Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 19 May 2004
Offline Last Active Today, 08:27 AM

#5315510 Stronger versions of enemies?

Posted by on 17 October 2016 - 03:09 AM

But Norman time and/or money IS ALWAYS limited (even for hobby projects), this is the point of the thread. Calling people lazy/greedy isnt really helping.


Combat is simplistic in my game so damage/hp scaling along with maybe blocking some abilities for lower tier monsters ("normal" mobs) will probably be enough. Same can maybe be done with ai/movement to give "champion monsters" some edge or slightly different behaviour.


I like the idea of some area buffing though. A matriarch spider can make other spiders in the party stronger, so you gain from taking that one down first. But then maybe that should be a different monster-type altogether.


Yeah how they do it in Borderlands (VERY similar solution to Diablo IMO) is kinda my idea as well. "Strong"/"badass" version that adds some extra danger and loot but reusing most of the assets.

#5315137 Stronger versions of enemies?

Posted by on 14 October 2016 - 04:37 AM

Im doing a dungeon crawler/roguelike. In games such as diablo/wow and many others there is a neat trick to introduce enemy variety with little extra content needed. See my suggestion below:



goblin champion (x1.5 dmg and hp)

goblin elite (x2.3 dmg and hp)


These drop more loot and xp. The idea is to sometimes generate such enemies as sort of mini bosses, which adds variety to a procederally generated game.


1. What is your feelings about this "trick"? in games? Does it feel cheap?

2. In a medieval fantasy setting, which different names could otherwise be used (rather than champion and elite) to signify higher level enemies?



#5312087 Slavery, Include Or Not?

Posted by on 23 September 2016 - 06:08 AM

Well the point of the slave trade is that without it its no longar a game about "the triangle trade"




which kind of makes it just "nice" trade between Europe and the american colonies (mostly the Carribean). So to NOT have slavery I have to (bend history a bit and) skip including Africa all together to make the game ok. Which in my view is still very much worse.


Not having the triangle also affects gameplay quite a bit since the player have only two continents (main trade hubs) instead of three.


This thread kind of took a strange turn but its interesting nevertheless.



Some of these suggestions are good and already planned, some are not fit for a boardgame I think (but could work in a computer game!)

#5309952 Automated Space Combat (4X)

Posted by on 08 September 2016 - 08:36 AM

It seems your combat model is WAY to complicated for the level of abstraction you always says you want. Using depleatable ammunition, counter-measures etc. Do you even plan to comvey all this to the player? Will the player control all this in-battle?


If not, I would say skip it and have different ships have different efficiency towards enemy classes (and maybe only three classes: strike, escort, capital).


Such as (vs strike, escort, capital):

Fighter: 4, 2, 1

Bomber: 1, 2, 4

Frigate: 10, 15, 5

Cruiser: 20, 30, 50


or whatever makes sence. Simulation-level battles seems to be way off for the game you are designing.

#5300847 Slavery, Include Or Not?

Posted by on 15 July 2016 - 01:24 AM

Interesting discussion. But i do find it strange that some suggest:

  • Include it, but let "others" deal with it, not the player. This would be dishonest. Slavery wasnt done by only "evil men", it was done by almost anyone and every nation.
  • Include it, but dont make it profitable. Why? It was VERY profitable, this is why it was so widespread. The economic system encouraged it and plantations wouldnt exist in the way it did if not for slaves.
  • Include it, but make the player "the good guy" by intercepting slave ships and freeing slaves. Really? This NEVER happended and would make a very strange trading game.

Im slightly dishearted now. The easiest seems to do just like everyone else who makes a game in this setting and pretend slavery didnt happen:(

This game will not be marketed or sold so maybe it matters less than implied by this thread, but should that really matter for the actual issue?


To clearify:

The portayal (if included) will be rather abstracted. You play on a map of carribia with Europe and (maybe) Africa as off-map locations where goods can be sold and bought by your ship markers. Slaves will be a cargo marker just as sugar or cotton will be. Events like epidemics on a ship carrying slaves may be included but no individual crewmen or slaves will exists with picture, name or background (regardless of white or black skin).

#5300714 Slavery, Include Or Not?

Posted by on 14 July 2016 - 07:56 AM

Well that game is in quite bad taste! My game is a financial / business game. Nothing will be "extra fun" with slaves as a commodity in the boardgame. It would be a commodity like sugar or cotton. There could even be event cards like epedemic on a slave ships, or slave rebellions. That revenue of income could when slavery becomes outlawed close to the end (around year 1800).


But me I always thought it was strange that there WASNT a discussion when games like "sid meiers pirates" or "colonization" or "port royale" completely skips the whole slave issue.

Games such as rome total war includes genocides / population extermination / prisoner massacres. That seems to be ok:) Becouse that is also historically correct.


Im not sure myself what style im going for. Im just saying that including nasty stuff that acually happened isnt immoral in itself. This is what baffels me with "moral outcry". If anything it seems immoral to perpetuate the myth that europeans amassed all that wealth simply from entrepreneurship or "hard work".


And then you get a pat on the back when making a story where everyone is friends and nice to eachother. That borders falsification of history (if you use a historical setting i mean :)

#5300669 Slavery, Include Or Not?

Posted by on 14 July 2016 - 02:22 AM


Im doing a (as a hobby) boardgame about trading and shipping in the carribean around the year 1650. You run ships with sugar, tobacco etc between the Americas and Europe, invest in infrastructure, market prices fluctuate etc.


Historically, these plantations was largely powered by african slaves (part of the triangle trade). Im not sure if I want to include that or not. It goes two ways:


1. Including slavery and slaves as a commodity will definitly make the game more somber. After all its entertainment and meant to be fun to play with friends. Do you want to be reminded?

2. There is some gameplay benefits to include it (slaves and weapons as "goods". Another continent makes travelling more complex etc). Also, it seems almost LESS respectful to the suffering to simply pretend slavery didnt happen (and especially in this setting, where it was a HUGE component).


What are your thoughts?


#5298522 Space Simulation Game Design (Finding The Fun)

Posted by on 29 June 2016 - 07:39 AM

You will not tell the player the controls or shortcuts?

And not introduce the actual stuff the player can do? So the player is supposed to randomly punch the keyboard?

Seems like a terrible design choice. I would not play that game, and many players will quit playing since it will SEEM you cannot do anything in your game.

#5294481 c++: sprintf but return chars. Possible?

Posted by on 01 June 2016 - 09:57 AM

Well a temp buffer is ok for me, I only use this in specific situations. Not pretty i know but it works:)


Thanks for your input.

char * getStr(const char* fmt, ...) {	
	static char txt[1000];
	va_list va;
	va_start( va, fmt );
	vsprintf( txt, fmt, va );
	va_end( va );
	return txt;

#5293033 c++: sprintf but return chars. Possible?

Posted by on 23 May 2016 - 05:50 AM

What do you mean "if it fails"?


What i do now with sprintf could then also potentially fail no? I just want to compress the code i need to write. I end up in many such situations (must create a temporary char array that i inject floats and other stuff with %.2f etc and then pass it to a function that takes a "char *" parameter).

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

Posted by 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 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 on 18 April 2016 - 01:32 AM

Noone? Is the question to vague?

#5284200 Obstacles in a dungeon?

Posted by 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 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!