In traditional styles the 'skill' is in decisions and thinking several moves ahead. Yes, it is highly random, and you can get sessions where you get a series of really bad rolls which lead to situations where you can't see a way out, but that is part of the game. Often if you die it was because you over extended yourself, moved too deep and let yourself get caught fighting too much too close together and couldn't make use of healing methods. It Is a risk and gamble when you move to 'the next square', but you're not really meant to just keep moving forward blindly. Careful thinking with regards to the mechanics is where the skill lies in many of these games, and making decisions like taking several steps back before moving forward to make sure the combat happens when and where it is most favourable. (Usually very applicable to ones that implement some kind of character collision detection, and forcing combat into bottle necks where you aren't as easily flanked for example.)
Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!
LucklessMember Since 27 Aug 2003
Online Last Active Today, 02:29 PM
- Group Crossbones+
- Active Posts 5,742
- Profile Views 7,256
- Submitted Links 0
- Member Title Member
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted by Luckless on 05 January 2015 - 08:35 AM
In general you should avoid having your app trying to run on devices that Can't support it, and do your best to sort out what is causing problems on various devices before you declare that the device can't actually support it. Digging into the problems can help you find some rather critical errors and design flaws, and can greatly improve how the app is running on other devices that run correctly most of the time.
Out sourcing a limited bit of testing to a larger testing house may be worth it for your app. Some testing houses will take small scale contracts for device sweeps and such, and since they're supporting dozens of clients they can have hundreds of models of Androids to test against. For the cost of a few dozen devices you would add to your library you can instead gets days of dedicated professional testing against a far wider range of devices.
Posted by Luckless on 27 December 2014 - 03:43 PM
I don't think that players strictly need a big flashing red sign saying "YOU LOSE!" when they have failed the puzzle, but rather the mechanics should allow them to gracefully revert and move forward again.
Take a look at how portal (Probably one of the most commonly known puzzle games that is so well executed) handles things:
The player either dies, and the level reloads for them (fell into fire, acid, allowed themselves to be shot too many times, or possibly crushed? I haven't played through in awhile and forget all the ways you can die), and this represents a 'hard failure'. This is opposed to a soft failure, such has dropping a block in acid, or passing it through the nullification field. You've screwed up, but it is fairly obvious that you probably weren't supposed to do that, and either they automatically give you a new tool piece to work with, or you have to manually go and press the button to get one yourself. (And if you try to request too many then it will very obviously destroy the previous one on you.)
Challenging is fun. Deciphering a complex system and working out a solution? That is interesting. Being frustrated is not fun. You don't want to simply hold the player's hand and make things a cake walk, but do make the process of moving through puzzle sections as streamlined as you can. Give them clear methods to reset or revert easily if they need it, and make cause and effect fairly obvious. (Don't have a button in a 3 stage puzzle that has a 'random' effect for example on the last room, but can only be pressed in the first.)
And avoid the 'false choice' effect in puzzles. If you have 3 'doors', two of which contain your death and one the solution, and zero information before hand about them, then you haven't actually given the player a choice. You're just slapping them in the face going "HAHAHA, I'm so much cooler than you because I'm the developer and I already know all the answers you stupid little twit" because they have zero useful knowledge to help them make a choice short of making a choice and then memorizing the outcome. If the only way I can pass a puzzle is by pure luck or having already failed in all the possible ways, then it is a bad puzzle because it is instead a memory/luck based obstacle that you grind your way through, not a puzzle which you actually devise a solution to.
Posted by Luckless on 26 December 2014 - 05:24 PM
Failure of a puzzle game really should either be effectively instant, such as falling into the acid in portal, or should allow the user to seamlessly return to the beginning if they feel they may have messed something up.
Add a 'teleport pad' or something beyond the 1 way door, which carries the user back to the initial part of the level, and clearly tells them that the task has been reset.
Posted by Luckless on 16 December 2014 - 01:52 PM
Just trying to throw out a bunch of questions to hopefully drive some more conversation and input from others as well:
So will Tier 1 continue to demand a given planet, regardless of resource cost to get it? Can it decide that "Hey, attacking this planet from the large empire next to us is kind of a bad idea, lets go after some of their smaller enemies instead? The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and maybe they won't attack US instead if we're helping them?"
>Edit: How does the AI see things if they change, such as that small single planet opponent just got annexed by BIG_BAD_SCARY_EMPIRE_3?
How do the various levels of AI gain information to base their choices on? How do they calculate potential profit? Risk vs Reward?
How are the actions/threats of other "Players" accounted for, if at all? Does the AI have the ability to make educated guesses of what other Players or AIs are working towards, and decide if they pose a real threat? (ie, do they focus just on growing in a relative vacuum and expand by picking off the easiest targets nearest them, or do they evaluate everyone around them to prioritize where they attack/expand? A simple 'easiest growth path first', or would "Large Empire A" ever attack "Small Empire B" instead of the easier target "Small Empire C" just so as to deny "Large Empire D" from easily advancing into "B"'s planets?)
Posted by Luckless on 16 December 2014 - 08:14 AM
No... Not exactly. The order is given by high levels and executed by low levels. So it's the other way round (the high levels giving advices/guidelines/gloas for low levels).
I like your idea! If I understand it correctly there will be set of "advisors" on many levels, that can deliver their requests to the higher level for consideration, right?
The lower level could give the feedback of the orders received, but that's just an extra (probably not needed really).
No, no, no. That's the thing I want to break from. Thinking in terms of "where to move units", instead I want thinking in terms of "what the AI wants to archieve" (territory focused, not units focused). Where exactly move units is the last (lowest level) step and not that important.
Every turn your goal values would be updated to help decide the next move
I don't want it min-max algorithm driven, where the AI reevaluates the situation each turn. I want it data driven where the AI builds on already existing past orders.
"Next move" doesn't have to be as low level as an actual unit move, but can also be an update to your grand strategy target.
However, I think you're going to hit a rather awkward wall if you try to break away from weights and values map evaluations. What exactly is your AI going to use to make choices? Arbitrary dice roll? You need some means to map out data and come to conclusions. Humans do the same thing, but are far more arbitrary and imprecise in our evaluation of those numbers.
So you have your highest level AI. Describe how it makes a decision. Break it down into pusdo-code level and explain [i]how[//i] it is deciding to attack planet A or B.
Posted by Luckless on 15 December 2014 - 03:10 PM
One thing to consider when looking at building a more rounded and human feeling AI is to consider adding 'momentum' and 'focus' into the equation, and build the system around the idea of goals.
At a given turn the AI will have a set of possible goals. "take this planet", "Defend area", "Address threat of planet/fleet/unit/whatever". And since they most likely have more possible goals than what they have units/pieces to go after them all then the AI will have to pick a subset of possible goals to be its target goals. (The ones it is actually going to work towards)
Every turn your goal values would be updated to help decide the next move, but any goal that IS set as a target is then given 'mass' over and above the base value of the goal itself. The more turns a given goal stays as a target then the more mass it accumulates. The AI then acts on goals with the highest mass first, and then falls back to goal value.
In a given turn the mass of a target may be bumped or reduced based on the changes in relative base goal value. The idea is to build the system to gather momentum so it stays on target for more than a few turns, rather than suffering useless flip-flopping. (Errors like, move force towards Planet A to attack, which then reduces their defence at Planet B, and then next turn they abandon the attack on A to reinforce planet B, which is followed by a decision to attack Planet A again the next turn...) The game situation would have to change a lot more before the AI 'reacts' due to the value changes across the map than it often does with traditional styles.
The concept of 'focus' can be worked in to help vary the difficulty and personality of an AI. Goals/targets in close proximity to where the AI is already working can get an artificial 'focus' boost in value. You can play with these settings for taste and flavour by small modifications to the rules and values. A heavy focused AI will grant a large weight around a small area of a single focus point, which can create a threatening AI, but which can also be defeated by spreading your own focus around them to attack from multiple angles.
Compare that to a more loosely focused AI, which grants a smaller weight over a wider area around more than one focus point. They'll be more unpredictable, and faster to change targets. Add in a 'feint' goal/target type, and a bit of tuning, and you can have an AI style which becomes exceptionally devious on a fairly regular basis.
Posted by Luckless on 22 November 2014 - 04:17 PM
I think you may have to expand a little more on how the players would interact with each other's worlds, and how you plan to actually generate those worlds in the first place.
But related to what you're talking about, and an idea that may be useful to you; I have long been thinking of an idea based on community 'script' development and a loose AI director.
The point would be in a procedurally generated RPG would be able to string together 'scripts' or 'plot lines'. The game could either be run in 'strict' mode that follows a detailed long plot line from start to finish that would be written in the style of traditional cRPGs, or in a 'string' mode, that will tie shorter scripts together for a more Rogue like feel.
Scripts would belong to various levels of a hierarchy, and use standardized tags to identify things. So at the top level someone could write a script about the interactions of two "Big Bad Gangs", and how "Character A" is a triple agent, betraying first one gang, then the other, and coming out as a mastermind. But the script itself doesn't need to define much of anything about either gang, or Character A. Low level scripts would define details about character, stats, precomposed lines of dialogue script, etc. And then a few layers in between based on how complex your system is.
So when running in loose mode the game would start pulling together scripts from various sources and using them to guide a player through a game.
The elements that I see making such a system work well (And it is an insanely complex one that I haven't devoted serious time to developing due to its scope) would be community management methods. You ideally would have a detailed ranking system for the value of the scripts, as well as metadata describing what kind of script it is and what kind of stories it is suitable for. An automated blind peer-review system would be idea, having players score and provide feedback to authors, but not be able to see any consistent identifiers. (This is to help avoid trolling. Trolls can't work together as easily to push through deliberately 'bad' content, nor focus attacks on other people's good content because they will have no control over which user's content they're rating. And then automated ranking systems should help bring vetted authors up to the top of the list.)
Players then would configure their game generation through filters based on community standardized key-wording. So they have a loose control over what kind of plot lines and scripts the system will select to throw at them. (Or could choose to select from the hard written modules instead.) You can also include a feedback system from the players as well, having them score their enjoyment of the game when they finish. That info could be tied back into future game generation in some way, or spread points around the scripts the game used. After awhile you could build up a system and core dataset that can generate a huge range of really compelling games that combine good elements from hand crafted game worlds with the unpredictability and replayability of procedural content.
In theory you could also extend such a system to game assets, and add additional elements to your visual or audio aspects of your game.
Posted by Luckless on 04 November 2014 - 11:34 AM
Ask friends. Join a community of some kind, spend time being part of it, and then ask if anyone there wants to give you a hand. (Generally signing up on forums just to look for help gets considered as spam, but if you actually play the game or genuinely take part in the community in question then requests for help after the fact are better received.)
However, random help like that can be unreliable. Friends often don't want to be too harsh, or will look at everything with the friendly rose coloured glasses. Random people online are likely to give poor and unfocused feedback, and getting real testing on features or concepts out of them can be similar to herding cats.
Depending on your project then you may want to look into hiring dedicated testers. (Bias warning, I'm actually employed as a professional software end-use tester, but I've had the 'pleasure' of dealing with community feedback for projects we've tested, and it can be painful compared to the structured, detailed, and targeted reports actual professionals tend to generate.) Also pay extra for a company with testers in a country that speaks your native language and is well aligned culturally. Sure you can 'save' money and pay a fraction for something overseas, but it is very easy to lose all those savings in frustration and inefficiencies that grow out of language or cultural barriers.
Good luck with your project.
Posted by Luckless on 01 September 2014 - 12:50 PM
How about making it focused on exploration and expansion? You are a pathfinder paving the way for colonization, and new expansion occurs based on your suggestions?
It is the user's responsibility to make a judgement call on each planet they come to as to what kind of resource and development, if any, is put into the system. You can't simply blindly colonize everything, but need to establish plans of growth and development, flag areas as trade hubs, and run around dealing with problems as they arise.
Basically playing a StarFleet captain pushing the boundaries of civilization further out into the dark. Push too far and too fast and settlements become weak and prone to failure as 'help' from developed colonies is then too far away. Move too slowly and your approval rating will slowly begin to tank and you'll be replaced/given access to fewer resources/demoted to a lesser ship.
Posted by Luckless on 01 August 2014 - 03:43 PM
Doesn't really change the issue of alliances at the core, but opens them to some exceptional abuse depending on the game stage. If you are facing off against an alliance in a normal game, then you are most likely out numbered as it is. Having one side in a war suddenly get double the attack potential, regardless of how strong everyone's economic bases are, can quickly become horribly unbalanced and even worse than it normally would be.
This is made worse if you do not put strong limits on how units can be used, or how often they can attack. What does it matter if you have the better economy to afford to build and field more units if a vastly inferior force still becomes an equal because they can just keep reusing the same unit to attack with while much of the 'superior' force sits and is unused?
Posted by Luckless on 31 July 2014 - 05:45 AM
I prefer a slightly more hands off exploration mechanic than is often used. I don't want to spend part of every turn scrolling around the map looking for the different units of my scout fleet, or forget to move something for a turn.
I want big marker icons "Current missions: X% complete". I want to pick the region that I'm interested in learning more about, and decide how important it is, which in turn decides how many resources can be devoted to completing the project, which then affect how many turns it takes before I get my next bit of detailed info on it.
For a strategy game like this I would rather have a good idea of the layout and some probabilities of what a star system has from the get go. (Just seems odd that I don't even know about a star a few lightyears away, let alone not having a clue if it has any kind of planets or anything.)
I say keep exploration, but keep it to budgets, targets, and technology decisions. If I'm the emperor then it really isn't my job to say if S-108 'Victoria' is sent on the mission, or if S-109 'Intrepid' goes. A ship, a few ships, or a lot of ships is what I want to choose, and I don't care where they come from, but I would assume my admirals would pick the most logical ships to allocate to the project.
Posted by Luckless on 27 July 2014 - 07:07 AM
What is the purpose of reuniting/building the empire if there is no real risk/reward mechanic? If all I'm doing in the early stages is just steam rolling small independent planets with zero real risk to my empire, then it risks becoming terribly tedious. Why not just start the player with a large empire and a small fringe buffer, give them a few turns to setup and configure their empire, and start the external invasion forces?
Not trying to put your idea down, just trying to better understand it and poke holes in areas that could be potential gameplay issues.
Good luck with your designs.
Posted by Luckless on 26 July 2014 - 08:34 PM
What exactly is the point of having detailed decisions for things like build orders if the user doesn't actually make those decisions?
How does it add something useful to the game beyond selecting the world and upgrading it from a level 3 mining colony to a level 4 mining colony, and abstracting away all those fine details that you never cared about in the first place?
Posted by Luckless on 26 July 2014 - 02:59 PM
Reunification of a shattered empire does make for a very good backstory. You get to have various factions and such, rather than different species. Maybe even some procedurally generated factions based on a pool of various traits, so each time you play you'll have different challenges popping up to add flavour. A good bonus-negative balance system could do interesting things.
One game you may have a large number of factions with a "reunification" trait, which makes expanding the empire easier, but it becomes counter balanced by "Anti-technology zealots" who cause havoc with internal affairs.
Another game may have a large number of isolationists or small confederations who will resist your efforts.
Another different option for a storyline is 'convergent evolution', A dozen or so 'classes' of species emerge across the planets involved, and they're designed with characteristic traits to a class along with cultural traits picked from a pool. Possibly a multi level system, so you have a top level "Humanoid"/other classes, then mammal/insect/reptile sub-class, and then cultural traits.
The system could then spin you out a "tentacloid" reptile with cultural trait of religious next to the planet of "giant" mammal technophobes. Class and sub classes would be obvious from basic orbital probes, but all the cultural traits could take longer to discover, and some combinations may even result is 'total war' as the only option. Wipe them out/forcefully subjugate the planet's population or try to ignore them and just go around.
Also, I think that the "Small empire" of a handful of planets opposing you at one time is a good thing for game play. If it is never more than one planet who would oppose you then the game becomes simply nibbling away at the problem. Nothing really opposes you throughout once you establish your initial solid base, and you risk game play devolving into "Which bite do I take next" rather than "Which war to I gamble/risk next?".