Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 29 Dec 2012
Offline Last Active Dec 15 2015 01:11 PM

#5260870 Breakout bonus drop ideas.

Posted by on 07 November 2015 - 07:04 AM

I'm making a breakout clone and want something extra.



- Guns on your paddle to shoot bricks(this is not new)

- brick-redistributor: when triggered it redistributes bricks into lines from the top, so the lower lines disappear, best to implement if bricks are slowly coming down

#5260141 Tower Defence game sans war element

Posted by on 02 November 2015 - 10:50 AM

Sounds more like you want a story/character then being in need of mechanics.


That said, for non-war you could make the towers refugee camps and the monsters refugees that need to be taken in before they overwhelm the cities

#5260021 Which is the more complicated mechanic: Set-in-stone, or build it yourself eq...

Posted by on 01 November 2015 - 01:59 PM

Yes, that I understand, but would it be more costly and require more resources that hard-coded weapons?


This would depend on how many weapons you would have hard-coded.

With a good working systen, you can have many more weapons through build-it-yourself,

these weapons will tend to be uninspired/not individual pieces of art, which means the players will need to provide more of the (creative) content.

The cost(s) will, off course, depend on your overall design, and not just one part of the design,

and likely it would be better to see which design choice you yourself are better with thus decreasing cost.


edit:ninja'd by Norman

#5258839 What makes a City Builder fun?

Posted by on 24 October 2015 - 09:41 AM

someone did a paper on 8 types of gameplay. i think i heard about it on extra credits. but i dont have a link. all i remember is the paper used some term for "zoning out" that the extra credits guys replaced with "abnegation". but that list of 8 types of gameplay (which included construction as one of the eight types) would probably help in your analysis.



#5258817 Governors and other officials (4X)

Posted by on 24 October 2015 - 07:18 AM

Not exactly. If you look at it from the point of 100 planets, you are right, but when you look at it from the point of "I got these 2 new planets this turn" it's not micro at all.


It IS micromanagement since the player has to come back to make changes.

And i realy don't see why the player would have to go to the planets themselves;

i have my doubts the officials increase defenses(which would be important for map-location)

and maybe they interact with the planet's specialization though i haven't read anything about that too.

Thus far what i read about your game the officials are mainly important to make the empire as a whole perform better so i would scrap the current mechanic.

If it's about their looks then don't let them influence anything else.


Another wild though, actually players suggested it, make the planet elect a governor democraticly on their own.


Sounds like auto-select/elect governors


How about this:

Each turn(or X turns) there are elections, the people elect their REPRESENTATIVES, these have no power yet,

but the player uses them as an officials-pool to fill in positions he wants filled.

Now, the player will obviously want to select the highest-skilled representatives, but there's a but;

representatives are voted on by X% of the people in the empire, let's call this their (respective) popularity,

next elections these X% people who voted on him/her will NOT vote for a new representative if their previous representative isn't given a decent job,

thus decreasing the amount of new representatives that are added to the officials-pool every election.


Have the % of (active)voters auto-increase with 5 or so every election since the player can probably not give all the representatives jobs,

have officials retire automatically after 4 or 5 election-rounds,

Firing an official manually before the next election-round gives penalty of 0.5 times popularity plus 0.2 times (number of elections till autoretire) times popularity

#5258814 Is there any space left for games about zombies?

Posted by on 24 October 2015 - 06:55 AM

A few years ago, there was a towerdefense game called "Plants vs Zombies" it wasn't about zombies, it wasn't about plants

it wasn't even a multiplayer-game(so the "vs" was useless) BUT it needed to skin the towers and the attack-waves, so they became plants and zombies,

and it had an interesting, original(and dare i say brilliant) gameplay and scored very high.

The story was a comedy and the zombies were cannon-fodder.


And to be honest, i don't think i 've ever played a game where zombies are more then cannon-fodder,

soo i 'd say, if you can make a good game that has use for (a lot of) cannon-fodder, use zombies, otherwise use something else.

#5258202 Flow in an asymmetric game

Posted by on 20 October 2015 - 05:01 PM

A) progressing effortlessly and rapidly
B) very slowly losing territory without the ability to conquer anything long term



Allright i haven't played your game, but it seems you're missing a defense.

Defense roughly takes two forms, and you need them both:

1)structures that have both hitpoints and firepower.

They need to be destroyable but need to destroy some offenders first.

They're not there to stop an attack(although it will take away some of the micromanagement if they can stop smaller attacks) but to make attacking costly.
2)A bonus to defenders, this means some of offensive units are being used as defensive as well and they're a bit stronger because they're defending,

if an attacker decides to attack anyway while there are plenty of defenders, his forces should suffer so much losses further conquest should be out of the question.

(do the AI fight each other as well, btw ? Having an AI or noob sacrifice his entire fleet just to take one of your planets is REALY annoying, except when another AI sees that as the perfect opportunity to attack him in the back)



Correct. The intended feel is of WWI trench warfare.



WW1 trench warfare nothing happened except a bunch of drones dying, nobody wants to play that.

The problem here is, different sides(races/empires) are blocking off each other from taking planets behind them, even when they're at peace

and this takes away a lot of the strategic possibilities of where-to-go and how-to-defend.

Perfectly the player has some chance to "dig in" when needed, for example a colony's figher-squads coming to the defense of neighbouring

colonies, BUT this being an uneconomic choice(gotta take all the resourceless/small planets in an area instead of going for those big gaia planets a little further away) but you made it mandatory to take all neighbouring planets


I think this is what you should have as (rough) goal when making any 4X:


8 or so sides, all progressing at the same time, occasionally running into a conflict, during which one or both sides degress until the conflict is resolved.

Different sides/races should all have their own time to shine, but because of pop-growth not keeping up, taking over the universe is not interesting for any side.

To not immediately punsish/setback a player for any (military) setback this part is filled colonizing, and technologies are more like specialisations, adding more options to what the empire can do.

This part of the game will take 60-80% of the game-time.


After most of the universe has been colonised, there will be "endwars" where individual sides can progress through the taking of another empire/race's territory.

Here all the previous decisions the player made should pay off. Military conquest pays off much quicker then colonizing. Most technologies have been researched and most options from technology have been unlocked, most new technologies will "only" improve what the empire can allready do, but the power of the technologies will be very high and

will increase the speed of progression(which, at this point, mostly means conquest)

This is the part you seem to have, except the only previous decisions made by the player are the ones on the settings screen.


At the end, the emperor that manages to take half the universe gets a vow of loyalty from the other races or something to save him the trouble of having to conquer each individual planet.

Alternatively, some end-war can be declared between the strongest player and the other races(that wish to be free/alive) to not make the end of the game too lame.

#5258156 Flow in an asymmetric game

Posted by on 20 October 2015 - 11:56 AM

You start with no space left and everyone else having a bigger chunk of thae galaxy than youy have.


I see.

And now you noticed that the player is either:
A) progressing

B) in a stalemate

C) getting beat


Which are generally the only things the player is doing in a game.


Also, if i understand correctly, planets("starsystems") also have connections to the nearesst other planets, but not to further-off planets, which means a player(and an AI-race) can't skip a planet and go for that "other" planet that 's more to his taste.


I'm sorry but the game seems to be designed for a quick try/challenge to see whether the player can make it,

there is no way to have a chance on final victory without annihilating AI-races, and you made it part of the early-game(as there is no colonizing) so the early game is equal to the late-game in most other 4X-games.


Personally i 'd make each AI/race a challenge, so the game is build-up around multiple challenges(AIs) that the player can declare war on on his personal leisure,

to at least give some chance ona  longer game.

(Note, i 'm a big fan of having different races that are totally weird, letting them have different diplomatic mechanics would make each play-through different,

aka one race would have an "agression-level" another would have official declarations of war/peace, a third would strike when they think the player is weak)

#5258125 Governors and other officials (4X)

Posted by on 20 October 2015 - 09:41 AM

-Corruption so that higher is always better for simplicity


Call it "integrity"

#5258096 Governors and other officials (4X)

Posted by on 20 October 2015 - 08:01 AM

For the military, how about appointing one or more generals, and maybe that general will start training (all) the officers under his command until they got the same stats as him ?

After 20 or so turns while having the same stats as the general, an officer has a chance of increasing his stats(once) and the player can choose replace the general with such officer.(thus slowly over the course of the game, the military gets better.)

"general-independent" stat increases should probably have the choice between -1 corruption, +1 loyalty, +1 competence, +1 corruption + 2 loyalty, +1 corruption + 2 competence, and possibly +1 corruption + 1 loyalty + 1 competence.

#5257378 Leveling Tables

Posted by on 15 October 2015 - 12:52 PM

Can you explain 1.000 - 2.000 - 4.000 - 8.000. I'm not sure how to read that.



I ll make a table, note that i only write down the additional XP needed to gain the next level


level  XP


1      0

2      1.000

3      2.000

4      4.000

5      8.000

6     16.000

7     32.000

8     64.000

9    128.000

10  256.000


It's just x2.

And as you can see, if a player is level 9 and tries to get to level 10, he needs 256 times as much XP as a level 1-player trying to get to level 2,

so killing weaker monsters that are meant for lower levels would take a looong time

#5257340 Leveling Tables

Posted by on 15 October 2015 - 06:26 AM

It kinda depends on how much difference you want between levels;

right now going from level 1 to level 2 takes half the XP it takes to go from level 2 to level 3

right now going from level 18 to level 19 takes almost as much XP as it takes to go from level 19 to level 20

is this what you want in the game ?


Alternatively you could multiply the needed XP for every next level(1.000 - 2.000 - 4.000 - 8.000)

which is a way of making grinding low-level monsters a bad tactic for players and forcing them to take on bigger monsters as soon as they can.


(and as Acharis said, numbers can easily be tweaked later on to make the game balanced.)

#5257218 Time Compression in a 4X Game

Posted by on 14 October 2015 - 12:16 PM

Likewise, within the same turn, we're expected to demonstrate progress in battles, which certainly don't take nearly as long to perform, especially if the game focuses on Tactical Elements.


You mean a military unit only makes one combat-move every turn ? It's more like Civilisation then, most 4X will have full-blown battles with their own combat-turns every "economic" turn.

Anyway, moving through space takes time etc, and you can asume that units that are big enough to attack planets take some time to move as well.

#5256674 Minimalistic vs. Maximalistic gamedesign (RTS)

Posted by on 11 October 2015 - 07:32 AM

Preferably the # of units is kept modest, but situations and mechanics change which unit(s) are best.

In Advance Wars there were ~10-20 units in total but the player could choose a commander,

who would give a boost to certain types of units(mechanised, melee, ranged, infantry, flying etc)

#5254831 Flow in an asymmetric game

Posted by on 30 September 2015 - 11:20 AM

Additionally, there should be multiple ways of dealing with threats/aliens, 

Destroying their fleet, destroying their planets(make it not too-easy to do both simultaneously) making a treaty(less resources, but bigger threat later)

scorched earth(destroying they could otherwise conquer, in such a way they can no longer move towards the player's other planets)


Things like these mainly exist to make all games differently, instead of there being one "road to victory" there are multiple roads,

they should not all hold the same chance of achieving victory, but they should all be the best chance of achieving victory in different situations that may/will occur.