- Simple premise, maximal fun.
It very difficult to make a fun simple game. It's much easier to make a fun complex game
Unless you make a clone of course.
Jump to content
Posted by Acharis on 24 May 2016 - 12:35 PM
- Simple premise, maximal fun.
It very difficult to make a fun simple game. It's much easier to make a fun complex game
Unless you make a clone of course.
Posted by Acharis on 22 March 2016 - 11:14 AM
Oh, yes, forgot to update the topic. So, I have released it on Steam It's an odd feeling
The interesting thing is, that after you release a game you suddenly become a sort of, I don't know, minor celebrity? Before I was contacting press, now press started to contact me... A weird feeling I tell you I definitelly recommend to make a Steam release, if nothing else for the insane visibility your game gets (not among players, but among press and thieves trying to trick you into giving them codes they can sell later).
I went the Early Access route. I know, risky, but I already am glad for this decision. It fits my development style (and I have a mini forum on Steam where I could spam for feedback and the like ) althrough I would not recommend it for everyone.
Here is the store link: http://store.steampowered.com/app/446000/ (I still feel weird when I can search for "pocket" and it shows my game )
Posted by Acharis on 22 March 2016 - 09:27 AM
Assuming everything you wrote works, a thousand dollars can be made much easier and faster doing any random job You highly underestimate the effort and time needed to write and RPG story (even if you have assets and everything).
6. Probably make a thousand dollars or more, since the premade assets would be up-to-snuff quality, and since you're really not competing with much, even among other people who used RPG Maker
So yes, it probably is doable but it does not make sense financially (not for 1,000 dollars).
Posted by Acharis on 26 February 2016 - 07:54 AM
Well, there is such number, for apes it's 150 characters max (feeling capacity), Roman legions had a reform to reduce maniple (or was it kohort?) from 80 to 60 soldiers to strengthen the bonds between soldiers. I don't remember more but try to google it, there should be more numbers.
But that's real life, in games we have shorter span so I strongly suspect the numbers are significantly lower than in life. Anyway, I find the "could die" problematic. I mean, if you really care about a character, and you have an emotional attachment, you should just reload the game if it dies. I mean, if you had the power to do so in real life and you cat died, wouldn't you reload the last save to prevent your beloved cat's death? If you include perma death the player most likely won't care about these characters since it would hurt too much if they die (and they will), so the player will just treat them as replaceable assets OR engange in save scumming.
Posted by Acharis on 25 February 2016 - 04:53 PM
I'm sceptical about trade if the return of investment will be seen in 24 years, it's too long for corporations since the CEO that arranged it will be fired/retire in the meantime Maybe asian corporatrions could do it, but western ones, no way I think it would be more into a form of transports than trade. I mean, since the schedule is so terribly important in this case and because it requires such high political stability it would need to be about something else than simple monetary gain. Also I suspect a planned economy system.
The route probably yearly (a new ship sent each year), cargo simple and strictly standarized and predictable (you have to change the cargo 12 years in advance).
Probably emergence of spacing guilds. Since it takes 1 year relative time to travel, the simpliest solution is to form a new class of citizens that live in a relative time and form a separate society (they all are from the "old era", after like 2 trips).
Posted by Acharis on 16 February 2016 - 03:23 PM
You are right, disasters should be merged, there is no need to treat them separately.
OK, like this then: you have victory points (achievements in the first post, each count as 1 point). When you collect 8 victory points you get an option to be crowned the ruler of the galaxy (which would take several turns and you need to keep the victory points valid during that time - you can lose victory points if the condition at any point is not met). The "crowned" thing I think is needed to avoid lame "sudden victory I did not expect", instead you would get "you have collected X victory points, do you wish to start preparation for being corowned the ruler of the whole galaxy?"
There could be more victory point unlocked later I suppose. Like your advisors get an idea for a cool monument and from then on you are allowed to pursue that goal (possibly also a mutually exclusive choice "do you want condition A or B?" where one would be militaristic and the second pacifistic for example). Or technologies could unlock some "construct AI network for 1 VP".
Posted by Acharis on 13 February 2016 - 09:41 AM
I definitelly don't want the boring "multiple paths to victory with a single victory condition per type" thing
So, I was thinking about something along those lines:
There are achievements (own X planets, have X prestige, all major races acknowledge your superiority, etc), you either got it or not. There are "disasters/problems/troubles" you either solved it or not. Now, in order to win the game you need to claim 3/5 achievements and solve minimum 3 disasters.
* prestige at least 1200
* prestige at least 500
* control 200 planets
* control 150 planets
* control 100 planets
* all civilized races acknowledge that the Empire is a major power
* all major races acknowledge the Empire's superiority
* have more vassals than all other major races together (but minimum 2 vassals)
* seal 50% of trans dimmensional rifts
* build a star fortress
* there are no rebel worlds
* research 20 technologies from the sociology field
& solve the conspiracy plot
& defender of the galaxy (fend off trans aliens invasion)
& the need for imperial reform
& suppress the rebels
I'm not sure Go for it? Change it? Adjust it?
Posted by Acharis on 04 February 2016 - 04:30 AM
Do you need a story in the first place? I mean, if it's puzzle players probably would not care anyway. Note that not all games require story (Tetris does not for example ).
Also skeleton stories might work here. Like no text, but you see a kitten on the other side of the river, when you reach the animal the level is completed (story being obvious here).
Posted by Acharis on 01 February 2016 - 03:53 PM
More information would be helpful. Like what's the party size (1 means a soptisticated system can be used while 8 means a simple but fast is obligatory), what's the theme (SF means range weapons which might works better with different mechanics), how many enemies simultaneously the player will face (the more of them the less desirable a classic turn based is), how often the combat will be (if rare task based might make sense), etc.
Posted by Acharis on 29 January 2016 - 03:30 AM
Check attachment (court screen concept).
You have 18 courtiers, all on one screen (6x3). They are divided into departments (A-F) and ranks (high, mid, low). So basically a rows and columns system.
Managing courtiers: You have like 5-8 "court moves" which replenish every audience event. You can use those moves to move around courtiers. You can promote (up), demote (down) or move (left/right), each such action cost 1 move point. The top row (high rank) can be only demoted (can't move left/right). If at any point a courtier is missing (for whatever reason) all lower ranks (same column) move up one spot, then the lowest rank slot is replenished by a new courtier at the end of turn.
The characters affect their department depending on their rank (so, traditionally, you want the best ones at the top). Same for faction affiliation, influence of the faction depends on rank of its supporters.
Events: during audience you have a chance for a "court" event which allows you to "fire all lowest rank courtiers (6 characters)" also there is a high chance the high rank courtier (top most row) will visit you during an audience, then you have a chance to fire such individual (if a character visits you you can always fire him/her, you can't do it via the court screen, only can move around people there).
So, what you think? Other ideas/modifications?
Posted by Acharis on 27 January 2016 - 01:50 PM
I think in the past they had some sort of republic but they found it flawed. Then they decided to got for an empire. But because there were many factions and no one trusted anyone they decided to go for a truly neutral Emperor. They cloned it from a wide selection of supreme genes (not some nobles genes, just genes of the whole race, further selected by some algorithm). This way they got a person at the top that had no prior obligations, no family, no old debts and favours to be repaid. Truly neutral ruler to who all the factions could agree.
Genetically engineering an emperor isn't something that can be done by "society" as a whole. There must be a powerful organization that has the technological refinement and source material to produce a candidate (e.g the Tleilaxu in Dune) and a position of power or supremacy to impose him/her/it as the legitimate emperor; different factions would be expected to support their own emperors, even if they all agree on the basic premise of building a good ruler, and there might be severe civil wars.
When the emperor dies or retires, the problem returns. Is the emperor-making group permanently at the helm, avoiding disruptions with an easily installed new emperor? Or every succession causes a renewed conflict between factions (example: USA presidential elections)? Or it never happened yet because the first emperor is still ruling (example: humanity in Warhammer 40000)?
As a bonus such person can be considered a superior human (enchancers, the best combination of genes to make the best intellect, aggressive prunning of inferior genes, boosted immunity system, resistance engineered at the very early stage). No mental illnes, idiots and the like which were plaguing monarchistic systems. A speciment truly designed to be an awesome ruler.
I agree with the infrastructure thing. They need an extensive royal cloning facilities.
Posted by Acharis on 26 January 2016 - 04:23 AM
OK, maybe like this (post your own/alter it/etc):
Question: how a conspiracy to overthrow such Emperor would work? How they would proceed? What are the goals? Would they want to replace the emperor with another one (on their design maybe? or usurp the throne?) Why? Who?
Who & why & how:
A) A group of powerful people (bureaucrats, a court faction) want to get rid of you and then put a puppet Emperor they could control. The plan is to get control of seats in the royal cloning council, then make you unalive and then forge a clone and put on the throne (actually replacing it by one of their own secretly bread for this purpose, they don't intend to use the legal cloning facility since it has too many checks and gene security mechanisms).
B) An alien plot to weaken the Empire. Overthrowing you is not absolutelly needed, any solution that makes the Empire weak is OK. So they would try to undermine your authority first and maybe replace you with an inferior Emperor clone that would bring even more disgrace and incompetence. Or just replace with a clone that is genetically altered to like their race and be submissive to them.
C) People that want a republic, they want to make an ideological change, damaging the whole idea of Imperial genocracy, then get rid of you and push for a new governemnt type. Sabotaging royal cloning facilities being an important tactic (so there is no choice but to revert to some other form of government after the old Emperor dies and there is no easy & fast way to replace him).
- get control of the royal cloning facity OR destroy it OR alter it
- reduce the dignity of the Emperor OR ridicule the whole concept of Imperial genocracy
- sow dissent and disloyalty among courtiers/ministers (it always help with carrying on a treacherous plan, whatever that plan might be), possible bribes
- physically get rid of the Emperor (assassination), it should be the last step
Posted by Acharis on 25 January 2016 - 04:06 PM
That's the core of your problem. You used a mechanic from tactical turn based games and try to apply it to action gameplay. I don't think it's feasible (with a lot of work you probably could make an acceptable/below mediocre game using this combination, but I don't see any benefits or appeal here).
Game is not turn based
Check Archon (C64), they did what you try. But... it was another era, I don't think a game like that makes sense nowadays. Plus it was an action strategy and you were moving pieces on a chess like board and the action part was on a separate screen (so unfair action battles was part of the game).
Posted by Acharis on 25 January 2016 - 08:47 AM
The player is the Emperor, there are up to 200 planets in the Empire. Each planet has a planetary governor (if nothing else I need those governors for the mood, immersion and it looks great on the intertface ).
You probably see the problem with this setup already, it's unmanageable (too many characters). So, I got an idea, let's divide characters into smaller central government (the player interacts with them) and hordes of local government (no interaction or bulk interaction).
Question: what's the relation between the central and local government? and how exactly it should all work?
My quick idea is to make 5 ministries, each made of up to 12 personas (you can't move personas between ministries, it's more manageable this way). The player can appoint specific charcters within the ministry to offices (the most important being the minister) or fire them. The efficiency and stats of the ministry is based on high ranking officials of the ministry (low ranking ones add to it too but to a significantly smaller degree). Then each ministry provide a certain bonus/penalty based on the stats (competence, loyalty, corruption). Like high total competence in the Defence ministry means a bonus to combat; low total loyalty means a risk of a military coup; high total corruption means high upkeep since some of the military supplies get constantly missing. The importance of those stats is differenty in various ministries (like corruption is devastating in Justice and Fincances ministry while loyalty being of relatively low consequence; Defence and Internal affairs ministry loyalty being very important).
In addition characters belong to factions and you want to keep a balance of power between factions (so you would not want to appoint ministers of several ministries out of the same faction, that faction would get too much influence) which makes it more complicated than appointing the best person as the minister.
New officials/firing officials. I'm not sure but maybe new ones should be auto spawned when there is vacancy in a ministry. As firing people maybe the player can do it anytime but it leads to temporary stats penalty in the ministry? Not sure...
I have no clue about the local government part. Maybe governors should be auto appointed by the ministers (favouring people from their factions)? And therefore lonmg term local government would represent the imperial court factions balance of power? Also maybe some bulk actions like "fire all governors with competence below 3"?
Posted by Acharis on 25 January 2016 - 05:35 AM
Are you sure it's an issue? Unless it's a turn based game it's almost impossible for two things to happens at exactly same time (especially if you have a low timescale, below a second). Anyway, in the rare situation when it happens I would prioritise the player (psyhological, if you both hit at the same time and the enemy deals damage the player sees it as a bug and complains, but if the hit is scored by the player he/she thinks "I barely managed it but I was slightly faster").
GameDev.net™, the GameDev.net logo, and GDNet™ are trademarks of GameDev.net, LLC