One immediate idea: I recently played a board game called Splendour in which players compete for various objectives in a somewhat similar fashion. One element of that game was being able to "Reserve" a certain objective, preferably when you had noticed another player specifically aiming for it - in this way you can further your own goals while rendering some of their work useless. This could work for your game: a player can (with the use of a certain card or otherwise limited-use action) "reserve" a product for his own completion. You could even be extra dickish about it if you make that not count as removing it from play, essentially limiting the other player's available goals to two (or however many) until the reserved product is completed by the reserving player.
TelcontarMember Since 16 Jan 2010
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:52 AM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 137
- Profile Views 5,937
- Submitted Links 0
- Member Title Member
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Telcontar hasn't added any contacts yet.
Posted by Telcontar on 18 October 2016 - 08:00 AM
I love me some crafting, and have recently started playing card games more (hearthstone, and even Magic just last weekend!).
Is this meant to be a CCG where players have a certain "collection" of cards? If so, I wonder at the speed of gaining new loot cards. You say you can finish a few rounds in a coffee break which makes for a potentially very high turnover, which might make it trivially easy to gather every card in the game.
Also, an alternative idea which I think might give players more options during the game (but also likely has the tradeoff of making matches longer): Instead of having a single order for both players to craft, have a choice of three (or however many for good balance). Players "win" the completed order once they'e made the item (and perhaps have options to win the order with a non-exact match as you describe in your doc). Completed orders are replaced so there are always three options available to go for. Furthermore, players on certain very good turns could have the ability to win more than one order at once if they use their cards very efficiently.
I suggest this because I think it might allow for more playstyles and big swing turns for people who've fallen behind, which is always a fun thing to see in card games. Also helps prevent a person being entirely screwed by never having the cards to go for the correct single product.
Anyway, the concept sounds interesting! One last note: in your doc you mention "stroking" the coals, when I'm fairly sure you meant "stoking." I do not imagine there are too many blacksmiths who stroke their coals on purpose. ;)
Posted by Telcontar on 14 October 2016 - 09:41 AM
While allowing for the point Luckless made about jump scares being startling, not scary, I do think they can have their place even in hardcore horror games if used sparingly. Nothing like that kick of adrenaline when the monster drops on ya out of nowhere. Be careful where you put them (it might not be wise OR effective to puncture a carefully-crafted suspenseful atmosphere with a jump scare, for instance) but don't disregard them.
Posted by Telcontar on 14 October 2016 - 08:36 AM
An emphasis on resource scarcity and player helplessness in the face of threats. Resident Evil used to be famous for bullet starvation such that the player would hoard ammo almost to a fault - it made for wonderfully panicked moments as you wondered whether or not it was worth it to gun down those zombie dogs or if something worse might be around the next corner.
I should clarify what I mean by player helplessness, as you've already touched on it: not that the player has no recourse against threats, but that their recourse is often escape rather than combat. Combat makes a player feel powerful, and if you're going for horror you want them to feel vulnerable in general and powerful only in punctuated, fleeting moments.
And finally: mystery. There is no fear like the fear of the unknown. Good sound and lighting design is practically a must-have for any kind of scary game. Human beings rely on our vision to a fault, and things picked up by our other senses (or out of the corner of our eye, or in the shadows, etc) will tend to feel spookier until we can get a clear look at it.
Posted by Telcontar on 14 October 2016 - 08:29 AM
1. I find merely increasing a monster's entire state line by x% to be cheap and lazy, yes. There are so many ways to increase difficulty that are more inventive and plenty of them don't take much more effort. Even increasing an enemy's states non-uniformly is better, perhaps by accentuating the monster's role. Got a bulletsponge monster? The upgraded version might actually do less damage but take three times the punishment to put down. That sort of thing. Something that changes or at least sharpens the player's situation rather than a lockstep increase in stats to keep up with the player's abilities and changes nothing about how they deal with them.
2. As other have said, simple military ranks from any time serve well. If the enemy's are monstrous rather than intelligent/humanoid you could use words depicting age "Young, Elder, Ancient" and such. Pretty much any system of descriptors works well, and bonus points if its serves some other purpose (ie, a certain class of enemies uses "_, misshapen, mutated, Abomination" as difficulty ranks, and also clues the player in that certain attacks such as Holy damage will work better).
Posted by Telcontar on 28 September 2016 - 09:32 AM
But I have a problem, I can't go beyong basics in programming. I do not have ideas of what to code next, I still don't have the ability to create my own code (program) by myself. I have to follow tutorials, when I try to code by myself I dont do that good.
So my question is, what is the programming best practice??
Stop focusing on learning. Start focusing on achieving. You need to set yourself a specific goal, then learn just what you need to accomplish that goal.
Don't worry about how much you "know" or have "learned" or if you feel like an "expert". All of that is worth absolutely nothing if you can't produce an end result.
This is exactly the advice you need. Pick a simple goal you would like to achieve, probably a simple game - something like Pong is a classic. Start creating it, learning and looking things up as you go to overcome obstacles towards that specific game. Rinse and repeat.
Also, don't worry about using tutorials. Even professional programmers tend to build a lot of their work inside the shells of modified tutorials, if that serves the purpose...
Posted by Telcontar on 28 September 2016 - 09:24 AM
Sounds like a very reasonable project. The bare bones of it probably shouldn't take that long depending on what tools you're using. I remember whipping up something roughly similar to what you're describing here in about two/three months using Python and Pygame, though with the caveat that my combat model was very simple and AI basically nonexistent.
You may want to begin by creating the actual combat arena, and then worry about allowing for unit selection later. That way you can define three or four basic unit types and the basics of your combat and movement model, and then design new unit types around that, rather than the other way around. The order I did it in for my game above was: design basic units (and lay the template for how units would be defined). Design/Impement maps (I used simple procgen heightmaps, and wanted mostly flat ground with features like forests, hills, and mountains dotted about). Implement movement. Implement melee combat. Implement ranged combat. Then I went back and created a few more unit types and an army selection mode for the pre-game.
Posted by Telcontar on 07 September 2016 - 09:44 AM
I see the problem (especially in the most recent example of No Man's Sky) as being an obsession with every single variation being present in the game so that they can make that magical 18 quadrillion whatevers claim.
If you're going to use procedural generation to make player-ready content, you need to make sure it produces easily distinguishable results almost every time. You need to cut out something a sizable percentage of the results so that the differences between the things you keep are more obvious and more enjoyable.
And then, perhaps most importantly, you need an interesting game to make use of that content. Don't rely on assets of any sort to carry your game, whether procgen or hand-crafted.
Posted by Telcontar on 25 August 2016 - 10:33 AM
I did some development, including game development, in Python and had a blast with the language. My games were fairly simple when it came to graphics, and - as I recall - Pygame proved to be basically everything I needed. It provides simple graphics and input facilities (it probably does more, but it's been a few years now, and those are what I recall using). Easy to use, good documentation, and a big enough community to handle any questions that outlast the first two.
Posted by Telcontar on 19 August 2016 - 12:07 PM
Have you played Project Zomboid? It takes place (or CAN take place, depending on the settings you use) immediately on the event of a zombie outbreak, so things like food and tools are relatively plentiful and the power and water are still usable. Managing inventory is pretty important in that game. It is Early Access and I believe they are planning things like AI characters who do their own thing, but the last time I played the only other entities in the game were zombies.
Posted by Telcontar on 10 August 2016 - 10:32 AM
I rather like the bee idea, it doesn't seem particularly forced to me (especially if the bee is very small and can essentially be ignored if you aren't currently going after the objective). Like Valrus I enjoy it when your "quest arrow" is a result of an action the player takes.
Couple ideas off the top of my head:
- Throw a rock up, rock turns into a bird, bird flies in the general direction of objective. (though I don't know if there is magic or anything like that in your game)
- Blowing the seeds off a fuzzball and they drift towards the objective.
- Something about the environment always pointing the way: like the way moss tends to grow on the north side of trees (in the northern hemisphere). Maybe trees tend to lean towards the pylon, or their leaves grow thicker on the pylon-facing side, or something like that.
Posted by Telcontar on 14 July 2016 - 08:52 AM
You have important characters who are part of the military in your Empire, right? I don't remember how fleshed out your character system is, but assuming they are given personalities, traits, and some form of political importance (IE, you as the Emperor would want to keep them happy, use them, get their support for things, etc) then you can tie together the political and strategic elements in ways that also occurred in the real world.
Think of some of the non-military reasons that ships get built, and decisions are made between building another battleship or switching to aircraft carriers (or some other general strategy): politics and economics. In Imperial Japan they continued to invest in battleships even after it was fairly clear the aircraft carrier had made them obsolete because politically powerful admirals pushed to keep building them. Here in the United States even as we speak we are building weapons and ships and all sorts of military projects not because the military wants or can use them or because they'd be effective, but because those military projects provide some jobs to certain regions and lots of profits to certain powerful people.
So say one of your military leader guys has the trait: "Favors Strike Craft." Every time you increase the rate of production on Strike Craft (fighters and bombers) this guy is more likely to support your other decisions. And, because you've got all these Strike Craft lying around, you start using them in your fleets more. This affects what else you build - no need to build anti-strike craft cruisers when you have so many fighters. You'll need more fast carriers if you want to deliver strike craft around the galaxy quickly. Etc etc. Soon enough, because of one influential character, your entire military strategy is shaped - and that's without even considering whether or not it was the best choice militarily.
Posted by Telcontar on 25 March 2016 - 09:11 AM
Is there an imperative reason to work towards this balance? Why not let animal mobs be less desirable to fight? It could introduce new decisions into the game, allowing for players to avoid fights when they wish rather than feeling obliged to kill everything "for the loot". This gives you new balance levers to pull, as well. EG: Quests that venture into the sewers could now be harder because the rats down there down't drop any useful loot, meaning more preparation is needed before heading in.
That being said, you mentioned trade goods. If the players require food, having animals drop meat and such could make them attractive targets depending on how hungry the PC is. Assuming there is magic in your fantasy setting, perhaps magic-using players of a necromantic bent could "harvest" soul-energy from anything they defeat. Certain animals could be very valuable in soul energy even if they don't have loot.
Posted by Telcontar on 22 February 2016 - 11:44 AM
Years ago the economist Paul Krugman wrote something about this:
Posted by Telcontar on 16 February 2016 - 04:23 PM
The coronation thing is good - you're right, sudden endings are kind of annoying, even if it's a supposed victory. Especially in a game like this (which I expect will be more about creating an evolving story than mechanical achievements).
Maybe there could also be "negative" points that are difficult or even impossible to remove? So you could have 8 points (the win number) but also one "negative" point from something you did or failed to complete, thus having a net 7 points and not able to crown yourself yet.
Trying to think of what negative point things would be though. Something that harms your prestige and standing - maybe having been found out in a murder plot you instigated, or similar stuff. Things that would cast your character/dynasty in a worse light.