Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 04 Dec 2011
Offline Last Active Private

#5293973 Bricking up the exit: Denying completion of the Hero's Journey

Posted by on 28 May 2016 - 04:09 PM

I can see the appeal of an ending, although that's not something that I personally look for in games. I think the biggest problem in designing this conclusion/ending mechanic is making it feel significant, but still allowing the player to come back later on (especially if there's an expansion to the game later.) MMOs really have an interest in keeping players playing, so I think any kind of ending is also going to have to leave the door open for players to come back, and probably even encourage some players to replay the game more.


Perhaps some sort of highscore entry could work? Each character gets one opportunity to "finish" at a point of their choosing and they see a cutscene and get a special in game title depednding on their achievements (lore wise, the idea of "finishing" could be the player retiring, or maybe it marks their graduation from training adventurer, maybe it's signified by receiving knighthood or induction in some special guild, or so on.) In any case, when a player chooses to finish, all their achievements are tallied and they can see how well they did according to various metrics: total wealth, all the dungeons they've beaten, PvP K/D ratio, and so on.


This way you could have a way to put a capstone on your character if you want to quit, but it would also encourage other kinds of players to make multiple alts: go for a highscore of fastest to max level, lowest level to beat a certain dungeon, make a pure crafting character, and so on. It could even use a roguelike inspired feature where each character that finishes would give the player's next character certain starting bonuses, or maybe some kind of account wide flair for your other characters.


A bit of a tangent, but as a side benefit to the roguelike idea above; one of the other problems this might address is that in MMOs that fall out of popularity, the population tends to get concentrated at max level endgame content, so players who pick up the game years after release don't have anyone to group with until they get to the endgame too. That was one of the problems I saw a lot of in Age of Conan where as the population dropped it became impossible to find groups for all but the highest tier dungeons; they eventually added some achievements but there was never really enough of an incentive for most players to collect them. Encouraging the hardcore players to properly play through low level content again would probably be good for the community in this case.

#5293717 Bricking up the exit: Denying completion of the Hero's Journey

Posted by on 26 May 2016 - 10:35 PM

I don't know, I think these games do tend to have a conclusion if you're looking for one. MMOs tend to have main questlines with milestones when you reach max level or beat the highest tier raids, it's just that there's almost always more to do afterwards (and expansions to extend the storyline) if you want to keep playing. There is actually a sizable chunk of players that stop playing once they hit max level since they aren't interested in raiding or pvp.


Even ignoring economics, the nature of MMOs usually requires them to maintain a healthy population so players have other people to group with, fight, or otherwise interact with, so I don't think there's any incentive to provide a definitive "ending" so players would be encouraged to stop playing.


Additionally, I think story is just less important to most open world games. For most people, the main appeal is going to be the gameplay itself, and as long as there are new and fun things to do, there will be a reason to keep playing. (I for one never finished the main questline in Skyrim, still played it much more than most RPGs and had fun exploring the world) The real "end" for a lot of players is either when you get bored or when you can no longer improve your character because you've beaten all the dungeons and you have all the best gear.


Besides, just from a narrative perspective, it's harder to use a standard RPG main quest in an MMO: "You are the chosen hero who is destined to save the kingdom… except for those thousands of other people doing the same thing." Not to mention that you can't ever really defeat the bad guys for good because in MMOs mobs have to respawn and instances reset so you and other players can fight them again. MMO stories are more believable when they focus on your character's personal journey of self improvement, and that kind of story ties in well with leveling up.

#5290515 XNA Width And Height Problem

Posted by on 06 May 2016 - 11:38 PM

Is your monitor 1280x960? That would be explain the mouse coordinates.


As for the screenshots, are you using the keyboard shortcut for printscreen? If so, that doesn't work with XNA games in fullscreen, you'll have to use a program like fraps or add in code to save it in the game such as: http://xboxforums.create.msdn.com/forums/p/67895/594286.aspx

#5289679 Soulbound Items in MMORPGs

Posted by on 01 May 2016 - 11:24 PM

I think it's mostly to do with encouraging players to play certain content themselves and for making it harder to buy power. In a game where items are bound to the character when they drop, then you know that if you see someone wearing that item, they're at least competent enough to have run the dungeon where that item drops. Higher level dungeons tend to be more complicated as well as requiring better armor/weapons, so you really want players to learn from the lower level ones before they attempt the harder ones. It's not fun for anyone when a noob buys top tier equipment and joins an advanced group without understanding how to play the character.


Personally, I think a mix of bind on pickup and tradeable drops makes the most sense. Bind on pickup drops are important for encouraging players to progress through content in the right order, but if everything is bind on pickup then well geared players lose their incentive to run lower tier content. Whatever stage of the game you're in, there's typically only a few instances that are worth running at any given time because the others are either too difficult or the drops are worse than what you already have. (It's boring if you're stuck repeating only the same dungeon for a long time with no variety, and it's a waste of content if you advance past dungeons without playing them much if at all.)


The principle I'd suggest is that at any stage of gear progression, the player should be able to spend game money to improve their power level, (such as using valuable tradeable consumables or adding tradeable gems to BoP armor) however without getting bind on pickup gear a player should still be less powerful than an equivalent player that does run those instances. One could also argue for limiting tradeable drops to cosmetic items and other items that aren't combat related, but without items that are useful in relation to the game's primary mechanic (which is usually combat, although in some MMOs it could apply to some sort of crafting skill as well) a lot of players won't care - tradeable items need to be useful for players to actually want to buy or farm for them.

#5268196 Smooth outcomes/incomes in the game

Posted by on 28 December 2015 - 08:53 AM

Command and Conquer and Supreme Commander for example have a "streaming" or "pay as you go" resource system where you can add units to the production queue without currently having the money to complete them, and the game automatically spends the money over time as long as the player has some. It's also the system I'm using in my game, it's more complicated to implement but there are some advantages to using it. The basic idea is that, unlike games like Starcraft or Age of Empires, you don't have to wait until you have the full value of the unit to tell the game to start building it. So in that example, if a unit costs 30 resources you can tell the game to start building it whether you have 0 or 25 or whatever and it will start building over time as long as the player has money to spend, which means you'll never have to wait for the player resources to hit a certain amount before starting production.


This is the basic form of the equation I use in the production building's update loop:

resourcesSpent = (buildingQueue[0].initialCost) * (timeStep/ (buildingQueue[0].buildTime));

if(resourcesSpent > player.totalResources)
  if(player.totalResources < 0)
    resourcesSpent = 0;
    resourcesSpent = player.totalResources;

buildingQueue[0].remainingCost -= resourcesSpent;
player.totalResources -= resourcesSpent;


resourcesSpent = amount of money this production building spends on producing stuff this update loop

buildingQueue[] = a list of data on units to build

buildingQueue[0].initialCost = the total cost of the unit (e.g. 30)

timeStep = how long it's been since the last update loop (probably something like 1/60th of a second)

buildingQueue[0].buildTime = how long the unit would take to build if we didn't run out of resources during building (used along with initialCost to determine the rate at which resources are spent)

player.totalResources = how many resources the player currently has

buildingQueue[0].remainingCost = initially the same as to initialCost, when this reaches 0, the unit is completed and removed from the queue


There's more to it, like dealing with integer rounding, evenly distributing resources when there's a low amount and multiple production buildings, but the above code is the main part.

#5245619 Real Time Strategy mechanics

Posted by on 10 August 2015 - 07:02 PM

I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with generic as long as it’s well done and not a complete clone of an existing game. That faction upgrade system sounds like it’s enough to offer a unique experience and make your game stand out from others in the genre, and there’s plenty more you can do with small mechanical decisions to make your game feel different from existing games. Whatever the theme or gimmicks, I think the best strategy is to focus on the fundamentals and just make a really solid RTS game.


One problem I see with the second one is that it sounds too much like rock/paper/scissors, not in the sense of having a combat triangle of counters, but that by separating the production and battle phases, players will have to blindly choose a tech path and hope that they picked the right one to counter the other player, since they’d have much more limited opportunities to switch builds after seeing what the enemy is doing. It sounds like it’d run the risk of being too much of a simplification of the genre, and that could turn off the core RTS gamers who would otherwise be the main audience.

#5220323 [RTS] How to encourage base-building without the game taking too long?

Posted by on 30 March 2015 - 05:32 PM

Some ideas:


Have an early defender’s advantage that diminishes as the game progresses. You could for example make powerful base defenses that are cost effective against early units, but are weak against upgraded or higher tier units like artillery and aircraft. Tech progression is often on a different timeframe compared to regular production, that way players can’t just spend more money to unlock tech faster. While each player is waiting for the offensively useful techs, they’ll want to spend their remaining money on base building and defensive units.


Tie the economy to base building. Normally, you have to expand to more vulnerable locations to increase your income, but you could make it so resources are mainly found near your original base and/or make it so that your initial base can be significantly upgraded (adding on new modules to your refineries or something, maybe even get income from the total “population” of your base) to increase your income. This would encourage building a single large base and make it harder to harass the other player’s economy early on, but you’d still have to have some change in pace later on (like superweapons or the higher tier offensive units above) to make sure both players eventually have an incentive to attack.

#5143372 Saving Mechanic in RPGs

Posted by on 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.

#5139754 Waypoint system problem XNA

Posted by on 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.

#5131734 RTS unit balance. Armour types?

Posted by on 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.

#5111513 Everything is fogged...

Posted by on 23 November 2013 - 08:04 PM

Increase theEnd by a lot. The fog is applied in different amounts to whatever is between the start and end distances, so whatever is closer to the camera than .5 distance has no fog, halfway (.75 away) would have half fog, and whatever is farther than 1 unit of distance from the camera is completely in covered in fog.

#5110062 Adding support for Xbox 360 Controller (PC) a legal issue?

Posted by on 17 November 2013 - 07:09 PM

Microsoft does also grant some free images of the controller and the buttons that you can use for games.




#5072151 Action RPG WASD Controls

Posted by on 22 June 2013 - 10:16 PM

Most MMORPGs use the WASD movement system with the number keys being the main action hotkeys (usually nearby keys like Q,E,R,T,F,G will be used for actions as well) and the mouse being used for aiming and targeting (and as an alternate steering method if you're holding down the right button.) It works well for those games, and there a lot of MMOs that have enough action in their combat systems that I would consider them to be "action" RPGs, for example: Guild Wars 2, Tera, Age of Conan, and DC Universe Online to name a few.

#5066577 Strategy Game - Unit Damage

Posted by on 31 May 2013 - 08:08 PM

I have to wonder though, if the randomness is used such that you wouldn't notice it, is it really adding anything? Is doing a range of 20-26 damage much different from doing a flat 23 damage?


I think what I mean to say is that randomness can be something you notice on the short term, but over the full course of the game, it definitely shouldn’t be something that you can point to and say “I only lost because of bad luck.” Civilization for example is a game where randomness can play a big part in small battles, but since the games can last for many hours and include thousands of individual battles, the result should ultimately feel fair to the player.


I also think there’s ways that randomness itself can add to the experience, even without causing a noticeable amount of uncertainty. For example, in the game I’m making, all projectile weapons have a random targeting vector within a base accuracy range, which makes them less likely to hit units at max range or physically smaller units. (the counter system is largely based on accuracy, rate of fire, and unit size) The same effect could have been accomplished by simply decreasing a flat damage depending on the size or distance to the target, but with the random vectors you also get the emergent effect of discouraging clumped up units, since clumping tends to negate the penalty for low accuracy; even if it misses the intended target, a projectile will probably hit one of the units next to it.


The function of random damage itself, I think is mainly in either adding some uncertainty to the result of battles where none would otherwise exist (especially in a turn based game) or to get the player to pay closer attention to individual units in a slow paced tactical game. (e.g. the way you have to react to critical hits in an RPG with extra healing rather than simply saying something like “the boss does 50 dps and my potions heal 500 hp, so I’ll just click a healing pot once every 10 seconds.”)

#5065947 Strategy Game - Unit Damage

Posted by on 29 May 2013 - 03:34 PM

I think it’s fine to have some amount of randomness as long as the player won’t feel like the random values are actually changing the outcome of the game. Ideally, your random calculations should have a low variance and a large sample size over the course of any battle, so they will average out to relatively constant values and the player won’t be able to blame a win/loss on high variation in the random damage. Generally, you don’t want the outcome of the game to come down to a small number of battles that are decided with a few rolls of unweighted dice where the result of the battle can very possibly be drastically different from the expected result.


There is also in my opinion a very different mindset in playing turn based games vs. playing real time games in that turn based games (Civilization, Risk, etc.) can get away with being a lot more reliant on random outcomes than real time strategy. In an RTS, the outcome of an evenly matched battle is primarily determined by who has the better micro, while in a turn based game, the concept of micro might not exist at the level of individual battles, so random damage can make the battle a little more interesting. The way most of these games are designed, they would be a lot less fun if the outcome of a battle was set in stone before it even began, so the random outcomes are essentially simulating the effect of micro between the two players. From a strategic perspective, this also essentially forces each player to overcommit to each engagement just as you would want to in a real time battle where the outcome is uncertain. You don’t want to go into a battle with a slightly larger army where you only have a 51% chance of victory, instead you would rather wait until you have a much larger army or better positioning, maybe with a 70% chance of winning.


I think random events can work as well, especially if there’s a chance for the player to respond to them. For example, if a unit trips and simply takes 2 points of damage that’s not too interesting, whereas if a unit trips and takes 2 extra turns to get up, that’s an opportunity for the player to make a new decision in how to mitigate or take advantage of the situation.