Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 13 Jul 2007
Offline Last Active Aug 19 2014 02:35 PM

Topics I've Started

Weapon statistics visualization

18 August 2014 - 01:39 PM

Imagine you playing a slow-paced shooty game, all your enemies wear heavy armour, you have an inventory with multiple guns in it, but instead of showing you a tooltip with weapon damage numbers - there is a small button labeled "test". If you push this button, a window appears, in which you can see a fixated weapon and a machine that slides armour plates before it, one after another. Then the gun shoots the plates and you can observe what a particular gun will do to an armoured foe, and a magnitude of its effect. For instance a particular weapon might pierce the armour easily or dent it, crack and shatter it or bounce, melt it or reflect.


Obviously after some time in the game, you, the player, will be able to generally predict what a particular weapon would do, but would it remain too much of "style over substance" ? A neat visual idea, but a bad design and interface choice ?

Incentive or penalty ?

10 June 2014 - 07:34 AM

So there is a very tactical combat-heavy game, in which you gain advantage over enemy by teamwork. Creating situations for crossfires, ambushes, and so on. And you do this by chaining actions for your soldiers. So to help the player i have these "collectable hint cards", which you find in the world, and which not only tell you how to set up an ambush (for example) using the game specific rules, but will also automate the actions for the player. In other words, you click on an "Ambush" card, then on an enemy you wish to ambush, and the game just highlights the spots where you should place your forces, and when you do they automatically set up a proper ambush. The player could do this manually, but using the "hint cards" will, hopefully, give players an idea of what can and can not be done within game rules.


So my thoughts are, to the end of teaching the players a more advanced tricks, should i put some small bonuses on "hint cards" ? For example, you could easily create a crossfire situation on your own, but if you use a crossfire "hint card" you get +10% bonus xp. But then, maybe it will lead to the players hunting down the cards, instead of using them as literal "HINTS" ? Wouldnt it be better to put a -10% bonus something on "hint cards" ? Would that make the players not rely on them as much, or would it just make them an annoyance to use ?

Several 3D environments. How to ?

10 June 2014 - 07:11 AM

For example, i might have an environment that is a game level, and my character walks around it. But when i open his inventory it shows another, small environment where i can rotate a character's model, change his equipment and so on. What is the "time-tested" way to do that ? Do i just put all environments i might call on in every game level ? That seems excessive, but i cant think of anything else.

For instance, in Unity i could create a game level in one file, and inventory screen in another, and switch between the two, but it is somewhat problematic to keep track of the data, not to mention there will be a loading time, however small it might be. In most modern games inventory screens and such just come right up, as soon as i press the button. Do people really just put everything in one level ? Please explain this to me.

Licensing issue.

27 May 2014 - 02:18 PM

I'm not sure it's a design category question as such, but i'll ask anyway.

What if i want to make a commercial game, and have a character\device\vehicle from a well-known media franchise as a cameo or easter egg ? Would it be possible to get such a thing for free, and if not - how much would such a request cost me ? Say...say i want to have a Battletech's MadCat standing in a hangar, or TF2's Heavy walking around in the background ?

I'd rather have someone tell me from experience, instead of guesses.

Need input on simultaneous-turn-based combat system thoughts

14 January 2014 - 09:49 PM

Basically, my initial idea was simple : a couple units on either side, rigidly paired up by relative positions, every turn you choose an action out of four available for each unit (attack, block, dodge, special), and then it is simultaneously carried out. Whichever unit has higher speed stat will go first in each respective pair. Simple.


But then i thought, too simple. It doesnt really take any advantage of simultaneous command execution. Might as well be a traditional turn-based game. No. So i increased the number of available actions-per-turn to 3. So you could set a unit to attack-attack-dodge, or dodge-attack-defend, or any other of 4-in-power-of-3 sets. So you could plan a bit in advance, and be more careful, or you'll get hit three times in a row. In addition, the enemy units will always telegraph their first, and only first, action. Much better, i thought.


But it wasnt enough. Then i thought, what if any two actions could combine and create a new action ? For example, attack-attack becomes strong attack. Defend-attack becomes a counterattack. Dodge-dodge becomes escape from battle. And so on. I liked this idea alot, but it brought way, way too many troubles. For example, do i force the player so that EVERY two actions become combined, or let him choose if he wanted to combine them or not ? And since i have 3 actions per turn, do i combine first two or the last two ? And will i be even able to invent 16 sufficiently unique actions ?


But i couldnt let it go. So, i thought, let's lower the actions-per-turn to 2, let player choose if he wants to combine them or not, but limit the number of combined actions in one game to a reasonable number like 5, and make a quest like system to have player gradually get a choice of a new combined action out of total 16 available through a quest system of sorts. Might work, i thought, and made this post.


So...did that make sense to anyone and what are your thoughts ?