Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Telcontar

Member Since 16 Jan 2010
Offline Last Active May 27 2016 10:19 AM

#5283391 Humanoid mobs drop more useful items!

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. 




#5277473 Interstellar trade at a relativistic timescale?

Posted by Telcontar on 22 February 2016 - 11:44 AM

Years ago the economist Paul Krugman wrote something about this: 

 

https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf




#5276024 Victory conditions for a 4X

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.




#5275780 Victory conditions for a 4X

Posted by Telcontar on 15 February 2016 - 11:06 AM

Perhaps the "fulfill X other conditions" could be an option that sits alongside the player being able to select any one of these options as their win condition? For games like 4X which tend to suffer player boredom and abandonment far before win conditions are met, giving the player more control over those win conditions is a good idea.

 

Or for simpler setup, you could have "easy, medium, hard" with different numbers. Easy = Fulfill 1 condition, Medium = Fulfill 3 conditions, Hard = Fulfill 5 conditions.

 

Either way, I definitely like the idea of having to "collect" win conditions out of a set. I'd say go for it on that score.

 

For the disasters, my only reservation is: are the "disasters" present from the very beginning of the game or is it possible the player will have to wait around for them to come about? I'd say that surviving a disaster should simply be rolled into the set mechanic; ie, surviving a disaster counts as an achievement and counts towards your total, rather than being a separate set you need to collect.




#5275153 Modifying the Map before Playing a Match

Posted by Telcontar on 10 February 2016 - 11:13 AM

Ah, it does help to simplify the concept down to basics. So now the pre-game phase is really a choice between one of several advantages: knowledge, advanced preparation, harming the other guy's strats, etc etc. That's a good way to think of it. It also lets me keep with the "minimum info known" at the beginning of the game.

 

Thanks for bouncing these ideas back and forth. Now to decide if I try to prototype this stuff now or later...




#5274876 Modifying the Map before Playing a Match

Posted by Telcontar on 08 February 2016 - 11:43 AM


With that said, I would concentrate on balancing not so much the "fairness" of your design, but its "rage factor". Giving players the ability to "officially troll" their opponents can be fun in some games, as long as its tightly controlled. The last thing you want is that your players feel their opponents using cheap tricks, "cheating", and doing so by using (or "abusing") the games own official rules. Its when a not so balanced game turns into a broken one... and even if this would balance out over many games, many players will just look at that one match that made them angry like hell, forgetting the other matches where they owned....

 

This is very much one of my focuses. I mentioned earlier the possibility of win/loss tiers. Right now in almost every game, a loss is a loss is a loss. People will "gg and concede" games that have turned against them (with varying levels of tolerance for the longshot comeback) because the only likely outcome left is defeat. The idea would be that even if your enemy has gained an advantage you can attempt to salvage the situation by holding them to a less meritorious win condition, or attempting a "minor victory" condition yourself.

 

The ability to modify the battleground would likely always be fairly minor, and ideally used to correct for certain strategies you think you might be weak against. However, it would almost certainly be necessary to have information about your opponent to make useful, meaning my "don't know the enemy faction" desire wouldn't work very well. Perhaps different game modes could allow for the possibility.You mentioned the "random encounter" and "siege" type scenarios, and I've envisioned others as well. All these could allow for different win/loss conditions - the downside being all the learning a player has to do to compete across all scenarios.

 

@valrus: "cake-cutting" is a very cool concept, but I think like Luckless' Tile Laying it doesn't fit as well into this particular design as envisioned. I want to resist the temptation to make the pre-battle phase too time-consuming for the players (if I include it at all).




#5274253 Modifying the Map before Playing a Match

Posted by Telcontar on 04 February 2016 - 09:20 AM

To be clear, I'm well aware that random maps is not new and there are issues with it in multiplayer. I'm asking people's thoughts (and of any known examples) on specifically the idea of players modifying said maps before the match starts.




#5199033 Multiple battles in same place

Posted by Telcontar on 18 December 2014 - 06:36 PM

With the given scenario (two attackers independently attacking the same planet) I would have the attackers fight each other, then the survivor fights the planet. This gives an advantage to whoever owns the planet itself, and mirrors a bit of history - occasionally two independent armies WOULD go for the same fortified place at the same time, and when that happened they would often tear each other to pieces over the "right" to take the planet, weakening themselves past the point of actually being able to take it.

 

So for any fortified or otherwise conquerable area, that's how I'd do it. If the fight lasts more than one turn, the fortified area fights no one - unless they choose to specifically attack one fleet, maybe?

 

For three different fleets meeting out in space somewhere (assuming that is possible in your game), you can try to decide on other factors (do fleets have a "speed" attribute of any kind? If so, the two fastest fight first), or have the game try to guess what will give the player the most fun - and what THAT means is entirely up to you. As battles can last more than one turn, you may need to have a system where either defeated fleets "flee" a short distance or multiple hostile fleets can actually occupy the same tile, even if only two can fight each other at a time.




#5154007 Macroeconomy

Posted by Telcontar on 16 May 2014 - 08:06 AM

Here's another fairly simple question: How long would the economy be able to run itself, without interference with the player, before disaster strikes? So far the various moving parts you've described don't need/allow much input from the player, except tariff rates and taxes which govern how much money the government pulls in. What does the player use that money for?




#5153322 Macroeconomy

Posted by Telcontar on 13 May 2014 - 09:15 AM

...And they want *DIFFERENT* things biggrin.png There is a conflict inside the society. That's the primary thing I want to "change".

 

Alright, I think I've got a better handle on your aims now. (I also agree that Tropico tended to be way too easy. One of the newer ones had some sliders you could adjust at the beginning of the game, and I always jacked them way up to make the game as hard as possible).

 

Well, as Shane mentioned you're going to have some serious work to do on the AI front even for a simple self-directed economy. Though to be honest, that sounds like a lot of fun too.

 

I think it will be important for their to be a fairly large amount of detail to your map so that a lot of differentiation happens with regards to choice building locations. That way you won't just have conflicts between rich and poor, but even competing rich factions. Take the following situation: A factory baron and a shopping mall conglomerate both want the same location because of reasons. The surrounding population is heavily in favor of the shopping mall, but the land is already owned by the factory baron. The locals try to block the construction legally, and at the same time the conglomerate offers to buy the land fairly cheaply. Being that this is a dictatorship (or something like it) you can either choose to allow the factory to be built, or not.

 

Allowing it makes the people unhappy (though it will open up lots of jobs, which might help your overall situation if you have high unemployment), and will displease the conglomerate, but will please the factory owner and perhaps the unions who will have more workers/dues payers.

 

Denying it makes the people and the conglomerate happy, but pisses off the factory barons - and because they already own the land, if they refuse to sell to the conglomerate you might have a big unfinished building and useless plot of land sitting there for awhile, when you could have had productive use. Forcing the baron to sell will just piss them off more (but it could be an option).

 

The above scenario springs out of the simple fact that construction is expensive, and some places are FAR more attractive (and cheaper) to build on than others. "Location, location, location," as they say.

 

I'd actually suggest that the player represent a "legislature" of some sort rather than an out and out dictatorship, as you will need to put limits on what the player can do with regards to private property (like having the ability to force the baron to sell the land or just taking it away from them) OR you will need to implement a lot of that political stuff and the danger of assassinations and uprisings if you abuse your power too much. The fun of your game will be heavily influenced by how many of the "economy's" decision you cannot change.

 

Anyway, those are a few thoughts of mine.




#5153148 Macroeconomy

Posted by Telcontar on 12 May 2014 - 03:56 PM

I like this kind of game too. Have a few ideas for one, but doesn't sound similar to yours - which is more like a "Tropico meets Dwarf Fortress" kind of thing, If I'm reading it right.

 

So my first question is: What's the game? To what end are you trying to influence the economy? What are the benefits when you are doing well? After all, in the "real world" when governments regulate the economy to a successful degree (which we'll define here as: 'the economy is doing well'), the incumbent political party/coalition keeps power. Going back to the Tropico comparison, so long as things don't go to shit you get to keep playing.

 

Assuming you go a similar route, there is only one primary change that needs to take place from the basic recipe of Tropico. In that game, all buildings (except huts, which don't count) are built solely by the player. If in your simulation this is not true - buildings go up when the "entrepreneur" NPC's see an opportunity - you automatically get a few built in playing choices. For instance, environmentalists will want you to curb the building of factories and mines, while factory and mine owners will want you to help them get through red tape. Basically, nudging the interests of all these different groups one way or another will be the game. Can you think of another direction for it to go?

 

Seeing as I've not drawn a bevy of comparison to Tropico, I should also ask you how the vision for your game would differ from it. :)




#5152540 Assassination & game over

Posted by Telcontar on 09 May 2014 - 09:18 AM

A lot of game recently have you playing not just one ruler, but a dynasty of successive rulers. This makes it possible to lose your "life" to assassination without the game ending. In order to adjust the mood, all you have to do is decide the after-effects of an assassination. For instance, if it serves as the impetus for a popular uprising against a hated line of rulers, it could still lead to a game-over scenario, but at least the player would have the chance to get things back under control.




#5152053 why in many fps games player character doesnt talk?

Posted by Telcontar on 07 May 2014 - 09:09 AM

Most FPS's are pretty light on the customization side of things. At the same time, they want the player to project themselves into the main character. Giving the MC a voice and dialogue makes this harder - the player needs to accept that dialogue as their own, but what if they say something at odds to the character the player imagines themselves to be? Suddenly the player is nothing themself within a game, they are piloting somebody else within that game. This may change what they feel is the "correct" action to take in some cases, and it becomes what they want to do vs. what they think the character would do.

 

I'm not actually suggesting that most players would care about what their character would do vs. what they, the player wants to do, but it is just another level of distraction between the player and the game. FPS's are about a fairly simple experience when you get right down to it.




#5150157 Magic advancement system

Posted by Telcontar on 28 April 2014 - 01:04 PM

I'm developing an RPG system which uses something similar - a certain kind of magic user can draw energy from his surroundings and other sources and use them + own knowledge to work a spell. My suggestion comes directly from my system.

 

In yours, you describe "type" and "target" spells. However, what happens if you allow a mage (as they gain power) to apply multiple "type" levels to each casting? So, a level one mage (or skill 1, whatever system you use) has one Type slot and one Target slot. But when that mage gains in power, they earn a second Type Slot. They still must pick a single target (unless you can think of a good way to utilize multiple target slots...) but they can increase the power of a spell by using multiples of the same Type (2 Fires + 1 Other == Bigger Fireball!) or even get more complicated spells by mixing Types (1 Fire + 1 Air + 1 Other == Fire Tornado?)

 

It has the possibility of getting very complex, but with a few ground rules on how to handle certain uncharted multiples you can handle much of that. For instance, you could have a  "general energy" Type, and any time a mage tries to cast a spell which isn't actually it's own spell the extraneous Types get turned into general Energy. So, if 1 Fire + 1 Water + 1 Other wasn't actually a spell, it would turn into the spell 1 Fire + 1 Energy + 1 Other. Thus, you draw everything back down into a baseline which you make sure to define behavior for.

 

My only question for this system as you've defined it (with Target being a special magical sphere of its own) is how many targets you're really going to have? In my system, the target is not a magical effect in itself, and mage level basically directly corresponds to how many Spheres he can throw into his spells.




#5148528 Is the Eve Online style time based leveling up system good or bad?

Posted by Telcontar on 21 April 2014 - 06:54 AM

I stopped playing EVE many years ago, but when I played I enjoyed the time-based system. For one thing it was something new, and all else being equal I like seeing new approaches to things. More importantly, I didn't have nearly the time to dump into the game that a lot of players did, and this helped keep me on par with them. Obviously they outstripped me quickly in physical assets like money and ships, but I was "gifted" a lot of that due to being valuable to my corporation (and later, alliance), so that helped as well.

 

I would have liked to see a system where it was even harder to get certain key skills, so that a player really had to focus in on a certain set of ships and abilities. But then, my "dream MMO" wouldn't be very popular, cuz I keep wanting to make things harder...






PARTNERS