Post Reply
If you were logged in you would gain 3 XP for posting a reply.
You are replying to:
Support Nibbits by linking to us:
Your
StarCraft Resource
More from Nibbits: WarCraft 3 Maps | StarCraft Maps | StarCraft 2 Maps | Gamer Configs
Contact | Advertising | About | Pending Changes from Users | Become an Affiliate | Database Statistics | Terms of Use | Twitter | API Documentation
I've been working up the final version of ZOMBIE OUTBREAK the last few days, since I haven't had as much free time to work on it lately (Starcraft@Work lol). Now I'm trying to decide which I had more fun developing, the chaotic and crushingly brutal [link="http://nibbits.com/sc/projects/get-to-da-choppa/"]Get To Da Choppa[/link] or the complex randomosity of [link="http://nibbits.com/sc/projects/anti-zombie-mercenaries-rpg/"]ZO-RPG[/link]).
I want to do an inverted successor to either map.
Idea #1 stemming from GTDC is to have to contain a force of zerg. They will chew on the mineral blockades and destroy wall traps to open doors, while the players have to scramble around on high ground to stop them. Randomizing the AI's patterns to throw feints and try to break the defenses at the least defended location sounds like fun.
I want to create the same suspense about the zerg getting at your units, and about just delaying the inevitable. A game where players are seperate from each other trying to contain the same threat, and are eliminated savagely as soon as they let their defenses slip.
Idea #2 is to invert the Zombie Outbreak map. Make the players be the elite zombie forces (with plenty of 'chump' zombies holding ground) ala Left4Dead. Triggering the computer forces to attack certain areas for resources and equipment keeps the game consistent and fair instead of having one player against the rest.
Utilizing a death-counter totalization of unit forces in a given area (based on type), subtracting the calculated 'forces' at another area, and then checking for it to be above or below the original value to determine which to attack sounds like a workable system, and models my dual-variable aggression-strategy AI's I've built in other formats.
The leading-unit and muster-and-dispatch method I used in ZO does well for mixing units together, defending chokepoints, returning units for healing, and generally playing like a player, minus some small 'spaz outs' of units that can't decide which way they want to go. Running the same randomized mission system in the background can serve well to give the computer objectives to achieve and gauging its own status (the aggression vs strategy scaling I mentioned). I think, working on a scratch map with AI ideas already developed, that I can really put together a map superior to ZO in AI functions.
Just some indirect discussion if anyone cares to chime in about which gametype is more fun. I'm way open for suggestions on possible avenues with a recreation of either map in inverted form.