Quote:Original post by Wardyahh

Quote:I want them to be able to see that if they attach the tusk to the end of the broom-handle, it's a much more effective weapon than if they were to attach it to the middle of the broom handle.

one way you could do that is have a set of rules that you can use to evaluate the perfomance of certain attributes of the weapon, but even with a small number of base items the potential amount of rules you could employ could be huge.

Yup. What I was thinking is to literally have around 3 or 4 base items. Define a few customisable attributes for each type and a few properties of the materials used for each type of base, then let the combination algorithm work out the properties of the final weapon.

I've had a little time to mull it over so I'll try to 'refactor' my initial post..

You have three basic elements: Rope, Blade and Stick.
They have 'connection points', where you can join two components together.
* Sticks have 3 connection points - One at each end, one in the middle
* Ropes have 2 connection points - One at each end
* Blades have 1 connection point - One at the friendly end

You define the connection point where the player holds the weapon, and this dictates how the weapon is used. There are 4 possible places:
* Stick end (scythe-like action)
* Stick middle (staff-like action)
* Rope end (whip-like action)
* Blade end (dagger-like action)

You can use a maximum of 3 elements per weapon. Properties of the elements define the damage, speed, range and general effectiveness of the weapon.

The principle needs refining but I think the concept is pretty sound. Thoughts?

Quote:Original post by m0nkfish
I want them to be able to see that if they attach the tusk to the end of the broom-handle, it's a much more effective weapon than if they were to attach it to the middle of the broom handle.

This is not a good idea. The problem is that you do not give your player viable choices. Once they figure out that there is absolutely no advantage to putting it in the middle, they will never do it again, and it's as if you'd never coded that feature at all.

What Diablo II did to fix this problem is give different advantages based on where you inserted a gem. If it was in a weapon, it might increase damage or attack rating, in a helm, it might help you find magical items. I'm not suggesting you implement it in that way specifically, but you can see that depending on which effect seems more desirable to the player at that point in time, they may have different viable options, and thus make a choice which actually makes their gameplay more interesting, not just easier or harder.

No option you give a player should be strictly worse than another. These are just frustrating and make your game less streamlined.

Your instinct to provide more interactivity is a good one, but you should do so in a way that either provides more of your fundamental gameplay (a la Disgaea's Item World), or allows you to make MEANINGFUL customizations that will alter your fundamental gameplay (a la Diablo II, or even Final Fantasy VII's materia system).

Quote:Original post by loufoque
Pipes and tubes are made of metal...
Also, what you mine is ore. You need to refine it. Metalworking is an art.
And making a blade is not so simple as plugging a bit of metal. Blacksmithing is an art by itself too.

I find it funny you're making an argument about something entirely irrelevant.
He was talking about picked up items, not a long, arduous and boring, repetitive thing like refining iron to make steel. So that you can then melt it into a cast, bash it with a hammer and stick it in a bit of wood and call it 'art'.

Back on topic please.

Quote:Original post by feminista

Quote:Original post by m0nkfish
I want them to be able to see that if they attach the tusk to the end of the broom-handle, it's a much more effective weapon than if they were to attach it to the middle of the broom handle.

This is not a good idea. The problem is that you do not give your player viable choices. Once they figure out that there is absolutely no advantage to putting it in the middle, they will never do it again, and it's as if you'd never coded that feature at all.

What Diablo II did to fix this problem is give different advantages based on where you inserted a gem. If it was in a weapon, it might increase damage or attack rating, in a helm, it might help you find magical items. I'm not suggesting you implement it in that way specifically, but you can see that depending on which effect seems more desirable to the player at that point in time, they may have different viable options, and thus make a choice which actually makes their gameplay more interesting, not just easier or harder.

No option you give a player should be strictly worse than another. These are just frustrating and make your game less streamlined.

Your instinct to provide more interactivity is a good one, but you should do so in a way that either provides more of your fundamental gameplay (a la Disgaea's Item World), or allows you to make MEANINGFUL customizations that will alter your fundamental gameplay (a la Diablo II, or even Final Fantasy VII's materia system).

I understand exactly what you're saying, and this is what I want to achieve. For example, attaching a blade to a long stick would give you more range but less accuracy and attack speed than using just the blade. Attaching a blade to a rope would give you greater attack speed at the cost of accuracy. Defining a few key aspects of combat would help, I think - the usual ones seem to be based on:
Damage; Speed; Range; Accuracy

I just want to figure out a way to incorporate this into the base components themselves without having to explicitly define the properties of every combination. I'm a huge fan of emergent gameplay, I like creating an environment rather than a system.

Quote:Original post by Guthur
What about a 4 way averaging system of the weapon attributes, I'm sure it has a proper name. Where the four values are on scale of say -1.0 to 1.0, and where the natural state of the weapon is zero, each movement on a particular scale is offset by an inverse movement in one or all of the other scales to maintain a value of zero; should allow for easier balancing as well, you just have weight each scale according to advantage of each attribute.

There is maybe a nice bit of sugar you could add to this where by players can add some sort of unique ability to the weapon eg, adding the Blood Ruby of Arkanon increases gory death value by 6 :).

I'm unsure as to how I'd balance weapon range in terms of your first suggestion - it's cumulative, not averaged. The default would be 0 and you can't have a negative range. I suppose I could just use a -1.0 offset, but that still doesn't solve the additive nature of weapon range.

Yeah, I'll sprinkle some sugar on top once the basic system is in place :)