Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 04 Dec 2011
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 12:45 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Saving Mechanic in RPGs

30 March 2014 - 10:25 PM

I think the save altars are a legitimate way of doing it, as long as they are reasonably common in all areas of the world. Even with the save altars or towns, you can still kind of use a system of save anywhere, just make it so that when you load the file you keep all items and experience you earned up until the time you last saved, but your character would physically respawn at the nearest altar/town (if you can teleport to the altars anyway, this shouldn’t be game changing.) That way the player could still save at any time without really losing character related progress other than maybe the current dungeon being reset, but saving couldn't be used to cheat through multi-stage challenges along the lines of a jumping puzzle, where failing on any one part of the challenge is meant to send the player back to the beginning.


Depending on how your game works, it might also be possible that you could solve the save/load abusing problem simply by allowing players to save only when they’ve been out of combat for a short time, or only once they've cleared the current room/dungeon if that's a concept that makes sense in your game.

In Topic: What do you like in classic RTS? (like dune 2, warcraft etc)

24 March 2014 - 01:59 PM

1. I like the idea of building up a base and an army, but I've always especially liked the tactical side of RTS, whenever you can win a battle even though you have a smaller army, those are the moments you really remember.



2. Anything that gets in the way of the core gameplay and controlling units. A lot of the old RTS had mechanics or interfaces that artificially limited the player For example, in the early C&C games, you were limited to building from only one production building of each type at a time, and in the original Starcraft, you couldn't select more than 12 units at a time. Also, there's bad pathfinding and unit AI in a lot of the early RTS, and that could be pretty annoying.


3. I think it's good to add mechanics that make the game more realistic, in a way that also makes the strategy deeper. Things like realistic projectiles, line of sight, directional armor, and height or terrain bonuses all have the potential to make the game more interesting by adding strategic depth. Anything that promotes flanking, use of terrain, and proper unit formations is probably a good thing.

In Topic: Waypoint system problem XNA

17 March 2014 - 12:06 PM

Looks like you’ve got a divide by 0 error where you’re dividing Direction.X and Direction.Y by Length, check to make sure Length isn’t zero before you calculate and apply the movement vector.

In Topic: DirectX 12 Announced

07 March 2014 - 03:37 AM

I do think that MS THINKS that tying D3D to Windows version will sell more games.  But to be honest I think for the most part it just slows adoption of the newer APIs by devs.  D3D11 is really nice, and can support a huge range of hardware, and his been around a long time, but only recently has it become 'the standard'.  These antics by MS do more harm to them in the long run IMO.

This is my opinion as well, and I think that strategy likely ends up forcing many people away from directx entirely. If directx 12 turns out to be exclusive to windows 8+ then it’ll be useless to me as a developer. I’m still using windows 7 and so is a large portion of the market, so no matter what improvements they add in 12, it’ll be a choice between abandoning a really significant percentage of potential users or sticking with an earlier version of directx or OpenGL. (not a hard choice)

In Topic: RTS unit balance. Armour types?

16 February 2014 - 10:38 AM

That sounds good, those damage/armor types would add depth and a sense of realism to the game. You definitely want big tank shells to be better against armored units than machine guns, and generally have the game match up to real world expectations.


The next question is how much of an effect you want the armor types to have; that is, how hard or soft the counter system will be. Realism would probably dictate a very hard counter system, where small arms would do next to nothing against tanks, but I think that tends to lead to less interesting gameplay.


The way I see it, the strength of the counter system is going to influence the player’s priorities in the game. Harder counters reward scouting, tech choices, and correct unit composition, while softer counters leave more room for micro to decide battles. Many games have a mix of harder and softer counters, but the overall balance really depends on what kind of RTS you want to make.