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 Jul 31 2014 01:45 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Problems with TBS Scale

05 December 2013 - 01:33 PM

A majority of the units will be melee combat range, and an even greater number of them, although ranged, won't have a firing range greater than a single Battle Map. (IE. Archers engage a unit of swordsmen, the swords still have to make that initial approach to actually attack the weak and frail archers.)

My vision / advised use case for archers would be to join an existing battle where enemy units on the battle map are already tied up so they can fire away with imputiny.

As far as retreating goes, yes they can. I hadn't hashed out the exact rules for it yet, but something akin to if the entire remaining SU group of BU's are at the edge of the map and there is space on the S-Map for them to exit in to, then after a turn(s) of no combat, they leave the BM and enter the SM. I suppose the ability to 'retreat', even if it is in to another map would solve this issue. However, if two battle maps are adjacent to one another (No space between them on the strategy map), then should they be one huge battle map, or should there be this seemingly 'invisible' barrier that separates them via strict retreating rules. (So they can exit, then re-enter somewhere else on the other map.)

In Topic: Realtime strategy idea, plz feedback

17 September 2013 - 10:13 AM

Battles are realtime and you decide which unit of some choices will be sent to each "slot" on the field (units dont move around).
If a unit dies you choose which one to replace it in that slot (both melee and ranged slots exists).

What exactly do you mean by this? I'm a little confused by what you envision for this project. Do you just mean to have a couple of set positions for your units and then they battle it out from there once they are ready? I.E...

(Left Flank)  [ Left Wing ] [ Center ] [ Right Wing ]  (Right Flank)
                          [LC Back]           [RC Back]

Perhaps I'm very mistaken, but you said that they wouldn't directly control the units, or did you mean individual men and that they control the groups as a whole.


During battle, only the player involved in it are "locked" into controlling the battle, other players go on as normal.
If another battle is triggered but one of the players involved are already locked in another battle, the new battle will be resolved once player is available (the two armies will be locked while waiting).

Personally, I think it would be interesting to implement in a full real-time way as the previous poster suggested. Why lock battles? Granted, it makes it easier to manage from a player perspective, but in RTS games, if a player is attacked from three sides, they learn to cope. The other players are dealing with ordering their troops as well. It could be a strategy to overwhelm the other player, making them choose which battles to focus on and order about manually. Others, they'll have to rely on defensive positioning so they can either deal with the bigger threats on other fields, or simply let those armies be crushed while they hopefully win elsewhere. 

I don't know what kind of game you plan on creating, but if it's a many player game (4+), having things like fog of war and observer units to see the battle fields may give players an edge. If you spot them already involved with another player and in combat, now might be a good time to sneak attack and strike an army / town while they don't have the resources to devote to all of their battles at once, increasing the attacker's odds of victory.

With this, you might be able to draw out the length of battles a little bit, and slow down army movement on the overview map.

In Topic: Looking for feedback on ecosystem simulator MMO concept.

25 July 2013 - 12:03 PM

I have a couple of questions about your proposed game before sharing the ideas I had while reading yours.


1. What does the player have to gain by being a part of the world? The creature side of thing seems pretty obvious (or so I presume) in that the better your creature is doing the more 'points' you'll have to spend or new parts / abilities you will have access to when in the design phase. Would the human player also be contributing to the player's creature(s), or would they have their own pool of resources to spend on certain upgrades? (Faster, Stronger, Tougher)


2. Related to question one, what is the relationship between human players and their / other's creatures. Would there be some sort of tribal mentality for the humans in that they worship these creatures, or do they just exist and go about trying to survive? (Just a thought.)


3. What happens if the human dies and is eaten by some big baddie? Would they just be able to re-spawn as another somewhere else and continue the good fight? Or perhaps there is like a 'central' hub(s) where the humans live and do their thing, and is generally a quick kill for wandering creatures who get too close?


4. What do the humans have to do other than kill creatures and survive? Can they kill each other? Can they build settlements? Note, each of those adds quite a bit of complexity to the game!

As far as the idea itself goes, I absolutely love it. Although, before reading the details, I had a very different idea of how the organizing creature stage should go. For inspiration though, as mediocre as the game feels, Spore may be something worthwhile for you to look at.

So, how attached are you to the RTS portion of it? When I read the idea, I immediately thought something akin to Sim Earth. When you first mentioned humans, that quickly shifted to Monster Hunter. Now, I've never played the series, but the thought of designing the creatures that are in the world became quickly appealing. Granted, the theme in that game is very different, in that the humans (At least to me) appear settled, cultured, and generally safe. However, they must go out and kill the larger, more dangerous beasties to protect their home and collect things from them. Could this idea possibly be tied in (Or perhaps you're set in stone, but an idea none the less!) Players, as opposed to controlling a tribe of these creatures could instead lead a pack from the Alpha Creature's perspective. Perhaps it would play similar to the humans, first or third person or whatever the view is, except there may be some squad commands as well. (Surround, attack anything in sight, stay close, etc etc)


As creatures kill more and more (perhaps even humans) they gain notoriety. As this increases, humans are offered town rewards for their hide / parts / whatever they may drop as a sign they were killed. Perhaps it could be proportional to the number of that creature out and about in the world as well? (As to not promote extinction, if that would even matter in the game?) Or perhaps when numbers are very low, a player could possess his last creature and artificially kill off the rest, creating an increased bounty and pinging their location to the humans, creating this mad rush to claim the last of their kind. To make it worth it for the creatures, perhaps points gained are increased many-fold when being used as a creature as opposed to played by the AI, and human kills are worth a lot, depending on their combat experience.

Might be worth briefly looking at The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot to see the kind of AI vs Player interaction. Although, there is no true PvP I believe in that game.

Enough rambling! 

Regardless of all that, I think the idea is really solid. To answer a few of the questions...

A. It depends on the size of the world and how complicated it is really. EVE manages to be a game with 50,000ish players on a day at any one time where they are all on one shard. Granted, the AI in that game is almost non-existent, but here you wouldn't have to deal with a lot of the interstices. Handling the entire game on a single machine? Not likely. If you can split the world in to smaller areas (Ala basically every other MMO in existence, EVE included) and handle each of those on its own machine, it's certainly possible. Being able to quickly and intelligently 'compact' AI routines when there are no real players around and quickly simulating an area would be a huge benefit, and could certainly make things manageable. Don't expect to simulate every tick for all 20,000 creatures when there are 20 players though... (Perhaps my scale is off, but it would quickly become an issue none the less.

B. This is a difficult problem. My proposed idea avoids it, but... Hmmm. Perhaps make it the primary goal of the player during this 'phase' to go out and kill / explore / 'claim' new territory (Either little creatures to eat, or fertile grasslands from other herbivores).

C. Doesn't sound like a problem to me! As long as there are risks and rewards for all of the players involved (So that they'd actually WANT to) this sounds like a great thing! Even multiple creature types (Although realistically you shouldn't have herbivores and carnivores teaming up unless their sizes are way different, but whatever) could band together to fight the humans, or perhaps certain creatures aid the humans if they want to take territory. Lots of possibilities, but with that, lots of processing time and work to be put in to such a project if that's AI driven, or even player driven.

In Topic: 4X Spaceships innate special abilities

08 July 2013 - 10:46 AM

Economy Driven

  • Terraforming
  • Mining with either very large drills or lasers.
  • Cargo Space Modifiers +/-
  • Planet Smasher 
  • Orbital Bombardment Bonuses / Capabilities
  • Broadcast / Advertising Ship (Space Radio of sorts, or perhaps supplies goods too?)

Movement Driven

  • Standard Impulse Speed Modifiers +/-
  • Warp to and from locations +/-
  • Turn Rate Modifiers +/-
  • Warp 'Network' to warp to and from predetermined locations.
  • No engines at all (Immobile Stations)
  • Warping to specific units (Perhaps a scout with a Warp Signature Module or something for ambushes)

Defensive Driven

  • Sensor Boosting Modifiers +/- (Improved/Lower Accuracy)
  • Sensor Range Modifiers +/- (Improved/Lower 'Vision')
  • Weapon Capable Cloak (Weaker/No energy weapons, some sort of flickering)
  • Non-Weapons Cloak (Standard)
  • X-Weapon Type Hardened Shields/Armor/Hull (Resistance to X type)
  • X-Weapon Type Weakened Shields/Armor/Hull (Opposite of above)
  • Defensive Point Defense Systems (Flares, Weak AM lasers)
  • Offensive Point Defense Systems (Space-Flak, can be used as a 'real' weapon too.)
  • EM Burst (Takes friendly / enemy modules offline. Deadens combat for a while?)
  • Repair Crew Skill Modifiers (Repair Rate +/-)
  • Repair Shuttles (Repair of friendly ships)
  • Shield Transfer 

Offensive Driven

  • Unique Ammo Types targeted at Shield/Armor/Hull
  • Missile Velocity Modifiers +/-
  • Weapon Type Damage Modifiers +/-
  • Reload Speed Modifiers +/-
  • Effective Weapon Range Modifiers +/-
  • Ramming Modules (Mentioned, and a great one)
  • Multi-Module Ship (The Clustership idea mentioned above. I think they're referring to  where a single ship can split up in to two functional parts and combat the enemy on its own.)
  • Drone and Drone defense modules
  • Drone Damage, Drone Speed, Drone Accuracy Modifiers +/-

Types of Weapons

  • High Speed Mass Drivers
  • Lasers
  • Missiles and Torpedos
  • Tractor and Repulse Beams
  • Kinetic Projectile Weapons (Ala Space-Chaingun)
  • Scatter-cannon (Ala Space-Shotgun)
  • Bore Drill (I personally haven't seen anything like this, but if such a missile could get through shields, or even a Shield Bore variant it could hurt. (No idea how that would work))

In Topic: Merging Simulation and 'Social' Gameplay?

07 July 2013 - 05:55 PM

As a tycoon lover I disagree. That's not why I play tycoon games.
Exactly. I think I'm narrowing down on a solution that could appease players like yourself (Who do not have a vested interest in the actual activities they are providing), and those who

sit back and watch it semi-automatically do whatever you intended it to do is one of the greatest contents a human can experience.

aka something about creativity ;)

do. As much as I would want to force everyone on a specific time scale and have basically 'always connected' features, I don't think that's a feasible goal not only for creating the kind of environment I want for my players, but also considering the fact that I am a single developer working on this project. If I can stay away from live networking, as much as to dive in to really using it would be fun, this is less of a learning project and more of a doing one.


In regards to the tycoon aspect, hopefully I did not imply that I was forcing players to watch the activities. Although, in certain aspects, watching them may prove valuable. I hope to have a rather realistic simulation of the games being played, including trying to simulate whether your customers are having a good time or not. For instance, if you organize a game so that it is 1 vs 19 and the one player's respawn point is out in the open, chances are no one is going to have a good time. That single player dies too much, there is no 'tension' in the game (Close scores at any point), and the 19 players are not getting enough 'kills' for them to enjoy themselves either. Watching the games can help you pinpoint these problems (Assuming for whatever reason the data wasn't supplied to the player. Another design decision, but something to think about) and help fix the issue of, "Why are all my customers leaving unhappy and not spending lots of money?"


The whole social thing would make sense only if it was connected somehow to they tycoon part. Like, if they play a lot of games they get hot and want to buy more icecream So when I see people going to play I should order more of these or put some icecream stand nearby.
Could you elaborate on this a bit? I'm not quite sure I follow exactly what you mean here. I think at this point the social aspects are slowly wilting away to more of cameo appearances, rather than fundamental portions of the game play. Customers / Teams / Events from other people's games may appear or have effects on your own, but nothing theoretically impossible to just 'have happened' in the real world so to speak. (Basically, the actual influences between games are light, not forced on the player (No more than random events would be), and non-detrimental if they do not participate.)