Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Karnot

Member Since 13 Jul 2007
Offline Last Active Mar 27 2014 12:05 AM
-----

Topics I've Started

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 ?


Artificially limiting player's choice

16 April 2013 - 09:01 PM

Suppose you talk to your girl one day, and you decided to have a date two days from now. Later that day, you browse the net, and order a book, and it will be delivered 3 days from now. Then you go to a tailor, and order a new suit, and that will be done a week from now.

 

Now, let's say all this happens in a game.

Assuming the player and/or character is willing to do all three of those things, is not in any particular hurry, and has enough money, what sort of in-game reason would you give for forcing player to choose only one of those three. The sort of realistic reason that would actually make common sense, not just "picked 0 out of 1". And more, even though the player/character is not really in any particular hurry, what sort of reason would you create to make player care about how much in-game time will each choice take to complete ?


How to bring TV-quality drama into your strategy game ?

30 December 2012 - 10:58 AM

Specifically into a game without a designated main character. And, how to integrate it into the game so it wouldnt be too obtuse so players just skip every bit of it.

Some games, like Jagged Alliance, have PC characters with involved personalities, but there is almost no drama. As soon as something vaguely dramatic starts happening - some character gets offended and leaves, leaving you with no ability for further interaction.

Dwarf Fortress has plenty of drama, but it completely depends on the imagination quality of the player.

 

What i'm interested in, is how to bring drama into a game with randomised characters and make it convincing enough if at all possible. Usual things, like, a character having sworn enemies and getting into all kinds of oral duels with them before engaging in battle, things like a character showing remorse for carrying out an operation in a small town and nearly leveling it while fighting, things like having a traitor in your squad that slowly comes over to your side, showing the higher ups of the other side ordering POW executions, avenging the death of a comrade that covered you from a bullet just a moment ago. That sort of thing.

 

Do you think this is at all possible to do in a "non-linear" game without having specific characters with fixed personalities ?


Advantages of higher ground.

20 October 2012 - 05:58 AM

Let's assume an FPS. There are two players armed with miniguns, and only actions they can take are move on the plane (no jumping, no crouching), aim, and shoot. Also they are perfectly aware of each other's position and are in direct LOS. Comparing two situations, a - both players are on a flat plane, and b - one is on the perfectly vertical cliff while the other is beneath him in the canyon, are there any actual advantages of being at higher ground ?

Punishment and reward

10 March 2012 - 02:59 AM

Should you use them, and when ?

For instance, if in your game skill makes a difference - new or bad players will lose. If losing does not mean immediate gameover - should you punish them for losing ? And if a skillful player clears the objective effortlessly, should you reward it ? But, if player already has the skill to win - why would you give him even more advantages, when bad players get more long-term disadvantages for losing ? Should you do the reverse, then ? If player fails - then make the game give him incentives to play more, or make further encounters easier ? Then what will the good player get ?
What are the consequences of each, i'm a bit confused what to think.

PARTNERS