Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!

1. Learn about the promo. 2. Sign up for GDNet+. 3. Set up your advert!


Member Since 05 Oct 2010
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 03:32 AM

#5218348 Armour & penetration

Posted by Acharis on 22 March 2015 - 04:57 PM

No, there is no rock-paper-scissor relationship between different shell types because they have the exact same role: hurting what they hit, despite armour.
I think he meant that there were 2 types of shells with completelly different purpose, penetrating one to kill tanks and explosive one to kill infantry & destroy bunkers. Same for cannon length (short cannons to kill infantry - low range big shell; long cannons to kill tanks - high range, high starting speed small shell).


Not that it has anything to do with armour :D Also I need it for space ships so there won't be "soft targets" anyway (unless you try to hit a space monster I suppose :D)

#5217746 Armour & penetration

Posted by Acharis on 19 March 2015 - 03:17 PM

In WWII there was a strange balance between tank armour and guns. Sides were examining what thickness of armour the opponent uses and install a gun just right to penetrate it but without excess. The idea was that if 70mm cannon could penetrate enemy armour the 85m cannon would be a waste (too heavy, too expensive for no additional/marginal gain).


I'm thinking of using such system. The premise here is that the player observes (spys, combat reports) the enemy ships design (armour) and try to install guns able to counter these armours (just right guns, not the most powerfull possible). In addition it would encourage the player to have different forces vs different enemies (vs enemy that tend to build ships with high armour a high penetration gun fleet would be used, while a cheaper/faster fleet would be used vs enemies that have low armour).


Post anything related, I just want to talk about it :)





How it could be done:

The assumption here is that combat is automated & abstracted, AI captains fire at each other following just general orders of the player.



* ships have Armour rating, it's two numbers like "Armour:5-3" (since armour can be of different thickness in front/sides/rear)

* weapons have Penetration rating, it's one number like "Penetration:4"

* weapons have Damage rating, it's independent from Penetration (but usualy high damage guns would also have high penetration)

* weapons have FireRate rating, basicly smaller guns with low penetration & damage can fire more often (these don't necessarily have to be cheaper)



* each turn/battle phase there is a roll on current Armour of the target (between max/min), it's affected by maneuverability (more maneuverable ships can position themselves better than heavy one and assure they face them front, where their armour is the thickest), tactical skills of the captain (can outsmart enemy captain and position  the ship better), level of targetting computers (able to target more vulnerable parts of enemy armour)

* if the Penetration is higher or equal to Armour of the target the hit deals full damage, if it's lower it deals half damage, if it's less than 1/2 of the Armour it deals no damage at all


Ships composition:

* this system dictates that each ships should have at least two gun types, the main gun useful for at least scratching high armour targets and smaller/point defence guns that fire fast but are effective against low armour targets only



Other idea:

Quite similar, but ther Armour has three numbers (front/sides/back) like "Armour:8-3-2" or "Armour:5-2-2". It's less intuitive but more in the mood (everyone understands that whatever vehicle it is it's more armoured on front, less on sides and the least on the rear). Althrough, maybe it's not so intuitive for space ships?



#5216746 Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment

Posted by Acharis on 15 March 2015 - 06:04 PM

Console games use this system. Some players hate it (generally, I would not try it on PC, players here are quite knowlegable with google and everything and would loathe you for it). The more you go into the realm of mobiles/consoles and young kids/casual players the more acceptable this mechanic is.

#5212533 Space barbarians

Posted by Acharis on 23 February 2015 - 03:06 PM

I realized the mechanic of "alien invaders" in my game is actually "disorganized space barbarian hordes that invade the civilized player's empire" :) So I want to pursue the barbarians idea.


Do you have some story idea/rationalization why there are "space barbarians"? And who they are, why they did not formed some sort of space empire, etc?

#5212327 Is buying assets cheating?

Posted by Acharis on 22 February 2015 - 03:23 PM

So should I buy some assets, or is that considered cheating. I'm not sure how I feel about it personally. I'd love it to be 100% my creation, but it would definitely speed thing up.
It's a very dangerous approach. Your goal should be to make a fun & playable game (optionally to also make a lot of money, but that depends if you are a hobbist or a pro :D). Your ego is irrelevant.


Cheat all you need to make a game. It's the only moral thing to do (no player will care what percentage of the product is made by you, they just want to have fun).

#5211468 Making small ideas work

Posted by Acharis on 18 February 2015 - 10:15 AM

Don't confuse small ideas with small execution. Small ideas rarely works. Also don't confuse number of features with a deep & complex gameplay.


Check my "WizTowerSim": http://www.silverlemur.com/minigames/

Is this game simple or complex? How long would it take you to implement something like that?


You can make a complex & interesting game in a few days/weeks. If you use dirty tricks of course smile.png


It's funny because the little game I have right now looks a bit like this or I should say has the same basics. It's some stuff where you build your base and every random amount of times you get a random attack and you have to survive it. At least that's the final goal but it's not finished yet (almost tho when it comes to programming).


I think the main idea is not bad but random events part of it sucks, I wanted to make it multiplayer but I am not good enough at coding networks. So this is the kind of thing that pisses me off a bit.

Do not escalate :)  No multiplayer, you are not looking how to add yourself more work but how to remove some work :)

If you have a working concept, go for it. Do not add unneeded things.

#5210964 Making small ideas work

Posted by Acharis on 16 February 2015 - 05:54 AM

Don't confuse small ideas with small execution. Small ideas rarely works. Also don't confuse number of features with a deep & complex gameplay.


Check my "WizTowerSim": http://www.silverlemur.com/minigames/

Is this game simple or complex? How long would it take you to implement something like that?


You can make a complex & interesting game in a few days/weeks. If you use dirty tricks of course :)

#5210096 Movement in a Space Tactical Combat System

Posted by Acharis on 11 February 2015 - 02:35 PM

I have not read the first post, but I will give my opinion anyway :D Gimme a simple movement system I can understand without thinking, I could not care less about physics and such. I hate when these ships move around, move around, move around... and never are in the position to fire :D I don't want "parking simulator", I want a fleet of ships that fire at each other (shooting being much more important/frequent than movement). I want to give commands like "full starboard salvoe" not "move tiny to the left, no too much, to the right, no to the left!" :)

#5209139 Game ethics

Posted by Acharis on 06 February 2015 - 02:49 PM

I don't believe I've ever consciously put any efforts towards thinking about ethics in my games. The thing is, I make what I'd like to play
Me too. I think this whole "ethics in games" is blown out of proportions.


BTW, contrary to common belief sex does not sell :) In practice, making games ethically correct brings more money :D With few exceptions, as usual.

#5208406 "Miniatures" games on pc (space combat)

Posted by Acharis on 03 February 2015 - 08:56 AM

They made Panzer General's clone in space (it was Space General maybe?) but it got terrible reviews.

The thing is ship vs ship is far less exciting than soldier vs soldier (terrain, trenches, formations, visibility system, morale, etc). Anyway, approaching it as a traditional hex based tactical wargame seems to be a dead end.

#5207868 Promotional texts for my game

Posted by Acharis on 31 January 2015 - 10:43 AM

The game is a 4X space empire builder for PC. Here is a full topic:



The game is kind of original, many traditional assumptions of 4X genre were challenged, many standard features were cut down/replaced. Also, the game is purely single player with assymetrical gameplay (aliens play by different rules). One of the core design goals was "no micromanagement" (it's probably the most visible aspect of the game). Also, it kind of gets a minimalistic feel (I'm not sure), since many stuff was cut down or replaced with simplier versions. On one hand it seems to be fast paced and small (mechanics), on the other the scale seems epic (500 planets total, you are supposed to get like 50 planets at the early game and around 150-200 and the end of the game). As for the feel, I aim, for the player to feel like an Emperor (throne room, audiences, prestige) and not like a logistics officers (moving units around abstracted a lot, you can't even give orders to an individual ship), a lot of boring mechanics were abstracted or automatized.



What I look for is some promotional text (just the main points, what I should try to focus on, I can reword it later) that would be compatible with that game/mechanics/title/mood. Note, that at that point I can still change the game itself, so it's partially a game design question too.



My current concept:

Title: Pocket Space Empire (I would hate to change that one :))

Description: lightweight, fastpaced, no micromanagement, epic scale, turn based, space empire builder

#5206371 Research system idea

Posted by Acharis on 24 January 2015 - 07:15 AM

I always found it frustrating to be limited to researching one topic at a time even if I have the research points to study a dozen low level techs. Especially as I might be concentrating on one or two things but still need all the other techs to have a decent empire.
Yeah, exactly. It's so annoying sometimes. I do want to focus *all* my efforts on weapons since that's my priority but at the same time I would like to designate some secondary research field, it should progress much slower but still it should progress. It's also way more realistic...


I like that research will progress whether or not the Emperor is personally involved. Private companies are going to want mass drivers and immortality vaccines and lots of other things; it's just that without your funding, research will go more slowly and not necessarily reflect your strategic priorities. But you can plunk down a big grant program (pay immediately) or maybe a bounty (pay at discovery), and researchers across the empire will scramble to discover what you've specified.
Hmmm, an interesting reasoning. Science is done by various universities, individual inventors, mad scientists, corporations research labs, and you as the Emperor can simply "boost" some field of research.


Pax Imperia II had a percentage allocation system, and I very rarely put all 100% into a single field because it's a worse option than a mix.
It does not make sense to me from mathgematical point of view (of course I don't deny players not always do what's optimal or mathematically correct :D)

Assuming you need 10 turns to research some tech:

If you spend 5 turns researching weapons and got it half done and 5 turns on propulsion and get it half done you still have nothing at the moment. If you spend 10 turns on weapons and 0 on propulsion you already have one working weapon tech (and you can start destroying the enemy now). In 20 turns you would get both weapons and propulsion tech no matter which route you went, but with 100% focus you get first benefits at turn 10 (instead of turn 20). Therefore 100% focus is clearly superior strategy, always, no exceptions.


to no purpose other than satisfying the developer's arbitrary preference
Thanks for reminding about it, I have dictatorial design tendencies :) Will try to keep it in mind.


Honestly, no--I don't really play strategy games, to be honest (hence my so seldom posting in your threads). ^^;

#5206282 Research system idea

Posted by Acharis on 23 January 2015 - 05:37 PM

However, I feel that it's also worth asking: what result are you aiming for in this mechanic? Are you trying to give players incentive to stick with a research path (as my above suggestion assumes), or something else? Additionally, why do you want to discourage the behaviour of assigning all of one's research points into one field, then switching when that reaches its next level?

No... it's not like that... How to put it...


I don't care how the player uses it, my ONLY concern is micromanagement (the player being forced to jump around and adjust these over and over again in order of maximum efficiency).


why do you want to discourage the behaviour of assigning all of one's research points into one field

Well, it's obviously the optimal strategy smile.png If there is such option the player would do it (that's why the precentage system of Master of Orion 1 went extinct ages ago).

You remember the system? You had 100% to distribute and you set 30% to energy, 5% to constructions, 12% to computers, etc. Eventually you got smarter and always set 100% to exactly one field (total focus) since it yelds the fastest result in the end (less res.points tied up in "research in progress").


I was trying to "fix" it, to make a system where *each* field of research is progressing at least very slowly (some players like it, it has also some nice gameplay repercussions, like you will eventually reach "Sociology level 3" by the end of the game even if you never invested anything in sociology) yet you have a decision which should progress faster.


I have also seen a "fixed" systems where each field could not go below 5% (so you were not able to set these fully freely). But it was still annoying.

#5206277 Designing an Ore Mining Game

Posted by Acharis on 23 January 2015 - 05:21 PM


I don't see how you could put user created content in there, actually, these games are purely about "mechanics" so the "content" is almost nonexistant. Unless you meant open source and thet they code the game?

I'm admittedly going on second-hand information (primarily gameplay videos on YouTube), but what Minecraft seems to have done--aside from custom objects with custom "crafting recipes"--is allow mod-makers to create some degree of custom gameplay, built around the core interactions of the game, or custom UIs--just look at Mystcraft's linking books, and their associated dimensional jaunts, or Ars Magica's spell system.


It's coding, not "content", based on "hacking" the code (which is possible in Java kind languages only). And each mod immediatelly stops working after any update of the main game. I would rather go for open source (generally, Minecraft mods system is, well... probably the worst on this planet :D I think a better example would be mods for Civilization 4, which can be installed by anyone without studying pages of twisted instructions, but it's a strategy game (so it's easier since modders, they want to change units & rules) and they simply exposed scripting language, and have separate dlls for AI).


Anyway, it's my opinion of course, but I'm not believer of the "let the players code/invent the game themselves".  They are the players and they paid for the game *we* made :) Asking them for both their money and then ask to make like half of the game is kind of weird to me :D


Plus, a small thing, before they start providing content/coding the game needs to be popular (and therefore fun and complete). So, if we already reached the point when we got player's content/coding we don't need it anymore :) It's just a bonus then.

#5206248 Research system idea

Posted by Acharis on 23 January 2015 - 02:05 PM

I got this idea:


There are several fields (computers, energy, constructions, chemistry, etc). Your research points are divided between these.


BUT, you can't set percentages (like in older 4X games), since that was not working too well (it was always best to always put 100% in one field and then swich after it reached the "next level"). Instead you can only say which field is Primary (50%) and which is Secondary (20%), all the remaining fields would get like 5% each.




- the usual, what you think, if it would work, if you can refine it, etc, etc

- I'm also worried, wouldn't such system make you switch the Primary/Secondary marker all the time to optimize the research (like mark as primary a non focused field when it get sufficient res.points accumulate to quickly finish it)?

- I'm especially open on the Primary/Secondary marker part (I just need it so the player can not focus 100% on one field, but it could be done different way I suppose)