How do you feel this is overly different than the 'skill usage' based grinding in things like The Elder Scrolls? Use a specific function/ability till it gets enough 'experience' to tick over to the next level kind of thing.
LucklessMember Since 27 Aug 2003
Offline Last Active Today, 10:36 AM
- Group Crossbones+
- Active Posts 6,021
- Profile Views 11,044
- Submitted Links 0
- Member Title Member
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted by Luckless on 29 August 2016 - 12:51 PM
Strongly suggest flipping the question around before you implement a gameplay feature. Asking "What could make X fun or better" is kind of an awkward way to go about designing a feature.
"Why would doing this be fun?" If you can't answer this, then maybe the feature doesn't belong in your game?
Posted by Luckless on 17 June 2016 - 12:16 PM
Yes, but if I can turn around and reliably safely run out of your dungeon anyway, then I still have the exact same "Safety eject switch". The only difference is that in one model you just waste more of my time in doing so.
And for what? What exactly does anyone gain from deliberately designing game play elements which are intended to specifically gobble up the user's time?
Nothing stops you from designing small game play areas that are still challenging or have high risk. Maybe the next one you step into will lock a door behind you till you reach at least the half way point.
Doing a fighting withdrawal till you can get back to somewhere you can find safety again or regroup in is fun and exciting. Having gotten away from the combat and then holding down the "Run" key for ten minutes while you back track over things you've already seen? Ehh... Not so much fun there.
Posted by Luckless on 16 June 2016 - 07:19 PM
A wild and crazy idea: Get rid of loot hoarding as a mechanic.
You are a grand adventurer, not some serf carting around a lord's luggage. When you go through a dungeon and bash open coffins to look for loot, you're not the one who has to take everything yourself. Check that it is safe, pick up anything super nifty that you're going to want to use here and now, and leave the rest for the servants after you finish.
The real treasure that you're going to be after is probably in the big room at the very end anyway. If you can't use it here and now, then you should have no reason or desire to carry it with you yourself. You'll still get all the profit from it just the same after your servants come in after you. And if one or two get eaten by giant rats you overlooked, well, they're only serfs and there are far more where that came from.
Or maybe you just have a bag of holding, or what's his name's hardy haversack, or a portable door, or scrolls of town portal.
Design your levels in a way that they're made of smaller subsections, and getting into the next subsection will also present you with a quick way back to the surface. Unlock gates, magic portals, hidden passages, etc. Let your player spend their time and effort advancing deeper into your game, don't expect them to spend just as much time back tracking the way they came because You were too lazy to think of a better way.
Posted by Luckless on 15 June 2016 - 11:46 AM
I really love exploring and poking around in places in games, but that sure doesn't mean I love having to walk for hours to get somewhere. I find that Baluder's Gate feels far larger and more epic in scale than pretty much any of the modern Elder Scroll games do.
I want to explore, and I want to have things to explore, but please for the love of god don't make levels and designs which are big for no other reason than to make them big. If there is a central city that I will be visiting frequently, then by all means give me a large space that is spread out and has things to explore and interesting stuff to discover, but don't make me wander over the whole bloody thing to buy more arrows, then back to the other side to top up on healing potions, and then a half hour of climbing stairs to buy bottles for my Mana potions which is followed by a twenty minute jumping puzzle to fill them. Let me walk up to the fletcher in the main market square, hit a few buttons to top things off, move for five seconds, and then buy what I need from the armourer, move another five seconds and shop for potions.
By all means let me go on an adventure deeper into the less traveled parts of a huge city, but please don't expect me to keep making those trips over the same parts over and over and over again throughout the course of your game. Let me go on a quest which takes me on a long winding path throughout the city to get to the "Super Secret and advanced Apothecary of Fun and Adventure", but if it is a place that I'm going to be coming back to again and again and again, then hide a "Back door" to it in the basement of the blacksmith in the main market that I can use once I've put the work into finding it.
If I consistently go diving deep into your dungeons, and then consistently spend twenty minutes walking back out of each one and nothing ever happens, then you have a design bug.
If I have finished your game and can't tell my friends about more than one or two interesting or cool specific points of the dungeons because they all looked and felt alike, then you have a design bug.
Having a huge grand stairs or mountain to climb that leaves the player in awe is something they should be climbing once. If there aren't more details for me to see, things for me to find or explore, something New, then why are you (as a designer) bringing me (as the player) back to it? Things like that are awesome the first time. Kind of impressive the second time, and frankly just bloody annoying the third time, and the rest of your game had better be amazing for me to put up with going over it a fourth time or more.
Posted by Luckless on 04 April 2016 - 09:20 AM
A big question you have to ask yourself is: How is the game going to play out?
Branching tech trees are an option. Everyone starts with the same things, and then make choices based on the style of play they will attempt. One of the key things when doing this is to ensure your maps and combat can combine to allow situational advantages depending on choices made. (ie, if user A chooses an Infantry focus tech tree, and user B chooses to jump into the Air tech tree, then make sure that User A can still do things like hide infantry in forests or buildings. Users must then try and force battle into an area that matches their advantage while avoiding fighting while their opponent has the advantage.)
Ideally a branching tech tree would allow baiting and feinting, make your opponent think that you are taking one route, allowing them to invest in a direct counter to that expected route, and then you ambush them with a context/location sensitive counter-counter. (A invests in Heavy Armour ground units, B invests in ground attack helicopters, and then A surprises B with a unit of AAA or AA Infantry hidden in a group of woods.)
Posted by Luckless on 06 March 2016 - 10:49 AM
I also agree with the suggestion of looking at Prison Architect or similar games for how they handle the layered interconnect for resources. For starters it just makes sense to put your power, data, etc on a secondary layer to the function and utility blocks of a design because it is a little cleaner and easier to visualize when switching between different display modes, and it also is kind of what we do in real life. (Imagine building a large ship where all the power cables and such ran at waist height on any deck. Kind of makes getting around the ship difficult.)
As for issues like cargo handling, well, what kind of game do you want? Where do you want the player spending time and how do you want it to work?
Designing the game to support a more complex system for things like layout affecting cargo handling means you get more options and choices for the player.
Ie, holes in the outer armour shell means those areas are weaker and more vulnerable to damage. Every hole through the armour makes your ship that much weaker, but at the same time the fewer holes you have then the fewer things like weapons firing through the armour or cargo hatches you have.
So do you build your ship to have the one small cargo hatch and one small power/data connection, meaning all your weapons are on the outside where they're more easily damaged and you can only slowly transfer cargo?
Or maybe you stick all the weapons core systems behind armour where they're less likely to be damaged, but the ship itself is a little more vulnerable? After all if all your weapons get blown off in the first few minutes of a battle then you're in for a rough time even if it takes the enemy ages to chip away at your armour before you die. Maybe it is better to be more likely to take heavier damage throughout the whole fight, but you keep more of your weapons firing for longer?
Maybe you want to heavily compartmentalize your ship, with lots of small cargo bays separated by lighter internal airlocks and one main central external cargo hatch. A single external cargo hatch doesn't have a very negative impact on the ship's armour, and if a hole does get blown through the armour in one spot then it can only take out a small fraction of the ship's cargo or systems. But of course all those internal airlocks take up space, and would slow down cargo handling.
What are the costs to cargo handling time? Is there a negative impact to having a ship that might take days to load or unload vs one that is laid out to unload in hours, or minutes? Maybe it might be worth it in some cases and play styles to go with small cargo bays each with their own external hatch to unload and reload quickly? Or maybe a system where you have 'external cargo pod', like shipping containers that the ground crew just plucks off in moments and can slam the next one on and you're ready to go without even having to open a cargo door?
Then there is the game play element of "Cargo Tetris". Do you want to play this? Do you want the player to worry about where something is, and how it gets on and off the ship? Maybe taking on a pile of large containers is not the best of ideas at a given time for your ship because your next stop will mean pulling them all out of the way to unload something you already have?
What about bulk cargo? Liquid tanks that feed in and out of the ship through pipes, or dry bulk cargo that is carried by conveyor belts? (Which may pose safety risks due to things like providing a route for fire/damage to spread) They could let you store a higher volume/mass per 'square' of ship than general cargo bays, but are far more restricted to what they can carry or maybe what ports they can load and unload from?
Do you want the player to have to choose between being able to access cargo mid-flight? Those external cargo pods sure are fast and easy to handle, but maybe that load of advanced warheads you were shipping somewhere could have been better used if moved to your missile bay rather than stuck somewhere on the outside of the ship where you can access it. (Or back to Cargo Tetris: All those pallets of gold sure are valuable... sitting there in front of all those weapons reloads...)
How about internal handling for those weapons? Do you want the player to worry about it, focusing inside the ship, or do you want their attention to be on the outside, positioning of the ship, priority of attacks and such? Do you want the player to have the tools to design handling systems with complex things like flash-gates, moving ammo for the weapons from the well protected magazines deep inside the ship to the more vulnerable weapons stations on the edge? Or do you want to hand wave and not worry about it?
Personally I would love to sit there and tinker with systems and interlocks: Flash doors take x time to open/close, conveyor systems take y time to move, so I need z design so that every missile is in its on 'slot' when moving from the bulk magazine near the well protected core to the firing station on the outside. Or maybe I'll build a system that moves a whole pallet of them from the main magazine in protection zone 3 to a staging area in protection zone 2, and from there the missiles will be taken off the pallet one by one and fed to the firing tube in the vulnerable protection zone 1... Because you really don't want the loss of one missile bay to mean all the extra ammo on your ship chain reacts and the whole thing goes up.
Or maybe I'll decide that having a few spots spread around the outside of the ship will each have a bunch of tubes stacked together, and each station will have a good supply of missiles on hand. This means I could have massive rapid volley fire early on. If one of the tubes in a sector gets taken out it means a big chunk of the ship and all the other tubes and ammo in that sector will most likely go up as well, but the main magazine and the other three firing sectors will stay alive to keep going.
Or maybe your game is better off with "I have X cargo bay space, Y cargo handling systems, so it takes Z time to load/unload".
Posted by Luckless on 24 February 2016 - 10:42 AM
The best way to handle this is to do market research BEFORE you show off the price to customers.
Personally I find far too many companies are way over pricing their early access. They put things up which are 'interesting' and I'm tempted to buy, but then they price it at $20-30 before the project is even finished, and I walk right on by.
Some will argue that I'm suggesting a 'race to the bottom' pricing and that I'm only buying under priced games... But honestly I find the market is burning itself with a lack of quality control and gate keeping. I paid $20 for a few early access games in the past, which looked like simple but interesting projects, and the developers seemed to be on the level with content out the door already in a playable fashion, and I expected them to be able to carry on their development...
And then they dropped the project and left me with a horribly buggy only sort of playable and feature complete application that wasn't nearly as great of a deal as it first looked.
So now when i see someone asking for more than a few dollars on a project? ... Meh. I'll spend my money at lower risk points. Far cheaper titles that are relying on bulk sales where I won't feel nearly as burned if it flops, or on mature AAA content well after its release date that still got good reviews.
At the same time, I avoid "Free to Play" content, and anything with micro transaction or excessive DLC like the plague because of how much of a dice roll it is as to what I'm going to spend to actually enjoy the game. I want my gaming transactions to be fairly simple and straight forward: I give you money, you give me a complete product that in and of itself is fun to play, and includes a similar amount or more content than the last version of it you sold me. I have no problem with Paradox's EU or Crusader Kings series DLC, as I've gotten a solid game from the get go that I enjoyed, and while the initial launch prices of the DLC is higher than I normally like, I've still bought a few on launch if it was interesting new mechanics added, or I pick them up 75% off some time later on a sale. (And honestly I buy that DLC more as a "Thank you for being cool developers doing neat and interesting things without screwing your fans over" than I do for buying new content.)
It is a business and a minefield, and there are no simple easy answers sadly.
Posted by Luckless on 14 February 2016 - 10:09 AM
Hyperthreading can also be a double edged sword at times. It is like a second processor core, but not exactly the same thing. I really haven't done much work with hyperthreaded processors, and all that I honestly remember about the edge cases is that they exist. If you are going to start programming things with an aim at providing strong support for Intel's tech then it is probably a good idea to spend some time digging around with google for the various pitfalls of hyperthreading.
Posted by Luckless on 03 February 2016 - 09:08 AM
Wearing something more than socks is generally a good idea in an office environment. For one there is the risk of stepping on things to consider. It might not be a construction site that demands steel toed boots, but stepping on a dropped staple or thumb tack, or having someone accidentally roll their chair over your little toe does not make for a great day at work.
Beyond that you also really kind of want to be wearing something that you can comfortably walk outside in, or at the very least have something you can safely slip on in seconds and exit the building, simply for safety reasons for if the fire alarm goes off. (You really don't want to be trying to file down stairs with the rest of your coworkers with untied laces flopping everywhere. You won't be thought of too kindly if you trip and fall on someone or make someone else trip. Having witnessed it in a previous job, I must say that breaking a coworker's wrist during a fire drill because you were too lazy to tie your shoes does not appear to go over all that well with coworkers and management.)
Posted by Luckless on 22 January 2016 - 03:26 PM
In actual combat it is perfectly possible to have both sides attack and hurt/kill each other.
Depending on the nature of your game, I would say this is acceptable, and even a good mechanic to discourage random button mashing and force the user into more careful thoughts about what they're doing.
Another aspect that ties into this is that just because you've stabbed your opponent isn't always an indicator that they're not going to just stab you right back. Being able to deliver a killing blow without taking one in return is kind of an important factor in real fights.
Posted by Luckless on 14 January 2016 - 07:14 PM
Where have you been looking? I have seen complaints from both sides of not being able to find artists/programmers.
If you're spending all your time on sites with high programmer populations and some artists (such as here) then it can be a hard get the attention of the limited pool of artists. However if you go hang out on more art centred forums, then you'll be one of the few programmers and give yourself rather improved odds.
Posted by Luckless on 13 December 2015 - 10:17 PM
Simply adding 'more sails!' isn't the way to make a ship faster, but is a good way to weigh things down and sink yourself.
A large collection of clipper ships would beg to disagree.
Yes, but those were the result of hundreds of years of refinement and engineering progress, and there was a little more work to those ships than simply adding another stick of wood and whatever canvas could be found.
Posted by Luckless on 11 December 2015 - 03:14 PM
If you're going to make a game about naval combat in any era, then I would say you need to account for wind.
Even in post-Dreadnought era naval combat you would be impacted by wind and wave action, if for nothing other than its impact on targeting. (If you're trying to lob shells out to 20+km and hit a target a few hundred metres long and a few dozen wide, well then a gusting cross wind is probably going to have a 'bit of an impact' on whether you hit or drop a few tonnes of steel and explosives harmlessly into the ocean.)
But for sailing? That needs to account for it even more, otherwise what is the point? Sure, include a simplified scheme as an option, but ideally the game should be teaching people how sailing works.
And if you're going to include design and building, then I would argue you should also be accounting for balances and general seakeeping. Simply adding 'more sails!' isn't the way to make a ship faster, but is a good way to weigh things down and sink yourself.
Posted by Luckless on 10 December 2015 - 01:22 PM
Rebels can easily work in a number of different ways, depending on how you want your game to run and the number of layers you wish to work with.
The most obvious being that a number of planets switch from your control to the rebels, and then they act as an enemy force. Depending on the 'type' of rebel, they can sit tight and just secure their own borders, raid nearby imperial worlds/fleets/supply lines, or attempt aggressive expansion.
You may also want to go with a deeper layer, where rebellion becomes influenced by 'agents' who go to a planet and stir up trouble. Support for rebellion then raises if you fail to address the agents and issues they are acting on, such as food shortages, cultural issues, labour issues, etc.
You could also have factions who might use terrorist style attacks to drive their own agenda by attacking planets belonging to other factions within the empire, and if you don't do anything to address the aggressive faction then the other factions being affected by the aggressors will splinter off and deal with things themselves.
The big thing is to keep rebellion from simply being 'whack-a-mole'. If the empire is made up of various factions and agencies who interact with each other, then give the player tools to help balance various groups against one and other. You don't have to send in a war fleet to suppress a rebellion, but maybe you could instead support a trade federation and supply them with ships and weapons, and give them a mandate to deal with a sector. Of course, that could come back to bite you in the ass 50 turns later when they decide that they have the force power to oppose you and take a chunk of planets for themselves instead.