Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 19 May 2004
Offline Last Active Today, 08:04 AM

#5291378 Gas and energy (abstract) for a strategy game

Posted by suliman on 13 May 2016 - 01:35 AM

1. What is weak with the gas mechanics? Its not clear. You could skip gas altogether and just have energy. Both planets (depending on how much tech/industry there is there) and your fleet may drain energy. (gas-powered spaceships seem a little low-tech, especially if you have normal "gas" that is also used in planet industry).


2. Do you need powerplants IF you have gas? What do they add to the gameplay? It seems a bit too low-level for your abstraction level. Also fusion is already nuclear. (call them fission and fusion instead for a better scifi feeling).

#5287433 Beyond Warlords 2-type of "quest"

Posted by suliman on 18 April 2016 - 04:50 AM

Why does the no of players have to outnumber the ruins? Typically you have no more than 8 players in a multiplayer strategy game and you can have at least 20 ruins on a moderately sized map.


The quests/ruins doesnt have to be a minigame. It depends on how much other stuff player have to do in the game. It can just be a bonus such as finding some gold or item to buff the army. I didnt like that in Warlords 2:


You enter a ruin

1. Most often: You kill a monster. Get a bonus which is helpful

2. Sometimes: You just die. Your hero is slain which is a disaster, at least in the beginning.

3. I cannot affect or predict the outcome.


Loosing a quest could instead damage the hero (requiring rest to come back to action) and the risk/outcome should be monitorable.

#5287416 Abstracted battles/units (mego-lo-mania style)

Posted by suliman on 18 April 2016 - 01:32 AM

Noone? Is the question to vague?

#5284200 Obstacles in a dungeon?

Posted by suliman on 30 March 2016 - 02:55 AM


Im doing a fantasy tactical rogue-like dungeon crawler (player controls up to 6 heroes in a group).


What are good obstacles to block the corridors?

Obstacles are "solved" by picking a hero to deal with it, the hero uses a attribute tied to the obstacle; this calculates a %-chance to succeed and a cost in energy to solve the obstacle. Heroes specializes in one of 3 attributes (strength, agility, intelligence)



1. Strength - debris, cave in

2. Agility - what here? (i already have lockpicking and traps as separate gameplay elements, some puzzle maybe?)

3. Intelligence - force field, ancient riddle on door (like gate to Moria maybe? Mellon!)


What is your ideas?

Thanks, Erik

#5279538 Weapon and damage vs enemies (RPG)?

Posted by suliman on 04 March 2016 - 03:10 PM


Im doing a rogue-like dungeon game with the player managing a squad of heroes (similar to Darkest dungeon or Legend of grimrock).

The setting is classic medieval-fantasy.


How can I differentiate damage and weapons to make it more tactical? I got some basic ideas already:


clubs/maces - lower damage but high bonus vs undead

spears/arrows - higher bleed but much lower dmg vs undead

dmg is either physical or magical - some monsters have resistance to either

weapons good against slow/fast enemies?

maybe spear and bows bonus vs beasts?

weapons that are harder to block with shield?

anti-armour dmg - ignore "armoured" trait that some monsters have (which weapons would this be except maybe crossbow? 


This is not much as you see. Need more ideas! (and criticism for the ones listed!)

I want to encourage the player to balance the group of heroes and/or plan for known missions ahead (e.g. if next "map" is a crypt-style dungeon equip heroes accordingly with anti-undead stuff).


Thank you!

#5277562 Combat and units in modern empire builder

Posted by suliman on 23 February 2016 - 02:29 AM

Cool. But i will simplify i think:


Patrolcrafts - core, light, early unit (sea version of  light armor)

Destroyer - core, general anti-ship

Missile frigate/artillery ship - anti-city (needs backup of core units like land artillery. Cruiser seems to robust? Want these to be frigile. Or just make them really expensive but super strong vs cities and only ok vs ships. But cruisers are going out of style right?).

AA - anti-air (AA frigate? Are corvettes really AA ships?)


I will most likely skip both submarines and carriers. I know they are important to modern warfare but it doesnt play well with how armies work right now. But maybe i can make it work:)

#5277294 Combat and units in modern empire builder

Posted by suliman on 21 February 2016 - 09:27 AM

Ah no I dont mean mechs like robots:) 

The "light mech" represents mechanized infantry or AFVs (armoured fighting vehicles).

Wheeled or tracked vehicles, typically with less armour and firepower than tanks.


I might include futuristic units later, im not sure yet.

#5277253 Combat and units in modern empire builder

Posted by suliman on 21 February 2016 - 03:18 AM

Yeah that makes sence Andy, I will. There is already cost for everything but didnt want to clutter the post.

I prefer to have even (rounded off) costs (like 10, 15 or 20), but maybe that limits balancing? Do you find it strange/ugly if game units would cost 11 or 17 resources? The economy is tied to other gameplay elements so I cannot just rescale costs. 


Anyone up for commenting on how the acutal military would look in such a scenario? (i renamed light mech and tanks as simply light armour and heavy armour, seemed to fit better with the abstraction in general).

#5275107 Level Design in 3D Space Shooter

Posted by suliman on 10 February 2016 - 04:17 AM

I had the same problem when designing my spacecraft game.

I just switched to a near surface setting. Maybe a huge sea with scattered islands (then you can have both aircrafts/spacecrafts and land/sea units/buildings/features)


Its not technically space anymore, but you got a VASTLY bigger palette to draw from when it comes to designing missions/maps. And many of the fun things (scifi-esque flying vehicles, mining, dogfighting, exploring etc) are still there. Plus weapons can now be anti-air AND anti-ground.


Just a thought... :)

#5272243 Why do most RPG games uses range values for attack/defence?

Posted by suliman on 22 January 2016 - 05:53 AM

I prefer

dmg: 8 (and then have some 30 % up/down randomizer for all hits)


than always write double numbers like

dmg: 5-11


It just looks less messy to me with double numbers. Its also easier for the player to compare weapons/characters etc if its just one number. You can still have randomness.

#5267463 trying to think up a new way to level up

Posted by suliman on 22 December 2015 - 02:56 AM

One boring thing with classical xp-gain like in WOW (you get xp for kills and quests) is that its automatic. You get it and it always goes towards next level-up.


If leveling cost resources that also could be used for something else you give the player a choice.


Example of alternative:
Killing an enemy drops gold and/or loot (which translates to gold in town). Levelling may instead of automatic be "training" which you buy in town for gold. But you can skip training for now and instead buy a nice sword or food for the money.

#5267336 Turn-based tactical squadgame: Timeunits or actions per turn?

Posted by suliman on 21 December 2015 - 10:55 AM


Im doing a game similar to xcom (both new and old dos versions), fallout tactics, hard west etc. You build bases, train and recruit a squad of soldiers and do missions in turn-based fashion. The setting is present-day civil war in a fictional country in africa.


First i designed it with time units: each soldier have different amount of TUs depending on stats, all weapon reload, and different firing mode cost different amount of TU. Movement cost TU depending on lenght of the move (like old XCOM and fallout tactics).


However, this was mainly for nostalgia reasons (i understand now). So im planning to change it to a more distinct /simplified version with a couple of "actions" per soldier instead (like most games do nowadays). The TU-system is cool and gives a lot of old-school simulation feeling. But it slows down the game alot and forces the player to calculate alot (or be frustrated becouse ending up with 14 TU but needing 15 TU to actually fire/do something else).


1. What are your general input about TUs vs APT (actions per turn)?


2. I will most likely change to APT. Standard these days is 2 APT, which works like this:
    a. Move short and shoot

    b. Just shoot (typically no benifit so you might as well move as well)

    c. Move long (double move) or use special equipment.


What would happen if each soldier has 3 APT instead of 2? I want some more details than most games, such as different firing modes. A draft:


1 AP: move (for max X tiles depending on stats). You can also move double or triple lenght by spending more AP.

1 AP: quick actions like snap shot or reload pistol

2 AP: slow actions like aimed shot, burst-fire, reload main weapon

3 AP: especially slow actions like fire rocket launcher or use some special equipment like radio (can only use without moving)


This would maybe give more flexibility. You can move a short distance and then take 2 snap shots or 1 aimed shot. You can reload and move out of the way etc.

There might be rules that says "max 2 snap shots per turn" or whatever is needed for balance.


Thoughts? Or just makes it more complicated? To go further and give 4 APT seems to much to me.



#5266753 Sailing game: should players consider the wind?

Posted by suliman on 17 December 2015 - 02:53 AM

Yes it could even have one or two more things to keep track of (compared to 2004 Pirates!) BUT plz leave out annoying things like predominant wind direction (or let the player skip time until a more favorable wind direction (for the direction the player wants to go) appears).


Thats my 50 cents at least.

#5266660 Sailing game: should players consider the wind?

Posted by suliman on 16 December 2015 - 10:02 AM

Level of realism can be hard to discuss as theoretically as in this thread (you need to test it in your own game-enviroment). In general however, its not certain that a feature makes the game more fun just becouse it's "how it works in real life".


I do agree however, that if you do want to convey a certain feeling (in this case the feeling of actually sailing a lumbering ship) some features may be required. But try to simplify less fun aspects of it to fit the scope of the game. If there is lot of other things in the game (exploring, fighting, looting, developing your ship and skills/character) you may need to limit other aspects (for example hardcore-sailing-simulation stuff).


Having "alot of everything" may make the game unfun to play (or make it impossibly for you as a developer to complete, which is also unfun).


But some wind mechanics seems fair to include! Limit punishing/unfun aspects of it (such as the one in "Pirates!")

#5266464 Sailing game: should players consider the wind?

Posted by suliman on 15 December 2015 - 09:19 AM

In Sid Meiers Pirates! (2004 i think) the wind was really annoying. There was always a hassle going east (wind was most of the time coming from the east). I even avoided some parts of the map (gameworld) since getting back from there was so annoying.


If your player can just continue to the same direction all the time, this doesnt matter much, but if player sometimes "goes back" (to visit towns/islands already visited) this must be taken into consideration.


- Maybe make wind direction change more over time so a player can always navigate to where he/she wants to go.

- Make wind less realistic (sailing into the wind is slower but NOT almost zero, or make zigzagging give the ship a fair enough speed).


Plz dont annoy the player to make the game more "realistic", its never a good idea.