Prototyping 2-parter

"How Do I...?"
-EW-

Prototyping 2-parter

Post by -EW- » Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:08 am

Hello.

Looking for a versatile prototyping tool, and BGE's seeming ease of use is very intriguing. Two issues for me that don't seem to have come up here yet:

1) I work on both a lap and desktop, using an external HD to share files for convenience. Would I be able to install/run BGE from my external HD to use on both with one 4-7 license?

2) For a specific game players need to be able to change exclusive control of pieces when captured, as in Shogi. Can this be done directly, in-game, by players without the hosting player needing to intervene? Is there a way to allow ownership of a mini to switch amongst 3+ players as needed, such that it remains under a single player's control at a time -- as opposed to making all pieces accessible to all players in general?

Hopefully, my questions make sense and the answers are a resounding, "Yes, newb!". 8) Either way, Kudos to you, for what looks to be an extremely useful and accessible tool for the community at large.

Cheers.
-EW-

User avatar
heruca
Developer
Posts: 9369
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:58 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact:

Re: Prototyping 2-parter

Post by heruca » Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:33 pm

Welcome, -EW-.

1. No, the licenses are tied to a specific computer. You would need two 2-Player Client licenses ($30 total), and install one license on each computer. When either computer logs into the others' game session, 4-player games can be run, since the "seats" add up. So you'd be paying $5 more than you would usually have to (a $20 4-player license), but you'd also be able to use either computer for creating/porting new games.

2. Yes, a player could right-click on a piece that they own (which brings up a popup menu) and select a new Owner from the Owner submenu. See pg. 67 of the BGE User Manual, where this is illustrated.
:arrow: Please help spread the word about BRPG and BGE, and never hesitate to tell me how I can make them better suit your gaming needs.

-EW-

Re: Prototyping 2-parter

Post by -EW- » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:53 am

Thank you for responding so quickly.

I will reference the manual as U've suggested, but if I'm understanding correctly the original owner of a piece/mini would have to actively surrender control then, yes?

I'm needing to implement a "capturing" move that transfers ownership of a captured piece to the capturing player as result of the capture itself. As in Shogi, this particular idea incorporates a "capture/drop" dynamic that allows players to reintroduce pieces they have captured previously, to control as their own.

I don't know if that particular function has been wishlisted, or if there would be enough interest from current users to make it a worthwhile pursuit, but I do think it's a common enough mechanic in abstract strategy games that its inclusion would expand BGE's uses, and may deserve consideration. It may even translate its functionality into use in themed, non-abstracts (zombie plague scenario, maybe?).

Of course, I say that as someone whose knowledge of programming is staggering in its absence, so -- :D

Certainly don't break what appears to be a very good tool in an effort to make it all-purpose. However, depending on the cost to implement, I do hope you'll consider its feasibility.

Thanks again, and all the best to you.

-EW-

User avatar
heruca
Developer
Posts: 9369
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:58 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact:

Re: Prototyping 2-parter

Post by heruca » Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:41 am

How would BGE know what a capturing move is? In some games, you might need to jump a piece (e.g., checkers). In others, to land on a piece (e.g., chess). And there are surely other types of actions that would result in capturing a piece, in other games (e.g., a successful Tractor Beam dice roll in a Star Trek game).

For the slight bit of automation you're getting in return (instant ownership of a piece, with perhaps auto-removal to an off-board area), you'd have the trade off of a whole lot of prep work to define such rules in the game engine. Then there's the matter of exceptions, like perhaps some pieces can't be captured, or at least in certain situations (e.g., an adjacent friendly unit providing support).
:arrow: Please help spread the word about BRPG and BGE, and never hesitate to tell me how I can make them better suit your gaming needs.

-EW-

Re: Prototyping 2-parter

Post by -EW- » Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:30 pm

I don't mean to engage U speculatively if it's a distraction (be warned, I do enjoy this stuff), and I did consider the form/function aspect. U are correct that the automation and the controlled surrender effectively achieve the same end. Again, the demands to incorporate such a thing is a pros/cons comparison ultimately only U're in a position to make; BGE is yours, and as such it should ultimately take the form U think best.

HOWEVUH - :mrgreen:

It may simply be an issue of "elegance in execution" V. "end results". Consider that if in all the cases U stated, this function is a core mechanic, the number of clicks/ manipulations it would require over the course of a game at present being condensed to one command per. Especially if the function would also allow for the captured piece to be relocated to a predefined area as part of its execution.

Also, if the present ownership system is a precaution against jerks as U suggest :), it does leave itself open to same (in extreme cases, obviously) if ownership is a core mechanic. One of the joys/principles of chesses is that the only thing that separates the players is skill. That when facing your opponent, it is done with an equality of agency. I think that's an underlying ideal in many games, across genres, that is in some regard always going to suffer in any implementation that is dependent upon a host/GM structure. While the host should certainly maintain a degree of determinant control in-game, the possibility to "break" a game is present if a player (jerk, :evil: ) simply refuses to transfer ownership of a lost/captured piece. While the obvious solution is to find a better class of player to engage with, a capture function might mitigate the possibility altogether by conferring agency to the acting player in this situation; with the added bonus of automating the resultant actions, as U've stated.

Implementation: It is my impression that BGE is meant to serve as a "virtual box", and not a rules governor. As such, I doubt users (myself included) would want to be bogged down with defining cases as part of set-up. What I'm suggesting is that capture be an available universal trait/action that triggers a limited automation irrespective of the game in which it's used. IE.- as part of set-up the host defines the area a captured piece is moved to (off board, capturing players' reserve, spawning point, etc.), and any possible ownership, but not the conditions for capture. As long as a capture would be legal with regard to the game's rules, then the option may be employed. However, the legality of the capture itself would still be determined by the host/players, and not BGE. If an attempted capture would violate the rules of the game in any given situation, then players/host could "undo" the capture to return the board/game to its pre-capture state. As long as a capture conforms to the game's rules (again, as determined by the host/players themselves, and not a game-state governed by BGE), then as a byproduct a change in ownership would also result automatically.

Listen, if U've made it this far, Thank You, sincerely. I feel bad for taking up this much space here arguing a specific in detail probably better off-board. I do think if it's any easy-add that others could find a use for it that might balance out additional set-up time, but appreciate that it's also easier to say that from my position. A capture mechanic would be an enhancement, not so much something that's missing.

It's always so much easier to "improve" someone else's idea when U aren't doing the work. :D

User avatar
heruca
Developer
Posts: 9369
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:58 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact:

Re: Prototyping 2-parter

Post by heruca » Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:43 pm

-EW- wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:30 pm
While the host should certainly maintain a degree of determinant control in-game, the possibility to "break" a game is present if a player (jerk, :evil: ) simply refuses to transfer ownership of a lost/captured piece.
Just so you know, in BGE the Host can always take back control of a component by setting him/herself as the new Owner.

-EW- wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:30 pm
Listen, if U've made it this far, Thank You, sincerely. I feel bad for taking up this much space here arguing a specific in detail probably better off-board.
I'm just thankful somebody is finally posting on my forums, again. :D

I enjoy the discussion and evaluating the things you bring up. But I fear that BGE is nearing End of Life, so don't expect any major new additions to actually manifest in a future update. For the foreseeable future, I'm focusing on my MapForge app.
:arrow: Please help spread the word about BRPG and BGE, and never hesitate to tell me how I can make them better suit your gaming needs.

-EW-

Re: Prototyping 2-parter

Post by -EW- » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:38 pm

I did get that the host is "omnipotent". A necessary evil. Even if the host is a player, somebody's gotta mind the store, as it were. I Imagine that aspect of control was important as a shared framework between BRPG/BGE.

Don't know if I'd have a use for MF, but I'll certainly look into it. Sad to hear about BGE (BRPG, also?). It appears to be good work that hits a sweet spot between CyberBoard, Vassal and Zun Tzu, with a better pricing strategy than ADC2. All it needed was a physics engine that would let U flip the board when losing, and -- :roll:

Good luck with MF, and here's hoping we see a BGx sometime in the not too distant future -- capturing or not. (Less "not", of course. :D )


Cheers, Sir.

Post Reply