BELMA - Battle Elasto Mania

western · Post by **western** » 1 Dec 2008, 03:26

lol, aren't you even asleep? to hangover, you've got to sleep at least a little bit. isn't that the rule?

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 1 Dec 2008, 07:43

so teajay said it affects, then xiph "no, it does affect" and western say's "it does affect nab!"

tijs, i at least understood, and agree.

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 1 Dec 2008, 19:41

on my comp fpses with res. 640x480 are:
without timer: 420-470
with times: 320-370
so difference is like 100 fps -_- (gf fx5200)

western · Post by **western** » 1 Dec 2008, 19:48

dame. widescreens addicted to am I, so wide, so wide...

western · Post by **western** » 17 Dec 2008, 16:01

maybe two more suggestions:

- a battle ring (dunno how easy it would be to program): ever battled for hours, and wanted to take a little break? fearing to miss next battle? fear no more. activate the "balle ring," then go take your nap without being worried; you'll be waken up just in time for the next one;

- an option to increase fonts. here, on 1920x1200, fonts appear tiny while chatting. thanks. :)

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 17 Dec 2008, 16:59

western wrote:- an option to increase fonts. here, on 1920x1200, fonts appear tiny while chatting. thanks.

hmm, 1. u have to have powerful graphix and pretty nice display

2. i work on 1280x1024 (max on my monitor) and i see fonts to be at least a half to big, but doesnt matter, anyway would be nice if we could change their size

Bismuth · Post by **Bismuth** » 18 Dec 2008, 06:34

I was also thinking about making it possible to change the numbers of lines displayed in chat. Personally, I think 5 isn't enough, 10 would be ok and wouldn't be very annoying when playing.

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 18 Dec 2008, 16:19

O_o?
is that patch for belma and is it released or is it only some almost-beta version of elma online?
if it is for belma, and is available, source pls

The_BoneLESS · Post by **The_BoneLESS** » 18 Dec 2008, 17:17

being in the elite of the elma community, jappe has some privileges as for testing the new version of belma.

totem · Post by **totem** » 19 Dec 2008, 09:37

v'lÃ la gueule de l'Ã©lite

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 19 Dec 2008, 10:38

Pawq wrote:O_o?
is that patch for belma and is it released or is it only some almost-beta version of elma online?
if it is for belma, and is available, source pls

hello cave-man. milagros (the slovakian pro-grammer) has been doing a new belma version(final version he claims) for 1Â½ years. just multiplayer mode for online and server security missing + some other stuff.

no idea where mila is atm though, havent seen on irc for 10 days

Bismuth · Post by **Bismuth** » 21 Dec 2008, 06:33

lol at totem, V'lÃ la gueule de l'Ã©lite

Nice for the chat then

klisse · Post by **klisse** » 13 Jan 2009, 18:22

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but it would be nice with transparent map in new version(for ff levels) and ingame map sizing (+, -).

zebra · Post by **zebra** » 22 Jan 2009, 09:26

A new idea came to my mind: Rounds mode

- all the players would start at the same time like in onelife battle
- top 10 would be given points: for example 10 points for the winner, 9 points for 2nd etc.
- when first player finishes the round, there would be for example 30 secs time for other players to finish the lev. If they didn't finish, they would get 0 points from that round.
- the same level would be played over and over again
- the one who gets for example 31 points wins the battle and the battle ends

so it would be like onelife but played many times.

I don't know how this would apply to pipe levels. Maybe the 3rd rule (above) should be replaced by a time limit given by the designer (for each round). And points should be given also to those who don't finish the lev. This mode would be at its best in easy levels and could maybe be used also in old levels. There could also be a free practise session of few minutes before the actual rounds start.

Comments?

zebra · Post by **zebra** » 22 Jan 2009, 11:34

Jappe wrote:did you come up with that urself? because there is exactly the same system in trackmania, its very fun mode though id like to see it in belma too

Good guess. I got the idea from trackmania.

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 22 Jan 2009, 11:34

good, except the way to fix the problem your having is have a Time Limit (say 5 finishes or 5 Minutes or whatever) then 30 seconds intermission in which to change vsync or Fps or whatever/refresh and then do it again for however many times was specified (max of 5)

Every round points are handed out. and it depends on how many players are in the game - for instance say there's 10 Players. 2 people finish, 4 people get 3 apples, 2 people get 2 apples, 1 person gets 1 apple and 1 person gets no apples, it could be

1) Player with the Fastest time
2) Player with the second fastest time
3) First player to get 3 apples
4) Second player to get 3 apples
5)Third player to get 3 apples

etc.

so say every Round a set number of points are awarded (different number for every amount of players) lets say for 10 people there are 300 points at stake

the Winner could get 75 Points
Second gets 60
Third gets 50
Fourth gets 40
Fifth gets 30
Sixth gets 20
Seventh gets 15
Eighth gets 7
Ninth gets 4
Tenth gets 0

For more players this would be different, this way ALL players except last get points. so say there are 40 players instead of 10, maybe 2000 Points are at stake (more avg points per person as more people to beat)

1st gets 285
2nd gets 250
3rd gets 200
4th gets 170
5th gets 150
6th gets 125
7th gets 100
8th gets 80
9th gets 60
10th gets 50
11th gets 47.5
12th gets 45
13th gets 40
14th gets 35
15th gets 30
16th gets 28
17th gets 26
18th gets 25
19th gets 23
20th gets 21
21st gets 20
22nd gets 19
23rd gets 18
24th gets 17
25th gets 16
26th gets 15
27th gets 14
28th gets 13
29th gets 12
30th gets 11
31st gets 10
32nd gets 9
33rd gets 8
34th gets 7
35th gets 6
36th gets 5
37th gets 4
38th gets 3
39th gets 2.5
40th gets 0

Of Course if you wished to implement something with Negative points, it'd also be simple

300 Points as Reward

1st: 100
2nd: 80
3rd: 50
4th: 30
5th: 25
6th: 10
7th: 5
8th: 0
9th: -5
10th: -10

this could be liek a new Points Ranking system on the Website. also i've found a way to make it more rewarding to play battles with more players than it already is

lets say amount of players in the battle is pronumeral p, and ones placing is pronumeral n.

n/p = x

X is the amount of "Bonus Points" you get for the Tournament. So if you came 5th in a Battle with ten players (using already supplied information) you would receive 30 Points for your position, and 10/5 = 2 therefore you would receive 2 points towards your overall placing. However if you came 1st in a battle with 40 players you would receive 285 Points, and 40/1 = 40 so you would receive 325 points for the win.

could be liek a "Tournament" with an option to play the same level several different times, or different levels (say a mini-cup)

At the end of the tournament you could have a further amount of points at stake (50*n) that also counts.

Formula for this would be: (let amount of points for round winner be D, Let amount of point for Tournament winner be L, and let amount of Rounds be M)

((D + (n/p))*M)+(L)

so say you won all 5 rounds against 40 opponents you would receive ((285+(40/1))*5)+(L)

zebra · Post by **zebra** » 22 Jan 2009, 12:40

Smaxa, your system is too complicated. No need for any Tournament points (if you meant that battle = tournament). Also the points given in a round would be different thing than the ranking points/experience points shown in the web site. The round points would be given just to see the positions in that battle.

SmaXa wrote:For more players this would be different, this way ALL players except last get points. so say there are 40 players instead of 10, maybe 2000 Points are at stake (more avg points per person as more people to beat)

The amount of points given in each round shouldn't depend on the amount of players present. Otherwise very hard to calculate points and set the winning limit. Also when more ppl would join the game during the rounds, the points and point limit would have to change.

SmaXa wrote:good, except the way to fix the problem your having is have a Time Limit (say 5 finishes or 5 Minutes or whatever) then 30 seconds intermission in which to change vsync or Fps or whatever/refresh and then do it again for however many times was specified (max of 5)

There wouldn't be any limit '5 finishes' because it wouldn't make any sense. Each round is one-life.
Also I talked about the time from first finisher to the end of round, not any intermission. There could be 10 sec intermission and countdown of course.

SmaXa wrote:lets say amount of players in the battle is pronumeral p, and ones placing is pronumeral n.

I guess you meant n = amount of players and p = ones placing (otherwise your formulas don't make any sense)

FinMan · Post by **FinMan** » 22 Jan 2009, 12:53

The idea given by zebra would be max fun to play. That free practisetime just is not needed. Like in onelifes or first finish battles, you cant know how to play, you have to have good maplooking-skills etc. If you die, you of course would try again before the first-finisher-player gets to flower. Of course theres much possibilities avaible.

But when theres that 30 sec (or whatever time) between the next round starts, could player2 finish it and get some points while player1 (who finished it first) is waiting that second rounds countdown ends. Would be the best to let other players able to finish with many tries, and that makes the battle more tight. Countdown of course still would continue..

zebra · Post by **zebra** » 22 Jan 2009, 15:35

FinMan wrote:The idea given by zebra would be max fun to play. That free practisetime just is not needed. Like in onelifes or first finish battles, you cant know how to play, you have to have good maplooking-skills etc. If you die, you of course would try again before the first-finisher-player gets to flower. Of course theres much possibilities avaible.

But when theres that 30 sec (or whatever time) between the next round starts, could player2 finish it and get some points while player1 (who finished it first) is waiting that second rounds countdown ends. Would be the best to let other players able to finish with many tries, and that makes the battle more tight. Countdown of course still would continue..

So it would be like multiple first-finish-battles in the same lev? I'm afraid that the tension would go down a little and the idea of this whole round thing would perish if players could restart their round. So, I think it should be one-life. The failed players could of course practise the lev while waiting the next round to start.

About the free practise time... designer could for example choose the length of it. 0 minutes would mean no practise.

Bismuth · Post by **Bismuth** » 21 Feb 2009, 00:02

I didn't read all of the last 3-4 posts but I suggest points to be given in rounds mode like this:

n = number of players

winner gets (n-1) points
2nd gets (n-2) points
etc.
last gets 0 points.

ez.

FinMan · Post by **FinMan** » 21 Feb 2009, 00:31

Bismuth: otherwise its fine but sach little gap between first and second position.

Bismuth · Post by **Bismuth** » 21 Feb 2009, 00:42

ok maybe n, n-2, n-3... because I don't think the winner must get loads of points compared to the 2nd.

FinMan · Post by **FinMan** » 21 Feb 2009, 10:21

well, thats the idea. Noone will fight for first place if it has not real cap between the second player...

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 21 Feb 2009, 10:45

well thats pretty much the way it works for that which is called battle experience points atm http://elmaonline.moposite.com/?s=ranking

Mawane · Post by **Mawane** » 6 Mar 2009, 17:09

milagros wrote:i'm going home tomorrow and there wont be any inet connection but i will take my cop home and prolly continue working on teh patch

next version will have there updates (most of them are (half) done):

1. kuski status
- n00b (cant do anything), beginner kuski (can play), kuski (+can start battle), pro (+can stop/abort, new battle types while testing), moderator (+ban after we get server, start cup, change status of n00bs, kuskis and pros), admin (me and skint0r)

2. new battle type :
a) flagtag balle (pro needed)- flag will be given randomly after 1 min of bongoing on teh lev, and then you have to have it for longest time. If you loose the flag you cant capture it for 5(?) secs. Flower will be hidden, winner replay wont be uploaded.
b) apple collecting balle (pro needed)- secret-area-like apple collecting where you have to take most number of different apples but deosn't have to be in one run, replay won't be saved, flower hidden(?)

3. new battle cripplings / flags
a) one turn
b) drunk balle (pro needed) - throttle/brake and right/left will swap after each apple taken:)
c) allow battlestarter (pro needed) to take part in battle (pro needed) - useful for some cases (crippled internals, 1htt, ..)
d) allow bug times (pro needed) - for special levs where you start with bug apple taken
e) hide times - you wont see other's times / leader time during battles

4. cooperative multiplaying (for 2 players only for now) - some invite, accept, refuse, ignore keys. Then player will stand at start till his co-player joins same lev. Everything will look like normal multiplayer, times will be saved into same table, splitscreen, ...

5.private chat - while chatting f2/f3 swaps who you write to

6. cups, 24h tt

7. fps limiter

8. new file protocol

9. setup file for loading last setup (f1, f10, ..), too many new keys needed, so there will be one 2nd function key (shift/ctrl, ..) that will have to be presses together

10. max apples to 120 and max polygons to 1200

11. tables for top times per kuski/level, battle result table, cup result table, 24hh table, lev packs table

12. battle queue and top10 times (wont work during battle/cup) ingame

13. minor updates like real time of kuski shown, time of last apple taken (for hoyling), alphabetical order for f2/f3 and kuskilist, show keys as they are set, not as it is default (F11 to upload, ..)

14. do non-us keyboard conversion(?),

15. fix all bugs (lgr, across levs, ff battle, ..)

most of these things are already done so its only to inform dz
i will not release it till everything is done
i will prolly need to test some parts with someone before release, hopefully ez multiwrs with zweq

out of that list everything is done except 14 that wont be there and 4 that is almost finished (rec + some events to do)

just lil' update

Xiphias · Post by **Xiphias** » 6 Mar 2009, 17:59

I didn't know Mawane was the head of the project now.
I'm startled.

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 19 Mar 2009, 19:00

my artistic interpretation

roope · Post by **roope** » 19 Mar 2009, 19:34

superior paint skills

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 4 Apr 2009, 16:20

Somehow my newly installed belma won't work on the laptop. It says ELMA.RES is missing! But it's not! And permissions are set fine. Elma12.exe works though. And yes, I ran ResEdit.exe.

halp!

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 14 May 2009, 23:19

Okay, another bug I run into lately. I have this 22" monitor, and it's 16:10. I try to set the resolution to 1280Ã—800, but it keeps reverting to 1280Ã—720. I even tried setting it to 1280Ã—854 hoping it would revert to 800, but to no avail. What the fuck and why is this happening? Can I somehow hack into elma so to change it myself manually? This shit annoys me.

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 15 May 2009, 08:23

same shit happened here when i tried to set 1280x1024 on 17", 4:3 screen, it also reverted to 1280x720... so i play with 800x600

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 15 May 2009, 08:34

right, 800Ã—600 seems to work. Haven't tested 1024Ã—768 yet. Higher resolutions make everything too slow, so that is a no-go area.

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 15 May 2009, 13:35

both 1440x900 and 1280x720 works fine on my laptop which is 16:10 aswell

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 16 May 2009, 01:10

1280*800, does it work? That's what I need really.

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 16 May 2009, 01:24

Why the fuck are flat computer monitors 16:10 or 5:4 instead of 16:9 or 4:3 anyway? Idiotic.

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 16 May 2009, 09:15

I wouldn't know. I use the monitor, because someone didn't had a use for it. I wouldn't buy one myself.

Orcc · Post by **Orcc** » 16 May 2009, 09:58

1280x800 works for me, I've been using it for ages. That config program changes it to 1280x720 every time you start it, but the correct resolution still works in belma.

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 16 May 2009, 10:02

tested and 1280x800 works fine too

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 16 May 2009, 12:45

hmz. I say hmz yeah.

zebra · Post by **zebra** » 16 May 2009, 13:35

Is it that the resolution changes or only the number in the elma config program?
Because the 2nd number always changes to the smallest possible and it's only a bug of the config program.

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 16 May 2009, 13:50

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 16 May 2009, 13:53

resolution changes... yea

Ali · Post by **Ali** » 8 Jun 2009, 15:18

whats up with ppl starting 20+ mins balles all the time, especially on pipes? stop doing that please... belma is supposed to be instant fun, not a freaking marathon

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 8 Jun 2009, 16:22

Ali wrote:whats up with ppl starting 20+ mins balles all the time, especially on pipes? stop doing that please... belma is supposed to be instant fun, not a freaking marathon

ramone doesn't agree with you

Xiphias · Post by **Xiphias** » 8 Jun 2009, 17:06

I leffed

Ali · Post by **Ali** » 8 Jun 2009, 18:26

sry, double post

Ali · Post by **Ali** » 8 Jun 2009, 18:27

Lukazz wrote:ramone doesn't agree with you

i didn't exactly mean ramone, he's one of the best ballemakers atm... my point -> if you start 20+ balle, your level better be f...ing good (happens rarely)

FinMan · Post by **FinMan** » 9 Jun 2009, 17:58

Well, Ramones levels often needs 30 mins if you want to get even ok time. But kinda agree with that, levels just should be more hoylish maybe. Of course it is fun to battle 30 mins battles if you have 12 hours in a day, but if you come to play some 45 mins and it includes 2 1 hours FF:s or real levels that you miss first and you dont have time to play the latest one... not good.

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 10 Jun 2009, 09:40

There's so many battle with way too short time, so please don't start complaining about too long battles :/

I can agree on 1h ff is a bit too much, caus it matters a lot if you miss first few minutes (mostly), but otherwise 20-30-40 mins normal battles are so much more fun than those quick 10 mins ones.

Ecchi · Post by **Ecchi** » 10 Jun 2009, 12:38

Ever thought of having 2 different battle systems? as in one for external battles and one for internal ones?

I know people hate internal battles, but there are some people who would love it. Also it would probably make WRs more common, and alot of styles would be perfected while balling internals.. Just a suggestion