Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 04 Feb 2012
Offline Last Active Oct 06 2015 11:52 AM

#5252401 Currency in post-apoc / zombie world?

Posted by Osidlus on 15 September 2015 - 01:34 PM

I think it can be fun to have no official currency and having to find out what each NPC values without  saying too much about yourself (which can call an ambush).


If universal currency is prefered then I would say some long lasting food (beans, dried lizards etc.) and gasoline which represents mobility, heat source or can be a weapon... 

#5231817 Making heat interesting as a player resource

Posted by Osidlus on 30 May 2015 - 01:59 AM

The resource you are looking for is heat capacity. It is  specific heat capacity * mass of the part. And its unit is J/Kelvin.

In fact this is super simplified, in reality the heat source is connected through multiple thermal interfaces to other components.

Fenomena that it makes can be found under "system's thermal time constant".


In this case heat exchanger (leading coolant into radiator or another big block of heat capacity) would be as close as possible to the heat source.


In fact high energy weapons could not be cooled through radiator without heat capacity that is temporarily capturing the heat and provides time to dissipate the power.

Reason is you are limited with bulk size of a radiator. Surface area for radiation heat transfer can be extended by fins but it is limited (density of fins) because then each fins gets a lesser view factor into free space- it sees only another fin.


Another thing thing you might be interested is phase change materials. Imagine it as as wax. When it melts it has already absorbed heat (latent heat) but yet remains practically isothermal - temperature has not raise. Latent heats are huge compared to specific capacities. Such heat reservoir can be also asset for a ship...


BTW: funny to see my daily job topic here

#5193496 Fleets (as formations)

Posted by Osidlus on 18 November 2014 - 01:31 PM

Maybe I will post the simpliest model I have:

- You select Fleet A, then click "build 5 battlecruisers", it creates a "production order" for your shipyard

- Then you select Fleet B and click "build 2 destroyers", it creates a "production order" for your shipyard

- Next turn some of the new ships are produced and added to the Fleets that ordered these (these go to the fleet pool)

- The AI (for each Fleet) transfers all ships in the pool (that are not under repair, etc) to flotillas (equally)


Am I reading this correctly that: there is going to be fleet pool (for units that were ordered directly to given fleets), and flotilla pool which is distributed to flotillas through the automatical assignment per flotillas' priorities and this pool is filled automatically as shipyard produces the units?



That one is kind of troublesome to me... Not sure how to handle it. Let's say you build an invasion fleet and you need combat flotillas, but you also need invasion/bombarment flotillas that enter the battle later. Amd I'm not sure how to make it. The easiest would be to just make two separate fleets (combat fleet and invasion/bombardment fleet) that operate closely together.

But... it's so messy and unthematic... (like they do not share a fleet admiral, these are completely different) Ideally if within one fleet you could somehow designate that one flotilla is combat and one is bombardment (but how to do it without breaking completely the fully automatic ship assignements on flotilla level, I dunno)


Well, do you know Red Dragon game? There are three potential kind of forces- thieves, mages and army. There is strict order for using them but you don't need to constrain your forces like that. The important thing is that withing each force you are sending actions in wawes to weaken the defences or directly go for one strategic strike if you cannot afford defence destruction  and there are various kind of attacks which requires different amount of attack/defence ratio and also lets say mancount.


To your game these three forces could be spies, aircraft fighters, and bombers

imho each unit should contain all three elements. Spies are like sensor it determines efficiency of energy spent, aircraft fighters are in fact representing defence/counter defence, bombers are representing potential to destroy buildings, land defences etc.


How should be spies played? So before invading planet your Inteligence would send or find a candidate or more. He would be playing sort of minigame expanding his contacts as a network. The larger the network higher the efficiency on resources he spends. The second part of spying game would be to get the resources to him. Some actions like laser localize spots  for bombing could require not only generic resources but also an equipment. So if you would play your spies excellent you can for example confuse defences (blind target), so the aircraft fighters will stay at the hangars, and that you can start directly with a bombing and destroying the fighters using your bombers. ph34r.png


The important feature is to be able to set actions for each fleet/unit for spies and be able to separate them in turns, so that you can make logical process how to reach the goal, also being easy able to stack these actions into larger containers 1 or two levels higher so that they can be reused or broken down and modified would be for large scale game probably a must have...

#5192872 Fleets (as formations)

Posted by Osidlus on 14 November 2014 - 01:01 PM

Ships that belong to Fleet HQ will be (over time, not instantly) transfered between all Flotillas that belong to that Fleet, so on average all flotillas within Fleet will be equal in size and composition


Ok, so now we are on the same page. From the guote cited above I was thinking that you use term flotilla as a "bag" for units and fleet as a "bag" for flotillas.

So I adapted my writing to it.


So my proposal was to click on empty spots at the fleet pattern (bag for units) to say the engine- assign the new units of this kind first here. Without having to increase priority to this fleet or at even 1 level higher resolution for flotilla.



As for flotillas being "incomplete", what's the difference? Being "complete" is just a theorethical wish of the player. You wish/plan your flotillas have 3 battlecuisers and 21 destoyers on turn 11, you wish/plan for the same flotilla to have 3 battlecuisers and 24 destoyers on turn 12. It's not changing much strategically... OK, I explained it better below.


For me it is the design thing. Lets say there can be various purposes that each fleet can be designed for. Of course it depends on how you will set the entire environment. Goal is to not over design (too expensive) and yet get the desired mission accomplished. For example some units has high mobility and sight so they can be scouts, but you also may want this fleet to have some fire power to be able to destroy some small resistence. Thats why you may want to have 5 units in the fleet and not one.


Other purpose can be sabotage so it would be done by stealth units. And you know that 10 of these can destroy miners in a manner of seconds. But maybe your purpose for the fleet can be broader you may want be able to destroy at least one air defence and provide some level of guarding so you dont need to completely retreat when resistence occurs - bham 2 battle cruisers added which would become as bay if there is need to retreat.  


Not having the fleet complete (bag of units) is in my opinion denying of  time spent on the creation (design) of the fleet. To be honest I don't know if on super large scale the only purpose player can think of would be fire power, armor, and health of the fleet. Than it is OK. 

#5192691 Fleets (as formations)

Posted by Osidlus on 13 November 2014 - 12:30 PM

One thing to put stright, people who like micromanagement would HATE this game for other reasons anyway So I'm not even trying to cater to them. What I try to do is make it acceptable/not boring for people who are indifferent to micromanagement (where those who loathe micromanagement are supposed to become the hardcore fans of the game ). Basicly one of the primary design goals is to "kill micomanagement".


Convert micromanagement peoplesmile.png. Age will do that alonewink.png, but maybe I am wrong.  

When read this I wanted to tell you that player can get naturally into micro management. For example when you are short on resources or time and you need your tool (one particular flotila) to be ready...But you are obviously aware of how it will go (flotilas we be most of the time incomplete).


Osidlus, on 13 Nov 2014 - 12:01 AM, said:

I think that manual click on the empty spot having highest priority

I have not understood that one. Could you explain more what you mean?


I was presuming that each flotila will have graphical representation. Kind of array or some pattern where various kind of units can be selected at each spot. And if unit is present there wil be something like colourful picture of the unit. If the unit is yet to be made it would be grayscale for example. 

Now as the units are supplied per priority of each flotila and you want to recover one particular you would have to set temporarily highest priority to this flotila and hope the clue will adjust new unit into desired flotila. Instead I think that clicking on greyscale (missing) unit saying the engine to set highest priority (over all flotilas priorities) when distributing newly made units would be more friendly and straitforward. 

#5192534 Fleets (as formations)

Posted by Osidlus on 12 November 2014 - 05:01 PM

Maybe the picture of it I have is wrong. I can see some potential frustration from waiting to get some of your missing ships in one particular flotila and it can be quite difficult to predict total number of the units before the flotila is recovered. To uprade the flotila status for a while does not seem elegant, I think that manual click on the empty spot having highest priority could be most friendly for the players who would like to micro manage their flotilas. 

#5088529 Would be an absolute balance a build killer?

Posted by Osidlus on 23 August 2013 - 04:43 PM

thx for the reaction, I dont find the case difficult to balance...


lets assume for the simplification they both have same life pool (if not the damage of the opposal character would be adjusted by their life ratio) and are meelee (now the range and movement speed would play a role). So than all you need is to carry about is DPS. Oh the faster character has a dodge x% ? Not a problem that mean his life pool should be taken as adjusted by 1/(1-x/100) and therefore the damage of the slow character rises based on the life ratio.


For a measurement how the system is doing I think it would be nice to construct a probability density curve based on the survival's % rest life. On left from the center there can the fast guy on the right there can be the slow guy. So from the measurement the variable would be 0 to 100%. And over it (as a Y axis) occurence(occurence/number of tests =probability). Balanced system should have same weight under the curves (fast guy's curve and slow guy's curve). And those systems that that have lots of density or occurence close to zero are race to death systems.

#5088514 Would be an absolute balance a build killer?

Posted by Osidlus on 23 August 2013 - 03:57 PM

Just a thought ...


So what is the build? Would you agree its a set of values x1, x2, x3 .... that produces additional value Y1, Y2... /and so on/ 

thanks to "synergy" among xs? Thus it makes character stronger as Ys occurs?



But then the characters that are no build are naturally not balanced against the builds.. Should be "no builds" balanced to each other? Maybe that is important for the newbie level players. 


How about balancing the system with builds possible. Should then be all the builds identified and make the balancing to each other? Even if done (caping Ys or make them logaritmic - artificially or by perfect design).Would not be the fun of experimenting and searching the build worn off?


I think partially yes, but what could it brought is character build design to counter the other build minimasing its Ys or so. Is it necessary to make this always possible (each build have their counter) to make the creation of the build conditioned by some weak Xs?

#5030426 Grappling combat

Posted by Osidlus on 09 February 2013 - 12:33 PM

Hello there,

I have been toying some time with the game systems for the RPG with lets say realistic approach to combat and modeling a person under emotional and time stress, maybe the most outcome is just for my self learning than anything else. But lets pretend for a while we design a game...

So now the compass shows grappling. As I did strike rule system first there is some lets call it infrastructure done that can be used for the wrestling and ground game and I would like to check how it can handle various situations, just as a reference what is meant by ground game:

As I am rooted in the strike MA I would appreciate any comments on 1. what should a nice encounter have, 2. what choices during grappling you would like to have, 3. would you like to go to the level of techniques or even principles, 4. what are the goals during grappling fight like- utilizing your weight, choking whenever possible etc. 5. are you a grappling guy or a fan?

The system is meant for a turn based combat with non-constant lenght of the turn- the dominating person sets the lenghts of the turn (forces the tempo).

Personally I like the building of the position in GPG and maybe from my sight such a fight is even more strategic than the strike one as there are more predictable steps ahead.

#5008553 Oldschool retro RPG - feedback and ideas needed

Posted by Osidlus on 08 December 2012 - 12:22 PM

Thank you for the explanation. I think the best choices you can make is to honestly ask yourself what would you love to play. And for those sources for various boosts of the characters just to ask what are the benefits and what do you expect from such a solution - does it have some interaction with gameplay, storyline, forces the player to play a certain way (your system looks like that it forces to do an exploration as the crystals are found through it)?

I also think that great resource for "what to do with numbers" when designing a game system are pen a paper rpgs. (D20, GURPS, Shadowrun...). I believe it would not be a wasted time to try some, if not the game system it self then tons of little details and assets creating the atmosphere and immersion could be inspiring.

Maybe something for the melee game system as KISS should be applied:
apart from damage for the weapons you might have cogency or weight property on it (the higher quality weapons would have higher ratio of damage/weight)
this weight property could be compared with the wielders strenght and for example:

strenght < 0.5*weight = weapon cannot be used

0.5*weight<strenght<1*weight = weapon can be used with penalty equals missing strenght to weight into attack rating (attack rating if you can hit and damage what is the impact)

1*weight<strenght<1.25*weight = weapon can be used with no modificators

1.25*weight<strenght<1.5*weight =weapon can be used, with bonuses to atack rating of 0.33*(strenght-(1.25*weight))

1.5*weight<strenght<2*weight = weapon can be used, with bonuses to atack rating of 0.33*(.25*weight) plus 0.5*(strenght-(1.5weight))


Goal is to motivate player to make his choice of weapon for a given foe. For those who are swift and quick on their feets players might want lighter weapon to improve their chance to hit. Strenght also can be classically involved in rising damage done like WeaponDmg + Strenght/X = damage done.

Good luckPosted Image

#5007478 Oldschool retro RPG - feedback and ideas needed

Posted by Osidlus on 05 December 2012 - 12:54 PM


I think as the game is not driven by the story-line, and lore done by one creator is limited too, the core of an entertainment should lie in the possibilities for tweaking the characters. I think this should match with the target group for the retro game well. IMHO it doesnt have to be balanced perfectly, I find it interesting to search these gaps to acquire some advantage :-).

Resistances: Honestly I am not a friend of this concept (% of resistances). Edit:{to be more specific about % resistance- it worked good in hack'n'slash games I know and in fantasy stragies as well as it is "easy to read" and map the progress. But to me % resistances represents magic the way that I don't like- just another damage throwing class.}

The other approach could come from breaking down the casting into mana channeling, formation of the spell and targeting the spell. And those "resistant" creatures could be kind of inert and thus more difficult to target (and the caster can learn to target them based on the encounters he experienced them). Or magically active creatures can compete with characters about mana when channeling or "attack" the spell when it is formed.

#4979419 Snowballing and Turtling

Posted by Osidlus on 12 September 2012 - 01:10 PM

Hey Starbasecitadel, you got that, here is just my little nuance...

1. The neutral forces should be like arch-enemy- it will not be a shame to lose against them.

2. The power should not be dependant on the power of players army they attack (we want them to prevent weak deciding about the winner and remove tediousity huh)
but the way they would attack should depend on the power of the players army/economy. To the weak they should primarily attack his army units and to
the powerfull they should use units that have a long range higher cooldown building strike (something like earthquake in space - Higgs -boson canon :-) ) so they will also be able to do some damage even to the powerfull base. The neutrals should have "hacked" radio so every player would be able to see the damages they caused to each player (transparency of the blinds). And it would be good even for the weak (after they lost some units) to see that even powerfull suffers.

3. Chance. Within the neutral attacking forces they should have a captain which is quite hard to get (is quick, high hp, special abilities etc.). The neutral forces should not attack until full losses but like 40% and than they turn away, (could be kind of snowball - if you are able to get higher percentage of them the power of their attacks grows slowlier). If you are able to get the captain ship you should be rewarded with some special component to one of your ships or even technology.

good luckPosted Image

#4977020 Snowballing and Turtling

Posted by Osidlus on 05 September 2012 - 05:36 PM

To me it feel like you need to use Texas holdem technique of blinds to reduce the tediousity and also to deal with the kingmaker. Blinds must go from the table so the kingmakers' chips will not be used on pushing on one of the dominant factions though. So it looks that you need some neutral forces ala wrath-of-nature pushing harder and harder... maybe power of their attacking can be reduced by keep moving and not to stagnate somwhere. In combination with minefields (created by the earlier dominant player who was there already) this might supress kingmaker a bit ;-)

Have been thinking why the blinds in the poker game are so well accepted...the number one is probably that everybody "suffers" at the same rate transparently, second blinds also gives a chance - if you have a nice hand and you are low on the chips this way you can hide behind the blind for a while, third - its kind of classy - for example for Duna game the attacks of the worms would be classy too. For a generic battleship game (I dont know the background) I don't know. There probably some other reasons...

#4973865 Are open pvp + full loot SANDBOX mmorpg's still possible?

Posted by Osidlus on 27 August 2012 - 12:56 PM

Is it really such a big problem to resolve this? I can see at least 5 non-artificial and 1 semi artificial rules for the realm to significantly suppress "the feast".

Here comes the semi-artificial:
If the weaker player is forced to encounter much stronger player character then based on some ratio of level, dmg etc. there would be a switch that will turn the weaker player's damage to stack in to wolf's limbs, and as the limbs can care only particle of the wolfs total life pool it will be feasible to score limb cut-off for the underdog character.There can be also some additional conditions for it like the damage stacks only when scored from the same side and/or to same height.
For recovering there would be needed to have some special herbs for preseving the part and to make some purifying quest for the temple for heal.

When the contrast beween characters will be too big the underdog can get a chance to cut off at least a finger or to make a scar. (and as it can hold only small particle of total life it will be feasible) So now there would be a motivation to fight for the sheeps, and the wolf can get hunted (which is the best teaching for him) as might weaken.

Why do I call it semi-artificial rule? Try to spar with newbies in real life Posted Image