OpenArena Message Boards

OpenArena Contributions => Idea pit => Topic started by: Neon_Knight on November 15, 2010, 12:05:21 pm



Title: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Neon_Knight on November 15, 2010, 12:05:21 pm
It's a gametype from the PS2 version of Q3A.
The objective is to retain the white flag in X minutes.
There's also a timelimit, in which the players must accomplish the objective.

It can be seen with more detail in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIUSlxSRvRY#t=1m15s


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: pulchr on November 15, 2010, 12:41:16 pm
i think that could be fun - but looking at that video using the controls for ps2 seems like a punishment :D


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Udi on November 15, 2010, 01:11:22 pm
Agreed, it could be fun! OA could use a new non-team gametype.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on November 15, 2010, 03:24:05 pm
It could be nice... I vote yes! :-)

The base idea remembers the DO NOT LINK[/b]) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/ModCompat/Q3_Catch_the_Chicken]Catch the Chicken (http://([b) mod, but this is different because when you hold the flag, you can defend yourself shooting at usual.

Does Q3 Revolution source code have been released under GPLv2? I've never heard about this. Anyway, I hope this gametype to not be too difficult to implement from scratch (but let's wait for Sago).

An idea: it would need maps with a white flag (like for One Flag Capture)... but probably at the moment very few maps do not remove that flag if the gametype is not One Flag Capture... so maybe in "Possession" we could make the white flag spawn at a random spawn point each time (if no neutral flag entity has been set for the new gametype)... this way, the gametype would immediately work on any FFA map!


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: chaoticsoldier on November 15, 2010, 05:31:56 pm
I remember adding Catch the Chicken to OA was proposed a few years ago (http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=1613.0), but nothing really came of it.

I think either of these gametypes would be fun.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Neon_Knight on November 15, 2010, 06:17:43 pm
Q3 Revolution is a port created by EA, so I guess the answer is no. :/

It's possible also to add the flag manually via entity edit.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: fromhell on November 15, 2010, 08:05:32 pm
Does Q3 Revolution source code have been released under GPLv2?

No, and due to the Sony development kits usage rights you can not GPL it anyway. Name 1 open-source PS2 game - YOU CAN'T!!!



Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on November 16, 2010, 03:33:36 am
"Catch the chicken" gametype has not been implemented (at least, yet)... but there is already a mod that does it. It looks nice, is funny and and has got some features that would take some time to re-write from scratch. The mod could simply be better supported by the next OpenArena version by creating/fixing the shader that is used for the "golden egg" (that contains a powerup).

I think "Possession" may be created first, for various reasons:
- It seems very more easy to create: no new models, no new weapons, less rules than in ctc.
- I don't know of any mod that allows to play it (if it exists, please tell me). At the moment, or you buy Q3 Revolution (and the console), or you can't play it.
- Its "look" would fit better on the overall look: holding a flag seems more serious than chasing a chicken...


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Peter Silie on November 16, 2010, 01:32:49 pm
Instead of implementing new game types i would prefer some type of generic items, usuable in the radiant.
To be honest: q3s item system is not as good as it seems to be.
If you had a more generic approach, mappers could implement many different game types without a code modification.
Maybe item configuration through key/value pairs could solve it. Never thought about it, but if you are honest, you just need two gametypes: singleplayer and teamgames. all the other stuff (ffa, koth, ctf, elimination, domination, dd, 1flagctf...) could be done with item parameters.

Maybe the items flag, goal and trigger are a hook to realize it?
flags can be carried by blue, red or both.
they return after x seconds after drop.
goals can be activated by blue, red or both players - if they are touched by a player or a flag.
....

Just an idea :D


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on November 16, 2010, 01:43:49 pm
Hey... it's seems that Q3 Revolution is a bit more worth of taking a look than I thought before...
- Quake 3 Revolution PS2 review (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/quake3revolution/review.html)
- Quake 3 Revolution PS2 screenshots (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/quake3revolution/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images%3Bheader%3Bmore)
- Quake 3 Revolution PS2 videos (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/quake3revolution/videos.html?mode=all)
- Another review (http://uk.ps2.ign.com/articles/165/165323p1.html)

Reading the last link, here's the list of the available modes in Q3R:
- Deathmatch (we already have this)
- Team Deathmatch (we already have this)
- Single Weapon Deathmatch
- Single Weapon Team Deathmatch
- 1 Flag Capture The Flag (we already have this)
- Capture The Flag (we already have this)
- Team Possession
- Possession

Update: in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vztxwXvNKc&feature=related) it appears also an "Elimination" gametype, that seems similar to our "Last man standing" gametype (with players with multiple lives -and you are informed about the remaining lives of who you just killed-), with the difference that there is standard item collecting, there (instead of "clan arena style" full load like ours).

----------------------------------------------------
@Peter: about making something new without having to create a new gametype, through time I've written down some ideas. Some "simply" involving options available to the server administrators, mixing them to create particular gaming styles, and some others are suggestions to the mappers about creating maps that differ from the classic ctf-mirror style, to allow something more or less "different".

To read about what I'm saying...

Suggestions for server admins:
(DO NOT LINK) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/Configuration_examples

Suggestions for map creators:
(DO NOT LINK) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/Mapping_information_for_special_gametypes#Capture_the_flag
(DO NOT LINK) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/Mapping_information_for_special_gametypes#Harvester
(DO NOT LINK) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/Mapping_information_for_special_gametypes#Elimination_and_CTF_Elimination --> (DO NOT LINK) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/Elimination#Map_styles

If it is possible to use the map editor to create something similar to "Possession", good (if you know how, please tell me)... anyway this gametype seems (I say "seems" because at the moment I can't try it, not having Q3R... maybe I may find a copy of it in some store...) worth of having its own gametype, and to play it in any existing OpenArena map...

PS: Probably also a "team possession" mode would be good, but I feel that having a new "solo" mode is more urgent: at the moment we do not have any "solo" gametype where you have to interact with an item instead of simply frag and avoid to be fragged.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on December 03, 2010, 02:38:00 pm
The most important thing about implementing a new gametype is to be able to support it and follow it. I already have more things than I can support and that is why I will not take the challange of implementing a new gametype. However if someone wants to try to implement it they should be wa. Here are the basis for implementing a new gametype:

1. Add GT_POSSESSION in game/bg_public.h after GT_DOMINATION
2. Near the line with "set FFA status for high gametypes", set GT_POSSESSION as a free for all gametype
3. Likewise in cgame/cg_servercmds.c in CG_ParseServerinfo.
4. Add "pos" to the arrays "gametypeNames" in game/g_spawn.c and game/ai_dmq3.c
5. Make a function in game/g_team.c that spawns a whiteflag at one of the domination_point entities. If map does not have the domination_point entity spawn at a player spawn instead.
6. The whiteflag must be a pickable item. Look at ordinary flags.
7. You need to make the white flag spawn in some way and respawn if it lands in a nodrop zone, it is not picked up for 30 seconds or carrier leaves in some way. There are multiple solutions to this problem. One might copy the way the flags in CTF are handled, just be careful: A little mistake and the white flag might be gone forever.
8. Add to ClientTimerActions in game/g_action.c to give a point to the flag holder every second.
9. UI enhancement to make it work in a nice way (this is 50-75% of the work but can be postponed until one knows it works)
10. Support it

that is the basis one might consider a distance meter that shows distance to flag/flagcarrier so that it can be tracked down.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: fromhell on March 19, 2011, 06:38:05 am
holding a flag seems more serious than chasing a chicken...

Surely this won't look foul if we hatch some sort of 'platinum egg laying' plot to it, they're flocking crazily for a reason.


p.s. I think it should be a duck


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Neon_Knight on March 19, 2011, 08:24:17 am
But for Posession, no new models need to be created. There's only the white flag.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: fromhell on March 19, 2011, 10:04:21 am
but white flags don't quack


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on October 20, 2011, 03:49:01 pm
Side note: I created the Q3 Revolution page on the wiki.
(DO NOT LINK) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/Q3A/Quake_III_Revolution


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 19, 2016, 10:38:20 am
Maybe Sago is going to do Possession:
http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=5264.msg53927#msg53927

Hence, some thoughts:
* Sago mentioned to make the white flag spawn at Dom points. So I told him: don't forget to make the white flag spawn in other kinds of spawn points (team spawn points and/or ffa spawn points) in case it does not find a DOM point. This mode should work with all maps!
** I don't even know if it should check for dom/flag spawn points first or if it should directly go for team/ffa spawn points. I don't know.
* Do you think it should automatically change spawn point in case noone finds it in some time? I mean, surely after some time it has been dropped, but do you think also after some time it spawned (a longer time maybe)?
* I don't remember if Q3R had it, however maybe some sort of indicator which tells you if you are going closer or farther than the flag could be useful. It could be text, graphics or audio beep (like the beep in DO NOT LINK[/b]) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/ModCompat/Hunt]"save the universe" mode of "Hunt" Q3 mod (http://([b))[/size], but I suppose a flag distance indicator in game units may be the simper one to do and should work well and would work also for who keeps his sound volume off.
* I don't even remember if Q3R Possession had a key to drop the flag or not. Probably not, but I'm not really sure. However, other flag-based baseoa modes do not have it, so it may feel strange if only one had (everyone or noone, right?).


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 19, 2016, 03:58:04 pm
Thinking about it again, maybe you're right, it may use dom points if available (in that case, players would have from 1 to 6 palces to check depending from the map). So, dom points, then ffa player points, then team player points?

And for players, search for ffa spawn points first and then team spawn points? I suppose it's useful to consider that there are some maps which have team points only and no ffa points (which is bad, but some may be. Also, in case there is some other gametype which does not have the fallback to team spawn points in case of lack of ffa spawn points, it may be the chance to fix it. Let's try to avoid chances of game crashes due to poor mapping.).


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Neon_Knight on July 19, 2016, 04:56:19 pm
There should be also the option for the mappers themselves to put the flag at some point of the map.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 27, 2016, 01:20:23 am
Hey guys (and gals): Sago implemented Possession on Github!  :) :) :)

Let's grab the latest DO NOT LINK[/b]) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/OpenArena_eXpanded]OAX (http://([b) test mod nightly build from here (http://files.poulsander.com/~poul19/public_files/oa/dev088/gamecode_nightly/) and let's test it!!!!

(Please specify the "date" of the OAX gamecode build you are using, when posting the feedback. This should make things a bit easier to Sago.)

UPDATE (2016-07-27): It looks like some features have not been implemented yet. Maybe it's better to wait for a few more days before providing more feedback.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 27, 2016, 02:53:40 am
First tests (gamecode v. 2016-07-26):
Cool gametype! Thank you, Sago!  :)

However:
1) It looks like the flag chooses a spawn point at the beginning of the match, and then spawns always there every time, for the whole match.
2) Console says like "Jenna fragged FREE's flag carrier!". I suppose that "FREE" could be omitted, as there are no teams.
3) Also, if you commit suicide with a weapon or by cratering, the console does not mention the flag carrier is dead (mentions your name, but does not say about the flag). If you use "/kill", instead, it writes "the flag has returned" (in that case, the flag actually respawns at spawn point, is not dropped where you died)
4) Console does not say who just grabbed the flag.
5) Do you plan to add "X has the flag!" big text on screen when someone is holding it, like "Red has the flag!/Flag dropped!" in one-flag-ctf mode? (Maybe that could be used in the place of 3) and 4).. maybe it's how other ctf-based modes work.)
6) Do you plan to play "You have the flag" sound when you grab it?
7) If I die when holding the flag, the score board still indicates me as flag holder, unless I press TAB key. (In one-flag-ctf mode, instead, the flag icon disappears in less than a second.) PS: Now that I check, also scores aren't updated in the score table if I don't press tab.
8) I see the GUI shows the same maps as Free For All available for Possession. Is this just is a temporary thing due to not having possession maps listed in arenas.txt, or do you plan to keep it this way? Also, what's about g_autonextmap and possession? I can guess also g_mappools default value will need to be updated...
9) ONCE I noticed this in console output at map loading "G_PickTarget called with NULL targetname" (it was just above "loaded cached skill 2.0 from bots/sergei_c.c")... but I don't remember on which map I was... maybe it's not related with Possession at all?
10) I don't remember... is the flag supposed to spawn in another place in case it spawned at a spawn point and no-one grabbed it after a certain time (maybe longer than the time it respawns after being dropped)? It does not seem to do to it (maybe related to point 1 of this list?), but maybe this is intentional. But in case of a spawn point located in a secret or hardly reachable area (see screenshot attached), or in an "initial" room not accessible afterwards (like q3dm0 initial room)? In case it changes spawn point because noone grabs it, I can guess a text in console output may be useful, to let people know it could now be in places they already visited.
11) I noticed you used fraglimit instead of capturelimit. I can guess it may be okay.
12) Considering in theory the flag should spawn at different locations (right?), maybe "The flag has returned" may be changed with "The flag has respawned" for this mode?


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on July 27, 2016, 04:04:56 am
I believe in the release early, release often.
Things that I have not gotten around to:
The spawn place chooser (that are executed only once) is not complete. It was improved slightly in the last commit but it does not work as intended. I am not sure if I can move the spawn place without causing the bots to freak out.
No radar. The broadcast flag properly needs to be set on the white flag/flag carrier for this to work.
Only basic classic UI done.
No bot support. The bots play as if it was deathmatch.

The idea of the spawn place chooser is:
Pick a random white flag spawn if it exist. (does not work)
Pick a random domination point if it exist
Pick a random info_player_start if it exist
Pick the first entity in the game

The UI currently just selects all ffa maps. I am not happy about adding more to the arenas.txt file. I might look for an alternative solution.

@gig
About your points.
1. I know. It is because it is the flag base that are placed and the base is placed only once. I did not realize that the flag worked that they until I started implementing. I will make the locations chooser choose a better location but I'll not move the spawn point around.
2. It will be changed. No notifications have been done and no log either. I deliberately do this as the last thing because it can be a never ending task otherwise.
3. Like 2. I do this at the end.
4. Like 2.
5. Could be an idea. I noticed that I did not always know if the flag was picked or not.
6. Seems like a reasonable idea. But it will be one of the last things I do.
7. I did notice but I had not noticed that 1fctf worked differently.
8. I'll add a separate file for g_autonextmap. I think I'll make it a separate project. I want to be able to make the arenas.txt file smaller.
9. It does not sound like it is related but if you can reproduce it, it may be worth looking into nevertheless.
10. It was not my intention. The idea is to spawn the flag as central as possible.
11. I almost used capture limit instead. The code failed to work at one point because I had not made up my mind.
12. I don't plan on moving the flag about. Some maps may have only one base (and I believe that should be the ultimate scenario).


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 27, 2016, 04:30:48 am
*** This was intended as an "update" of my previous post, but since Sago had already replied before I posted the update, I moved this text to a separate post. Now I go reading Sago's answer to previous post. ***

UPDATE: Adding some more points:
13) In the GUI to start the map, when selecting the bots, it shows the button to enable/disable friendly fire. But it should be irrelevant for this gametype, being non-team-based. I know that OA3 will have a completely different GUI and thus what we see here is only temporary, however I list what I notice, you know...
14) Try playing it in am_galmevish2, you spawn in solid. Probably it's an error of the map, not a Possession error. I downloaded the map source from SVN and it looks like there are no spawn points in that place. I fear all spawn points in the map are gametype-limited (I controlled some of them, and they are), while there should be some "free". So I ask, has the OAX gamecode been changed so, instead of closing the server with "couldn't find a spawn point" error, launches the map making everyone spawn at 0, 0, 0 coordinates, in the hope those coordinates are inside the map and not inside solid brushes?


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 27, 2016, 04:58:27 am
I believe in the release early, release often.
Okay... But is it better if I wait for some "ok, test now" from you, before making more tests?

Quote
Things that I have not gotten around to:
No bot support. The bots play as if it was deathmatch.
However, I see them running around with the flag. Maybe you mean they could give higher priority to fragging flag holder over other enemies and collecting the flag over other items? Or that they should try to avoid combat a bit when they have the flag (however, possibly without camping too much, it may be boring)?

Quote
Pick a random info_player_start if it exist
Do you mean both it and info_player_deathmatch, right?

Quote
The UI currently just selects all ffa maps. I am not happy about adding more to the arenas.txt file. I might look for an alternative solution.
Arenas2.txt maybe? To be used with Arenas.txt in an additive way... Just an idea. Could have some backfiring, but maybe...

Quote
8. I'll add a separate file for g_autonextmap. I think I'll make it a separate project. I want to be able to make the arenas.txt file smaller.
Maybe I don't understand everything of this... I mean the relationship between g_autonextmap and arenas.txt... at the moment they are two completely independent features, right?

Quote
9. It does not sound like it is related but if you can reproduce it, it may be worth looking into nevertheless.
I will make a try, but I can't promise anything. UPDATE: Tried a few maps, but I have not been able to reproduce. Sorry.

Quote
10. It was not my intention. The idea is to spawn the flag as central as possible.
I understand, especially if moving the flag could be a problem for bots, as you hinted before. However... while maybe the change from Q3 Revolution's behavior is not a problem by itself, I still have some fear for maps where the flag could spawn in unreachable points... restarting the map could be the only possible workaround.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Neon_Knight on July 27, 2016, 06:14:12 am
Grabbing the latest builds and testing.

Does the map need something special to appear in the UI menu such as "gametype" "possession"?


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on July 27, 2016, 07:00:01 am
Does the map need something special to appear in the UI menu such as "gametype" "possession"?
At the moment all ffa maps are shown.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Neon_Knight on July 27, 2016, 07:37:42 am
Quote
The UI currently just selects all ffa maps. I am not happy about adding more to the arenas.txt file. I might look for an alternative solution.
Arenas2.txt maybe? To be used with Arenas.txt in an additive way... Just an idea. Could have some backfiring, but maybe...
Perhaps the Nexuiz/Xonotic way with .mapinfo files?

OA3 will have a lot of fat trimmed out of it, so size, at least for several releases, won't be a problem.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 27, 2016, 08:20:38 am

Quote from: Sago007
Things that I have not gotten around to:
No bot support. The bots play as if it was deathmatch.
However, I see them running around with the flag. Maybe you mean they could give higher priority to fragging flag holder over other enemies and collecting the flag over other items? Or that they should try to avoid combat a bit when they have the flag (however, possibly without camping too much, it may be boring)?

More on this topic:
* Flag radar/distance meter, if implemented, could be a good counter against camping.
* Just questioning. Do or should bots "cheat" about knowing where the flag carrier is? How do they do in other gametypes?
** Just questioning. In case they should not know about where the flag is exactly unless they see it... should they consider the radar, if implementrd?

... and Possession is one of the simpler gametypes we could think about... :D


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 28, 2016, 01:45:27 am
[...]
Pick the first entity in the game
Uh? This sounds a bit dangerous, if taken literally... what would happen in case the first entity is worldspawn or something like a target_speaker or info_null or just something which requires less room than a flag (like an armor shard) and thus could be in some small place? However, I understand this was a last-resort manouvre... what about picking up a random red or blue team ctf spawn point before this? Just asking...

[Partially OT] Hey Sago, now that I think about it... as a possible "idea"* to be made after Possession (and its flag spawn point choose algorithm) is 100% complete, if you wish: what would you think about making DOM and DD modes compatible with (almost) any map by automatically choosing DOM/DD points, in case the map does not include the required flags/dom points?
About "how many" DOM points, it may be either a fixed number (e.g. 3), or may be random/calculated depending from "something" map-related (e.g. if there are more than X weapons and more than Y player spawn points, this may be a large map, so you can place 5 or 6 DOM points).
We could continue to list in arenas.txt only the maps which actually have dedicated (and fixed) spawn points for them, but the modes would work with any map. Oh, well, ALMOST any map... maps which do have ONLY ONE ffa spawn point (like oa_ctf4ish, test it with Possession), would still be a problem. Wait! Such maps would probably have many team spawn points, so one may use them in that case... Hey, maybe even before searching for FFA spawn points: that may assure half Dom points to be placed far each other.
This may be worth of a dedicated thread. Sago, just tell if you are interested into this stuff, then we could open an apposite thread about it (or just use OAX thread) after Possession is completed.[/OT]

PS:
[...]
So I ask, has the OAX gamecode been changed so, instead of closing the server with "couldn't find a spawn point" error, launches the map making everyone spawn at 0, 0, 0 coordinates, in the hope those coordinates are inside the map and not inside solid brushes?
Excuse me Sago, could you please confirm this? Also the possession flag seems to spawn there in this case (just try Possession in current am_galmevish2, after you are telefragged by a bot you can notice the flag fallen on the bottom of the pit), right?

* Yes, I know "ideas are cheap".  xD


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on July 28, 2016, 04:07:15 am
[...]
Pick the first entity in the game
Uh? This sounds a bit dangerous, if taken literally... what would happen in case the first entity is worldspawn or something like a target_speaker or info_null or just something which requires less room than a flag (like an armor shard) and thus could be in some small place? However, I understand this was a last-resort manouvre... what about picking up a random red or blue team ctf spawn point before this? Just asking...
I'll change the picker to use a human spawn point as the last resort. If the map does not have a such then the map is unplayable anyway.

[Partially OT] Hey Sago, now that I think about it... as a possible "idea"* to be made after Possession (and its flag spawn point choose algorithm) is 100% complete, if you wish: what would you think about making DOM and DD modes compatible with (almost) any map by automatically choosing DOM/DD points, in case the map does not include the required flags/dom points?
I have some other priorities. Unless it turns out to be very simple. I think I would just choose two pick able entities semi-randomly and replace them. By semi-randomly I mean that I would choose the same two every time the same map is loaded.

[...]
So I ask, has the OAX gamecode been changed so, instead of closing the server with "couldn't find a spawn point" error, launches the map making everyone spawn at 0, 0, 0 coordinates, in the hope those coordinates are inside the map and not inside solid brushes?
Excuse me Sago, could you please confirm this? Also the possession flag seems to spawn there in this case (just try Possession in current am_galmevish2, after you are telefragged by a bot you can notice the flag fallen on the bottom of the pit), right?
am_galmevish2 is too aggressive with its "gametype"-flag on the spawn points. Therefore it is unplayable in any mode that it does not specifically support. A map must ALWAYS contain 8 info_player_deathmatch points without any restrictions.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Neon_Knight on July 28, 2016, 10:35:25 am
am_galmevish2 is too aggressive with its "gametype"-flag on the spawn points. Therefore it is unplayable in any mode that it does not specifically support. A map must ALWAYS contain 8 info_player_deathmatch points without any restrictions.
I would like to know of the problem still arises with the OA3 version:

http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=4801.0


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 28, 2016, 11:05:47 am
am_galmevish2 is too aggressive with its "gametype"-flag on the spawn points. Therefore it is unplayable in any mode that it does not specifically support. A map must ALWAYS contain 8 info_player_deathmatch points without any restrictions.
I would like to know of the problem still arises with the OA3 version:

http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=4801.0
At a first test, am_oa3dm1 seemed to work correctly with possession. But in a second and in a third try... I have not been able to locate where the flag spawned.  :o (Possession bug? Me being an idiot?)

Also, Possession bugs noticed:
- If I kick all bots, I score a point for some unknwn reason. I have not checked if this is is related with how many bots were in the map, or if it happens also with individual kick.
- Once I saw "you killed X. You are tied for the first place with Y" message (I had the impression that Y was the number of frags, not the actual Possession score... I think I was way behind the score of the leader at that moment).
- "You lost the lead" sound is played twice, maybe?
- Not a bug: maybe 300 is too high as goal (one player keeping the flag for 5 minutes)? 200 or 250 maybe? Just asking.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 29, 2016, 03:28:17 am
At a first test, am_oa3dm1 seemed to work correctly with possession. But in a second and in a third try... I have not been able to locate where the flag spawned.  :o (Possession bug? Me being an idiot?)
Made a few more tests today, and found it these times. Maybe there is one "problematic" spawn point in that map and yesterday it ended up there? I have no idea.  :-\

Quote
If I kick all bots, I score a point for some unknwn reason. I have not checked if this is is related with how many bots were in the map, or if it happens also with individual kick.
Strange, I have not been able to reproduce this, today...  :-\

However, I noticed that "bot_minplayers" does NOT work with this mode (yet).

Sago, I don't know if you noticed you made a small typo in in this diff (https://github.com/OpenArena/gamecode/commit/c8aad18032c95fa9e05ae5c184053238de82cfc7) (a "fint" instead of "find"). I wrote that in another thread (http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=4446.msg53962#msg53962) a few days ago, but this is the thread it should go, so I write it also here for completeness.

PS: See at the attached screenshot... playing in oasago1 map, I noticed this place where those "1" were floating (I had the flag). It's not the same place where the flag spawned.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on July 29, 2016, 06:01:35 am
However, I noticed that "bot_minplayers" does NOT work with this mode (yet).

Sago, I don't know if you noticed you made a small typo in in this diff (https://github.com/OpenArena/gamecode/commit/c8aad18032c95fa9e05ae5c184053238de82cfc7) (a "fint" instead of "find"). I wrote that in another thread (http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=4446.msg53962#msg53962) a few days ago, but this is the thread it should go, so I write it also here for completeness.

PS: See at the attached screenshot... playing in oasago1 map, I noticed this place where those "1" were floating (I had the flag). It's not the same place where the flag spawned.
I forgot about the bot_minplayers. I noticed it back then I was launching from the console but forgot after I started launching from the menu.

I'll fix the spelling mistake.

The "1" should not spawn at the flag carrier. I can only see them then I am holding the flag though. Fixed in: https://github.com/OpenArena/gamecode/commit/48b6227682868b49905e2c9527683bbca66fccf3

"You have lost the lead" playing twice was fixed in: https://github.com/OpenArena/gamecode/commit/5da298cdfe0e834bf20877f9b351772658b20d64

Not all changes may have made it into the nightly build yet.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 29, 2016, 06:12:50 am
About your comment to this diff (https://github.com/OpenArena/gamecode/commit/0ee9ae1c45594506067c52c5f5ffc44dd81716b6) (g_mappools variable being very long and hard to maintain), maybe a solution could be move that list to a text file, discard the current variable and use a new one (e.g. g_mappoolslist) to keep the name of the file to read?
Just an idea...


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on July 29, 2016, 06:20:50 am
About your comment to this diff (https://github.com/OpenArena/gamecode/commit/0ee9ae1c45594506067c52c5f5ffc44dd81716b6) (g_mappools variable being very long and hard to maintain), maybe a solution could be move that list to a text file, discard the currently variable and use a new one (e.g. g_mappoolslist) to keep the name of the file to read?
Just an idea...

I think more about creating individual CVARS:

Code:
g_mappool_dm
g_mappool_toruney
g_mappool_ctf
etc.
That also makes it easier to change it from the command line because you can just set:
Code:
/g_mappool_0 dm_maps2.cfg
or
Code:
/g_mappool_0 dm_maps3.cfg
If you want to have multiple mappools and change between them.

I don't remember why I thought placing them in one cvar would be a good idea.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 29, 2016, 06:28:33 am
That could be a good solution, too.
Only, can a lot new cvars (except those of "sets") be created without problems, or should new cvars be created only if really necessary?

IIRC, I encountered some "too many cvars" errors while playing some old mod, in the past...


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on July 29, 2016, 06:44:57 am
IIRC, I encountered some "too many cvars" errors while playing some old mod, in the past...
Newer versions of ioqauke3 deletes a lot of cvars when changing mod to prevent old mods with a small cvar table from overflowing.
Hopefully this should fix a lot of problems.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 29, 2016, 07:56:30 am
I do wonder how they may know which variables could be deleted safely... maybe they check for variables which are not defined in the binaries and do not appear at all in mods qvm code. Figuring out variables useless for engine sounds harder. And I wonder what would happen to user-generated variables (as those of rotation scripts). But this is not the right place for this.

[Off topic]
Could you please tell me what those green checks mean in gihtub changes history page?
[/OT]


PS: I have not yet understood if OA3 homepath will be named OpenArena or OpenArena3. In the second case, for version 3.0.0 , 0.8.8 values of cvars should not be a problem.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on July 29, 2016, 09:53:53 am
I do wonder how they may know which variables could be deleted safely... maybe they check for variables which are not defined in he binaries and do not appear at all in mods qvm code. Figuring out variables useless for engine sounds harder. And I wonder what would happen to user-generated variables (as those of rotation scripts). But this is not the right place for this.
They are deleting the unregistered CVARs. This is sometimes a bit too harsh in my experience.

[Off topic]
Could you please tell me what those green checks mean in gihtub changes history page?
[/OT]
A green check mark means that Travis CI could confirm that the branch still compiles after that commit.
A red X means that it cannot be confirmed.
If there are no icon then Travis did not test it. (If you push multiple commits at a time Travis will only test the last one per branch)

Github can do more tests than just Travis build test but for OpenArena that is the only relevant one.

It is possible to have Github validate that everything checks before committing to a specific branch (like master) to ensure that the master branch compiles at any time.

0.8.8 branch does not have Travis support (it was released before I setup Travis) and therefore it has a permanent red cross. https://travis-ci.org/OpenArena/gamecode/branches


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on July 30, 2016, 09:54:01 am
The current nightly build contains a lot of the changes: http://files.poulsander.com/~poul19/public_files/oa/dev088/gamecode_nightly/openarena_gamecode_2016-07-30_a351b8da0ad753b8fc75e525b9254144fa0e53fd.zip

bot_minplayers now works.
The chooser now only chooses player spawnpoints. Domination points was not always suitable. For instance in plxfan one of the domination points was unreachable.
There is now a radar. It does not seem as useful as I had hoped. It is useless against the bots but it may help against human campers.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 30, 2016, 11:07:26 am
I cannot test before Monday.

However, are you sure about skipping Dom points? If one of them is not reachable, then that's a bug of that specific map (mapping error), isn't it?

In theory, all Dom points should be reachable by players, while for player spawn points this is not a requirement (you may place a spawn point on the top of a roof where there is no way to return after you jump down). Do you remember the screenshot I attached to that post?
http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=3995.msg53964#msg53964

Another thing... considering you said the bots do consider "the obelisk" where the flag spawned the first time, we should do some test in case of strange spawn points like placed very high in the sky, or inside water, or above water...

PS: I suppose plxfan map could be fixed before OA3 is released.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on July 30, 2016, 11:37:38 am
I'll add an option so that it can be marked if domination_points are valid for generic cases. In pxlfan's case the area the domination points is in is blocked for all other gametypes but Domination. If the domination_point was blocked for all other game types too it would not have been a problem.

Once the arena-file problem has been solved it should be ok.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on July 30, 2016, 12:56:33 pm
I'm sorry, I got lost. Could you please reword?

What do you mean with "blocked"?  If there was "gametype" key in one dom point only, it should have used the others. If there was "gametype" key on all dom points, it should have used a player spawn point, isn't it?

Wait... AREA blocked? Zones of the map should not be closed/opened by gametype keys... bots do not recognize such changes (conditional walls)!

And what's the relationship with .arena file?


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Neon_Knight on July 30, 2016, 01:39:36 pm
What if, instead of supporting all of the maps, Possession support is left to all of those who want to implement it? The white flag needs to be carefully positioned by mappers, instead of it spawning in a non-permanent place.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: fromhell on July 30, 2016, 03:00:15 pm
I haven't tried possession yet, but I will once I finish working on a leixperimental merge by hand.

EDIT: did that, tried it :)

and on second thought maybe chicken mode could be a second setting on the same gametype, and maybe a quad damage too


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on July 31, 2016, 05:27:39 am
However, are you sure about skipping Dom points? If one of them is not reachable, then that's a bug of that specific map (mapping error), isn't it?
You are right, I'll add it.

What if, instead of supporting all of the maps, Possession support is left to all of those who want to implement it? The white flag needs to be carefully positioned by mappers, instead of it spawning in a non-permanent place.
It should be possible for mappers to explicit support Possession. However there are infinity many gametypes not yet developed and maps should not prevent those from working. Too specific requirements to maps makes modding too difficult. If I had not added the possibility to play on all maps then no one would have been able to test it yet.


I'll wait a bit before pushing more changes to the master branch. fromhell is currently doing a large merge.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on August 01, 2016, 01:17:00 am
Quickly tried oax 2016-07-30 build (side note: for some reason, that day it made two nighly builds)

The "1" should not spawn at the flag carrier. I can only see them then I am holding the flag though. Fixed in: https://github.com/OpenArena/gamecode/commit/48b6227682868b49905e2c9527683bbca66fccf3
Now, when I have the flag, I see them appearing behind me.

For the rest, I like the "survive for" counter... but isn't it possible to have the distance meter shown also when nobody has the flag?


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on August 02, 2016, 02:16:01 am
Sago, I tried Possession from 2016-07-01 nightly build with this version (http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=4801.msg54044#msg54044) of WIP am_gamelvish-oa3, and I noticed:

1) There is some problem with flag spawning algorithm. It first spawns in the middle of the map, you grab it, and then you see it having spawned AGAIN, in another location! So you can grab it twice... This is a bug.

2) Red and blue flags (if placed without gametype restriction, I suppose) appear in the gametype, but they are useless here.

3) With the flag in the middle of the map (in the place of 1fctf white flag), it happens that some powerup spawns at the same exact place. This is due to being natural to place some item in the middle of the map, probably people would set the powerup with "!gametype" to prevent those items from spawning in 1fctf... but they would spawn in possession. That's not a major problem, it's just a little bad looking. I don't see a way to automatically fix this (unless you think that automatically detecting if other items spawn at the the same place of the flag and in that case prevent those items from spawning -or making the flag spawn elsewhere-, is a feasible thing)... I suppose for OA3 we will have to check all maps to update their "!gametype" key for items positioned in the same place as the white flag, to prevent them from spawning also in Possession mode.

More Possession thoughts I wanted to tell you since yesterday:

4) You said that the distance meter is not very useful against bots. Maybe because it requires too much attention? Just an idea (maybe it's stupid, but I tell anyway): maybe integrating it with text (or icon) which changes three colors depending from the distance between you and the flag is the same, is bigger or smaller than previous value (or than previous server frame?), may help player understanding if he's going in the right direction or not without requiring so much attention reading actual distance?

5) If it has not been done yet, a reminder to make it when you will have time: making a keyword for gametype/!gametype keys for Possession. ("Pos"? "Poss"? "Possession"?). Yes, I know now this is implied from what I said in point 3), but I thought about this since yesterday...
Note: I don't remember exactly... maybe once someone said that those checks do search for part of the string instead of the whole string, so there was some problem limiting items only for "ctfelimination" due to the shared parts of the key value with "ctf" and "elimination" modes (or was it vice-versa?)? This may be taken in account while choosing the name of a new "gametype/!gametype" value.

6) Related to the above: I have never checked if "notfree" and "notteam" keys do actually apply only to the original Q3A gametypes (those that are mentioned in the in-editor descriptions of items), or if those keys have been updated and so they do apply to all OpenArena gametypes. In that case, "notfree" should apply to Possession, too.
PS: I read somewhere they do exist also "notq3a", "notta" keys, but I have never tried them and I don't know how they work exactly. This gametype does not come from either q3a or ta, however.

Update: Sago, could you please take a look to this (http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=4801.msg54051#msg54051) and the following replies? Thank you.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on August 02, 2016, 11:29:07 am
Thanks Gig.

1. Fixed. I now check if the map already contains a flag before adding one.

2. Fixed. They have been removed.

3. The place where you can use "notteam" and "notfree" is for items in the same location. They are guarantied to never be true simultaneously. The same reason I added the "!gametype"-flag: You can say, if this gametype then use this item, if this gametype use that item else use a third item.

4. Perhaps.

5. It is called "pos".

6. If an entity has "notfree" on it then it should not spawn in possession. If it has "notteam" it may spawn. Yes, it causes a problem for the white flag in possession because "notfree" entities will not spawn.

Do not use the "notq3a" and "notta". Technically they are still working but not very useful. They are depending on you are using the missionpack qvm or not. This makes no sense for OA as you always get the full package. I don't think any mappers has successfully created a balanced map using these flags. These are the ones I might have referred to as "deprecated" at one point.

EDIT:
When I say "fixed", I mean "committed". It may or may not have been compiled yet.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Neon_Knight on August 02, 2016, 04:31:07 pm
I'm giving Possession support to some of the OA default maps, at least those with a chance to make the cut for OA3.

Unrelated to the above statement, what would be the keyword for the .arena file? Also "pos"?


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on August 03, 2016, 12:56:14 am
Uhm... I thought "notfree" and "notteam" were deprecated nowadays (because they may theoretically have prevented the map from being played in hypotetical future gametypes, similarily to "gametype" key... and that using "!gametype" key was preferred instead.
"notfree" and "notteam" works fine because they are compatible with future gametypes. They are greatly preferred to the "gametype" flag.

You should only place them on classic entities (entities that also existed in Q3A/TA) because OA handles its entities automatically.

Does this cause a problem with the white flag and Possession? Yes, it does. That is why I am considering adding a new entity called "info_central_entity" or something that does not need a flag.

Do you mean that the flag spawning procedure will search for
1) This new entity, if any (for new maps)
2) 1fctf neutral flag, if any (for existing ctf-based maps)
3) Dom point, if any
4) Player spawn point, last resort?
Maybe, before player spawn points, one may also try redflag/blueflag, if any (which in teory, unlike player spawn point which may be in odd places, should be reachable... on the other hand, they would not be "central" as you try the flag to be...)... however it may be also just this way.


PS: what about this?
For the rest, I like the "survive for" counter... but isn't it possible to have the distance meter shown also when nobody has the flag?


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on August 03, 2016, 12:36:30 pm
Unrelated to the above statement, what would be the keyword for the .arena file? Also "pos"?
Also "pos"

Uhm... I thought "notfree" and "notteam" were deprecated nowadays (because they may theoretically have prevented the map from being played in hypotetical future gametypes, similarily to "gametype" key... and that using "!gametype" key was preferred instead.
"notfree" and "notteam" works fine because they are compatible with future gametypes. They are greatly preferred to the "gametype" flag.

You should only place them on classic entities (entities that also existed in Q3A/TA) because OA handles its entities automatically.

Does this cause a problem with the white flag and Possession? Yes, it does. That is why I am considering adding a new entity called "info_central_entity" or something that does not need a flag.

Do you mean that the flag spawning procedure will search for
1) This new entity, if any (for new maps)
2) 1fctf neutral flag, if any (for existing ctf-based maps)
3) Dom point, if any
4) Player spawn point, last resort?
Maybe, before player spawn points, one may also try redflag/blueflag, if any (which in teory, unlike player spawn point which may be in odd places, should be reachable... on the other hand, they would not be "central" as you try the flag to be...)... however it may be also just this way.
Switch 1 and 2. If the map auther has already placed a neutral flag then the flag spawning procedure will not run. This is to prevent the problem with two white flags. The problem can be solved by having possession use a yellow flag or you can set the !gametype on the white flag.

PS: what about this?
For the rest, I like the "survive for" counter... but isn't it possible to have the distance meter shown also when nobody has the flag?
Very likely. I can calculate the distance to anything and I believe the variables that tell what I have to calculate the distance to are already there.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on August 03, 2016, 03:37:25 pm
I don't know the exact way the spawn procedure works, and I got a little lost (again, sorry)... I don't understand the need of yellow flag... Why should two white flags appear? Can't you just exit the procedure at the first adapt spawn point you find?

However, I don't want to annoy you too much by explaining me the whole flowchart of flag spawning procedure (although that may be an interesting reading)...


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on August 15, 2016, 03:02:54 pm
I don't know the exact way the spawn procedure works, and I got a little lost (again, sorry)...
Because I cheat. For instance in Double Domination I cannot prevent the red and blue flag from spawning. I just mark them as "hidden" and spawn the A and B in there place. I cannot do that with the white flag because I would hide all the flags, plus a hidden flag can still be touched.

I looked into calculating the distance to the dropped flag. It might be possible but not that simple. The draw code only contains the basic information. I might need to find the flag by looking for the matching model and it feels like a hack.

I have added a video for people that do not know what we are talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOZIvagt0ww (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOZIvagt0ww)


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on August 16, 2016, 09:53:12 am
Still on the seaside, with poor connection. I will watch the video in about 15 days...


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on September 07, 2016, 03:29:37 am
Hello Sago, any news about this stuff? Where did we left?
I try to sum up things previously mentioned, adding some thoughts in the meanwhile.

1) You encountered some problem finding out where the white flag is, to allow the distance meter to be of use also when nobody has it. If I understood correctly, the problem is something like that in that case clients do not know where the "item" is, but only where the "model" is, right?
In case they always know that, even if it's far and even behind an areaportal, I suppose it may be okay even to locate the model (although maps containing more white flags, e.g. for decorations, would theoretically mess up the radar... do you think there are such maps out there? But in case of "decorations", I thought the model was baked into the bsp... would it still be a problem?).
Alternatively, I suppose the server should know where the "item" is at any moment, isn't it? Couldn't the server read this info and spread it to all clients as a new variable, at the price of a little more bandwidth use?

2) Not sure about what to suggest you about the yellow flag thing. I think I more or less understood the problem now (if a map contains both your "new" entity and the "neutral flag" entity without gametype limitation, and both use the same model -white flag-, you cannot hide only one of the two), but I'm unsure what's the best thing to do.
One may think that, if there is a Possession-specific entity, that would be used for first, while you have to use it as second choice instead, to avoid the risk of double flags in case there is already a neutral flag, right?
The reason for foreseeing a possession-specific entity was in case mappers wanted to set "notfree" or "gametype/oneflag" for neutral flag, right? Unlike red and blue flags which are "manually driven" (by default, shown also in gamemodes where they are useless.... except for Possession and a few other modes such as Elimination where you automatically hide them), the white flag is only shown in modes which support it (other modes do hide it automatically, without the need to use "gametype" or "not*" keys). Do you think that mappers may however set "notfree" or "gametype/oneflag" to neutral flag anyway, "to be sure", even if that's not really necessary? They may be unaware of that...

3) To add some more headache, one should also think about what to do about team_neutralobelisk (as optional "basement" for white flag) in Possession. The worst scenario would be the case of it spawning in a different place than the white flag, something we should try to avoid. Currently, it does simply not spawn at all in Possession mode: surely it's the simpler and more headache-free solution, although it may have been nice to have the flag base shown, to know where the flag will re-appear (a possible way to achieve that may be to hide its standard model and automatically spawn -like A and B DD points- an alternate copy of it -something like the yellow flag idea you mentioned above-, which may be dropped to the ground just like the flag is -unlike flags, obelisks are NOT dropped to the ground-. Although this would mean making the entity work in a very different way in Possession than in other gamemodes, theoretically giving some further perplexity to mappers. Also, there is still the -remote?- possibility that mappers placed something different than the neutralobelisk where the oneflag white flag is, to act as basement.).

4) We will need the necessary to callvote for the new mode, from both console and GUI (including updating default "g_votegametypes" value).

5) After you die, the score board requires you to push TAB key to be updated (e.g. to show you lost the flag).
Making a few more tests, it looks like that the score table not auto-updating is a more general "issue" which affects other gametypes, too... even when you are alive and hold TAB button to show scores, you have to release and push it again to see scores updated (I don't know if this last mentioned behavior is intended... are scores only sent to a client when it asks for them? In other words, does updating the score table consume more bandwidth?). I don't know the reason why, when you die in CTF or Oneflag mode, in the score table the fact you lost the flag is updated after less than a second, while players' scores are not updated unless you press TAB. Maybe not auto-updating is a choice "by design" to save bandwidth, but maybe Possession may work like CTF mode and automatically update flag holder info only...

6) Making bots somewhow more objective-aware (care for the flag a bit more than for opponents)?

7) Trying some other improvement to the radar (e.g. using different colors is you are going in the right direction, in the wrong one or you are at the same distance from the flag)?

8) Lowering default Possession fraglimit in GUI, 300 being too high? We are sure about using fraglimit instead of capturelimit, right?

9) Some tweak to console (e.g. writing who has grabbed the flag), at the end of work?

10) Something more I forgot?


PS (really OT, but comes in mind while looking into entities keys stuff): when we will make updated Radiant entity definitions, we should make an apposite thread and review them extensively first. For example, at least in the version I have, it is not mentioned that flags entities do support "notfree,notteam,notsigle" keys.... and also for other kinds of itmes, "!gametype" existence is not mentioned, "notfree" refers to "free for all" and "tournament" only... description of team_neutralobelisk says "harvester only", while it can also be used as optional basement in oneflag mode... "light" entity mentions "color" key while I fear it's "_color" instead... etc.

PPS: Seeing how much complicated and fragile is the item spawn procedure thing... I removed from "DO NOT LINK[/b]) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/Wishlist]Wishlist (http://([b)" wiki page my request to make the game automatically choose DD and Dom locations to play such modes in maps not thought for them. I fear the risk of making the items spawn in unreachable points (even in Possession, we use player spawn points for white flag really as last resort... I would even try using a red or blue flag place before going that far) may make it not worth. I did not move the wish to the "DO NOT LINK[/b]) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/Wishlist/Rejected]Wishlist/Rejected (http://([b)" page, because you didn't actually reject it and theoretically may decide to do it anyway, or someone may ask for that in the future... Simply, right now I'm not asking you that anymore.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: sago007 on September 07, 2016, 03:11:05 pm
Currently my next goal is to ensure that all the event in possession are logged.

I looked into finding the model for the white flag. It does not seem like a problem one wants to tackle directly.

I think it is possible to vote for the game mode just not through the UI.

Generally the tasks seem to have really bad cost/benefit ratio.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on September 08, 2016, 01:42:46 am
It does not seem like a problem one wants to tackle directly.
I'm sorry, I haven't understood the meaning of this phrase.

Quote
I think it is possible to vote for the game mode just not through the UI.
I manually added gametype 13 to my "g_votegametypes", and it actually works.
By the way, isn't there a way for clients to know which gametypes are available by using the console, like with custom votes?

Quote
Generally the tasks seem to have really bad cost/benefit ratio.
Searching for simpler ways, maybe about neutralobelisk one may rely on mappers' good will, like it happens in other gametypes.
So, one may simply do not automatically hide the item in Possession mode, and let the mapper manage it.
If mapper did not apply gametype restriction or notfree to the white flag (and in this case, you said the white flag spawns there also in Possession, and the possession-specific entity [I don't know its name] would be ignored anyway), he probably did not apply them to the neutralobelisk, too, and thus everything should work correctly. If he applied "notfree/1" or "gametype/oneflag" to the flag, he probably applied the same also to the neutral obelisk, and thus it should be no problem, although we cannot be sure he did. Then, the main problem could be something like a mapper, for some reason, applied the gametype limit to the whiteflag and not to the neutralobelisk... or in case he placed both standard neutralflag (with gametype limit) and the possession-specific flag in different places, with two different neutralobelisk entities, without correctly applying gametype key to them. In that case, there may be the risk of having two flag bases appear in 1flag and pos modes, and to have two skull generators in Harvester mode (what whould the game do then? Maybe it may be cool!).
However, they would be errors of the mappers. If one wants to try to avoid risks due to such errors anyway, another alternative may be to hide team_ctf_neutralobelisk in Pos and make a new apposite entity (possession-specific obelisk) to show flag base in Possession mode. Also in that case, mappers could still make errors, by placing it under the possession-specific flag[1] while also having a team_ctf_neutralflag available, which would be used by the flag. We cannot prevent all kinds of errors, mappers should do some testing of their maps...

Of course, just hiding flag bases at all and who cares is still an option.  :) However, having the radar working also for finding the flag also when in its base would be nice.

By the way, when you "hide" a certain item for a certain gametype in gamecode... do you hide the entity (which you said is hidden but still theoretically active), or do you hide the model? In other words, what would happen with to different kinds of entities sharing the same md3 model?

Side note: when going to update Radiant entities info, don't forget to mention in the one about the possession-specific flag entity, that it is only used if Possession does not have a team_ctf_neutralflag available. If the spawn choice sequence remains as you said, of course.

[1] Could you please tell me the exact name of that entity? So I can stop calling it in approximate way? Thank you!  :)

PS: Why cannot I be less verbose? Mystery! ^_^


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on September 22, 2016, 01:41:42 am
Just a small note: tried nightly gamecode "2016-09-20". Now Possession in shown for voting in the GUI (thank you!), however g_votegamtypes default value has not been updated yet.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on January 23, 2017, 04:22:53 am
Just a small note: tried nightly gamecode "2016-09-20". Now Possession in shown for voting in the GUI (thank you!), however g_votegametypes default value has not been updated yet.
Update: this is fixed with nighly build 2017-01-21.  :)

- Lowering default Possession fraglimit in GUI, 300 being too high? We are sure about using fraglimit instead of capturelimit, right?
Update: This has been lowered to 120 (ui_pos_scorelimit CVAR default value) months ago, good.

However, the range of possible fraglimit voting values from the GUI still go up only to 50 (without counting "no limit")... I suppose it would now be useful to add something like 90 and 120 there (maybe even 150?), don't you think?

Currently my next goal is to ensure that all the event in possession are logged.

I looked into finding the model for the white flag. It does not seem like a problem one wants to tackle directly.
How did it go with these things, then?

[1] Could you please tell me the exact name of that entity? So I can stop calling it in approximate way? Thank you!  :)
Still waiting...  :) :) :)


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on October 11, 2017, 12:56:00 am
I was doing a small test with Possession and I noticed that, the text "Find the Flag" (or "X units to flag carrier") appears on upper right corner also for spectators. Maybe for spectators "Find the Flag!" may be changed to "Nobody has the flag"?

PS: As stated in the previous post, adding additional (higher) fraglimits voting values in the GUI may be useful.


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on December 28, 2017, 02:10:16 am
A very small thing I noticed. I accidentally found myself in Possession in Wrackdm17... I was testing another thing so I wasn't moving. A few seconds after spawning, I got the flag: I think it spawned on the same spawnpoint as me.
So, maybe you may wish to prevent players from using the same spawn point the flag chose? Uhm... maybe it's not really so important, and may risk to crash the game in badly designed maps with only one deathmatch spawn point...

Things mentioned in the posts above are probably more important...


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Neon_Knight on November 28, 2018, 07:56:12 am
I have done some modifications to the OA code, namely the Mission Pack now accounts for Possession in the relevant checks (VERY important for UI3), and the AI is now more aggressive towards flag carriers.

While waiting for Sago's approval (the pull-request also has other code on it), here's a test Missionpack VM (https://www.dropbox.com/s/o4gzz5q4hir4qw0/z_nk_testmpvm.pk3?dl=0). The code, alongside other modifications I did, can be found here (https://github.com/NeonKnightOA/gamecode).


Title: Re: [Idea] Possession gametype
Post by: Gig on November 29, 2018, 05:38:27 am
I did a small test with it, playing Pos in wrackdm17 with various bots, spectating them (/team spectator) for some minutes.
First in "standard" OAX, then in OAX_M+your test pk3 (nightly builds haven't updated oax and oax_m with your change yet, it's just a matter of time, as I think Sago already merged these changes)

And... I have the feeling that they really care more for shooting at the flag carrier than before!  :)

On a side note, an odd thing I noticed while doing the test, is that in OAX_M the "USE_ITEM to stop following" doesn't work, it says the command doesn't exist...  ???