Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Calling all IT Pros from Canada and Australia.. we need your help! Support our site by taking a quick sponsored surveyand win a chance at a $50 Amazon gift card. Click here to get started!


suliman

Member Since 19 May 2004
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 02:05 AM

#5249158 How to avoid "stacks of doom" in 4X? (Part 2)

Posted by suliman on 27 August 2015 - 06:25 AM

If i remeber correctly, you want to keep things rather abstracted/simplified. 

 

Why not have an efficiency factor. Starts at 100%. At some point a stack becomes harder to handle and efficiency softly drops, so it makes sense to not make stacks of doom.

 

navy size              efficiency       navy combat strenght 

<100 ships           100 %            100

150 ships             85 %              127

200 ships             70 %              140

250 ships             55 %              138

300 ships             40 %              120

>350 ships           25 %              88

 

 

You get the point, this needs tweaking of course but the point is that its a simple system that the player can easily moniter.

It makes it better to have several small/medium sized fleets than one huge.

 

If you have that level of complexity the area of effect weapon idea is good. It counters big stacks efficiently if it deals dmg to all ships in a stack, no matter how big the stack is.




#5247839 the game's setting limits what there is to do in the world

Posted by suliman on 20 August 2015 - 05:36 AM

I think you sum it up well in your first post:

 

If REALLY realistic, in that timeperiod you didnt have any "high level" stuff. Since no permanent buildings etc, no settlements. If you stay true to your "realistic simulation of stoneage" concept i think you must skip the notion that you must add more end-game "gameplay elements", it doesnt work with the setting.

 

I would just focus on polishing the core survival elements, add more random events / dangers.




#5246407 4X, "imperial projects" mechanic

Posted by suliman on 14 August 2015 - 01:50 AM

I agree it should be costly. This makes "no project right now thanks" a strategic option, as well as giving more saticfaction when actually completing a project.

 

I like that not all projects are available in every game. Might be fun. Just make sure the player has enough to choose from so it doesnt feel the game chooses for him/her.

 

Why could not some projects have global effect but some affect a planet (or region of planets)? Could give more flexibility.




#5243165 To use mana or not? (that is the question)

Posted by suliman on 28 July 2015 - 07:24 AM

Powerneg why so patronising?

As you see in the long thread its not THAT simple of a question and the point of the thread is to clearify pros and cons with different systems.

 

Yes the way im aiming to pace my game needs persisting effects to be limited, mainly to avoid players stalling for time i easy fights to spam heals (as you could do in "darkest dungeon"). Such a system works of course, but its not very fun to play (and in very hard games you are almost forced to use exploits like that).




#5243137 To use mana or not? (that is the question)

Posted by suliman on 28 July 2015 - 04:20 AM

Yes i like the feeling of getting worn down and deciding wether or not to push on or give up:)

 

Just to point out, i never said vanician magic (which seems to be you prepare and choose spells beforehand). I might just limit the number of uses per dungeon for some spells/skills. The player doesnt choose anything for this.




#5242916 To use mana or not? (that is the question)

Posted by suliman on 27 July 2015 - 02:19 AM

Well this thread applies to all non-basic skills, not only spells. Barbarian cleave, ranger inspiration-buffs etc.

 

Forcing the player to return to town (which gameplay-wise may be instant, im not sure yet) serves two purposes:

1. Main reason: You give up the dungeon and must fight a new (random) dungeon of the same level next time you try. When you are close to completing a dungeon do you risk loosing some adventurer (permadeath) to push on to complete the dungeon?

2. Resource management. Potions, health, morale and (possibly) energy resources has to be planned, since they only regen in town (Ale at the inn everybody!).

 

@Dragoncar

Darkest dungeon LETS you spam the "best" skill infinitely if you are in the correct position for that skill. I found this one of the flaws as some skills were never used on many classes (it was better to just use the "best" skill every turn).

 

 

Im now leaning towards:

 - Using energy resource (everyone loves colored bars!)

 - MAYBE use short cooldown (like 2-3 turns to avoid spamming)

 - Have hard limits only on sustained effects (mainly heals and dungeon-altering skills)




#5242780 To use mana or not? (that is the question)

Posted by suliman on 26 July 2015 - 10:31 AM

Why would hard limits be frustrating? The basic attack would be infinite obviously. 

 

One example could be for a cleric-class:
1. Basic attack (infinite)

2. Strong attack/cleave (3 uses, 3turn CD)

3. Ally buff, lasts a couple of combat-rounds (3 uses, 3 turn CD)

4. Healing wave (1 use)

 

In the example, no 4 is really strong but only one use per dungeon.

 

With energy (get 50 ep, refills after the dungeon):

1. Basic attack (0-2 ep)

2. Strong attack (8 ep)

3. Ally buff (10 ep)

4. Healing wave (25 ep)

 

The problem with mana only is that it might end up using some classes just for one thing, for example if a cleric can heal and do some damage skills (which both cost mana) you might end up ONLY using the heal and not wanting to "waste" mana on a more diverse set of skills. This is mainly a problem with skills that grants persisting effects (such as healing):

Damage skills: helps the current fight

Healing: helps also in all following fights (so it can not be limitless)

 

Hard limits would encourage the player to use all different skills i thought...

 

A complicated issue i know! More thoughts? What about using energy but ALSO limiting some powerful skills to certain no of uses?




#5242730 To use mana or not? (that is the question)

Posted by suliman on 26 July 2015 - 02:03 AM

Hi

Im doing a party dungeon crawler with permadeath, similar to darkest dungeon.

 

You have a party of up to (in the end) 6 characters, which can be placed in front or back row. You gear up in town and set out to clear dungeons. If you give up and go back to town to heal and rest (to save characters close to death), the dungeon is reset.

 

When you encounter monsters, combat is turned-based and each character can perform one attack or special skill (based on class) per round. However, there is several ways to handle this:

 

1. All skills (including basic attacks) are "equally good" and you can choose anyone each combat round (used in darkest dungeon)

2. Like 1 but each skill has a cooldown of X turns. More powerful ones have longer cooldown. Cooldowns only refill during combat, not while exploring (so CDs will remain into next fight).

3. Skills cost mana/energy to use, so more powerful skills use more mana, forcing you to plan. It regens in town only (maybe with rare potions as well.

4. Use both CD and energy (like most MMORPGs, like wow)

5. No mana is used. Skills are limited use. So you can only use ice bolt 2 times and healing wave 1 time. Resets in town.

 

What are your thoughts on this? Each character already has HP and morale bars, so another bar (mana/energy) might be too much. BUT including an energy-bar might open up that for other tactical choices. Do i use 20 energy to forage for food / break open a door / climb a watch tower during the travels, or do i skip it to use more energy for skills in combat?

 

I want to avoid making heals (and other skills with remaining benefits) endless/renewable which would defeat the need to go back to town (is a problem with method 1 and 2).

 

Thanks for your input!
Erik




#5242182 Missions in ww2 naval/pirate game?

Posted by suliman on 23 July 2015 - 08:57 AM

Hi

Im doing a open-world post-ww2 game similar to sid meiers Pirates! You upgrade your ships and sinke enemies in a large world, pirating goods and trading.

 

There is 4 factions (Great Britain, Germany, USA, Japan) that you can do missions for to increase standing and have excess to better ships. Any ideas of mission objectives you can do in such a game?

My ideas so far:

 

1. Sink X tons of merchant shipping for our enemy team Y.

2. Sink X tons/points of warships for our enemy team Y.

3. Deliver VIP (cargo) or convoy of ships safely to port X.

4. Bring X of goods Y to port Z (steal or buy the goods)

5. Patrol location X for Y days and intercept any hostiles there

6. Plunder X resources from port Y

7. Plunder X resources from our enemy Y.

8. Take port X currently held by our enemy.

 

Any input on this?
Thanks a lot

Erik




#5234715 Planetary development levels

Posted by suliman on 14 June 2015 - 01:56 AM

Yes earth was:

 

sea

grassland

forest

jungle

mountains

thundra

 

Before humans came, and still is. Problem is real planets are typically of only 3 main types:

 

1. with atmosphere which gives different biomes (see earth)

2. dead rocks

3. gas (no solid surface, like jupiter, so no buildings, settlements, agriculture possible)

 

There is no "forest-planet" where poles and equators and everything is "forest". This is a fantasy-game not a astro-simulation so it might not matter, but its almost always disregarded in these 4X games.

 

Maybe a game could still use the more realistic approach somehow:

 

1. Livable worlds. For population and food production and mines. "Best" planets for the player. Portion of different biomes can vary.

2. Rock world: still can be mined for resources (can have moon-base styled colonies, maybe heavily mechaniced?). No farms.

3. Gas planets: not landable, but maybe useful for something else?




#5234441 Planetary development levels

Posted by suliman on 12 June 2015 - 06:54 AM

Having each planet a "type" like

 

lava-planet

grassland-planet

ice-planet

 

is standard procedure for x4 space games, but its rather strange dont you think? This is not how planets are.




#5234009 Good name for a zombie game

Posted by suliman on 10 June 2015 - 01:40 AM

Dayz of brainz? Fleshfeast!

 

Pretty generic though.

 

Hard with so little info.




#5211364 Dungeons in roguelike. Randomly generated or not?

Posted by suliman on 18 February 2015 - 01:33 AM

Thanks guys, you're the most awsomest of the internets! For reels.

 

(No but really, good input)




#5211259 Hiding savedata to prevent save backup

Posted by suliman on 17 February 2015 - 02:12 PM

So... many people log in just to state EXACTLY what i wrote in the post i have no interest in and already know. Not very useful.

 

Im asking for simple hiding tricks. Comments on the ones I suggested or other ideas are useful.

 

@Brain

I dont want online simply because thats more mess (and possibly costly) than I prefer to handle for this feature:) Also it forces the player to have internet connection/be online.




#5179411 Aircraft game - weapons and armour classes

Posted by suliman on 10 September 2014 - 02:30 PM

it may be called hardpoints, but i want the player to have some liberty on what to load up on (part of the gameplay). So a large bomb may take the same "space" as five small rockets.

 

Each plane type has

 

1. A autocannon damage and ammo cap

2. Drop cap (bombs/torpedoes, may be zero)

3. Launcher cap (rockets/missiles, may be zero)

4. Other characteristics such as armour, speed, agility, cost etc

 

So (for example) some aircraft types may only drop bombs, but the player composes the loadout from within these limitations. Or switches plane, if its available for that level.

 

More comments?

 

Erik






PARTNERS