Question Concerning Map>Server Relationship

(Java.Lang) #1

I had an idea where I would like to do a set of maps, and depending on the outcome of one map (whether allies or axis win) would determine which map would be next.

Now considering that all of the maps in this devised system would be created for this system (containing the necessary calls to server), would it be possible to allow the map.cfg to dictate to the server what map to go to next?

I have thought over this awhile, and even messed around with rcon variables in map cfgs before, but have always came to the same conclusion; That map.cfgs can only read rcon variables, and not write to them. In fact it’s a moot point because in my experience, it is reading client variables anyways, not server variables.

So my idea is, assuming it is not possible without a mod, how difficult would it be with a mod? If it is something that can be done with relative ease, I would begin to go further with it, if not, I will consider other alternatives.

Thanks in advance.

(Heirpie) #2

Nice Idea, another Idea for mappers is if they could make it so the map could either be axis defending or allies defending, depending on the out come of the previous map…

take lp1_2 if the previous map the axis won why not make it so the allies are now having to defend…:wink:

Just my 2 cents…

(FREAK!!!) #3

well, the code, deciding which team won is in et…

and the dicision, which map should be next could done by an custom cfg for every map.
were the winning and the losing map is stored.

so on this way, you don’t need a map roation (i thing).
but your cfgs must be all 100% ok, so you have a circle, when your campaign ends.
so, that you always have the same numbers of maps to play, if all maps are won or not.

hm, i will give it a try in my mod, because i’ve already include the code for costum cfgs for maps :smiley:

(Java.Lang) #4

Freak, you are right in about what you’re thinking, the only exception is this…

In my devised system, depending on which team won, would not only determine which map would be played next, but IF a map would be played next. In some cases, it should be that the map would just be played again… or the map would go to a previous map in the timeline.

Let me give an example so it makes more sense.

A general synopsis could be that there is a multiple map campaign that covers a story… a storyline with multiple objectives and multiple maps to complete the objectives.
On one of the maps, one of the Allies objectives could be to breach the axis stronghold of a town, and then take it over.

In this instance, if the Allies won, it would move on to a map where the allies then have control over the town, and they now have a new set of objectives on this map to help them continue forward.

However, if the allies were to fail in this instance, they would either have to play the map over (until they manage to capture the town), or it might also be that the map changes to a different outcome… one in which the axis have pushed the allies further back (in this instance the map would have to be greatly favored by the allies to ensure the allies do not continue to lose, since there would only be so many alternate maps to go “backwards” in).

I hope this made sense. Ultimately, what I am looking at, is a well-thought out storyline with alternate sequences, but a goal in the end that either team could reach. This devised system must be able, in some manner, to accomodate the dynamic way the maps can be won.

If the system can work, we could also consider turning things on or off, depending on what happened in an earlier map. (an entrance was made, or wasn’t made, would affect whether it is there or not there in the next map).

(nUllSkillZ) #5

The Price of Peace mod tries to code this type of game mode:
http://www.priceofpeace.net

(FREAK!!!) #6

However, if the allies were to fail in this instance, they would either have to play the map over (until they manage to capture the town), or it might also be that the map changes to a different outcome… one in which the axis have pushed the allies further back (in this instance the map would have to be greatly favored by the allies to ensure the allies do not continue to lose, since there would only be so many alternate maps to go “backwards” in).

well, that would also be able with my version, i want to code. only have to write in the cfg that the losing map ist the same as played.
but i think, not many players would like that.
cause if a team (after 30 min or so) loss a map cause the other team was to strong, they want a change, where they have different changes to win, and not the same s**t again.

i think, a map system like in command & conquer: tiberian sun, you can try to capture directly an object, or smaller objects in the near of it (like capture the oil depots, and weapon factories around it), and then go back to fight less strong object.

(Java.Lang) #7

It may be the ame map again, but like I mentioned, certain things in the map could be turned on or off in the same fashion. Making it easier for the team to win it.

Or again, they don’t need to play the map over again, they also may be forced to go to a new map, one which is favored by the other team in the storyline.