Outpost Monopoly

[Sirbomber]

When one player wins, everyone else loses.  Duh.  

Ah, but seriously.  Dunno if you knew this, but failure conditions should be reserved for single player only (or if you use them to fail all players simultaneously during a multiplayer game).  If you fail one player while the others are still in the game, OP2 registers it as a lost connection, meaning the players still in the game have to wait for the "Drop Player" button to show up before they can move on.

[TH300]

Uh, anyone still interested in this?

I like Monopoly and I like Outpost 2, so... yes, I am interested.

[evecolonycamander]

so its unanimous all is good with this project

[Hidiot]

Glad to see there's still interest.

Sirbomber, I chose to not drop a player out of the game, just remove them from the game internally and leave them with nothing to control. Thus, they can continue to watch, or just quit.

However, I have no clear way of triggering a player leaving the game, since when one player is threatened with bankruptcy, another player may just help. As such, my current decision is to build this system via chat commands.

My current idea is to write "/quit" and "/kick" commands ("/kick" to be used only by the host).

I'm only thinking of a "/kick" command to deal with anyone who refuses to admit defeat.

Any thoughts or better ideas are welcome.

[TH300]

Your code is not easy to understand.

I'd assume that a player would simply lose (and thus be out of the game) if his ore is less than his Debt at the end of a round. If a player wants to leave for other reasons, he could do so by self-destructing a certain unit. And if other players want to help, thats part of the game, isn't it?

[Hidiot]

That was the old code.

The now updated SVN code simply prevents one who couldn't pay the Debt at the end of a turn from ending the turn. I chose not to introduce any forced loss, because of the human factors. As such, for a player to leave the game, a "/quit" command shall be used. If someone is obnoxious, the host can kick.

I'm thinking of implementing a system that can turn player names into player numbers, but that will involve more memory hacking, and is unessential.

[jcj94]

so its unanimous all is good with this project

Aye..

Another idea, woul it be possible to make a 3d version (AFTER it is past beta and final phases)

[Sirbomber]

Uhhh... You realize this is just an OP2 map, and not a stand-alone game?

Wait, of course you don't.  Otherwise you wouldn't have asked.

[jcj94]

Why cant we add it into the 3d version oncer there past betra and in final stages.. if that happens..

[Kayedon]

Are you really so thick you don't get it?

[evecolonycamander]

JC the game is played using OP2 multiplayer. in other words it is NOT a separate game
 

[Sirbomber]

Why cant we add it into the 3d version oncer there past betra and in final stages.. if that happens..

OP2 3D is officially dead.  Shame really, it looked like it had a real shot.

[Hidiot]

Ran another check through the source and I noticed a game-breaking mistake of mine, in the form of a "=" instead of "==". I have consequently uploaded a fixed archive.

Also, I await the opportunity of testing the map with 3 or 4 players.

EDIT: A bug that crashed the game on start up has also been fixed. Yes, I missed such an obvious bug.
Also, another bug I only just picked up has been fixed. This bug had to do with trading lots. I have rewritten the lot trading function and is now both more optimized and properly functioning.

[evecolonycamander]

ill be glad to help. also from what bit of coding experience i have that WAS a stupid and careless error... also it is kinda funny  

[Hooman]

It's also a common error.

Hmm..., common err-ore? Nah, I need to get some sleep.  :unsure:


Btw, I heard some story about someone trying to introduce a root exploit into the Linux kernel by accidentally on purpose using a single = instead of the double ==. Way off in some none-too-thought-of function they where "checking" to see if the current user was root to see how a request should be handled.  
 

[Hidiot]

Yes, Hooman, sleep is very good; get as much as you need  

Also, a missing "=" is not that stupid of an error, compared to me spending some 4 hours in front of a if placed in a for, with an else condition. Yes, it took me some 4 hours to realize that the else branch would be accessed a bazillion times, when I only wanted that bit treated once.

Ah, but the rain of bugs and bug fixes is not over!  Yet again I update with a fix. This time, it has to do with the trading system, which I forgot to update in light of the more recent player leaving function. I had also forgotten to release Get Out of Jail Free cards held by leaving players.

Thing is, I'm probably going to find the largest number of bugs myself, what with no one reporting any bugs yet.

I also keep deciding to call a day on this map, but a few minutes later I get back into it and adjust some more...

EDIT: I think I'm updating the download much too often. As such, I'll only update it once or twice a day from now on.

[elwood_s]

Uh, anyone still interested in this?

I'm interested.  I like to help you test the map, but in spite of having read this whole threat twice, I can't figure out how to "play".  

I've unzipped the archive into my OP2 folder and started OP2.  I can't find your map in the multi-player menus, but am able to load it using the Run Script button in the debug menu.  Unfortunately I "win" instantly, the "Victory is Sweet" message flashes on the screen and it kicks me back to the main menu.

Sorry, but I guess I'm just a little slow. :blink:

[Hidiot]

It's a 4 player Last one Standing map. Should show up in the list as "4P, LoS, Outpost Monopoly"

Yes, what with there being a victory condition, the debug system will fire that simple trigger. You couldn't really play it in debug either, because how do you play monopoly with just one player, anyway?

[elwood_s]

It's a 4 player Last one Standing map. Should show up in the list as "4P, LoS, Outpost Monopoly"

Yes, what with there being a victory condition, the debug system will fire that simple trigger. You couldn't really play it in debug either, because how do you play monopoly with just one player, anyway?

Thanks.

I'll give it a try and report anything strange I that find.

OK, I' back.

Naturally, you're right.  When I select  TCP/IP , then CREATE, then Last One Standing, it gets me to the game settings menu,  where I find Outpost Monopoly in the drop-down menu.    I don't know why I couldn't see that when I tried the same thing before. :wacko:

Anyway, now I've selected Outpost Monopoly, but I'm stuck at the game settings menu with the START button grayed-out.  I guess it's waiting for someone else to join my game, which of course ain't gonna happen....  I guess there's an easy around this, but I don't know what it is.  I have no experience with multi-player, so please take it easy on me.

[evecolonycamander]

just start up two OP2 games at once. then have one host the other join. there you are a match between you yourself and [insert selfish comment here]

[Hidiot]

Yes, the multi player system won't let you start a game without 2 or more players in the game session.

Luckily, you can open up more than one instance of Outpost 2 and, as ecc suggested, use one instance of the game to host the session and the other instance of the game to join it and then play by Alt+Tab - ing between players.

[elwood_s]

just start up two OP2 games at once. then have one host the other join. there you are a match between you yourself and [insert selfish comment here]

Yes, the multi player system won't let you start a game without 2 or more players in the game session.

Luckily, you can open up more than one instance of Outpost 2 and, as ecc suggested, use one instance of the game to host the session and the other instance of the game to join it and then play by Alt+Tab - ing between players.

Instructions so clear they even work for me.! Thanks guys.

OK, I've played a two player game part way through against myself.  Even if the competition wasn't brilliant, at least it was an even match. Actually I deliberately had both players take it easy on each other in a way: I wouldn't allow Player2 (Jake) to buy "Streets" in a ""Neighborhood" that Player1 (Elwood) already owned in and vice-versa. That way both could form monopolies and get onto the business of building as quickly as possible.

Destroying your Scout will end your turn (or initiate your next turn if you landed a double).

To end a turn, the number of vehicles on the field must equal the total amount on the dice. That means that destroying the Robo-Miners that represent your dice will end your turn.

I never found any Robo-Miners, so I ended all turns by destroying the Scouts.  The one hard bug I encountered, which made it impossible to continue the game, was when Jake got "stuck" on Chance in the top row of the board.  Every time I blew-up the scout to end Jake's turn, his Scout was instantly recreated, as though he'd rolled a double but in the same spot on Chance.  After destroying the Scout enough times to convince myself that it wasn't going anywhere, I gave up and closed the game.  

Unfortunately, by this time I'd forgotten what Chance card Jake had drawn when he got stuck in the loop.  :oops:   I think it might have been the $25/$50 assessment on Houses/Hotels, but I'm not 100% sure.  I'm afraid that was an important detail.:CK9's:  I'll try to do better next time.

[Hidiot]

Oh, I forgot about that old point about destroying the Scout. That was the old system; I added the system of checking the number of vehicles because of another addition that was made during this past week. I forgot which, though.

Um, the Robo-Miners are used to represent the dice in the centre area of the board. You should start the game centred on them.

Not being able to end your turn is not a bug. A turn can only be ended when the payer holds enough money to pay the acquired debt. I guess it would be a good idea to notify the player just how much of a debt has to be payed in order to move on. Will be added, maybe tomorrow.

[elwood_s]

Oh, I forgot about that old point about destroying the Scout. That was the old system; I added the system of checking the number of vehicles because of another addition that was made during this past week. I forgot which, though.

Um, the Robo-Miners are used to represent the dice in the centre area of the board. You should start the game centred on them.

Thanks, I see 'em now.  I'm really slipping.  I kept reading Robo-Miners but for some reason was looking for Earthworkers. :wacko:

And after seeing the little square corrals they're in I understand the dice reference.

Not being able to end your turn is not a bug. A turn can only be ended when the payer holds enough money to pay the acquired debt. I guess it would be a good idea to notify the player just how much of a debt has to be payed in order to move on. Will be added, maybe tomorrow.

OK, if that's the way it's supposed to work.  

One question though.  If I remember right, in the board game if you can't settle a debt, don't you get sent to jail and the other players can continue while you wait out your sentence?  Maybe it would have worked that way if I'd destroyed the Robo-Miners instead of my Scout.

[Hidiot]

Well, versions of Monopoly probably vary between countries and... stuff. I just went with the system I knew, a player basically losing by admitting defeat or a general consensus that a player has lost.
Take note of the chat commands I have listed in my first post. They are essential to the game play.

Locking up players in Jail while in debt poses some problems. They still own properties and may still gain money from other players landing on their properties. Not exactly fair, though it might be a way to extend the game. I'll think this over a bit and then probably create a poll for it, simultaneously asking why the preferred system would be better.