounds better,
>because once programmed you couldn't control the robots at all... you had to
>watch and if you hadn't done a good enough job (like they ran out of ammo
>and you forgot to tell them to run away) they were doomed!
Though there's no need to program the robots to be completely
autonomous. They could just be smart units, and other than that it would
be a lot like Starcraft.
Jeff Fielding
8. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
> Though there's no need to program the robots to be completely
> autonomous. They could just be smart units, and other than that it would
> be a lot like Starcraft.
As I said, this game reminds me of one on linux, where, after writing
programmes, you assigned each programe to a number. When you want a robot to
do something, you selected the robot(s) and pressed the appropriate number.
The addition of being able to programme (or script) each individual part
would make it quite cool. Mines could have their own programmes, and be
programmed to not go off while still attached to the minelayer, and could
even be programmed to wait until an enemy has picked them up and trundled
home (instead of blowing up on proximity).
Being able to give each item a programme, but give the robot 'chassis' (the
actual robot) up to 10, 1 for each key, would mean you could simply choose
one, and that would initiate any neccessary sub-routines in the parts it
carries (If you see what I mean)
Nick
9. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
- Posted by Ad Rienks <kwibus at ZONNET.NL>
Feb 28, 2000
-
Last edited Feb 29, 2000
You know what surprises me: almost every time when 'Cool Games' are the
issue, I read the words 'enemy', 'hostile', 'destroying', etc, etc.
I think it's time some clever mind comes up with a game were cooperatian is
rewarded and hostile actions only give minus points.
Don't you think, maybe if there are more of these kind of games, and our
children are playing them, that a better world can evolve? (What an
idealism; but what else can you expect from someone who grew up in the era
of love and peace?)
Give it a try, it won't hurt you!
10. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
- Posted by JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET
Feb 28, 2000
>> Though there's no need to program the robots to be completely
>> autonomous. They could just be smart units, and other than that it would
>> be a lot like Starcraft.
>As I said, this game reminds me of one on linux, where, after writing
>programmes, you assigned each programe to a number. When you want a robot to
>do something, you selected the robot(s) and pressed the appropriate number.
>The addition of being able to programme (or script) each individual part
>would make it quite cool. Mines could have their own programmes, and be
>programmed to not go off while still attached to the minelayer, and could
>even be programmed to wait until an enemy has picked them up and trundled
>home (instead of blowing up on proximity).
One of the things that makes the robotic design particularly interesting
is that almost everything can be represented by a robot - mines, shells,
missles etc. Though some of these would be smart, robots could also be
used to represent uncontrollable things like laser beams which, once
given a starting position and direction, can't be stopped. They just
move in one direction until they hit something or go out of range. This
would greatly simplify the programming.
Another neat feature is that the ammo can be produced by factories.
Lasers beams would, of corse, take no time to build, but they would use
energy. Mines, shells, missles etc. would take some time and materials to
build, so as a weapon needs more ammo, it justs requests the factory to
build more.
>Being able to give each item a programme, but give the robot 'chassis' (the
>actual robot) up to 10, 1 for each key, would mean you could simply choose
>one, and that would initiate any neccessary sub-routines in the parts it
>carries (If you see what I mean)
>Nick
Jeff Fielding
11. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:31:51 +0100, Ad Rienks wrote:
>You know what surprises me: almost every time when 'Cool Games' are the
>issue, I read the words 'enemy', 'hostile', 'destroying', etc, etc.
>I think it's time some clever mind comes up with a game were cooperatian is
>rewarded and hostile actions only give minus points.
>Don't you think, maybe if there are more of these kind of games, and our
>children are playing them, that a better world can evolve? (What an
>idealism; but what else can you expect from someone who grew up in the era
>of love and peace?)
>
>Give it a try, it won't hurt you!
Darn, there goes my game idea... "Destroy the Hostile Enemy Hippies!!!"
[j/k] 8^)
-- Brian B.
12. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
Ad Rienks wrote:
> You know what surprises me: almost every time when 'Cool Games' are
> the issue, I read the words 'enemy', 'hostile', 'destroying', etc,
> etc. I think it's time some clever mind comes up with a game were
> cooperatian is rewarded and hostile actions only give minus points.
> Don't you think, maybe if there are more of these kind of games, and
> our children are playing them, that a better world can evolve? (What
> an idealism; but what else can you expect from someone who grew up
> in the era of love and peace?)
>
> Give it a try, it won't hurt you!
Ad, your strange ideas will not get any traction with people who
condition their own children to fight and die for your freedom in
future Vietnams. jiri
13. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
- Posted by Adam Weeden <adam_weeden at HOTMAIL.COM>
Feb 28, 2000
-
Last edited Feb 29, 2000
Check out http://www.cognitoy.com/mindrover/mindrover.htm
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
14. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
-----Original Message-----
From: Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
[mailto:EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU]On Behalf Of Brian Broker
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:07 PM
To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:31:51 +0100, Ad Rienks wrote:
>You know what surprises me: almost every time when 'Cool Games' are the
>issue, I read the words 'enemy', 'hostile', 'destroying', etc, etc.
>I think it's time some clever mind comes up with a game were cooperatian is
>rewarded and hostile actions only give minus points.
>Don't you think, maybe if there are more of these kind of games, and our
>children are playing them, that a better world can evolve? (What an
>idealism; but what else can you expect from someone who grew up in the era
>of love and peace?)
>
>Give it a try, it won't hurt you!
>Darn, there goes my game idea... "Destroy the Hostile Enemy Hippies!!!"
>[j/k] 8^)
>-- Brian B.
hahahaha
: )
Darn, sounded like a great game too....
15. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
Hi
Oar mode on:
Maybe it's just that the people with violent tendencies can only express
them in fantasies. Those of us who are into co-operation don't really need
games to express ourselves - there are enough real life situations to deal
with that games would just seem pale and a waste of time.
Euphoria is a fine example - what game could possibly compete with both the
pleasure of using the language or with the community on the mailing list?
I think Joel misses a pretty important point - in any society individualism
is just a thin veneer laid upon massive cooperation.
Oar mode off:
Bye
Martin Hunt
simulat at intergate.bc.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: Ad Rienks <kwibus at ZONNET.NL>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
> You know what surprises me: almost every time when 'Cool Games' are the
> issue, I read the words 'enemy', 'hostile', 'destroying', etc, etc.
> I think it's time some clever mind comes up with a game were cooperatian
is
> rewarded and hostile actions only give minus points.
> Don't you think, maybe if there are more of these kind of games, and our
> children are playing them, that a better world can evolve? (What an
> idealism; but what else can you expect from someone who grew up in the era
> of love and peace?)
>
> Give it a try, it won't hurt you!
>
16. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
Hello Jeff (and others interested),
>I have an idea for a real time strategy game like Starcraft. It would be an
>open source game written in Euphoria with a highly customizable interface
>using a scripting language and an API. This will allow players to:
>* make their units smarter
>* automate repetitive tasks
>* write their own AI
>I hope it will run on Windows and Linux, and be network playable over
>TCP/IP.
>
>Instead of controlling a dozen types of units from several civilizations as
>in Starcraft, in this game everything will be very elegant. The plot is
>basically that nanotechnology has allowed people to build robots which can
>build more robots etc. All the robots start out as a base robot which is
>infinitely expandable with a number of object-oriented attachments. As in
>Starcraft, each player starts out with a certain number of basic robots
>which are similar to SCVs. They have a basic system for driving around on
>the ground, a mineral collector, and a nano-fabrication module which allows
>them to build more robots and modules. At any time, a robot can disconnect
>one or more of its modules, allowing it to travel faster (assuming it still
>has a driver module), and it can later re-connect them (as long as they
>aren't destroyed or stolen by another robot.)
>
>This modularity makes for some very interesting strategy. Since each module
>is programmable, one tactic might be to program a virus into a module and
>leave it, hoping that some enemy robot will pick it up. Another example
>would be to program observer bots to search for the enemy, and call up
>reinforcements once they were found. It also makes the programming much
>easier because everything is very abstract. For example, any device that
>supplies energy to the robot is viewed by the rest of the robot as simply
>an
>energy supplier. It doesn't matter whether it's a battery or a generator -
>it just supplies energy.
>
>If anyone wants to help write this, just e-mail me.
I have followed this thread and I see that it has evolved into
a game that would let "players" write code for their robots.
I don't see how a game like this would be commercially successful.
Even if you didn't HAVE to write any code, those that CAN program
would have an overall advantage because they could fine-tune
their robots for custom situations.
What I would suggest is to have an extensive INTERFACE to the
robot. Say you right click on a robot and it brings up a list of
actions:
Stop -- \
Move to location -- These should be
Waypoint move -- relatively self-
Attack Target -- explanatory but
Drop all modules -- if not they are
Pick up module -- explained below
Use special -- /
PROPERTIES..
If the player selcects properties a window pops up with a certain
number of tabs:
Movement
Attack
Modules
Movement:
Stop options: -- option buttons
shut down -- stop and shut down all systems
Stand ground -- stay in position
stop -- stop but attack and chase any enemy sighted
gaurd -- stop and attack enemies but return to stop position
Normal Movmement: -- go to target location
Find shortest route
stealth mode -- avoid enemies
abort mode -- retreat if attacked
Waypoint Movement: -- movement along waypoint paths
Patrol: -- a check box that enables toggle and cycle
Toggle -- 1,2,3,2,1,2...
cycle -- 1,2,3,1,2,3...
Attack:
Movement: -- option buttons
Passive -- Ignore enemies
Defensive -- Return fire only
Aggressive -- attack enemies in route
Trouble-maker -- attack all enemies sighted
Speed vs Accuracy -- checkboxes
lead target -- slower but more accurate
stop to attack -- increases accuracy
use burst fire (if available) -- higer attack rate
-- lower accuracy
Attack who?: -- for auto attacks (option buttons)
closest
strongest -- enemy with highest firepower
weakest -- enemy with lowest defense
Modules:
Current weapon: -- a combo-list of offensive modules
-- these do not have to be equiped
-- manually. See below
Equipped modules: -- a list of modules that are equipped
Unequip module -- a button
Set as Special -- a button
Non-equiped modules: -- a list of unequipped modules
Equip module -- a button
drop module -- a button
Thank you for taking the time to read this, it is just some
ideas of how to make a very powerful interface without
letting players code their own robots' AI. Of course, the
different modules available could be customizable via a script
file. I have some ideas for these as well if anyone wants to
hear them.
later,
Lewis Townsend
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
17. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
A right click orders menu defeats the object of what they are trying to
achieve... the ability to script. In the playstation game I mentioned
earlier (although I cant remember what it was called, it was a Japanese one)
you didn't "hard code" anything : you had a grid representing a neural
network and placed command buttons onto it and linked them together, flow
chart style. The game didn't come with any predefined ones.. I don't think
anyway, but that could help for players who just wanted to "pick up and
play".
-----Original Message-----
From: Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
[mailto:EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU]On Behalf Of Lewis Townsend
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 4:50 PM
To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
Hello Jeff (and others interested),
>I have an idea for a real time strategy game like Starcraft. It would be an
>open source game written in Euphoria with a highly customizable interface
>using a scripting language and an API. This will allow players to:
>* make their units smarter
>* automate repetitive tasks
>* write their own AI
>I hope it will run on Windows and Linux, and be network playable over
>TCP/IP.
>
>Instead of controlling a dozen types of units from several civilizations as
>in Starcraft, in this game everything will be very elegant. The plot is
>basically that nanotechnology has allowed people to build robots which can
>build more robots etc. All the robots start out as a base robot which is
>infinitely expandable with a number of object-oriented attachments. As in
>Starcraft, each player starts out with a certain number of basic robots
>which are similar to SCVs. They have a basic system for driving around on
>the ground, a mineral collector, and a nano-fabrication module which allows
>them to build more robots and modules. At any time, a robot can disconnect
>one or more of its modules, allowing it to travel faster (assuming it still
>has a driver module), and it can later re-connect them (as long as they
>aren't destroyed or stolen by another robot.)
>
>This modularity makes for some very interesting strategy. Since each module
>is programmable, one tactic might be to program a virus into a module and
>leave it, hoping that some enemy robot will pick it up. Another example
>would be to program observer bots to search for the enemy, and call up
>reinforcements once they were found. It also makes the programming much
>easier because everything is very abstract. For example, any device that
>supplies energy to the robot is viewed by the rest of the robot as simply
>an
>energy supplier. It doesn't matter whether it's a battery or a generator -
>it just supplies energy.
>
>If anyone wants to help write this, just e-mail me.
I have followed this thread and I see that it has evolved into
a game that would let "players" write code for their robots.
I don't see how a game like this would be commercially successful.
Even if you didn't HAVE to write any code, those that CAN program
would have an overall advantage because they could fine-tune
their robots for custom situations.
What I would suggest is to have an extensive INTERFACE to the
robot. Say you right click on a robot and it brings up a list of
actions:
Stop -- \
Move to location -- These should be
Waypoint move -- relatively self-
Attack Target -- explanatory but
Drop all modules -- if not they are
Pick up module -- explained below
Use special -- /
PROPERTIES..
If the player selcects properties a window pops up with a certain
number of tabs:
Movement
Attack
Modules
Movement:
Stop options: -- option buttons
shut down -- stop and shut down all systems
Stand ground -- stay in position
stop -- stop but attack and chase any enemy sighted
gaurd -- stop and attack enemies but return to stop position
Normal Movmement: -- go to target location
Find shortest route
stealth mode -- avoid enemies
abort mode -- retreat if attacked
Waypoint Movement: -- movement along waypoint paths
Patrol: -- a check box that enables toggle and cycle
Toggle -- 1,2,3,2,1,2...
cycle -- 1,2,3,1,2,3...
Attack:
Movement: -- option buttons
Passive -- Ignore enemies
Defensive -- Return fire only
Aggressive -- attack enemies in route
Trouble-maker -- attack all enemies sighted
Speed vs Accuracy -- checkboxes
lead target -- slower but more accurate
stop to attack -- increases accuracy
use burst fire (if available) -- higer attack rate
-- lower accuracy
Attack who?: -- for auto attacks (option buttons)
closest
strongest -- enemy with highest firepower
weakest -- enemy with lowest defense
Modules:
Current weapon: -- a combo-list of offensive modules
-- these do not have to be equiped
-- manually. See below
Equipped modules: -- a list of modules that are equipped
Unequip module -- a button
Set as Special -- a button
Non-equiped modules: -- a list of unequipped modules
Equip module -- a button
drop module -- a button
Thank you for taking the time to read this, it is just some
ideas of how to make a very powerful interface without
letting players code their own robots' AI. Of course, the
different modules available could be customizable via a script
file. I have some ideas for these as well if anyone wants to
hear them.
later,
Lewis Townsend
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
18. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
> Maybe it's just that the people with violent tendencies can only express
> them in fantasies. Those of us who are into co-operation don't really need
> games to express ourselves - there are enough real life situations to deal
> with that games would just seem pale and a waste of time.
Games, like any art (ouch, statement!) play with emotions .. like music they
offer a feeling. You don't like a song because a guitar is a more politicaly
correct instrument than a keyboard. Nonsense. Violense, theft are all
overrated element and are certainly no garantuee for fun.
When did computer games in the current form start appearing ? who created
the first computer games ? Hobbyist did. They created games where you knew
what to do .. and when you did the 'right' thing you would get rewarded ..
it provided a pretty fascistic world actually. (all platform based games,
all little chalanges - goal - reward games ... (remember Packard's
tutorials!))
Think about the generation of programmers of these games ? That's right ..
hello 60-ties .. everything goes .... society was on the lowest moralizing
level in history .. .. we stopt judged each other. Games filled the gap
that this social move has meant. Dare I say it, Mario Bros (tm) is more
fascistic than Carmageddon, GTA etc.
It also explains why these games are still al little bit more popular in
Europe than they are in the States (which are a little ahead socially
speaking) .. So, what games are popular now, now that moralizing is making
a major come back .. and the finger is rizing again .. (less tolerance, war
on drugs, clinton-schandel, BeepBeep springer. etc. ... all items that would
in the 60-ties be handled with maybe the complete opposite policy) ... other
emotions are now growing. Slowly but certainly you see four different
aspects of games that are nowadays important...
a) Feeling out of control, like nothing you do makes any difference ? Play
a Control-freak-god-game (just see how many sims there are) ..
b) Feeling moralized, locked up in a short-sighted society ? Play a
totallly-freedom-everything-goes-game
(these usually lack a goal) .. games such as : Carmageddon, GTA
.. (all the 'hated' games)
c) Feeling unimportant ? Get a nickname a clan and kick some ass online at
any of the multiplayer games.
d) Feeling bored ? Play a part-of-something-bigger-game .. Adventures ..
from blade runner to Outcast to Half-life .. (although half-life kind of
combines it with the old fascistic game style)
Lets face it .. the game sell charts are pretty typical for each country and
time, but they do provide very cheap therapy and I don't think that any of
the violence is really the key motive .. ... however, if you look at the 5
types of games I've discussed here (i've intentionally excluded the real
intellectual challanges .. such as a chess program, ect. ) you do see why
violence is the only way to accomplish / give the game-player the feeling he
/ she desires.
So yes, you quite right .. but really, is this a bad thing ? and if so,
would banning games ever do any good or are the more the painkiller, the
temporary solution of the real problem ?
Ralf N.
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
Hmm, maybe I should fix up my English a little and try to make an article
outof it .. one day.
19. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
Ralf said:
snip
> So yes, you quite right .. but really, is this a bad thing ? and if so,
> would banning games ever do any good or are the more the painkiller, the
> temporary solution of the real problem ?
I agree - the games and the outlet aren't a bad thing. People shouldn't have
to account for their fantasies to anyone, and cyberspace is a really
harmless place to indulge in fantasies.
> Hmm, maybe I should fix up my English a little and try to make an article
> outof it .. one day.
>
Good plan
Bye
Martin
20. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
Lots to respond to, so I haven't replied to any specififc message.
Someone suggested MindRover. It's nice, but the end user has NO control over
the robots during the game (not that I object to that, but that is not quite
what we were discussing), and it's 'scripting' language is sadly lacking,
with no recourse to actual code for the experiences programmer.
Another Idea for this game: Only factories should be able to produce, and
you should only recieve 1 or 2 of those. Factories would not be
programmable, but you could specify how many of what types of robot you
needed, and it would make them. This would save all the trouble of having to
rewrite a robots code to change what robots it is producing - think of all
the parts: Chassis, Accessories, Programme, etc.
Someone mentioned a non-violent programme? RoboCom
http://www.cyty.com/robocom
the objective is still to kill the opponent, but by wiping his code with
yours, instead.
Another idea for a non-violent game: Programme a robot to go about
constructing from a plan in the shortest time possible. Raw resources would
be available, and these could be turned into more robots, or building
blocks. There would be a very wide range of strategies available. How many
robots to build? What to build first? How to gather resources? Different
robots for each task? (Replicator bots, Builder bots, Resource gathering
bots). A competition would be held to see which programme completes the
building fastest.I would envisage code being programmed in the same way
RoboCom does it, and the two teams would be totally isolated (no
interference)
Nick
21. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
simulat wrote:
>Ralf said:
>snip
>> So yes, you quite right .. but really, is this a bad thing ? and if so,
>> would banning games ever do any good or are the more the painkiller, the
>> temporary solution of the real problem ?
>I agree - the games and the outlet aren't a bad thing. People shouldn't have
>to account for their fantasies to anyone, and cyberspace is a really
>harmless place to indulge in fantasies.
>
For those old enough to choose, I agree with you. Censorship is largely
self-defeating with the best of intentions. As control becomes the motivation,
censorship is completely absurd. However, as an adult given the
responsibility of raising young children, I believe a bit of the old sixties and
seventies mantra..."you are what you eat". I would not feed my children
a constant diet of violence and/or sado-masochism. Those are not issues
that should be avoided, but I don't believe that using them in the context of
fun can be beneficial to young minds or any other minds for that matter. I
am uncomfortable with constant images of violence and degradation vamping
as entertainment. I believe that violence and degradation are a part of our
everyday world and should be met and dealt with in as upfront a fashion as
possible. I train my children to defend themselves when necessary, and to
avoid physical conflict until it becomes necessary. I teach them that they are
the owners of themselves and that I just provide guidelines until they are
equipped to make decisions for themselves. When they meet with a
questionable situation, they are trained to ask questions and withdraw if
those questions are not answered satisfactorily.
Fantasies are fine, but there needs to be a clear delineation between
fantasy and reality. Constant absorption into any fantasy blurs that line.
Most, but not all of the violence of the world will pass you by if you show
yourself to be aware and able to deal with it. No bully wants to take the
chance of being shown for the coward he really is. No one ever learned
any useful social or even self-defense skill from the group of violent games
that I have seen. Getting that "rush" from a game is most certainly
attractive, but I see no benefit beyond that in any of the current crop of
games.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
22. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Everett Williams" <rett at GVTC.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
> simulat wrote:
>
> >Ralf said:
> >snip
> >> So yes, you quite right .. but really, is this a bad thing ? and if so,
> >> would banning games ever do any good or are the more the painkiller,
the
> >> temporary solution of the real problem ?
> >I agree - the games and the outlet aren't a bad thing. People shouldn't
have
> >to account for their fantasies to anyone, and cyberspace is a really
> >harmless place to indulge in fantasies.
> >
> For those old enough to choose, I agree with you. Censorship is largely
> self-defeating with the best of intentions. As control becomes the
motivation,
> censorship is completely absurd. However, as an adult given the
> responsibility of raising young children, I believe a bit of the old
sixties and
> seventies mantra..."you are what you eat". I would not feed my children
> a constant diet of violence and/or sado-masochism. Those are not issues
> that should be avoided, but I don't believe that using them in the context
of
> fun can be beneficial to young minds or any other minds for that matter. I
> am uncomfortable with constant images of violence and degradation vamping
> as entertainment.
Then you prolly *luv* the Pokemon craze. With each word carefully chosen to
maximize sales, they appeal to greed and ego. Buy more and save the world.
Be a Trainer (master) and help (enslave) pokemon (who can take care of
themselves just fine). When you are tired of them, keep them in Pokeballs
(cages), otherwise you train them (somehow force them to fight each other).
And *anything* can prevent the humans from minimizing the pain/suffering of
the Pokemons. This is all done to save the world, gain "power" for the human
with the most pokemons in pokeballs (caged), and put the most amount of
Pokemons into training (slavery).
It makes me sick that society permits this thinly veiled marketing scheme to
exist, let alone be pushed at kids. I vote for Norway's (right country?)
laws that prohibit all tv marketing aimed at kids. Kids are demonstrably not
sentient, but they are programmable (brainwashable) to a degree. Lets not
aim towards a future like that portrayed in Robocop or the violent
videogames kids buy.
Btw, i am against buying dogs for protection too. That's slavery, taking
advantage of the dog's herd instinct, and anyone with a gun will just shoot
the dog and then proceed. Smells like Pokemon, train the dog, keep it tied
up or caged in a yard, play with it when you are bored otherwise ignore it,
and if you can make money off it then breed them. Sigh. Videogames meets
real life.
And in Michigan today, a first grader shot another first grader in the neck,
killed him, no thoughts against it, it was like in a video game. The event
was not without warning, but the warnings were ignored by the adults. We
have enough people on the planet, how about some gene pool filtering video
games now?
Kat
23. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
Good idea - I agree that there should be a default set of actions such as
this. To simplify programming, all the basic functions could be implemented
in scripts. Also, while programmers could extend the robots using their own
scripts, I hope that:
1. Some programmers release their scripts
2. Scripts are easy enough to use that many people could write their own
3. Very basic scripts could be more powerful than more advanced scripts. For
example, a script could simply build a huge swarm of robots without the user
having to click on the build robot command and individually configure each
new robot, allowing the user to do more useful things which require more
skill.
Also, there would be a standard interface to all of the modules and some
scripts could not be modified. For example, a robot can't be built for free,
or even a reduced amount of resources - the amount of resources will be a
built-in constant, and there will be no way to get around it.
Jeff Fielding
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lewis Townsend" <keroltarr at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
> Hello Jeff (and others interested),
> ...
> I have followed this thread and I see that it has evolved into
> a game that would let "players" write code for their robots.
> I don't see how a game like this would be commercially successful.
> Even if you didn't HAVE to write any code, those that CAN program
> would have an overall advantage because they could fine-tune
> their robots for custom situations.
> What I would suggest is to have an extensive INTERFACE to the
> robot. Say you right click on a robot and it brings up a list of
> actions:
> Stop -- \
> Move to location -- These should be
> Waypoint move -- relatively self-
> Attack Target -- explanatory but
> Drop all modules -- if not they are
> Pick up module -- explained below
> Use special -- /
> PROPERTIES..
>
> If the player selcects properties a window pops up with a certain
> number of tabs:
> Movement
> Attack
> Modules
>
> Movement:
> Stop options: -- option buttons
> shut down -- stop and shut down all systems
> Stand ground -- stay in position
> stop -- stop but attack and chase any enemy sighted
> gaurd -- stop and attack enemies but return to stop position
> Normal Movmement: -- go to target location
> Find shortest route
> stealth mode -- avoid enemies
> abort mode -- retreat if attacked
> Waypoint Movement: -- movement along waypoint paths
> Patrol: -- a check box that enables toggle and cycle
> Toggle -- 1,2,3,2,1,2...
> cycle -- 1,2,3,1,2,3...
>
> Attack:
> Movement: -- option buttons
> Passive -- Ignore enemies
> Defensive -- Return fire only
> Aggressive -- attack enemies in route
> Trouble-maker -- attack all enemies sighted
> Speed vs Accuracy -- checkboxes
> lead target -- slower but more accurate
> stop to attack -- increases accuracy
> use burst fire (if available) -- higer attack rate
> -- lower accuracy
> Attack who?: -- for auto attacks (option buttons)
> closest
> strongest -- enemy with highest firepower
> weakest -- enemy with lowest defense
>
> Modules:
> Current weapon: -- a combo-list of offensive modules
> -- these do not have to be equiped
> -- manually. See below
> Equipped modules: -- a list of modules that are equipped
> Unequip module -- a button
> Set as Special -- a button
> Non-equiped modules: -- a list of unequipped modules
> Equip module -- a button
> drop module -- a button
>
>
> Thank you for taking the time to read this, it is just some
> ideas of how to make a very powerful interface without
> letting players code their own robots' AI. Of course, the
> different modules available could be customizable via a script
> file. I have some ideas for these as well if anyone wants to
> hear them.
>
> later,
> Lewis Townsend
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
24. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
Thanks. For a scripting language, I think a subset of Euphoria, possibly
with some object-orientation (since the robots are very object-oriented)
would do nicely.
Jeff Fielding
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Pilkington" <rpilkington at netzero.net>
To: <JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
>
> Sounds cool. I'd like to help.
>
> Any ideas on how the scripting would look? I've seen several different
> scripting types, and they all look wildly different.
>
>
> __________________________________________
> NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>
25. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
Heya Kat!
I did see this thread proliferate, but I didn't decide to read it til it became
the only thing not deleted :)
I've decided to take these comments off the Listserv, as i'm a gungho crackbaby
about posting my own opinions to many people, as it happens to get flamed upon
all the time. I'd rather get it from one person than many :)
Kat wrote on the Euphoria Listserv:
> Then you prolly *luv* the Pokemon craze. With each word carefully chosen to
> maximize sales, they appeal to greed and ego. Buy more and save the world.
The fantasy world of Pokemon. The Pokemon world differs only slightly from real
life as the animals become pokemon.
This has, so far, not insisted on enslaving animals in real life (But it sure
has become a fad to collect these crappy made 'collectibles'. <shudder>)
Unfortunatly, Pokemon started out in Japan, so it's no fault of our own
country's (Nintendo exempt) people that made the Pokemon fad become the way it
is.
> Be a Trainer (master) and help (enslave) pokemon (who can take care of
> themselves just fine). When you are tired of them, keep them in Pokeballs
> (cages), otherwise you train them (somehow force them to fight each other).
Good euphemism (Jeez, I _think_ that's the right word) to it. Yet, again, this
behavior hasn't come out of the unreality reality of the Pokemon world. The
behavior hasn't come to the real world.
> And *anything* can prevent the humans from minimizing the pain/suffering of
> the Pokemons.
<nod> Is this no different in real life?
Anything could prevent me from taking care of my kitten. As well as everyone in
my household :) And we hold a constant battle to keep food in her tummy and
shelter :) (We go to great lengths to get our kitty cat food, and she eats alot!
:)
> This is all done to save the world, gain "power" for the human
> with the most pokemons in pokeballs (caged), and put the most amount of
> Pokemons into training (slavery).
Save the world?!? The world that they're in has nothing to do with the training
(slavery) and keeping them in pokeballs (cages).
BUT, the greed of the trainers (masters) pushes them further. In very few cases,
was pokemon kept and treated as pets.
(Just so I can make sure of this, do ya have a example of anyone in the pokemon
world claiming of saving the world?)
> It makes me sick that society permits this thinly veiled marketing scheme to
> exist, let alone be pushed at kids.
So it be, I say.
This problem can never be escaped from, as all they have to say is "We're aiming
it at adults" and they're free (if battling over that fact over the whole time
of the fad can be called freedom).
> I vote for Norway's (right country?) laws that prohibit all tv marketing aimed
> at kids. Kids are demonstrably notsentient, but they are programmable
> (brainwashable) to a degree. Lets not
> aim towards a future like that portrayed in Robocop or the violent videogames
> kids buy.
I like how many said it... "Video games don't make people kill people, TV
doesn't make people kill people, Music, or media (I hold my tongue on that last
one), or much of anything else. People kill people."
It's true.
I just wish people would stop relying on statistical studies to prove crap. It's
all on a individual basis.
Example: Littleton shooting. Many claimed that the shooters played FPS's,
particularly Doom/Quake. They listened to Metal (Many references of Marilyn
Manson, Rammstein, and KoRn were made), and they found all their ideas on the
internet.
I've had access to the Anarchists Cookbook since the 2nd edition (sometime in
'92, methinx). I've been playing FPS's since... bleh, mid '95, back with
Catacomb Abyss. using their own engine, still sprite based gfx. Today, it's
hyperviolent games like Soldier's of Fortune, Quake3:Arena, Half-Life, and the
list goes on. I've listened to Metal since before I was born. (AC/DC, mainly)
I have absolutely no feeling to kill anyone. I don't need to, I don't want to.
I've got other shit to deal with (School, personal things, and hobbies, being
it).
> Btw, i am against buying dogs for protection too. That's slavery, taking
> advantage of the dog's herd instinct, and anyone with a gun will just shoot
> the dog and then proceed.
<nod> Point well made. I have no defense :)
> Smells like Pokemon, train the dog, keep it tied
> up or caged in a yard, play with it when you are bored otherwise ignore it,
> and if you can make money off it then breed them.
That behavior has existed faaaaaar before Pokemon or anything of the like ever
existed.
This is humanity... intelligent creatures doing shit to less-so creatures. There
is nothing anyone can do about it but not do it yourself. (Which you do. I
praise you for doing so :)
> Sigh. Videogames meets real life.
Correction: Real Life meets fantasy life. Again, like I said, that behavior has
existed before Pokemon, or anything of the like.
> And in Michigan today, a first grader shot another first grader in the neck,
> killed him, no thoughts against it, it was like in a video game.
And you can thank the parents for not teaching them what happens when you hurt
or kill other beings.
I'll tell you why I haven't killed anyone. I was taught, back before I can
remember anything, that pulling a cat's tail (I did do it when I was a baby)
feels something like whatever my dad did to me (Don't know what). I never hurt
any being without reason since.
And i'm subjected to it every day. People kill oher people, one gets killed
themselves. Do I want to die? No. Do I want one of my own to die due to my
actions? No.
And that is why I back down, keep my anger to myself. Woo.
> The event was not without warning, but the warnings were ignored by the
> adults.
Thank the adults for it. They're the fuckups to decide to ignore those warnings.
Ping.
> We have enough people on the planet, how about some gene pool filtering video
> games now?
Video games don't kill people, People kill people.
> Kat
Thanks for reading my rant, and I do hope that we can debate more on this later
:)
--"LEVIATHAN"
26. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
- Posted by Jeffrey Fielding <JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET>
Feb 29, 2000
-
Last edited Mar 01, 2000
Though factories would not be very customizeable, they could have a script
to evaluate which things it should build first. I think that any robot
should be able to have as many factories as the user wants. There could be
one virtual factory interface which accepts requests from all the modules
(example: requests to build missles from a weapons system), and sends them
to the least busy factory. When the factory finishes building it, a handle
is passed back to the module which requested it.
Jeff Fielding
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Johnson" <arachnid at MAD.SCIENTIST.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
> Lots to respond to, so I haven't replied to any specififc message.
> Someone suggested MindRover. It's nice, but the end user has NO control
over
> the robots during the game (not that I object to that, but that is not
quite
> what we were discussing), and it's 'scripting' language is sadly lacking,
> with no recourse to actual code for the experiences programmer.
> Another Idea for this game: Only factories should be able to produce, and
> you should only recieve 1 or 2 of those. Factories would not be
> programmable, but you could specify how many of what types of robot you
> needed, and it would make them. This would save all the trouble of having
to
> rewrite a robots code to change what robots it is producing - think of all
> the parts: Chassis, Accessories, Programme, etc.
> Someone mentioned a non-violent programme? RoboCom
> http://www.cyty.com/robocom
> the objective is still to kill the opponent, but by wiping his code with
> yours, instead.
> Another idea for a non-violent game: Programme a robot to go about
> constructing from a plan in the shortest time possible. Raw resources
would
> be available, and these could be turned into more robots, or building
> blocks. There would be a very wide range of strategies available. How many
> robots to build? What to build first? How to gather resources? Different
> robots for each task? (Replicator bots, Builder bots, Resource gathering
> bots). A competition would be held to see which programme completes the
> building fastest.I would envisage code being programmed in the same way
> RoboCom does it, and the two teams would be totally isolated (no
> interference)
>
> Nick
>
27. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
- Posted by Steve Mosher <goat at DEVIL.ISN.NET>
Feb 29, 2000
-
Last edited Mar 01, 2000
A long time ago I played a sweet little DOS game called 'warbots'. I know
there's a discussion going on about violence in games et al. but that's
not what made this game great. You programmed a robot to defeat other
robots by rocketing, creaming and (the best tactic, but no one knew about
it) ramming. This game taught you to write *tight* code, since each robot
had the same priority at the instruction level. The language tried to be
pascal-ish, which made things simple and easy. I think something
euphoria-like might be a little overkill, depending on the extent of the
AI you wish to develope.
My advice is to reward tight code, no matter what you use for a
language. This is how I learned to code efficiently (years before I could
actually write real code), and I think it would be beneficial to
the 'community' to emphasize this -- people playing this game will write
efficient code or they will lose.
Warbots did wonders for me, my bot was undefeated once I tuned it
properly. My friends wouldn't play with me any longer since they weren't
into it enough to really get into the code. I want to see more games like
this, there are plenty already, but they aren't all that popular -- but
they'll all teach you to write efficient code. I'm going to have to get
back into this...
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Jeffrey Fielding wrote:
> Thanks. For a scripting language, I think a subset of Euphoria, possibly
> with some object-orientation (since the robots are very object-oriented)
> would do nicely.
>
> Jeff Fielding
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Pilkington" <rpilkington at netzero.net>
> To: <JJProg at CYBERBURY.NET>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 12:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
>
>
> >
> > Sounds cool. I'd like to help.
> >
> > Any ideas on how the scripting would look? I've seen several different
> > scripting types, and they all look wildly different.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> > Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
> >
28. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
- Posted by Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET>
Feb 29, 2000
-
Last edited Mar 01, 2000
----- Original Message -----
From: "LEVIATHAN" <leviathan at USWEST.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
> Heya Kat!
>
> I did see this thread proliferate, but I didn't decide to read it til it
became
> the only thing not deleted :)
>
> I've decided to take these comments off the Listserv, as i'm a gungho
crackbaby
> about posting my own opinions to many people, as it happens to get flamed
upon
> all the time. I'd rather get it from one person than many :)
That's odd, i got it thru the listserv.
>
> > This is all done to save the world, gain "power" for the human
> > with the most pokemons in pokeballs (caged), and put the most amount of
> > Pokemons into training (slavery).
>
> Save the world?!? The world that they're in has nothing to do with the
training
> (slavery) and keeping them in pokeballs (cages).
>
> BUT, the greed of the trainers (masters) pushes them further. In very few
cases,
> was pokemon kept and treated as pets.
>
> (Just so I can make sure of this, do ya have a example of anyone in the
pokemon
> world claiming of saving the world?)
Listen to the words of the song opening the tv show. It sounds like a
romanticized knights in shining armor off to save the world and gain honor,,
by "training" the Pokemon.
> I just wish people would stop relying on statistical studies to prove
crap. It's
> all on a individual basis.
I'm sorry, but the individual can do things that affect too many people to
allow complete freedom anymore. There are just too many people too close
together now.
I'm not going to reply to more on this thread.
Kat
29. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
About the discussion of which langauge to use: I am somewhat a 'veteran' of
programming games, and of all those I have tried, the ones with assembler
rank highest - only one instruction per line, and dead easy to read even
without comments. Also, assembler could easily be translated into a form of
english. Eg: ADD x, y could be translated into Add 5 to x. or Turn 1 could
be translated into Turn left. Therefore you have a language that is a lot
like the simple language the computer controlled LEGO uses - a kid can learn
to progrmme it easily, and so can anyone else. Fo those who like obscure
acronyms (like myself), the same language could be expreeesd in terms of
ADD, MUL, DIV, etc.
Nick
30. Re: Cool Game Idea - Anyone want to help?
- Posted by Everett Williams <rett at GVTC.COM>
Feb 29, 2000
-
Last edited Mar 01, 2000
The Johnson Family wrote:
>About the discussion of which langauge to use: I am somewhat a 'veteran' of
>programming games, and of all those I have tried, the ones with assembler
>rank highest - only one instruction per line, and dead easy to read even
>without comments. Also, assembler could easily be translated into a form of
>english. Eg: ADD x, y could be translated into Add 5 to x. or Turn 1 could
>be translated into Turn left. Therefore you have a language that is a lot
>like the simple language the computer controlled LEGO uses - a kid can learn
>to progrmme it easily, and so can anyone else. Fo those who like obscure
>acronyms (like myself), the same language could be expreeesd in terms of
>ADD, MUL, DIV, etc.
>
>Nick
Chief, Nick's been into the locoweed again. Actually, I do see what you
mean, even if the reference to assembler might be a little hard to swallow.
Most people would call this pidgin. One verb, one modifier.
GRAB ROBOT1
TURN LEFT
FORWARD 6
TURN RIGHT
FIRE CANNON
RELEASE ROBOT1
etc., etc. long into the night. Allow these simples to be made into macros
that then can be used as follows
GOLEFT6FIRE ROBOT1
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
