Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 07 Oct 2010
Offline Last Active Aug 21 2015 05:05 PM

#5039635 Tumbleweeds - A creative challenge with rewards

Posted by on 05 March 2013 - 12:52 PM

Wow, i immediately went in the complete opposite direction than most.


For some reason, I assumed a tumbleweed was the object of control.  I think a mobile game with motion controls would do nicely.  Create an endless 3d scrolling map, where you try and travel as far away as you can from the center point.  


Implement things like, "wind-tunnels" and require the player to seek additional 'twigs' to keep your tumbleweed strong.  Alternatively, maybe the player uses their finger to 'blow' the tumbleweed in different directions to avoid obstacles or chase down powerups.  Wind can be a resource that slowly regens once used.  Otherwise, you have mild control via tilt.

#5029478 My GDD

Posted by on 06 February 2013 - 12:25 PM

But you seem to think I don't have a reason for why that is in the game.

Respectfully, that is not my assumption. What I'm saying (and, as I've read it, what others here are also saying) is that you could have the most amazing justification for it ever and you should still not put it in your game. It's not appropriate, it's a trauma trigger that could potentially really hurt people you don't know, and - if for no other reason - it will most certainly make it very hard for you to secure a deal with a publisher or even to go indie.


Pick another vector for the cure that does not dehumanize your protagonist by exploiting the sheer fact she has female reproductive parts. She's not a plot device or an incubator. She's a main character and she definitely deserves better.


Ok, I agree that a rape scene in a video game is one of those things that SCREAM "Im goin for the shock value here!" and agree that it shouldn't be part of the story..but your reasoning doesn't really make sense to me...at all.


IMO, youre getting way to close to a character in a video game, seemingly relating it to problems you have been close to in real life.  "She's" not a real person, nor a plot device, and having her go through a traumatic experience doesn't exploit anyone.  It might, if done improperly, demean actual victims.


The main problem with including a scene like this as mentioned above..is that it is purely shock value.  Unless of course you focus the entire story around it.  Which the author isn't doing.  In that sense, "the rape scene" (not the "female lead") is merely a plot device and is one that doesn't need to be there.  Go the alien route, or have her get injected with cells to get the same effect.

#4847891 Theory for advanced AI in games

Posted by on 11 August 2011 - 02:25 PM

brilliant post..youve really shown me up. na, just kidding, your post was meaningless.

Whatever. Once you build something cool, people will be interested in the theory behind it. In the meantime, [yawn]...

Right..because everything amazing in this world is built without any forethought. The house youre living in? Well, someone just decided to wake up one day and throw some pieces of wood and nails together! The computer youre using? Just a random assembly of electronic parts.

are you kidding me? What have you dont with your life that youre so proud of? Maybe you should try using your brain and give some of your programs thought so that people might actually feel the urge to use them.

#4847887 Theory - ultimate AI, at atomic level

Posted by on 11 August 2011 - 02:19 PM

Why not?

If you manage, with a given device, to simulate much more atoms than this device contains, you've won.

There's a principle ins science:
Nothing can make a perfect model of itself. To model Earth, you'd need a much bigger computer that Earth itself.

How is this true when we have games that are on massive scales? Look at world of warcraft. I'd imagine you'd need a super processor to manage millions of atoms, at the same time..which at this point in time is impossible. However, there is no reason you couldnt make 1500 water molecules and attempt to make a bead of water.

Also, no one is saying we should model earth. That is not the theory im presenting...and im not so sure why youre dwelling on it. The idea is to create a program that follows scientific law on the atomic level, thus giving the program the capability of producing unlimited results.

You are not modelling every atom in WOW....

And I'm not dwelling on anything....
And you are not "presenting" a theory here. You just have an idea.

it was a topic meant for discussion. to theorize on the subject.

I realize modeling WoW and the earth are 2 completely different things, yet you still dwell on it, whether you admit it or not.

You do not have to model every atom. You can choose to run the physics on a different computer, and render only specific molecules if you choose to. You can also choose not to render it at all.

Stop dwelling on the modeling of earth and look at the concept. you have yet to comment on that at all.

#4847875 Theory for advanced AI in games

Posted by on 11 August 2011 - 02:11 PM

Between this thread and your other thread about simulating Physics at the atomic level as a way to achieve AI, I get the impression that you should probably take off your visionary hat and put on an engineer hat if you want to get anywhere.

brilliant post..youve really shown me up. na, just kidding, your post was meaningless.

#4847808 Theory - ultimate AI, at atomic level

Posted by on 11 August 2011 - 12:20 PM

I've had this thought for years now. I've discussed it with friends, but they didnt have much interest, so I thought i'd bring it here.

People have tried very hard to create AI, but from a top down approach. Why not start from a bottom up? At the VERY bottom; atoms.

We know how atoms interact. We know how electrons spin and swap around in atoms. We know chemical formulas, and how a hydrogen atom interacts with two oxygen atoms to form H20. We also know velocity of atoms, how speed affects friction and heat, etc. All the information for a complex computer program is there.

Has anyone tried programming this in 3d space?

If someone programs all the knowledge we have of atoms into a computer program, not only will it serve as an amazing repository for scientific information (fact checking, etc), but if done correctly, it will become a programmable petri dish of molecules.

Can you imagine?

The program becomes freeware, and everyone on the planet downloads it like google earth. You are given a pointer that transforms into a spraycan. You select what element you want to spray, the amount, and the velocity. You create 3d spheres, adjust hardness and then stick in a heat. You can adjust wind speeds to simulate velocity.

Some group develops dirt, another figures out water. a few years down the road, someone develops an atmosphere. Years later, we have a simulation of earth, built with molecules of dirt, water, air, o2, etc.

Then computers get to the point that they can process all this at 1million times speed, so that every second in our world is 1million seconds in theirs. We do nothing but set up the conditions of earth and watch as life blossoms by itself. Eventually creatures form, then intelligence. We then begin to talk to them through the computer screen. We wait for them to advance 1000 years past us. Then a million years, and steal their technology.

Why not?

#4847802 Theory for advanced AI in games

Posted by on 11 August 2011 - 12:06 PM

Most developers deal strictly with stats, and don't expand too far past that. Stats are vital, of course, but so is the layer on top of them; the personality. Psychology can help define how an AI interacts with the world around him. The personality should be very dynamic, and flow depending on the players actions, environment, or other AI.

Personality should derive from what the developer feels are necessary decision making traits for their AI. If for example, we look at the game Oblivion, the AI was developed to walk around town and look busy. However, it was far too scripted, and the AI was about as basic as AI could get. Of course, processing power, and the like plays a role in these calculations, but for this example, lets ignore it. In order to spice it up, You can assign a few personality roles to each AI. For simplicity, lets just use 3. Friendly, Angry, Neutral. Then below that layer, add stats. The number of stats, like their personality traits, is limitless. The more you have, the more complex the AI becomes.

Stats for each AI could include things like [player/environmental interaction stats]:
bad outcome in last hour [negatively affects happiness]
good outcome in last hour [positively affects happiness]
interactions [if friendly, + affects happiness. if angry, - affects happiness]
Distance traveled [boredom, fatigue]

Stats would be recorded for whatever the designer feels is important. Each stat will affect a preconceived list of "decision making" stats or "interaction stats. When an AI interacts with a player or something in the environment, these "interaction stats" would be used in the computations for success or failure.

Back to the Oblivion example, The designer will originally denote a personality to a NPC. For this example, they choose "Friendly." Friendly's internal code will interact differently with the stats. If interactions is very high for the day, then a Friendly NPC will be happier. The code would look something like: FriendlyValue*Interactions = happiness (extremely simple, but you get the idea).

Now you can hardcode quests/secrets into the AI for the player to interact with. If AIhappiness > 50 then respond with "Here take this free item"!

While the outcome of this system is similar to what is typically done, the expansiveness is unparalleled. You can make an extremely complex AI using by:

1) Assigning a Personality Trait or traits
2) Assigning important stats to keep track of
3) developing "interaction" formulas that relate traits and stats to what the AI interacts with.

With the basics lined up, I'll try and do a full blown example. I'll start by listing the AI traits, and the requirements of the object the AI will interact with.

Friendly - 80%
Anger - 5%
neutral - 15%

Stats (based on last hour)
-Drinks: 0
-Food: 5
-Interactions: 3
-failed interactions: 8
-money: 5
-good outcome: 0
-bad outcome: 8
-neutral outcome: 3

Decision makers (out of 100%):
-Thirst - 20%
-Curiosity - 60%
-Boredom - 80%
-happiness - 50%

Thirst is derived from the algorithm: on update: (oldthirst+(( drinks*.02)-.05))
So, it will always decrease by 5% if the NPC has no drinks. Traits have no bearing on thirst, so its not factored in.

AI gets buzzed at 20% thirst to find something to drink. So he jumps into the pathing routine and maps out his way to the closest vending machine. He walks towards it as the player watches..."i wonder where hes going?"

The AI arrives. Now he interacts with the vending machine code:

Vending machine code:
  • -Refresh cans once a day
    • Current Cans:
    • Sprite:0
    • Coke:3
    • lipton:1
  • On proximity: Spark AI "am i thirsty?" routine.
    • Essentially, when an AI passes in 'x' proximity of this object, it alerts it to check and see if its thirsty. This check can be complicated or simple, but will be based on the derived decision making stats of the AI. Obviously we'll want to check "thirst"
    • decisioncheckvalue = 100-(.2[thirst value]*100)
    • randomized decision = decisioncheckvalue*rnd(+-5%) [can base this on anything..including other stats...like "cheap" which would relate to dollars]
    • if randomized decision > 70 buy drink
    • the AI would have an 80 stat, plus or minus 5%, thus they would get a drink.

However, our AI already is headed there for a purpose, and thus, would skip the close proximity reaction (which would occur for almost all objects in the game that the AI can interact with.)

The AI arrives, and already wants to buy a drink. Maybe in his AI, its designated that his favorite drink is Sprite. Whenever he drinks spite, he gets a good outcome. Whenever he drinks anything else, its a bad outcome. So he buys sprite, but its empty. +1 bad outcome, then buys coke, another +1 bad outcome.

The bad outcomes readjusts his happiness, and it lowers. Now a little kid comes by who is scripted to ask players/AI's for drinks. He hits the radius of the AI and buzzes that he has a drink, and starts the interaction.

Just like the vending machine, there is a scripted "check" to see if the AI will give it to him. To make it as simple as possible, it just checks his "happiness" If 'friendly' then it checks if Happiness is > 50%. If yes, then give soda. Well, out AI's happiness was just adjusted due to 2 bad outcomes, so his happiness falls below 50% and he does not give the soda. The boy thus, gets a bad outcome.

We can even change up personality traits. If Happiness < 20% for 2 hours, then change trait to angry.

This is a hard concept to explain in a small forum window. Also, since I haven't developed an actual game yet, the examples are very loose. However, im sure that if you reread it a few times you can see where I am going with it.

Essentially, in short: the idea is to develop AI with different layers that affect each other.

Would love some discussion on the subject! Let me know what you think.

#4830050 Online Card Game - What is too much - automation

Posted by on 01 July 2011 - 09:50 AM

I have started development of an online card game that will run in the same vein as Magic Online or YuGiOh. We are creating a downloadable client, as opposed to a web based game. The marketing strategy is the same strategy that farmville and League of legends uses...the f2p with optional purchases.

I have presented the idea to this site before, and was met with interesting feedback, that I personally disagreed with. However, I wanted to make this post to get some MORE insight, and try and really wrap my head around the idea.

I had wanted a complex game where players were able to "React" to their opponents plays. This theory also allows the player to react to their moves too.

The suggestion from this site was that, in an online card game environment, it is a better idea to avoid that reaction system, and allow each player to take their turn without input from the opposing player. While I understand the reasoning behind that, I feel like the negatives of that kind of system easily outweigh the positives, but I would like to get some more input on the subject.

I'll first explain my reasoning to create a reaction based card game, then I'd like to ask you guys for comments, criticism, agreements, and disagreements.

I believe that when you remove the ability to react to your opponents moves, and the ability to interrupt their turn, you are removing strategy from the game and creating a system where two players constantly beat each other on the head until someone loses. You essentially remove the idea of card synergy and effectively kill strategy...ie, saving cards for a specific moment, the idea of trap cards, card combos, etc.

As a card designer, you also have a lot more variety that you can work with, albeit, its much more complicated to program (unless you come up with a great way to handle it...thanks MTGO! ~stacks). You don't get this with a cause/effect system. You are far too limited because you can't have an intricate interaction between cards. The MOST complicated event that will EVER take place is: Player1 uses ability, ability instantly goes off, targets requirements for reaction take place, target reacts. The problem i have with that, is that you never have to worry about whats going to happen, as it is ALWAYS controlled and visible when you are playing. Therefore, you are simply trying to draw the best cards, and simplistic strategies are born.

In Magic, the amount of combos you can do are unreal. The different card synergy is staggering. Even yugioh, while simplistic at the core, can get crazy with just the simple addition of quick play spell cards and trap cards.

Another reason I like more complicated games with more complicated cards is because it makes each card feel much more unique. I have tried shadowera, but do not feel compelled whatsoever to purchase cards or boosters because each card feels the same. When looking through the cards i'd like, I don't get that sense of, "wow, that would fit perfectly in my deck" I only get the feeling that, "oh this card is a more powerful version of all those other cards"

As such, getting that feeling where people are dedicated to your game is a hard one. Though i feel it is easier to do if you have a game that people can really dig deep into. You need customization for that.

Anyway, i'll keep my spiel short.

In order to facilitate discussion, I'll ask a few questions

1) What is your opinion on how online card games should work
2) Do you play any online card games?
-which ones?
-is it reaction based (MTGO) or cause and effect (shadowera)
-have you made cash purchases for that game?
3) Would you play a game where you have to wait for the other player to react
-In the game we are designing, it will work similarly to pokerstars. After every play that goes to the stack, and allows for a response, it will appear in a status window. Our scanner will figure out if you can respond or not and will display a clickable button labeled, "react" All the while, next to the button there would be a timer(5-10 seconds) counting down. If you do not hit react in time, the counter will time out, and the stack will be played out.

thanks for the input. I look forward to having a nice discussion.

#584735 Full Blown TCG. Criticism and Suggestions please

Posted by on 12 October 2010 - 06:39 AM

----=Game Description=----
Hey guys. First off, obviously this is a lengthy post, thanks for reading. A little background info on it. I came up with the idea a long time ago when I was pretty big into Magic the Gathering and YuGiOh. I liked the two for different reasons, and I wanted to develop my own game that included the concepts that I enjoyed from both games and combine them into one.

It was originally developed to be a physical card and table game. I discarded the idea because it was a bit too complicated to memorize certain creature statistics while playing. However. After realizing the game could be developed for an online venue, I decided that the game would be possible and actually easier to follow and decided to do a slight redesign. I'm posting here for criticisms and suggestions and for the slim hope that someone may like it and want to team up and start development.

The main difficulties I came across was 1) making it feel unique. 2) make it have depth, but also be simple to pick up and play. 3) be customizable and allow the player to develop multiple strategies. 4) Develop the rules in a way that would easily translate to an online client. 5) make sure its fun. So when critiquing if you could at least take those 5 options into account, It would be much appreciated.

Onto the rules

Each players turn will follow these 4 phases. Before entering the next phase, the prior phase must be passed. I will go into more depth about the 'Mana Phase" later because it is the main phase and a lot happens in it.

1 Standby Phase Time before the player begins his turn, where certain card effects may occur. Summoner Card gains small amount of mana. Mana for creatures Is refilled
2 Draw Phase Player draws a card
3 Mana Phase Players can use any ability channeled through mana use. This includes Summoner Mana(creature summoning,etc), and Creature abilities
3b Attacking When engaging with the enemy…..
a.Initiation: Attacking Player declares legal attack
b.Counter: Defending Player may choose to cast any defensive spells or activate any traps
c.Interaction: Offensive Spell hits monster. Damage is calculated. If HP = 0, then monster is removed
4 End Phase All end of turn effects occur. All HP of creatures are restored

----=Card Types=----

-=Summoner Cards=-
Summoner Cards are essentially the 'classes' Each card will represent a totally different way of playing the game. With different passives and unique abilities, the deck you build should be built with your Summoner in mind.
HP: dictates how much HP the player has. It is essentially the total Life Points of the Player. It varies on Summoner choice. HP does not recharge per turn
Energy: recharges per turn by 'x'. Used to summon creatures and cast spells
Passive: each Summoner Card has a passive ability that is active throughout the game
Unique: a special ability that can be used for a specific cost

-=Creature Cards=-
Creature Cards all have a Energy cost that must be paid for by the Summoner
HP: Creatures Hit Points . HP is restored at the end of each players turn
Mana: Used to cast spells. Fully recharges each turn
Melee: Doesn't require mana to use.
Ability: specific abilities each creature may have. Costs mana.

-=Structure Cards=-
Structure Cards generally have high HP, but no Melee and no Ability. Instead they have a Passive
Passive: an ability that is in effect as long as the structure remains on the field.

-=Spell Cards=-
Spell Cards can be equipped to creatures with corresponding element. All spell cards can be innately casted through the Summoner using the specified mana cost
Innate: The specific element the spell belongs to
Mana: The cost of the mana
Ability: The ability the spell grants

-=Trap Cards=-
Trap Cards are played face down and contain a onetime only ability activated when controller chooses

-=Charge Cards=-
Charge Cards contain abilities that can be played for free if they stay on the field face down for one turn. Otherwise, they can be channeled through your Summoner if you pay the appropriate mana cost.

----=Additional Info=----

Lets start with phases. I originally had a more complex system for phases, as I had a lot more types of cards. I decided however to add the mana system, so i had to essentially redo all the phases. The Mana system is unique and helps escape from MTG's(magic the gatherings) extremely complex battle phase. With a mana system, the game plays out more like an RPG, with each creature having respective abilities that can be cast whenever the player feels the need to. I feel that with this system, translation to an online medium would be much simpler, as, like Yugioh, players can perform 1 action at a time and allow the action to resolve without the need for complicated stacking issues. However, unlike Yugioh, you are not required to constantly destroy monsters in order to bring out stronger ones. Smaller, generally weaker monsters can be boosted via spells to become stronger.

For instance. Imagine a creature that costs a low amount of Summoner Energy to bring out, which is balanced as such due to its small amount of HP, and 0 innate spells but it could come with a rather large mana pool. At first glance it may appear weak, but once equipped a Shield Spell, and a strong Nuke spell, it could become quite formidable if the opponent doesnt take it out quickly.

All in all, the mana system is there to provide deep customization, and to allow new strategies to develop in any scenario.

Moving onto the Summoner Cards. In the initial card release, I would like no more than ~5 Summoner cards. The balance on these cards would take time to adjust as they would essentially dictate how your deck should play.

Example of 2 different Summoner Cards

A Magic centered Summoner Card (MagicMan). Lets say that MagicMan focuses on Summoner Channeled spells(casting spells directly through the Summoner instead of through creatures) Now we get to play with his passive and ultimate to ensure that kind of playstyle. His Passive ability might increase all spells of a certain element to deal 1 extra damage. Where as his Ultimate might be something like: Sacrifice a creature, MagicMan gains Energy equal to half that creatures mana. A good player would then build a deck focusing around strong spell cards and weaker creatures.

Another totally different type of Summoner Card could be someone who focuses on survival in order to bring out strong creatures. ShieldMan could have an innate shield that recharges each turn. This means, in order to deal damage to that player, the opponent would have to each through his shields first before permanently damaging his LifePoints. This would allow that player to take a hit or 2 and save mana to summon bigger creatures faster without having to worry about taking critical damage.

Summoner Cards would be created to fit different play styles. Over the course of the games lifespan, more and more unique summoner cards would be made, and the players options would expand. The idea is that two identical decks could be played, but have completely different outcomes based on the Summoner Card chosen.

Onto creature cards. I wanted creatures to be figurative clay for the player to mold. One thing I HATED about Magic AND Yugioh is that if you had a bad draw, you got screwed over for it. With open equipment slots for spells, if you have a bad draw you could always beef up one of your weaker monsters to ensure your survival. I could have gone and done equipment just like Magic and YGO, but I felt a mana system was more flexible. Equip spell card, cast spell card. Again, it makes your creatures feel like RPG characters more so than fodder.

Structure cards came out of another card game I made. I liked them a lot and decided to put them into this game as well. If you have played Magic, they are like enchantments, but ones that can be destroyed when attacked. They can have any number of purposes and really help to give a unique feel to the game.

Traps are straight out of YGO. They are great for bluffing, and can instill fear into your opponents. They were a great idea and should certainly be part of any new card game imo. Going along with Trap cards are Charge cards. I needed 2 more types of cards, instant cast, and cards that could also be played face down with Trap Cards to help with bluffing. The Charge card does just that. It allows you to play it for free at the risk of losing it due to a card effect (or being attacked), and allows you to play it instantly at the cost of setting your Summoners Energy back a few bits.

Onto actual implementation of the idea into the online realm. If you have ever played League of Legends you would know how well a game like this could work online. Packs would be sold via an online store, and players would compete in a ranked league for prizes and glory. I am currently working on a mock layout for the player vs player screen, and will post if this post shows any interest.

I also have a whole Google Doc dedicated to minor rules and such which I will exclude at this point so I dont get TOO technical. Thanks for reading and I look forward to some constructive feedback and discussion.

[Edited by - fr0st2k on October 12, 2010 3:32:37 PM]