Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Fradno

Member Since 21 Dec 2013
Offline Last Active Today, 08:48 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: An Algorithm To Decide The Cost Of Skills/techniques.

Today, 08:50 PM

@LorenzoGatti Oh yeah, you definitely are right about that. Back then, I decided I wanted "the fastest" character, what ended up happening was my character could only move at top speed for 2-3 seconds before blowing up from the sheer heat cost of having the highest output boosters. Sure, anything could be dodged, but only in 1 second spurts. Normal boosting is usually continuous, lasting for 15 to 20 seconds on an efficiently built character before you stop to regain back lost energy. The "heat" mechanic was a "soft cap" to prevent people going all out in speed without paying the price in some way. I took the niche anyway and was able to build a viable play style that allowed me to beat any but the most competitive of players. I miss games like that, which let you build your own stats within their system, and the "cost" of all your actions would be determined based on numerical values that gave pros and cons to your character. They probably did tweak an initial formula and play tested the game enough that they determined the high speed from a 29,000 output booster was worth the high drain{and heat}. Maybe the original formula gave it a lower cost, but after much testing, they tweaked some variable to increase the cost non-linearly the higher it went. {11,000 output gave about 210 to 270 kph speed while 22,000 output on the same character gave 530 kph, roughtly around those areas.}

 

@Kylotan Oh in the case of RTS, i can't imagine there would be any sort of linear formula that could balance unit stats. For example, I like how they determined 100 mineral cost gave either 4 zerglings at 35 hp, 5 damage melee, 2 marines at 40 hp, 6 damage with range, and 1 Zealot, with 60 shields, 100 hp, and 16 damage melee{delivered in bursts of 8 damage, which means 1 armor would be -2 to the 16.} To have figured that out I imagine they pitted these units against each other in various situations. At choke points, open areas, hit and run, and all other sorts of strategies that a single unit can accomplish.

 

Yes, I can't imagine a formula to create such results. I was thinking more along the lines of a game like Armored Core, where certain areas can be tweaked seperately from others{and each area is simple to understand, but when all are combined, creates for a complex game}, for example, I can imagine projectiles getting their own tuning/editing, to increase their velocity yet decrease damage at same cost, or increase all stats, but the cost of it going up immensely, with the design idea for such a move being "Betting it all in one shot", which is probably the motto for why a formula increases cost of higher stat things more than when they are lower dis-proportionally.

 

Well, in RTS, I guess if you could edit their stats, it would either effect the cost or stats, but since a single unit doesn't have a linear function like a projectile or boosting in a physics based game, you have to consider all the possible outcomes for that single unit in various situations, which is what makes it hard to balance. The very nature of current RTS is the reason why stats have to be play tested in order for them to be balanced.

 

Usually the source of inbalance is "infinity" in some aspect of the game. Remove it and you should be able to create a game that can eventually have even a formula for determining the constant cost of motion. {But I think there is some confusion, I just want to emphasize, I'm talking about action games with stats, constant motion, and constant draining of a meter as important aspects within the game, which allows the possibility of the exploration of "energy loss".


In Topic: An Algorithm To Decide The Cost Of Skills/techniques.

Yesterday, 03:01 PM

Kylotan: I see, yeah, especially if some stat combination has a return that doesn't reflect it's stats on papers? I think stuff like "absorb enemy hp on hit" really unbalances things. If a flat value could be determined from such an effect, then that flat value becomes the abilitis "cost" and then can be added to any attacks to add to their cost.

 

@LorenzoGatti Hmm, I see what your saying, but I mean something like this: Say you have to add "attacks" to a database in your game. The engine for determine the cost is done. So you have these field values where you input the numbers, and out comes out the ENERGY or MP cost of that move. Say something simple like "(Attack * Accuracy) * 0.1" With Attack value going from 1 to 150 and Accuracy going from 0 to 1. So an attack of 50 with 0.7 accuracy would yield a cost of 3.5 points. An attack with max value of 150 and 1 would yield a cost of 15, while another attack of same power but 0.2 accuracy would cost 7. {Accuracy is multiplied off the users own accuracy stat, and goes into an algorithm that puts it against the opponents own dodge and agility combination, rather than being 0 to 100% flat rate} Anyway, yeah, in simple terms, it would be a simple game.

 

But now add other things, such as HP or energy absorbtion. If absorbs say 50% of hp on hit, then the cost should be x1.5 within the algorithm for damage above.

 

If it has a stat attacking effect, the cost would be linearly proportional, and so on I guess in a game like this, it would be hard to implement wordy effects like "Puts so and so to sleep for number of turns?" yeah? But couldn't the number of turns and such be implemented into the calculation? The algorithm to determine an attack cost would be something like {((attack * accuracy)+(effect * special))*0.1)} I mean theres gotta be a way to make the calculations for even more complex stuf if somebody tried hard enough, and just, really really wanted it. This is of course with linear algorithms. I've seen some games use an algorithm, where more potent stuff had costs with efficiency values that dropped the stronger the attack. In physics, it's kind of this way with diminishing returns I believe!

 

I think it IS possible, BUT the system woudl be so user unfriendly, only the most hardcore and intellectual players would even take interest in tinkering with such a complex system. While making it ot user friendly would result in the scenario you envision of simple tactics and shallow gameplay.

 

@polychrome Interesting! I never heard of such a system that exponentially increased something compared to the cost. It's usually the other way around!! lol For example, in Armored core, a booster with 11,000 output had a cost per second of 3,000, yet the strongest booster, with about 29,000 boost power, had a cost of 22,000 per second! Basically, you picked between moving a high average speed a lot, or the ability to dodge anything, but with high costs and the risk of engine bust if done too much.


In Topic: How To Not Have Auto-Renew On Gdnet+?

24 July 2016 - 04:25 PM

@Khawk Thank you for the reply, sorry for the delay, I'll be sending the e-mail.


In Topic: How Do You Go About Your Game Design?

24 July 2016 - 04:22 PM

  • What setting do you try and put yourself in? (listen to Music? Watch Movies? TV? etc?)

I design in any setting that it occurs in, for example, if I'm stuck waiting somewhere, I start to refine Game Design ideas I already had to type or write later.

 

  • What do you physically do while you're designing? (Are you in front of the computer typing? Draw something? Write?)

I could be in front of the computer typing it out in a document or drawing out the ideas. 

 

  • How do you go about thinking when designing a game? (Game mechanics can be different than your storyline)

I go about thinking "How will I make this system work?" or to be more specific, I would think about how a game would translate specific mechanics, such how moves have different properties depending on the user or how to approach a concept and turn it into a functioning game mechanic that meshes well with other mechanics.

 

  • When you have a solid game mechanic or design aspect in mind, whats your steps to improving upon them?

Testing it out on paper or even in a prototype if there is time for it.  If the latter, repeatedly testing it to make sure it functions and behaves the way you envisioned it{or as close as possible to it}. Seeing a mechanic go from an envisioned thought to actual gameplay is very awesome. 

 

For example, because I was a novice to game engine/programming, I couldn't get a mechanic I envisioned to act the way it did, I gave up on it, came back to it a year later, and managed to get it to look exactly as I saw it in mind. You can see it being used in the first two seconds of this trailer from a game I worked on in my free time for 2 years. Even added a "rocket breaking the sound barrier" sound effect if you manage to hit a specific speed threshhold.

 

  • How often do you go back to the drawing board after laying our a certain tree of mechanics and design aspects?

There is a certain game I've been adding to and re-designing for the past 12 years, haven't made a prototype of it yet. I would rather tackle it with an actual team someday due to some aspects of it being too complex for a single person to tackle{my skills are divided between art and game engine skills, I would prefer an actual programmer or game engine master for this kind of game}. After laying a tree of mechanics, I find myself elaborating more on them until they make "sense" and synch really well within the game's design.


In Topic: Rayburst, High Speed, Over the Top Action, Side Scroller

08 April 2016 - 10:23 PM

New build:

http://www.rayburst.net/125testing/RB07/index.html

 

The screen setup is different, plus I added a red blips to tell where enemies are offscreen. It was the last planned element to add to the mechanics, so it's a bit early-ish in its looks. The damage calculations are fixed within quick play mode, but outside of it it's still buggy. For example, Gargoyles are suppose to be frail, but take a s much hits as a dragon under the old system.

 

These are the controls:(in asdw, hjkl, and uiop groups)
ASDW = Movement
H = Special Attack
J= Normal Attack
K= Signature Movement (Propulsion, hovering, and flying.)
L= Power Up (All the others) / Reload (Phreit Nor's gun)
U = Angle Control / Tech Powerup {Grafto}
I = SKILL switch {Gotta be over lv.1, Max level is 6 for 7 skills per character at lv6. You buy books from the turtle under Adventure>Shop)
O = Energy recooperation {The yellow bar, also works on the red bar, which is the equivalent of acid build up in your muscles)
P = Zoom in / out
Spacebar = Inventory where you use gems.

PARTNERS