Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Eiviyn

Member Since 10 Oct 2011
Offline Last Active Aug 09 2012 08:48 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Working on a new MOBA and need help thinking up new skills...

09 August 2012 - 08:47 PM

Stop.

You're going to make a mess if you just draw up a list of 400 spells. I guarantee it.

Firstly, 400. Assuming 4 or 5 spells per hero, you're making 80 to 100 heroes.

That is a lot. That, with a full design team, would take years, assuming you take the time to polish and stylise your heroes sufficiently. Making this many heroes in a shotgun approach runs the risk of producing poor heroes.

When developing a hero, you need to identify a few aspects prior.

What role on the battlefield will it fill?
What aspects of the hero will be satisfying?
What style of play should the hero promote?
What makes this hero different from the ones I already made?

These are tough questions, and are just as important as the hero's skill set.

To provide an example, let's say I'm creating an assassin character.

Her role will be to provide modest disables and high damage, while being fragile. This combination of attributes grants her a bonus when soloing another hero, while being disproportionately weak when outnumbered.

What would make her satisfying to play is her situational style of play. Getting a hero alone will give you an advantage. To aid her in this, she would need some intel style ability that grants vision or denies enemy vision. Successfully applying this intel to the battlefield and pulling off a successful kill is what would make her satisfying.

So. She needs some high damage skills, with moderate disables. She needs an ability to help her set up a kill, and a long cooldown, high damage ultimate would probably fit her best. Ability names are generic.

Strike
Deals x damage and marks the target for death. Each mark increases the damage you deal against that target by y%. Marks stack to 5.

This encourages you to stay on one target and commit to killing that target once begin. Her damage without marks would be below average, while at 5 marks, her damage would be unsurvivable.

Poison
Passive. Attacks slow the target by x% and deal y additional damage over 15 sec.

Can be activated to provide a% additional attack speed for b sec.

Basic cooldown and the moderate disable. Move speed reduction mostly to prevent her target from escaping.


Stealth
Her intel ability. Leveling could grant energy regen bonus or movement speed while active. Pretty standard RPG stealth. Alternatively;


Mark of Death
Places a mark on a target. You gain x% of the target's vision radius and can teleport to the target at any time, so long as the target is within y range of you.

This allows you to set up kills and provides the intel needed to properly allow you to wait until the enemy is alone. The mark should only be visible to the caster.


Generic High Damage Ultimate
Fill in whatever you want here. Ultimates should be high risk for the caster too. Either difficult to aim or forces the caster into a more vulnerable state.

In Topic: Pilgrims of Parnassus

25 July 2012 - 01:55 PM

The name really, really puts me off before I even read details.

Firstly the word "pilgrim", conjures up images of religion and generally nothing exciting.

Secondly, "Parnassus".

http://www.wowwiki.com/Darnassus

Darnassus is a WoW term that is used extensively.

Parnassus is eerily close. I'm sure it wasn't a conscious decision, but it simply sounds like a mispronunciation of the above.

In Topic: Need a bit of help coming up with Sci-Fi ship weapons

28 January 2012 - 04:52 PM


With that said, bigger engines are always better in a vacuum. If an engine is twice that of a fighter, on a ship 10 times it's size, the large ship will still travel much faster than the small one. Inertia is a factor, but the limiting factor in speed tends to be friction. With friction removed, it's only really limited by the amount of force you can produce, which is higher in larger engines.

Acceleration = force / mass. Double the mass, and you have to double the force (thrust) in order to achieve the same acceleration.


You're absolutely right, I'll edit my posts.

In Topic: Need a bit of help coming up with Sci-Fi ship weapons

28 January 2012 - 02:29 PM


There is nothing stopping a huge city-size ship from being as nimble and fast as a shuttle sized ship in the absence of friction. The contrary would actually be the case; the large ship with the larger engines would travel faster than the "fighter" with fighter sized engines.

That's reasonable insofar as it goes, but there are some subtleties to be aware of:
  • Acceleration is a function of thrust divided by mass. A fighter tends to have a huge proportion of it's mass devoted to engines - it's doubtful that a city-sized spaceship would devote 50% of it's mass to engines - thus the fighter may still be faster.
  • Even without friction, we still have inertia. The larger ship may be able to accelerate faster, but changing direction is going to take just as long.
  • A trained fighter pilot can survive about 5 g sustained acceleration. It's doubtful that a city-sized spaceship would have the structural integrity to survive 5 g acceleration - and the humans inside would likely be pulverised by manoeuvres at those types of acceleration.


I feel all these points rely on differences in design, rather than differences in mass.

With that said, bigger engines are always better in a vacuum. If an engine is twice that of a fighter, on a ship 10 times it's size, the large ship will still travel much faster than the small one. Inertia is a factor, but the limiting factor in speed tends to be friction. With friction removed, it's only really limited by the amount of force you can produce, which is higher in larger engines.

Off topic, but why does the forum require you to use "< br />" in order to create a new line?

In Topic: Need a bit of help coming up with Sci-Fi ship weapons

27 January 2012 - 09:53 PM

Since any attempt to balance such things is ultimately in your hands, I feel the names would suffice;

Kinetic Missile
Bombs
Torpedoes
Cruise Missiles
Tactical Missiles (Small versions of cruise missiles)
Strategic Missiles (Nukes)
Light Missile (Generic name, designed for anti-fighter use)

Kinetic Projectile
Point Defence
Artillery
Magnetic Acceleration Cannon (MAC)
Railgun (Smaller version of the above)
Cannon
Autocannon (Smaller version of the above)
Siege Cannon

Energy Missile
Chemical Bomb (Replace "chemical" with anything sciencey, such as plasma, neutron, photon, graviton etc, inflicts status effects)
Chemical Torpedo (Same as above)

Energy Directed
(Chemical) Lance (Replace "chemical" as above)
(Chemical) Pulse Laser
(Chemical) Beam Laser
Microwave Laser

Energy Misc
Nova (Generic name, creates a nova which deals damage around caster ship)
Repair Laser
Shield Recharger

Misc
Drones
Fighters
Bombers
Logistics support ships (repair/reshield)

To spin some balance into the mix;

Bombs
Very short range, extreme high damage, may only target large ships, countered by range

Nova
Inflicts light damage to everything near caster. Damage too light to really harm large ships, but devastating against light craft. Countered by just not using light craft.

Drones/Fighters
Very short range but capable of making the distance up using their own drives; countered by point defence and nova weaponry.

Torpedoes
Mid range. High damage. Can't target fighters/drones. Countered by extreme close range (bombs), extreme long range, or relying on fighters/drones.

Missiles
Mid range. Low damage. Capable of engaging any target, even torpedoes/bombs. Countered by large ships (damage too low to be a threat) and avoiding fighters/drones.

Tactical Missiles

High range. Mid damage. Can lock small ships, but mostly ineffective. Designed for use against large ships. Low DPS compared to torps/bombs. Countered by getting in close with high dps/short range weapons or fighters.
And so on, you get the idea.

Note that all of the above is completely unscientific. "Real" space warfare would likely exclusively use railguns due to the complete lack of friction in space, and the fact that a railgun of sufficient size would be capable of accelerating a lump of metal to insane speeds, ensuring engagements take place at utterly ridiculous ranges. The accuracy of such weapons with gravity mostly taken out of the equation would render "fighters" and missiles easily shot down. Large ships make large targets, ensuring that ships would only be as large as their engines needed to be, and the size of their railgun.Fighters especially are rather a joke. There is nothing stopping a huge city-size ship from being as nimble and fast as a shuttle sized ship in the absence of friction. The contrary would actually be the case; the large ship with the larger engines would travel faster than the "fighter" with fighter sized engines. Something to keep in mind if you're after a semblance of realism (which I would not recommend, as it's dull!).

PARTNERS